Rand Paul

Most doctors are not scientists, Ben Carson paper bag edition

oracknows — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 06:45:57 +0000

Most doctors are not scientists, Ben Carson paper bag edition

Early in the history of this blog, I had a running gag that I'd use every now and then. Basically, it involved humorously extravagant descriptions of how I wanted to hide my face behind a paper bag in sheer embarrassment at the antics of fellow physicians, particularly fellow surgeons. Over time, the gag evolved to my expressing a mock desire to hide my visage behind a metal Doctor Doom-style mask, again, over sheer embarrassment over the idiocy of my colleagues about a scientific issue, again, usually evolution. Sadly, creationist physicians are a very common source of such embarrassment, although I don't write about them very often any more. They are perhaps the best example to illustrate a point that I've made many times: Most physicians are not scientists. While it's true that being a scientist is by no means a guarantee that one will not be taken in by pseudoscience, it helps. Worse, a disturbing number of physicians fail to abide by Harry Callahan's wise admonition in Magnum Force:

All too many physicians do not know their limitations, especially with respect to science.

As time went on, I used the gag less and less. As is the case with a lot of gags, it became harder and harder to think of new ways to use it without becoming too repetitive. So it appeared less and less and less, until finally it appeared no more. Indeed, I don't remember the last time I used it. There was also another issue that contributed to the demise of this recurring joke. I started to encounter physicians with ideas that were worse than just not believing in evolution because they were beliefs that could result in direct harm to patients. I'm referring to the "rise" (if you can call it that) of physicians spewing antivaccine beliefs, doctors like "Dr. Bob" Sears, for instance. These physicians are physicians who betray their profession—and, even worse, their patients. It just wasn't that funny to me any more.

I'm starting to get that same old familiar feeling about Dr. Ben Carson. Whenever I see him, I want to put a paper bag—or Doctor Doom mask—over my face, the better to hide my shame at a fellow surgeon's idiocy.

I find the resurrection of this particular feeling in me to be particularly disturbing not just because Carson is a Presidential candidate, thus providing his scientifically ignorant pronouncements far more publicity than they deserve, but because he truly was a magnificent pediatric neurosurgeon. I don't know if I'm mentioned this before, but I work mere blocks from the Ben Carson High School of Science and Medicine. It's part of the Detroit Public Schools for students with an aptitude for science and was founded in 2011, before Dr. Carson began his descent into pseudoscience, at least publicly. Back then, Carson was known as a truly gifted—brilliant, even—pediatric neurosurgeon, the chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University. When Carson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008, believe me, he deserved it.

So what happened? I was wondering exactly that during the Republican Presidential debate last week, as I cringed.

You might recall how last week I took an opportunity to recount Donald Trump's long sordid history of antivaccine statements promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism. I did this intentionally because I knew that the second Republican Presidential debate was nearly upon us and I wanted to remind my readers about his history and to prepare them in case the issue came up during the debate. It did.

Given Trump's history, it's unnecessary for me to quote what Trump said about vaccines in the second Republican debate last Wednesday because it was virtually identical to what he's been saying about vaccines since at least 2007 if not before. Still, it's useful to set up the context. The question that provoked The Donald's repetition of his oft-repeated antivaccine tropes from the last eight years was not actually directed at him. After making a reference to the measles outbreak that started at Disneyland earlier this year, moderator Jake Tapper actually asked Ben Carson this question: "Dr. Carson, Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly linked vaccines—childhood vaccines—to autism, which, as you know, the medical community adamantly disputes. You're a pediatric neurosurgeon. Should Mr. Trump stop saying this?"

It was obvious that Tapper was trying to provoke an argument between Trump and Dr. Carson. Otherwise, he would have just asked Trump directly about his previous statements about vaccines and autism. It was a golden opportunity for Dr. Carson to defend vaccines, given that earlier this year, Dr. Carson had been quoted strongly defending school vaccine mandates:

"Although I strongly believe in individual rights and the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, I also recognize that public health and public safety are extremely important in our society," Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon, told The Hill in a statement.

"Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them," he added.

That's right. Back in February, Dr. Carson opposed religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccine mandates. Last winter, he published an extensive statement in which, while acknowledging the issue of personal freedom, nonetheless came down on the side of vaccine mandates, stating:

I am very much in favor of parental rights for certain types of things. I am in favor of you and I having the freedom to drive a car. But do we have a right to drive without wearing our seat belts? Do we have a right to text while we are driving? Studies have demonstrated that those are dangerous things to do, so it becomes a public safety issue. You have to be able to separate our rights versus the rights of the society in which we live, because we are all in this thing together. We have to be cognizant of other people around us and we must always bear in mind the safety of the population. That is key and that is one of the responsibilities of government.

I am a small-government person, and I greatly oppose government intrusion into everything. Still, it is essential that we distinguish between those things that are important and those things that are just intruding upon our basic privacy. Whether to participate in childhood immunizations would be an individual choice if individuals were the only ones affected, but as previously mentioned, our children are part of our larger community. None of us live in isolation. Your decision does not affect only you — it also affects your fellow Americans.

This was an eminently reasonable position, acknowledging the balance between individual rights and how they can be constrained when an individual's choices affect other people. Now, fast forward to September and Carson's response to Tapper's question:

Well, let me put it this way. There has — there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism… This was something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago and it has not been adequately, you know, revealed to the public what's actually going on…

This was technically correct. Incredibly tepid and cowardly, but technically correct, although I don't know what the heck Carson meant about "this" not having been "adequately revealed to the public what's actually going on." It's not as though it hasn't been widely publicized that science does not support the claim that vaccines cause autism and that Andrew Wakefield's research was fraudulent. Then, whether it's because he didn't want to attack Trump or didn't want to upset the Republican base (perhaps both) Carson went to undermine what he just said:

Vaccines are very important. Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don't fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases.

First of all, as Tara Haelle pointed out, all the vaccines on the current CDC schedule prevent death and severe morbidity. Which ones does Dr. Carson consider "discretionary"? I'd love to hear his answer. Later, after Trump once again channeled Jenny McCarthy and her "too many too soon" misinformation, in which it is claimed that children are receiving too many vaccines at too high a dose at too young an age (or, as Trump has put it, "monster shots") and it is advocated that vaccines be delayed and spread out, Carson actually bought into this antivaccine gambit, saying, "But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time, and a lot of pediatricians now recognize that and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done." The only pediatricians who "recognize that" are antivaccine pediatricians like "Dr. Bob" Sears and antivaccine-sympathetic pediatricians like Dr. Jay Gordon. Delaying and spreading out vaccines just prolongs the time when children are susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases without any benefit.

Basically, Dr. Carson flubbed a chance to hit a home run defending vaccines. Whether it was his fear of Trump or his fear of his own base, he equivocated, parroted one antivaccine talking point ("too many too soon") and in the end refused to tell Trump to his face to stop spewing antivaccine misinformation. It was an epic fail. Worse, it was an epic fail in which he basically gave supported antivaccine fallacies, such as the idea that we're giving "too many" vaccines "too soon" and it's somehow causing autism. During the same debate Rand Paul, also a physician and surgeon (an ophthalmologist) also implied that there was a problem with "too many too soon," consistent with his previous antivaccine statements. Overall, I'm not sure which was worse, Ben Carson knowing that antivaccine BS is BS but being too cowardly to say so (leading him instead to pander) or Rand Paul clearly believing that vaccines can cause neurologic damage and that "too many too soon" can harm children.

I wouldn't be writing about Ben Carson, though, if it were only vaccines. Arguably, Carson knows what is and isn't antivaccine misinformation; he simply chose not to stand up for science. However, in other areas of science, he's outright taken the side of antiscience. For example, he's long been known to reject evolution in favor of creationism, even to the point of arguing that evolution is "encouraged by Satan" and that the Big Bang is a "fairy tale":

At the Celebration of Creation event, he discussed at length why he believes the Big Bang theory is impossible for him to comprehend.
He said: ‘Now, what about the Big Bang theory? I find the Big Bang really quite fascinating.'

‘I mean here you have all these high-faluting scientists and they’re saying it was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order.’

He explains the same scientists promote the second law of thermodynamics – entropy – which says that things move towards a state of disorganization.
‘So now you’re gonna have this big explosion and everything becomes perfectly organized and when you ask them about it they say “Well, we can explain this based on probability theory because if there’s enough big explosions over a long enough period of time - billions and billions of years – one of them will be the perfect explosion”.

‘So I say, what you’re telling me is if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully-loaded and ready to fly?’

Skeptics will recognize the "hurricane in a junkyard" mischaracterization of evolution as a classic creationist fallacy. It gets worse, though. Check out this transcript of the actual speech by Carson at the Celebration of Creation conference, which was organized by the Adventist News Network. Here's the actual video. It is painful to watch if you have any knowledge about evolution, geology, and other sciences:

As Ed Brayton put it, this is Kent Hovind-level scientific ignorance. It's a greatest hits of creationist tropes, dominated by the most scientifically ignorant, easiest-to-refute bits of creationist stupidity. Here's but another taste:

You know, according to the theory [of evolution] it [the eye] had to go pukh! and there was an eyeball, overnight, just like that, because it wouldn't work in any other way. And when you ask the evolutionists about that they say, 'well, we don't understand everything.' And I say, 'well, I don't think you understand anything.'

The evolution of the eye is actually relatively well understood. Seriously, Dr. Carson. Your stupid, it burns.

So why is it that so many physicians fall for pseudoscience like antivaccine views (as Rand Paul, Bob Sears, and Jay Gordon do) and creationism (which Ben Carson and his fellow creationist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor do)? Why are so many surgeons and physicians like Ben Carson? We've seen their like before on this blog over the years, ranging from the infamous creationist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor to the antivaccine pediatrician Dr. Bob Sears to the antivaccine-pandering pediatrician "Dr. Jay" Gordon. In all cases, the physician shows that he doesn't understand science and as a result adopts purely pseudoscientific beliefs, be they creationism, antivaccine views, Big Bang rejection, or any number of beliefs not supported by science. The reason is simple, and my saying what it is might piss off some of my fellow physicians. The vast majority of physicians are not scientists. Many of them think that they are scientists, but they are not.

It's been a long time since I've discussed this, but Dr. Carson's rise as a major candidate for the Republican nomination demands that I discuss it again because Dr. Carson is taking advantage of a misperception. That misperception is that physicians are scientists. Of course, so deep has been the idiocy flowing fast and furious from his mouth that Andy Borowitz posted what I consider to be the most hilarious take on Carson's nonsense, Ben Carson Shattering Stereotype About Brain Surgeons Being Smart. Particularly hilarious was this part:

“When people found out I was a brain surgeon they would always assume I was some kind of a genius,” said Harland Dorrinson, a neurosurgeon in Toledo, Ohio. “Now they are beginning to understand that you can know a lot about brain surgery and virtually nothing about anything else.”

Exactly. That's the case with most physicians.

The reason is simple. Medical training is not the same as scientific training. Yes, science is a prominent part of medical training, but not in the same way it is for scientists. In actuality, although medicine is based in science, it is an applied science. The vast majority of physicians do not do scientific investigation or contribute to scientific knowledge. Rather, they apply known science to the treatment of patients. This is not a knock on them, or an insult, or a criticism. It is simply an acknowledgement of what most medicine is. Medical school is very much more like a trade school, in which students are taught how to take care of patients, than a school teaching how to do science. Basically, medicine as a profession resembles engineering far more than a scientific specialty in that the vast majority of physicians apply science to the problem of diagnosing and treating illness, as engineers apply science to the problem of building things. Again, this is not a knock on either physicians or engineers. How they apply existing science to solve problems (or, in the case of engineers, to build things) can involve incredibly clever feats of mental prowess, but it is nonetheless a very different process than doing science to produce new scientific knowledge.

None of this is to say that physicians (or engineers) can't be excellent scientists. They can, but such people tend to be a subset of the overall profession. For example, I like to think of myself as a decent scientist, and my publication and funding record indicate that I've had some success. I also made it a point to gain additional training by spending years getting a PhD and doing a surgical oncology fellowship that had a significant laboratory research component very much like a traditional basic science postdoctoral fellowship. I also have to point out that I've known many physicians who are also excellent scientists.

As an MD/PhD, I've straddled both worlds, the world of the clinician and surgeon and the world of the basic scientist. It's not an easy task, because both worlds require very different skill sets, particularly in surgery. Wearing two hats is not something all doctors can do. For example, when I entered medical school (and I attended what was—and is still—considered to be one of the top tier medical schools in the country) I was surprised at how superficial the teaching of basic science was, from a strictly scientific standpoint. However, from a practical standpoint, the teaching of science in medical school was exactly what was required to take care of patients, no more, no less. For most physicians, that is as it should be. They need to know how to take care of patients, not how to do research.

But, I hear you saying, Ben Carson is a lot like Dr. Mehmet Oz. Before he became a politician, he was an academic neurosurgeon; Dr. Oz still is one. Both have published over a hundred papers. Yet, both have embraced pseudoscience, with Dr. Oz embracing a wide variety of quackery (such as reiki and homeopathy) and Dr. Carson embracing creationist pseudoscience, among other dubious scientific ideas. It's at this point that I have to speculate a bit. One thing that comes to mind is that if you don't have the solid grounding in the very philosophy of science, such that it infuses your very being, sure you can do clinical science. You can even be pretty successful at it, as Oz and Carson were. So that's not it, at least not by itself.

So what is the problem? From my perspective, it boils down to two things. The first is not listening to Harry Callahan's admonition that "a man's got to know his limitations." Surgeons—particularly heart surgeons and neurosurgeons—do amazing things. Dr. Oz can repair a person's heart, and Dr. Carson can separate conjoined twins. These are matters of life and death, and doing such things requires a level of confidence in one's own abilities that can easily evolve into arrogance. (Some might argue that most surgeons are pretty arrogant at a certain level to begin with.) So it's not surprising that doctors like Drs. Oz and Carson might start to think that their incredible skills and knowledge in one area will translate into other areas, such as science unrelated to the narrow specialty they know. The second contributing factor is ideology and/or personal relationships. In Dr. Oz's case, he became enamored of the idea of the physician-shaman-healer, not to mention that he also married a reiki master. In Dr. Carson's case, it's clearly fundamentalist religion that's led him to reject evolution and the Big Bang in favor of what seems to be a variant of intelligent design creationism. Basically, Ben Carson is now coming across like the brain surgeon in this classic Mitchell and Webb sketch:

Doctors occupy a highly privileged position in society, and because of it their opinions are often given great deference, even on topics about which they are clearly not an expert. For all their accomplishments, it's nonetheless important to remember that physicians are human and thus prone to the same cognitive shortcomings to which all human beings are prone. All too often, they are also given a status in society as all-purpose experts about all things that can be related to human biology or medicine, including evolutionary biology. The reason that Borowitz article is so spot on devastating is that it states just that in a humorous fashion and uses the example of Ben Carson to deconstruct the idea that brain surgeons are experts at everything. They're not. Nor are most of them scientists. Their pronouncements outside of their areas of expertise should be judged as you would judge anyone else's. On matters of science outside of their specialty most doctors are probably no more knowledgeable than an educated lay person and all too often let their professional status delude them into having undue confidence in their conclusions. It's the sort of behavior we expect from a buffoon like Donald Trump. It's just depressing to see Ben Carson behaving similarly, albeit with a much less bombastic voice.

oracknows Thu, 09/24/2015 - 02:45

Categories

Brain and Behavior

In my many years of working in research labs, I've seen a lot of medical students rotate through. They are a very mixed bag: some of them lack a comprehension of the practice of research, others were sharp, driven and great scientists.

Orac nails it here, though. Education and experience that focuses on practical applications of medicine doesn't qualify one to expound on theory and basic science. I would hazard a guess that Bert Vogelstein isn't your best choice for tumor removal, although his work has advanced our understanding of cancer possibly more than any other living person.

By coincidence I've been wondering how scientific the typical pharmacist is. At my weekly discussion group my topic was an article about TCM which mentioned James Reston's use of acupuncture as a purported anesthetic in China back in the 70s. I explained why acupuncture is nothing more than show business masquerading as healthcare and, not unexpectedly, I was countered by arguments and disbelief from two of the attendees. My attempt at explanation (placebo, regression to the mean, etc.) was countered with not only disagreement, but with some animosity. Two men vociferously objected, stating beyond all shadow of doubt that they were absolutely cured of their chronic pain by acupuncture with a degree of certainty that approached 100%! Sadly, one man is a pharmacist, a profession that I expect might require a modicum of familiarity with science and the scientific method. But when I asked the pharmacist if he even knew what the scientific method is he responded with a blank stare. At that point I yielded the floor to the next person in line. Some days I wonder why I even bother to explain simple things to my fellow human beings...

Maybe Carson genuinely believes in creationism,

His flip-flop on vaccines suggests that he is seeing a path to the GOP nomination, and has calculated that there are more votes in appealing to fear and dislike for "experts" than in supporting sound science.

It is not unusual for politicians to compromise their integrity in direct correlation to their ambition for higher office.

#3
"...appealing to fear" "..."dislike for “experts”"

Isn't this required to be tatooed on your ass cheeks when you join the GOP?

Dangerous Bacon @3

Dr. Carson is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist faith. The founder of SDA _invented_ 6-day/6,000year creationism, in the late XIXth Century. SDA George MacCready Price _invented_ so-called Flood Geology in the 1920s.

IINM, but there was an attempt, in the 1970s or ''80s, to transplant a baboon heart into an infant. It wasn't successful, and the SDA surgeon didn't know why it wouldn't be, since evolution wasn't a real thing.

Orac you can't be that naive or blind-sighted.Dr. Carson knows what he is saying is a steaming pile of fetid dingo kidneys.Unlike Trump,Carson,can't really believe the nonsense he is spewing.When Carson decided to run for President,he ceased to be a neurosurgeon,and became simply another Republican politician.A man who will say anything to appeal to the base of the party to get elected. There are those that will deny it,but the broad base of the GOP is anti-science,and anti-vaccince.

There is only one man who has run for President in the last 70 years who has said same stuff for over fifty years.

I actually did distinguish between Carson's cynical pandering to antivaccination pseudoscience and his true belief in creationist pseudoscience. I also note that he was spewing creationist nonsense long before he decided to become a politician and run for President. For example:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_sci…

Italics fail.More consistent goodness from Bernie from the 1980s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ2LyFiO9GI

@5 It was Baby Fae. The baboon blood type was AB and Fae's was O. And yes, when asked why he didn't choose a primate closer to humans on the evolutionary chart, the doctor said "I don't believe in evolution." 1984

@ Orac:

Whenever you feel awfully about doctors or surgeons behaving badly/ spouting woo- remember it could be worse, you could be a psychologist -your paper bag would wear out rather quickly from over-use.

You're right, Orac, physicians aren't scientists; we're technicians. But sometimes we are also the closest thing to a scientist that our patients will meet, and I think we have an obligation to defend and promote the scientific method wherever we can. Most of us will do nothing to expand scientific knowledge, but without someone making those discoveries we can do nothing at all. Of course we should promote science at all opportunities. That's why it makes me a bit mad when my colleagues are overly complacent about patients pursuing non-treatments like acupuncture and homeopathy. "If it makes them feel better..." translates into "I am being complicit in a lie..." if you smile and say nothing.

The medical profession in the US seems to attract a disproportionate share of hubristic SOBs, and surgeons have a reputation for being disproportionately hubristic SOBs compared to other MDs. That's one of the things that makes MDs vulnerable to Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Some of it is woo pushing, yes. There are other aspects, too: MDs have a reputation for being particularly poor investors, to such an extent that you should be wary of financial advisors whose offices are in close proximity to hospitals.

Carson is an extreme example, and I can understand why Orac feels like putting a paper bag on his head. Certain of my fellow physicists make me feel the same way: most notoriously Brian Josephson (a Nobel Prize winner who subsequently went emeritus), but there are one or two others I have actually met.

Hey, the people all want their pleasing lies, and they're willing to pay damn good money for it. Everything else follows downhill from there. Grifters like Carson and Oz are just serving the marketplace; even easier if they buy into the same horseshit themselves.

I guess that's what happens when unbounded narcissism is repeatedly cultured over basic honesty and earned, not entitled, self-respect. Why know your limitations when you can simply believe them away? Especially when you can now do so twice as effectively for the low, low price of $29.95?

I have to admit, I haven't made it through this entire article. Looks like more of the same.
Like this near-1700 comment classic: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/05/20/why-do-doctors-deny-evolut…

Or the even bigger
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/07/27/when-the-antiabortion-move…

Maybe it’s like the old joke about
‘Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.’

But it’s
‘Those who can, are doctors; those who can’t, are “scientists”.’

Lancelot Gobbo@11:

That’s why it makes me a bit mad when my colleagues are overly complacent about patients pursuing non-treatments like acupuncture and homeopathy. “If it makes them feel better…” translates into “I am being complicit in a lie…” if you smile and say nothing.

If nothing else, they ought to be rigorously honest in calling it for what it actually is: Go away and stop bothering me medicine.

That at least would enable patients to distinguish physicians who've had enough of their hypochondriac shenanigans (or just don't like sick people in the first place) from those who have genuinely disappeared up the feculent rectum of woo and thus don't even warrant the title of "doctor" any more.

See Noevo@14: Back to your bridge, troll.

(Directions included.)

Physicians are expected to know everything, and some of them think they do. No one else is entitled to be addressed as "Doctor" outside the office; most Ph.D.'s feel silly being addressed that way at work. Doctors put "M.D." after their name in letters to the editor, as if to give extra weight to their opinions on subjects ranging from zoning to international terrorism.

Garou @#4
If tattooed there, how could they possibly read it?

@has (15): I think he got lonely, since we got bored and left. So now he's here hoping to stir things up again. Since his comment added nothing to the discussion, I'm leaving him killfiled.

(back on topic) As a nurse with APN training, I'd have to agree that some doctors have a very clear "god" complex - that the letters MD or DO after their name makes them all knowing and all powerful. It appears in many surgeons and I suspect is due to the residency training they go through, especially those who do specialties. I have a few stories but won't put them down here (although one I will always remember for my rejoinder to the sr resident - "does Betadine CLOT???" I nearly gave my head nurse a heart attack.)

Who garners more respect than a cardiac or brain surgeon among the general public? Those doctors *physically* hold your life in their hands while doing surgery. So they absorb the adoration and think they are better than anyone else.

I respect those doctors who can say "I don't know" about things outside their specialty. I had a lot of respect for Dr Carson until he started running for president and showed how much he doesn't know about being a real leader.

Eric Lund -- a particularly harmful variant of Physics Dunning-Kruger these days are the small subset of physicists who figure that climate scientists can't possibly know what they're talking about, or if they do it can't possibly be as bad as they say, or what have you.

Rich Muller, to his credit, changed his tune when he went and re-analyzed the temperature record on his own, and discovered that, by golly, the surface temperature really is skyrocketing at a historically unprecedented rate.

Steve Koonin, on the other hand, has no excuse.

Spot on, Orac. Being a physician does not mean one is or has been a scientist. I, too, found the medical school science classes rather shallow in teaching science to medical students. With my undergraduate physics experience and PhD in neuroscience with a postdoc as well, there were times I felt like I was back in undergraduate classes and also felt that a lot of the medical students either couldn't get it or didn't want to get it when any science was taught.

I'm not doing research now and am strictly clinical as a pediatrician. I do miss the lab greatly, but I don't think I could wear both hats as you do and not burn out doing it. But that scientific training I've had still serves me well, especially when it comes to anti-vaccinationists.

Carson probably had no big issue refuting (albeit weakly) Trump on any link between vaccines and autism. It's not a big limb to go out on given that Wakefield has been discredited and de-licensed and no studies since have supported his fraudulent claim. Carson, however, did not oppose alternate vaccine schedules in part, I suspect, because those anti-vaccine pediatricians (Sears and Gordon) have received no profession rebuke or censure for their clearly wrong and dangerous positions on vaccines. And people think that Sears and Gordon are scientist--and they are not one bit scientist.

It feels like the proverbial hens coming home to roost after almost 10 years or AV pediatricians profiting and preaching their nonsense without any large-group opposition. This has in turn also given the NVIC more undeserved credibility. I am ashamed that those who should have taken on and taken down Sears and Gordon (the AAP and the CA Medical Board) have refused to do.

As a scientist, I've seen plenty of MDs (whether still undergrads doing internships or MD/PhDs, or graduated MDs doing a MSc or PhD) in the lab, coming without much idea how a lab works. That's par for the course for pretty much any newcomer, actually. What's galling quite often is their attitude. They act as if they are better than us, because their are in medicine, yet they are emperors often without clothes (but with much better salaries). Having a non-physician telling them what to do in a lab seems difficult for those. And we often see the attitude that our work counts less than theirs...

Someone above mentioned some doctors’ “God complex”.

Brought to mind this fun scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g2dkDh4ov4

Alec is one wacky liberal, but he’s an entertaining actor.

Chris Hickie@22:

I, too, found the medical school science classes rather shallow in teaching science to medical students.

This particular problem goes right the way back to high school though. All the emphasis there is on memorizing facts and performing equations, much as you teach a small dog to jump through decorated hoops. Students pick up the form but not the substance; develop mimickry rather than understanding. It is a very bad way to start, for how then can they distinguish one apparent form of ritual from another, or even be aware there is a difference?

Personally I think if STEM education was done right, it'd spend a good quarter on the *history* and *philosophy* of science and math, with no shyness about bringing technological tools to bear on the rest (better to learn relationships through interactive computer simulations, for example, than develop no understanding at all simply due to a weakness in math). Which would also have the significant bonus of making science vastly more relevant and accessible to all those students who aren't into it for the math jiggery and minor explosions (amusing though the latter may be). And then perhaps we might not have quite so much magical thinking in the first place.

Obligatory Feynman, natch:

http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm

@ 20 MI Dawn

If tattooed there, how could they possibly read it?

When doing the daily “insert head” exercise?

"If tattooed there, how could they possibly read it?"

jr beat me to it.

@palindrom: Yes, I was aware of the physicist climate-denier loons. They are especially facepalm-worthy because to get to that position you have to ignore things like conservation of energy. If the energy absorbed from the sun by the earth isn't all radiated away, it has to go somewhere--like raising the temperature of the earth until the two are in balance again.

But those aren't the people I was referring to. I have personally met at least one physicist who is a fundamentalist Christian. He's never been explicit with me about his views on creationism, but I have no reason to think he isn't a YEC. This guy is so out there that (according to the rumor mill) he managed to get fired from a tenure-track position in Alabama (!) for pushing his version of Christianity a bit too hard. PZ Myers had a post on the guy a few months back.

@ has (#25).

I saw Feynman speak in the mid 80's at my college. It was amazing to see him take apart a problem. He took questions from us students (on anything) and showed what it meant to really understand something.

In grad school I did teach an undergraduate physics lab for pre-med students. I was aghast at how often students just wanted to give a memorized answer to each write-up question (just like in the Brazil reference).

And, Orac, regarding limitations, that is so true as well. I am a pediatrician. I know pediatric medicine, including, of course, vaccines. I wouldn't pretend to have medical expertise in the areas where Drs. Carson, Oz, or Paul specialize. But they don't have that appreciation of their limitations when it comes to vaccines and their political need to publicize their opinion is what so angers those of us trying to maintain US vaccination rates so as to prevent more Disneyland-type outbreaks.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons that I believe MDs should stick with the label "physician" and PhDs "doctor". Why? Because MDs are essentially a trade degree whereas PhD scientists have obtained terminal degrees and been taught basic science so they may understand underlying principles of disease. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it would help to delineate those that are trained as physicians/MD's vs. those that are trained to be experts in scientific data. Just a thought.

Eric L -- I know at least one deeply religious physicist, but at least he accepts that the earth is not young -- if I recall, he thinks of Genesis as a metaphor for the Big Bang. He also works in an area in which natural history isn't important. Same area as yours, actually.

I don't know if people have seen this old blog post from a fundamentalist biology professor named Todd Wood -- it's about the only intellectually honest thing I've seen from that side of the fence, though I find it jaw-droppingly strainge:

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

jrkrideau (26) and shay (27)...I only wish I'd said that...it was Janet at 19. :)

Multi-Quoted:

“…appealing to fear” “…”dislike for “experts””

Isn’t this required to be tatooed on your ass cheeks when you join the GOP?
Garou @#4
If tattooed there, how could they possibly read it?

.... yep, that's where there heads are anyway.

*their.
DAMMIT.

"They act as if they are better than us, because their are in medicine, yet they are emperors often without clothes (but with much better salaries)."

(resists temptation to make nasty crack about spelling, succumbs to temptation to say that our new clothes are better styled)

DB, M.D. (plus I have a Masters' degree in Science!)

(plus I have a Masters’ degree in Science!)

Do you know more than I do?

I can't tell you how many times I've had to resist the impulse to slap hand to forehead when having a discussion with a colleague about science outside of medicine. What's more concerning to me, though, are the occasions were I see a lapse in critical thinking as it applies to medicine. To give an example in microcosm: when confronted with a well-designed study, or better yet, an emerging consensus of studies on a medical topic, the contrary response I often hear is "Well, I've always done it a different way, and it's never been an issue!" I feel fortunate to have been trained with a solid grounding in evidence-based medicine, but clearly the lure of anecdotes and "going with your gut" is often hard to resist. Add motivated reasoning to the mix, as in the case of religious or other long-held beliefs, and it's not hard to see why physicians deviate from the scientific method both in and out of their areas of expertise. It helps to have training (and therefore practice) in the lab or in research, but ultimately, it takes a commitment to a certain type (a scientific type) of thinking not to get lost in the weeds.

Also, rocket science seems way harder than brain surgery, FWIW.

I work with lots of doctors, nurses and scientists. My observation is that the former, doctors and nurses, are very good at confidently explaining information (even in a handful of rare instances where they've been dead wrong). Their jobs depend on them being able to reassure patients that they know what they're talking about. The scientists I work with, however, are always careful to explain the limits of their knowledge - no, we can't say x, we have to say probably between x and y under certain conditions. It's a sort of professional embodiment of the idea that the first steps to knowledge are admitting you know nothing.

I had a surprising experience with this when my first child was born in 2013. Both my own primary care provider and my daughter's pediatrician recommended that I delay vaccinations and eliminate some entirely. They both cited their own experience with patients who had serious adverse effects as the reason why they don't follow the CDC schedule. And yes, they said they had witnessed healthy kids develop autism after being vaccinated. Apparently, this viewpoint is not that uncommon - see "Vaccination practices among physicians and their children" from Open Journal of Pediatrics, 2012, 2, 228-235 which finds that since 2009, 21% of pediatric specialists would NOT follow the CDC schedule for their own children. Has anyone else had a similar experience??

Since climate change has already been brought up in the comments above, and since I had no luck posting this on a nearby blog, I’ll try posting it here.

Three items:

1)
I’m always fascinated by how much emphasis scientists and alleged lovers of science put on “consensus”.
Obviously, “consensus” has no necessary relationship to truth.
“Consensus” is a word used, and a goal sought, by politicians, not truth-seekers.
But for what it’s worth…
……..
2)
I hadn’t heard of this group before, but anyway…
“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
http://www.petitionproject.org
………..
3)
George Mason University conducted a survey regarding global warming of the 7,000+ voting members of the American Meteorological Society. The survey drew enough interest only for about 1,800 responses.
Some responses to questions I found noteworthy:

Question 4: Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?
38% – Very harmful.
62% – Very beneficial to somewhat harmful, and “Don’t know”

Question 5: ‘How much global warming harm can be prevented through our actions?’
22% – All or a large amount of GW harm can be prevented.
78% – No amount to a moderate amount of GW harm can be prevented, and “I don’t know”.
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/report/american-meteorologica…

Factoid quoted above: 62% of meteorologists surveyed that global warming will be beneficial to somewhat harmful or don't know.

I can trump that: Did you know that 63% of dentists surveyed believe that an endoscopic transnasal approach is the optimal approach to the craniocervical junction in brain surgery?

Now the tough question: Do you know why the two factoids are comparable??

No profession, no manner of training, is exempt from participants who can perform the tasks at hand well enough, but are otherwise... well, mad as a hatter. Carson appears to be one such outlier, having now proposed so many bizarre (and clearly unconstiutional) policies "loony paranoid loon" is the sort of label critics are applying to him.

FWTW, looking at the popularity of GOP candidates as a whole, I don't think Carson's appeal has anything to do with people imagining he has scientific credentials or knowledge. Quite the opposite. Charles Pierce has labeled The Donald's appeal as a form of Magical Thinking, and suggested (as have others) the same applies to Carson and Fiorina as well. All three are presenting grossly simplistic and/or unrealistic proposals – 'let's build a wall to keep out the Muslims!' And all three are standing behind "qualifications" that are utter BS upon examination. Fiorina and Trump are supposed aces in business, but Fiorina is considered THE paradigmatic 'horrible CEO' by virtually everyone in the NoCal tech sector, and Trump having had numerous business failures, only plays an infallible CEO on "reality TV". Carson's talking points are about as far removed from any knowledge base he might have as a surgeon as you can get: condemn Muslims, establish a 10% flat tax and balance the budget, unleash the dogs of war against Putin and the A-rabs, condemn Muslims, keep Gitmo open, free Kim Davis and ban gay marriage, bring God back into government, NO gun control, and condemn Muslims.

Pierce wrote:

[Trump] is the inevitable product of anyone who ever argued that our political institutions should be run "like a business..." of anyone who ever argued [the government can] balance its books "the way any American family would...." of the economy that was deregulated out of a well-cultivated wonder and awe directed at the various masters of the universe. Sooner or later, all of this misbegotten magical thinking was going to burp up a clown like Donald Trump. The politics of this country have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of hallucinations today.

What Pierce misses here is the element that has propelled the candidates offering nothing but magical thinking about easy 'tough-guy' fixes to national problems to now command over 52% support combined (Trump + Carson + Fiorina) in the GOP polls, where in previous presidential election cycles, candidates with similar positions either garnered only fringe support or had brief bursts of interest followed by a precipitous decline. Trump, Carson and Fiorina are all not only 'outsiders', but all three present their halluncinatory platitudes with a tone of hyper-confidence, unshakable rectitude, absolute commitment, and refusal to back down or compromise.

Thus, while Carson may come by this in part from the stereotypical 'God'-complex of "disproportionately hubristic SOB" surgeons, what is appealing to his supporters is simply the bombastic 'tude he shares with Donald and Carly. The poll respondants want a maximally-hubristic SOB, and any excuse for the candidate to act that way works as well as another.

As bad as Carson's sh!t may be, it's not drawing flies because anyone thinks he's a scientist, or even because the opinions of physicians typically receive great deference. Being an M.D. isn't doing wonders for Rand Paul (a whopping 2.3%, lowest among the 'main stage' candidates... even Huckabee is at 3.5%), nor did it do wonders for Bill Frist. As elected officials, they just can't talk like that.

Ted Cruz arguably rivals the poll leaders in bombast, but he comes off too canned and calculated... ironic in that he's undoubtedly MUCH more of a 'true believer' than Trump or Fiorina. They just sound more 'authentic' to the paranoid ear, apparently. And perhaps not being able to present himself as anything other than a politician hurts his numbers as well.... So let that be our label for Carson's background as perceived by the massive majority of his supporters: not 'scientist' or 'miracle-working surgeon'; just 'NOT a politician!'

@ Opus:

I know! I know!

Because...

dentists : brain surgeons
is analogous to
TV weather reporters : climatologists

...with the exception that the 'meteorologists' tend to be better-looking and more skilled at reading from teleprompters while standing in front of chroma-key drops than the dentists.

@ sadmar:

But dentists have nitrous oxide! Beats a chroma-key seven days a week. Twice on Sundays.

Opus:
http://pa.memeshare.net/imgs/1/871-2.jpg

Ted Cruz arguably rivals the poll leaders in bombast, but he comes off too canned and calculated… ironic in that he’s undoubtedly MUCH more of a ‘true believer’ than Trump or Fiorina. They just sound more ‘authentic’ to the paranoid ear, apparently.

Cruz came by his opportunistic theocratic grifting the easy way, by inheriting it from his dad. Carson is more authentic because he earned his opportunistic theocratic grifting, by rejecting the foundational tenets of his nominal religion (for all its sectarian whackyness, 7th-Day Adventism is inflexible on the issue of church / state separation); in the eyes of the fundamentalist voters, this makes him more religious.

But the bulk of the christianist Values Voters seem to be lining up behind Trump, because he has no discernible values and makes no attempt to present himself as christian.

@has (15): I think he got lonely, since we got bored and left. So now he’s here hoping to stir things up again. Since his comment added nothing to the discussion, I’m leaving him killfiled.

Wise choice. In the meantime, he's been banned by Jason Rosenhouse (as a bonus, after fraudulently stating that "I’m not allowed to post on Greg Laden’s articles" despite promptly oozing right over there afterward).

His desperate, wretched antics have been reminding me repeatedly of late of Fr. Thomas Reese's recent remark in NCR:*

"The third reason the pope’s message may get through is that Francis is an extraordinary communicator in both words and actions. He knows how to use simple language to communicate. He is not afraid to use graphic images when speaking. He avoids academic language and abstractions. He preaches the Gospel, not the catechism. He is more interested in how people live their faith than how they articulate it."

This ordering of things is obviously a straight-up recipe for an S.N. fistula in ano, Kaz Matsui disease, or something closely related.

* I'm out of links; h[]tp://ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/will-we-listen-pope-francis

When I see Ben Carson in action I think of these little aphorisms by Robert A. Heinlein.

"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he finally knows everything about nothing at all."

And…

"Expertise in one field does not lead to expertise in another, but experts often seem to think so. In fact the narrower their field of expertise the more likely they are to think this."

Regarding an earlier comment by he-who-shall-not-be-named: The whinging about consensus =/= science, the meteorologists, and even the laughable Oregon petition (!) are points-refuted-a-thousand-times, plus there are feeding regulations to consider, so I'm not even bothering. For once.

I'll handle it then. :-)

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/24/hostility-towards-a-scient…

@ Taylor #40.

As a pediatrician I don't know any other pediatrician in Tucson who prefers any "alternative"r schedule to the CDC schedule. I do know a lot of pediatricians (myself included) who are frustrated with parents requesting an "alternative" schedule because they've read some nonsense on the internet or been mislead by the lies spread by one despicable self-serving quack named Robert Sears, MD, FAAP.

lies spread by one despicable self-serving quack named Robert Sears,

C'mon Chris -- tell us how you really feel!

(And with every justification, I might add.)

You're probably being totally unfair, by the way. I imagine that Jay Gordon may have something to do with it, too.

Those are nice quotes by Heinlein (via Romantic Heretic) and are a reminder that surgeons aren't unique in needing an embarrassment-shield paper bag. I really should bring mine to every faculty meeting at my liberal arts college.

On a depressing note for Friday: if you do a search on amazon.com under "vaccination", the great majority of books that turn up in the first few pages of the search are antivax books.

They include this recently published tome by an apparent chiro-and-spouse team:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Vaccines-Wreck-Human-Immunity-ebook/dp/B013RY…

I mention this partly to note an unusual disclaimer I've never seen before. The authors "certify" that "at least one" statement in their book and/or on their websites is wrong. This seemingly is intended to immunize them against legal jeopardy.
The same disclaimer appears in another book by the female half of the team, "Melting Breast Lumps" (which explains that breast cancer is due to bad nutrition.)

I'm pretty confident that their disclaimer is correct.

To Orac:

Regarding your #51…

“For example, the scientific consensus supporting the theory of evolution, particularly common descent, is exceedingly strong. Based on multiple lines of converging evidence from many different disciplines, evolution one of the strongest of all scientific consensuses. Similarly, the consensus that natural selection is one major driving force behind much of evolution is nearly as strong. However, as the discussion devolves into more detailed areas, inevitably the consensus weakens. Eventually, subsidiary areas of a discipline are reached where the consensus is weak or where there is no consensus. Often these questions are at the frontiers of the science and, because there is not yet a consensus, the most heavily researched and hotly contested areas of the science. Denialists often attack science at the very edges of a field as a proxy for attacking the much more strongly supported core theory…to hide the fact that the core theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and not in doubt by scientists.”

I believed in evolution for about 30 years. I started DIS-believing in evolution when I began reading about its DETAILS, from the evolutionists’ mouths.
In EACH and EVERY case, I found the details ludicrous or, at a minimum, unconvincing.
I’ll use your metaphor of the “mountains of evidence”:
Each and every time I found a problem with the cow chip of detail I was given, I was told
“You don’t like that cow chip? That’s OK. We’ve got other cow chips. Let me get you another from the mountain of manure we have back yonder.”

What a bunch of B.S.
Or C.S.

Perhaps another metaphor – “the Tree of Life”: Oh, you’ll have significant disagreements about the branches, but you all agree about the trunk. Except you don’t know, and don’t agree on, what the trunk IS (i.e. What the universal common is.).

(And as you probably know, the iconic “Tree of Life”, still probably appearing in school textbooks, was essentially chopped down by the evolutionists years ago. Too problematic. Now they’re talking “bushes”/multiple trunks.)
…………………
“Creationists like Casey Luskin, for instance, spit the term “Darwinist” at evolutionary biologists and frequently try to link evolution (and thus its defenders) Nazi-ism and the Holocaust, eugenics, social Darwinism, and all manner of evils. Above all, evolutionists must be atheists…”

Firstly, I’d say all atheists are evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are atheists.

Secondly, it’s quite true, I think, that a positive correlation exists between belief in evolution and many other things I find objectionable. As I’ve said before in these blogs, the increasing acceptance of evolution seems positively correlated with the increasing acceptance of, or increasing incidence of,
– abortion,
– contraception,
– population decline,
– fornication,
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood,
– out-of-wedlock births,
– homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage,
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– socialistic government programs
…….
“Richards apparently doeesn’t know the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. That salt is sodium chloride is a fact. That light travels 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum is a measurement and a fact. That blood carries oxygen to our organs is a fact. Of course, no one argues about them; they are well-settled facts, not theories. They are trivially obvious. Arguing about them would be as trivial as arguing about what I had for breakfast this morning or whether the above paragraph by Richards represents the essence of scientific ignorance. A theory is a higher level construct supported by facts, experimentation, and evidence.”

So, at least you’d agree that evolution is not a scientific fact.
That's mildly encouraging.

@Taylor #40 and Chris Hickie #52:

"Open Journal of Pediatrics" is published by SCIRP. That outfit is commonly viewed as a predatory publisher, with obvious implications for the reliability of any data or conclusions published therein.

Narad@48: Given that it's now just outright spamming and not even pretending to engage, I'd say Mr Rosenhouse is fully justified in doing so. Much as we enjoy our robust chew toys here at Casa del Orac, this one is full of pus and slime mold, with the profoundly unpleasant aftertaste of quietly sobbing altar boys and trains that always run on time.

Chris Hickie@29:

In grad school I did teach an undergraduate physics lab for pre-med students. I was aghast at how often students just wanted to give a memorized answer to each write-up question (just like in the Brazil reference).

Ugh. I hope that was only the lingering after-effects of the high school rote mentality, and not how they intended to go on in their lives. Such mindless ontological exercises are for machines and daytime quiz show contestants, not those seeking to make life-and-death decisions.

has @59 -- I see what you did there.

has @60 -- What makes you think that they'll change once they're doing clinical work?

I'm happy to report that my more recent crops of pre-meds have been pretty good, in the main, mostly quite a bit more curious that the ones from several decades ago.

They're also mostly nicer people with more realistic and altruistic motives for being MDs than earlier cohorts. Doctorin' isn't perceived as a straight shot to riches like it used to be -- the people who want to do it are in it because it's intersting, useful, and fulfilling work, and are willing to do it despite the crushing student loan debts and the ever-decreasing autonomy that physicians typically put up with these days.

"Could you just please leave us alone," says the former member of the audience. "We get it you're lonely and you got no place to go, but that doesn't give you the right to pester us still!"
"Yeah", agrees another former spectator of the Nerve-rending See Noevo 'show'. "We're waiting for a bus to get us the hell away from you."
See Noevo waves its hand in dismissal "You left before I got to the good part!" it exclaims.
"I doubt that very much."
"Evolution!" shouts See Noevo. "And-"
"Not this again." sighs the former members of the audience in unison.
"Oh, you picked up on my subtle anti-evolution symbolism. Naming my monkeys Darwins, for example..."
"Real subtle indeed, not to mention your rants and your previous show and-"
"I'm worried particularly with," interrupts See Noevo, "how belief in evolution poisons the society and leads to population decrease and all sorts of nasty liberties and human rights!"
"So you're saying human population has decreased since Darwin?" asks the former member of the audience.
"It's so obvious it's ridiculous so-called scientists don't notice it, right!" says See Noevo, nodding.
"That's preposterous!"
"Indeed."
"No, sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I meant you're preposterous!"
"What?" See Noevo yelps, taken aback. "You're not one of them nasty feeble-minded and unskilled scientists are you?"

I saw Feynman speak in the mid 80’s at my college. It was amazing to see him take apart a problem. He took questions from us students (on anything) and showed what it meant to really understand something.

I never had a chance to see Feynman give a talk as he died long before I became a physicist (5 years old at the time of his death). Have read the lectures and seen videos of some of his talks he really did show what it meant to understand a topic.

In grad school I did teach an undergraduate physics lab for pre-med students. I was aghast at how often students just wanted to give a memorized answer to each write-up question (just like in the Brazil reference).

I had a similar experience while TAing undergraduate physics labs, where I demonstrated and marked for both physics and engineering students. My physics students wanted to know 'why' something was the way it was, but my engineering students wanted a formula or algorithm that they could memorise to get a correct answer. That plus a worrying lack of basic math skills (again the whole memorise, not understand problem) gives me pause when driving over a bridge or through a tunnel etc (Mostly kidding, but only mostly ^^)

Re: Garou (#4) and Janet(#19) How could they read it? Where else would you expect their heads to be?

palindrom@60:

has @60 — What makes you think that they’ll change once they’re doing clinical work?

Why, wishful thinking, of course! Seems to work for the rest of humanity. :)

stewartt1982@63:

My physics students wanted to know ‘why’ something was the way it was, but my engineering students wanted a formula or algorithm that they could memorise to get a correct answer.

My guess: engineers (like my old dad, for example) lean towards the conservative and enjoy their certainties - which is all you really require to make cool things, after all - whereas scientists thrive on the very opposite. I suppose it's understandable. You wreck the LHC, red faces all round, nobody dies. Your bridge falls down… that is major sh_t-fan interface.

It is a great shame though that this mindset should extend all the way back through education; the whole point of learning should be to make interesting mistakes in safety.

Have you...ever studied history? Like, mores, norms, in other times? Try the Regency era on for size.

Orac,

There is one part that you wrote (as have many others) that drives me up the wall: Creation Science. Creation and Science are polar opposites of each other by definition. In science we prove or disprove our hypothesis to try to develop our theory. Most science is eventually either disproved or found to be a smaller subset of a more complex problem. With Creation there is nothing to prove or disprove because Creation is the only and final (no matter who's creation) answer.

Therefore, no one can be called a creation scientist because creation defies science.

Um, I wrote no such thing. Nowhere in my post is the phrase "creation science." Nowhere. I searched—multiple times. So I am really puzzled why you would criticize me for something I didn't write in this post. The closest I came was "creationist pseudoscience," which I assume you approve of.

Orac,

I did not mean to be criticize you personally for creation science. I really meant it as a general comment about what is written and what the creationists call themselves.

Please take my apology for not making sure that it was taken as general comment and not a swipe at you. I am sure you and most commenters know the difference between science and creationism.

Again my apology.

Since climate change has already been brought up in the comments above, and since I had no luck posting this on a nearby blog, I’ll try posting it here.

More stupidity, dishonesty, or both?

Frankly, if See Noevo wants to complain about the concept of science, he should do so with a pen and paper.

@Taylor #40 and Chris Hickie #52:
“Open Journal of Pediatrics” is published by SCIRP. That outfit is commonly viewed as a predatory publisher, with obvious implications for the reliability of any data or conclusions published therein.

Open Journal of Pediatrics, in particular, is recognised as a useful pukefunnel for pipelining made-up crap straight to the more credulous journamalists. It's more expensive than stapling one's cyclostyled rantings to telephone poles, but it gets them wider attention, and the peer-review standards are equally low.

Joe Mangano has used OJP to promote several emissions of Fukushima-related fabrications --
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=28599
-- and brought OJP to the attention of Jeffrey Beall, for the scuzzy graping dishonesty of its editorial practices:
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/04/29/fallout-from-questionable-article-in-…

But Taylor, writing in a style more associated with a Letter to Penthouse, just happens to have a copy of the paper, and just happens to have met two paediatricians who illustrated its claims of widespread autism-vaccine beliefs among paediatricians. And Taylor wonders whether other readers have had similar experiences.

And I am Marie of Romania.

Delphine @26

Have you…ever studied history? Like, mores, norms, in other times? Try the Regency era on for size.

I find most of the items on SNs list of the "evils" allegedly correlated with evolution to be good things.

Gray Falcon

Frankly, if See Noevo wants to complain about the concept of science, he should do so with a pen sharp stick and paper clay tablet.

FTFY

"I believed in evolution for about 30 years. I started DIS-believing in evolution when I began reading about its DETAILS,"

You've said you never studied it.

Dean, shirley you aren't expecting anything resembling truth, accuracy or a coherent argument from SNE? We haven't sen that yet...

This is reminds me of Science Mom (LMAO):

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/to-science-bloggers-livin…

This reminds me of Science Mom (LMAO):

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/to-science-bloggers-livin…

[Forgive me if the following seems a little out of focus - my recall problem is kicking me right in the Republican tattoos tonight - ORD.]
It occurs to me that one reason physicians overestimate their ability to evaluate science outside their own fields is that all physicians (at least the good ones) are empiricists, sometimes brilliant ones. I am thinking of such examples as the discovery of quinidine, or John Snow and the Broad Street pump, or even, but anyone who has been in or around the practice of medicine can think of more pedestrian examples. Off-label prescribing, rough and ready improvisations in the ER or the OR or out in the street, inspired guesswork - someone who has been successful at it gains a self-confidence that lets them think they are either smarter or more capable than they really are.

I believed in evolution for about 30 years. I started DIS-believing in evolution when I began reading about its DETAILS, from the evolutionists’ mouths.
In EACH and EVERY case, I found the details ludicrous or, at a minimum, unconvincing.

If S.N. hadn't run away, I'd almost be inclined to ask what business Bracovirus had being in the genomes of parasitic wasps, but then I remembered that, when pressed, he turns out to redefine "evolution" as short-term baramin change.

Then again, his whole recent fascination with "The Tree of Life" versus "The Bush of Life" suggests to me that Freudian psychoanalysis still has its place.

The author, Orac, does not explain or cite an example of scientific endeavor vis-a-vis applied scientific endeavor, the latter to which he refers to as what physicians really do. Clinical research and trials (cited by the author) and are still applied science, not basic science. Albert Einstein with his thought experiments performed the scientifically purist form of theoretical scientific endeavor which was subsequently proven by scientific observations in 1919 [Eddington] and 1923 in the area of General Relativity (Curveture of Space.) excellent doctors, such as Drs. Carson and Oz have worked tirelessly at applied science, taking the world as it is and using it to perform medical "miracles" such as the separation of conjoint twins or CABG procedures. They took the 'black box" of Nature as we know it and used it to do their thing. Newton, Toricelli, Lorentz and Einstein when to the core of Nature or the actual core of the Black Box and came up with, at the time, new hypotheses which were later PROVED by observation which, thus, made their hypotheses actually theories (scientific facts.)
An example of such core thinking comes in the form of stem cell transplantation. The use of genetically foreign material (donor) stem cells transfused to a host with a genetically different genome than the donor SHOULD NOT WORK, but it does and the work in discovering the why is a basic science endeavor. The Carson's and Oz's have not delved that deeply but have spent countless hours working with the minutiae of their works.
Small wonder why physicians (applied science) don't have the time (or money) to delve into highly theoretical areas (pure science.)

My former cardiologist in Alabama was a young earth creationist, which I discovered from his response to my comment that I was a grad student in evolutionary biology. I totally would've let that slide, except that when we were discussing antibiotic prophylaxis and the AHA's then-new recommendations against it for my condition, everything he tried to tell me about antibiotic resistance was completely wrong. Beginning with, "It's not really a big problem."

So, yeah. I bring up that story every single time my alma mater says Evolution shouldn't be a required course for all biology majors when the majority of them are pre-med.

Cathy @85 -- To be fair, I think most Young Earth Creationists (YECs) acknowledge that "micro-evolution" (or some such other term) does happen, but assert that evolution somehow can't produce new species ("forms", I think). If that's the case, there's no reason why a YEC would reject the development of antibiotic resistance among bacteria.

I fully agree that evolution should be a required course, but it sounds to me like you just happened to have a not-very-good cardiologist.

@Cathy: I think I would have run away as fast as you apparently did!

Happy Sunday Night, all! I was away for the weekend, doing many of the things SN frowns upon. I did wave in the Pope's general direction as we passed by Philly. And no, I have do no confessing of my so-called sins because 1)I don't believe they are sins and 2) I'm sure not repentant...already planning for the next trip! :)

To Cathy Newman #85:

“…I was a grad student in evolutionary biology…
So, yeah. I bring up that story every single time my alma mater says Evolution shouldn’t be a required course for all biology majors when the majority of them are pre-med.”

I see study in “evolutionary biology” as a double major, or a major minor.
It’s effectively a major in “Creative Writing” with a minor in “Biology”.

I think a regular “Creative Writing” curriculum would do well to include “Evolution” as a required course.
P.S.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not evolution.

The development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms is a well-recognized form of microevolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_03
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317155/

#84 Stephen Garramone,

Interesting analysis. I agree with Orac's basic points on this, but yes, one can try to create a "higher resolution" picture of how we endeavor to understand and work with nature.

MD/Engineering training gives one some skills and techniques, and one can apply scientific rigor and scientific method towards some goal, and we can correctly call it applied science. As with discovering the best way to make a spear-point or an arrowhead out of rocks. (I have a lot of respect for those scraggly, lice-infested, "primitives" who created elegant and beautiful solutions to the mundane problems of their age.)

So, you would be correct that the educational credential alone is not really dispositive.

But you aren't making clear what the distinction is in your examples that qualifies something as "real" science. I understand the term "applied science" to indicate that there is a desired outcome of the program, for commercial or other purposes-- a lack of neutrality in developing the experimental design, as it were.

But you seem to be distinguishing between theoretical and experimental, or something along those lines, and I wouldn't agree with that characterization at all. It's the nature of the question that defines basic science, not the method for finding the answer.

Someone should do a study on the mental effects of long-term celibacy. It'd be interesting to know whether having an unpleasant personality is an effect or a cause and how sperm travels to the brain and poisons it.

See, antibiotic resistance in bacteria is evolution by definition: change in the frequency of alleles within a population over generations.

But... but... scientists and doctors both wear white coats and use big words! Doctors must be scientists!

Someone should do a study on the mental effects of long-term celibacy.

I presume in women as well as men?

M'OB: I doubt there'd be much detrimental effect in women, as it's much easier to conduct day-to-day life without having to do all the work that is necessary in a relationship, like cleaning the living space, waking up an hour early to put makeup on, learning to practice mindreading etc. Also, women don't tend to lash out violently like celibate men do.

To JGC #93:

“See, antibiotic resistance in bacteria is evolution by definition: change in the frequency of alleles within a population over generations.”

If that were all there was to “evolution”, than I (and the 45% of Americans who dis-believe in evolution) would believe in “evolution.”

But I don’t believe in evolution.

Also, women don’t tend to lash out violently like celibate men do.

Yah, those Sri Lankan monks are pretty violent.

^ Oops, I guess some of them actually are, had forgotten about that. Was thinking about a few I know personally.

Outside of the U.S. many people, including myself, are watching in disbelief and horror at the parade of Republican idiots presenting with delusions of grandeur for the presidency. Did someone put something in the drinking water in the U.S., or is it just the 'cool-aid' these days? These people are a danger to your society and the world. Look at the mess George Bush caused and the bill he ran up doing it. Anyone could tell he wasn't the brightest nail in pail, and the same goes for this Carson character and the rest of them. Of course, what they are really playing to is the right-wingnut religious base, which is how Bush came to power. Hell. He even promised Billy Graham and the ilk a prayer room in the White House where, according to leaks, they did anything but pray and mocked the very Christian base that put them in power.

@See Noevo: Um, I think you're missing the factor of mutation in evolution.

And what's up with all the OBGYNs in US politics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olfFNq8b1_E

@ Lighthorse

Outside of the U.S. many people, including myself, are watching in disbelief and horror at the parade of Republican idiots presenting with delusions of grandeur for the presidency.

It was already like that last time around. Except that the new batch seems decided to outdo last candidates' performance.
The frelling Donald is not the worse, for FSM sake. For now.

It is as if there is some sort of competition between them (well, there is one, but I was under the impression it's not about who is saying the dumbest things or the most transparent lies). Every times I think I have heard it all, comes another candidate who pushes the boundaries of idiocy even deeper.

PGP @96

You've never been out in the Bigg Market in Newcastle upon Tyne on a Friday or Saturday I take it?

You'd be amazed how many fights are taking place between groups of women...One of my partner's colleagues nearly missed her wedding after getting her nose broken on her hen night.

Lighthorse @101

You forget that SNE is actually Humpty Dumpty...Us lesser mortals are obviously not in possession of the necessary understanding to keep up.

It was already like that last time around. Except that the new batch seems decided to outdo last candidates’ performance.

It's not a promising trend.

Republicans (43%) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (20%) to say that they could conceive of a situation in which they would support a military coup in the United States. Independents tend to say that they could not (38%) rather than could (29%) imagine supporting a coup

The sheer size of the country and diversity of the populace affords some measure of protection against that sort of thing, as does competition among the political and monied interests vying for power.

But it's not pretty. If forcing government shutdowns gets to be a routine action rather than a regular threat, it'll be a real problem.

The sheer size of the country and diversity of the populace affords some measure of protection against that sort of thing

That whole civilian control of the military thing doesn't hurt, either.

@shay --

Absolutely.

I guess I'm presuming that "coup" means that no longer applies, though. So I suppose it would really be a takeover by rogue militias, not the military.

Not that I actually think it's imminent. I just find the tone of the discourse a little alarming.

To ann #106:

“But it’s not pretty. If forcing government shutdowns gets to be a routine action rather than a regular threat, it’ll be a real problem.”

Government shutdowns! The horror. The horror.
Especially the 17% shutdowns, like we had in 2013.
Shiver.

I wouldn't be exaggerating much if I said
I think this government is at its best when it’s shut down.
I long for more of them.

The relative absence of shutdowns in recent years just goes to show that the so-called government gridlock is not all it’s claimed to be. Instead, the liberal big government behemoth keeps bopping along relatively unimpeded, even with a now Republican-controlled Congress.

The socialistic slither was not always so smooth.
I read that the government was shut down seven times under Ronald Reagan, with a Dem-controlled House under Tip O’Neill.
O’Neill also was party to five shutdowns under President Jimmah Cawhta, where the Dems also controlled the Senate.

And on the latter, most of the shutdowns apparently were over abortion policy.

Speaking of abortion, Cecile Richards made an interesting admission recently. You know the old line that abortion constitutes just a 3% sliver of Planned Parenthood’s "health care" services? Well, it depends how you measure.
Because Cecile offered that about 86% (eighty-six percent) of Planned Parenthood’s non-federal funding revenues come from abortion.

But then again, perhaps Cecile’s words were heavily and misleadingly edited?

@ Lighthorse and Helianthus:

I agree.

Recently one of the most frothing of them, Carly Fiorina, carried on about abortion and the "selling of baby body parts" by Planned Parenthood. A reasonable journalist interviewed her, questioning her misinformation but she persisted in her folly. I wondered how suited is she for high office ( including high corporate office- which she's already botched) if she can't see through an anti-abortion propaganda film?

To Denice Walter #110:

Some follow-up Carly Fiorina’s comments in the last presidential debate about the abortion video…

“Carly Fiorina appears to have conflated the video of the fetus with the story being told by O’Donnell at the same time. It’s fair to say Fiorina’s description was incorrect to the degree it treated both incidents as relating to one fetus; however, both the brain harvesting incident and the video of a fully formed, kicking fetus are real.”

Be forewarned - Graphic video content:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/29/graphic-content-carl…

Carly lied? What a non surprise.

I'm happy to see that someone here doesn't think a $2 billion dollar shutdown (cost of the last one, and that's just direct costs) is a big deal.

see Media Matters- Chuck Todd interviews Carly Fiorina
video/ transcript

Remember, this is the same See Noevo who once asked, in all seriousness, "Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?"

In other words, he considers himself above his own Messiah.

Jen Gunter has been posting rather a lot of info at her blog about the great steaming pile of mendacity that is those videos. Short version: the famous fetus video does not depict an induced abortion, but that's just one aspect of this whole fractally-wrong sack of fetid dingo's kidneys.

@115: Well, he also asserted he'd solved the halting problem and that he had obtained an "elite" ivy league education - personal integrity and honesty are things not known to him.

To shay #113:

The last government shutdown – 16 days in 2013 – cost $2 billion?

First of all, I’d like to see your breakdown of the $2 billion.

Secondly and more importantly, even if the $2 billion cost were valid, that sounds like a true bargain – about $125 million per day - when the regular, open-for-business government costs over $10 billion per day.

madder -- I think the creators of the video understand their audience is not going to quibble that the actual fetal footage was not shot at Planned Parenthood but came from other sources.

My source is Reuters. I'm glad you believe that paying people not to show up for work is a bargain.

Standard & Poor, on the other hand, estimated the 2014 shutdown cost to the American economy at $24 billion.

I was very hesitant to post to this thread out of fear that I'd just be guaranteeing its hijack by SN.

Drat.

To Gray Falcon #115:

“In other words, [See Noevo] considers himself above his own Messiah.”

Old Gray One, are you trying to get in a competition with dean as to who can post the most falsehoods?

But ann...you ought to feel so honored that he followed you, a mere woman, to this thread. (Ugh. Just typing that made my brain hurt.)

There isn't a Republican running that I would even consider voting for. I'm not thrilled with the Democrats, totally, either, but they are 100% better than the alternative. I just hope the House and Senate get more Democrats in them, too, to break the Republican stranglehold they like to use on the country to force us to bow to their whims.

@shay--

Yes, you're certainly right about the audience for whom this kind of thing is red meat; for them, the truth is mere nitpicking. But I think the video was also intended to reach the people who don't pay that much attention, and to "shame" pro-choice people in general. That's why it's important to point out the truth.

I read that the government was shut down seven times under Ronald Reagan, with a Dem-controlled House under Tip O’Neill.

" During Gerald Ford's presidency, one funding gap occurred. Under the Carter administrations, funding gaps caused 5 partial shutdowns that affected only the departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare. These lasted from 8 to 18 days and the primary issue of dispute was federal funding for abortion. During the Reagan administration, there were funding gaps with technical shutdowns lasting less than 48 hours or over weekends while spending measures were negotiated rendering them to be of negligible effect. A funding gap during the George H. W. Bush administration also caused a weekend shutdown, resolved late the following Monday." (Wikipedia).

Well, he also asserted he’d solved the halting problem and that he had obtained an “elite” ivy league education – personal integrity and honesty are things not known to him.

He has an MBA from an Ivy League school. But "elite" is an overstatement, and "education" suggests an academic rather than professional degree.

So that characterization is misleading, at best.

"He has an MBA from an Ivy League school. "

He's never provided proof of that that I've seen.

"Old Gray One, are you trying to get in a competition with dean as to who can post the most falsehoods?"

I will simply point out that twice, once at Ethan's, once at Greg's (at Greg's after you lied and said you were no longer allowed to post there) you became upset because I cited you "nothing should be studied unless there is an immediate application" comment: you insisted you'd never said it and wanted a specific statement of where and when it was done. I supplied them. You never returned to the comments.
Being accused by you of telling a lie does not mean a lie has been told: it means that you don't like the comment.

Secondly and more importantly, even if the $2 billion cost were valid, that sounds like a true bargain – about $125 million per day – when the regular, open-for-business government costs over $10 billion per day.

^^Of course, even if you had so many business degrees from Stanford, Harvard and Tuck that you'd lost count of them, you still wouldn't be much of an advertisement for any MBA program as long as you made comments like that.

That programs and services come to a halt has a huge impact on numerous sectors of the economy, not excluding finance and healthcare. Jobs go uncreated. And revenues are lost.

It's not like they're just taking that $10 billion and setting fire to it.

The $2 billion, on the other hand, is all loss.

fear that I’d just be guaranteeing its hijack by SN.

This is where I would link to that Bloom County strip which ends with the words "Leaving a trail of slime whereever he goes...", but I can't find an on-line copy.

Oh jeez, are we (tinw) really doing this again?

The subject of government shutdowns was first broached here, I think, by ann.

I have a scenario and some questions for you all:

The government will soon be embroiled in another budget fight, and will likely throw up its collective hands, and pass another kick the can down the road Continuing Resolution. But the CR will be based on a projected full year budget of approximately $4 Trillion.

Now, if the GOP provides a “clean” CR, funding everything Obama wants, EXCEPT for Planned Parenthood's $500 million (0.0125% of total gov't budget), should Obama veto the CR and essentially cause a shutdown of the government?

If “yes”, why? On what principle?

Because depriving a few million under-served and poor women of a variety of necessary health care services is just a plain stupid and politically motivated idea....

Any reasonable President would veto such an attempt.

Because defunding an agency that provides a valuable service to an underserved population, has not violated any state or Federal law, and for no reason other than to placate its enemies, sets a dangerous precedent.

A shutdown would happen before the possibility of veto arose, not after. So civics fail.

But to answer the question on the proposed terms:

The electorate supports continued federal funding for Planned Parenthood by a margin of two to one, according to polls.

Seven out of ten are opposed to a shutdown over the issue. And that includes 59% of Republicans, as well as 91% of Democrats.

So the answer is:

On the principle that rewarding an attempt by 28 members of congress to use blackmail in order to ignore the will of the American people would mean the end of democracy.

Be forewarned – Graphic video content

Wait, you're actually dumb enough to think that people follow your Breitbump link spam?

On consideration, it occurs to me that the part about the veto is just some unrealistic fantasy about making it Obama's fault.

The shutdown would happen because they couldn't pass a CR, due to the aforementioned blackmail attempt by 28 members of congress. And the GOP would be faulted for it.

I mean, it just happened two years ago. You don't have to be a political scientist to figure it out.

@ Narad:

Heh. My thoughts exactly.

Anne Dachel at Age of Autism was horrified by this exchange between Dr. Carson and a radio host:

Radio Host Bill Cunningham: "what is the association if any of inoculations on one hand and autism on the other?"

Pediatric neurosurgeon and Republican Presidential Candidate Ben Carson: "There is no relationship between vaccines and autism, but what has happened is that we've learned a lot more about autism, and the spectrum has increased tremendously, our ability to diagnosis it has increased tremendously, and therefore there are those who think that because we're diagnosing it more, we're creating it with vaccines.

"Because we live in a society where almost everybody gets vaccines, they make that false correlation. There've been multitudinous scientific studies that have demonstrated that there's no correlation....

"I guarantee you, if you stop all the vaccinations, you'll still have the same number of people being diagnosed with autism. "

This is where I would link to that Bloom County strip which ends with the words “Leaving a trail of slime whereever he goes…”, but I can’t find an on-line copy.

This one?

@Narad --

Nice.

And very befitting wrt someone who claims conservatism is about taking responsibility while daydreaming about forcing his personal agenda on the nation against its will at the cost of billions of dollars and then blaming it on Obama.

haven't been following, but regarding video from the usual slimy sources:

http://wonkette.com/594388/uh-oh-lying-liar-carly-fiorinas-planned-pare…

via Mike the Mad Biologist

To Lawrence #133:

“Because depriving a few million under-served and poor women of a variety of necessary health care services is just a plain stupid and politically motivated idea…. Any reasonable President would veto such an attempt.”

Are they being deprived by the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”)?

Can’t they find appropriate health care at the many clinics run by other than Planned Parenthood?
In about sixty seconds I googled “alternatives to planned parenthood clinics” and found this website http://getyourcare.org/

Looks like a lot of non-PP clinics. (And probably some of them even offer mammograms, unlike PP.)

What would be “a plain stupid and politically motivated idea” would be Obama shutting the government down for a politically/ethically-charged 0.0125% of the gov’t budget.

To shay #134:

“Because defunding an agency …”

Agency?
When I hear “agency”, particularly in this context, I think government agency.

But Planned Parenthood is a PRIVATE organization.
If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business.
About 40% of Planned Parenthood’s funding is from the federal government.
Accordingly, PP should either go out of business or reduce its operations such that it can survive without the fed funding.

And if the government is dead set on spending (and it always is) the $500 million that used to go to PP, maybe it could open some government-run health care facilities similar to the VA hospitals/clinics.

What actually “sets a dangerous precedent” is continuing federal funding of PP.

To ann #135:

“The electorate supports continued federal funding for Planned Parenthood by a margin of two to one, according to polls.”

And USA Today says “An even bigger majority opposes shutting down the government as a tactic to deny funds for the group.”

So about 70% would be OK with shutting the remaining 99.9875% of the government down
if the 0.0125% is denied to PP.

How about some out-of-the-box thinking?
What if that 0.0125% ($500 million) went instead to other non-PP clinics, or to the creation of non-abortion-providing government-run clinics?

Couldn't that work, maybe?

“So the answer is: On the principle that rewarding an attempt by 28 members of congress to use blackmail in order to ignore the will of the American people would mean the end of democracy.”

I guess the other 500 or so members of Congress don’t understand
- the spirit of the law (e.g. the law forbidding federal funding for abortion), nor
- the elementary principle of the fungibility of money.

On the latter, about how much of abortion promoter and overseer Cecile Richardson’s $520K salary comes from federal dollars? I think PP’s revenue/funding breaks down about as follows:
$500M federal funding
$645M abortion revenues (86% of non-fed funding revenue, per Cecile)
$105M non-abortion revenues
--------
$1,025M total funding/revenue

Boy, those abortion services are quite a revenue generator!

Anyway, so, maybe about 40% of the salary of abortion promoter and overseer Cecile Richardson comes from federal funding (i.e. taxpayer dollars).

All hail democracy!

To ann #137:

“On consideration, it occurs to me that the part about the veto is just some unrealistic fantasy about making it Obama’s fault. The shutdown would happen because they couldn’t pass a CR, due to the aforementioned blackmail attempt by 28 members of congress. And the GOP would be faulted for it.”

I’ll rephrase:
If a “clean” CR is presented to Congress, funding everything Obama and the Dems want, EXCEPT for Planned Parenthood’s $500 million (0.0125% of total gov’t budget), should Congress not pass the CR and essentially cause a shutdown of the government? If “yes”, why? On what principle?

Doesn’t matter. Your answer would be the same.

I'm not ashamed that my answer would still be that:

Since none of that money is spent on abortions and the 28 members of congress withholding it would therefore not be saving a single life or achieving a single goddamn thing other than engaging in a senseless act of terrorism that harmed hundreds of millions of people and wreaked havoc with the economy out of sheer spite and an inability to take responsibility for the failure of their arguments, I'm against it.

"It’s fair to say Fiorina’s description was incorrect to the degree it treated both incidents as relating to one fetus; however, both the brain harvesting incident and the video of a fully formed, kicking fetus are real.”

Of course, the brain harvesting incident depends entirely on the word of one woman who didn't work there and the video is not really of an abortion, has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, probably wasn't shot in the last fifteen years, and Carly Fiorina hadn't seen it when she described having done so.

Other than that, she was totally right.

And it's very morally virtuous of you to root for shutting down the government without saving a single life simply in order to compromise the freedom of people on Medicaid to get their healthcare where they choose.

The question remains:

Could you be any stupider?

I've never made a request like this before. But please ban that hateful insane troll before I live to regret doxing him.

Humpty Dumpty rides again.

haven’t been following, but regarding video from the usual slimy sources:

http://wonkette.com/594388/uh-oh-lying-liar-carly-fiorinas-planned-pare…

via Mike the Mad Biologist

Yep. Even Daleiden's not claiming it was filmed at Planned Parenthood. He's actually barely pretending it's not a spontaneously aborted pregnancy -- aka "a miscarriage."

I mean, I haven't seen a single doctor who says it's anything else. Daleiden says it's an abortion, but he doesn't push the point:

Then it gets really interesting! Ya see, Daleiden admits his videos use NOT ABORTED AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD imagery — like the photo of a stillborn fetus he stole from a grieving mother to imply it had been aborted and sold for scrap at Planned Parenthood — because really, what’s the difference?

DALEIDEN: [It’s] used to illustrate exactly the kind of late second-trimester baby, fetus, that we’re talking about in these cases of organ harvesting.

CUOMO: But if you’re talking about organ harvesting and abortions, and how terrible they are, why would you use a stillborn fetus, which is not a function of an abortion?

DALEIDEN: Do you think that the fetuses are different somehow? It’s the same gestational age, it’s the same baby, whether it’s born dead or alive, whether its organs are harvested or not. That’s the same kind of infant.

Not that he'd have any idea whether it was, in fact, an abortion. It's stock footage from the same place that supplied the stillborn pictures he also used to "illustrate" what he was saying without specifying or disclosing it. It appears to show a miscarriage. And it probably does.

But Carly Fiorina was right!!!

Just because.

CUOMO: But if you’re talking about organ harvesting and abortions, and how terrible they are, why would you use a stillborn fetus, which is not a function of an abortion?

Incidentally, for those too stupid to figure it out for themselves, the true answer to that question is:

"Because there are no born-alive, kicking, fully formed fetuses with beating hearts being slaughtered for their organs by abortionists. The whole thing's a great big lie we like to tell to people who are so stupid that they'll believe anything. That's why!"

But what the hell. Shut the government down anyway.

To ann #147:

“And it’s very morally virtuous of you to root for shutting down the government without saving a single life simply in order to compromise the freedom of people ON MEDICAID to get their healthcare where they choose.”

I don’t understand the first half of that, but regarding the latter part:

So, the people going to Planned Parenthood for other than abortions are using Medicaid (or maybe something through Obamacare, or some other insurance), but STILL require ADDITIONAL federal subsidies to get the care from PP?

Now THAT would be “stupider.”

Most of the federal funding is Medicaid reimbursement, you idiot.

Also, I'd like to change my answer to:

On the principle that the state is supposed to prove that a crime occurred and someone is guilty of it before rushing off to punish anyone (let alone millions of poor women who are entirely innocent) simply because a bunch of ill-informed fools saw a video of a woman miscarrying fifteen years ago and got upset about it.

To ann #148:

“But please ban that hateful insane troll before I live to regret doxing him.”

Wow! That sounded like a threat, and I don’t even know what “doxing” is!

I had to look it up: Per Urban Dictionary – “Doxing is a technique of tracing someone or gather information about an individual using sources on the internet. Its name is derived from “Documents” or “Docx”. Doxing method is based purely on the ability of the HACKER to recognize valuable information about his TARGET and use this information to his benefit. It is also based around the idea that, “The more you know about your target, the easier it will be to FIND HIS OR HER FLAWS.”

My goodness, annie!
It’s almost like you’re trying to “dig up dirt” on a person because you can’t handle the person’s arguments. Like ops research to fuel ad hominems.

Nah. That just couldn't be.

It most certainly couldn't.

I mean look at the arguments. Also, I didn't actually "dig up dirt" on you. You outed yourself on the first thread you posted to here, because you're an idiot. It took one G--gle search.

It's the hateful misogyny I don't feel compelled to tolerate. But although you've obviously got problems and are fairly plainly seriously handicapped by them, I'm not in a position to really know what they are. So out of caritas, I'm reluctant to dox you.

Incidentally:

75% of that funding is Medicaid reimbursements, which are subject to the Hyde Amendment.

The other 25% is Title X money, none of which funds abortion to begin with.

The only thing defunding would accomplish would be to force states to raise taxes in order to meet their obligations. Because there would be just as many women on Medicaid as there were before.

Possibly even more, depending on how that shutdown thing goes.

Planned Parenthood would continue providing abortions as usual. There's no reason why that part of the business would be the least bit affected. You'd just be getting rid of the other stuff.

Ban, please.

That he gets off on this is repellently obvious.

Probably including getting roughed up by girls.

To ann #151:

“Because there are no born-alive, kicking, fully formed fetuses with beating hearts being slaughtered for their organs by abortionists. The whole thing’s a great big lie…”

Perhaps no born-alive, kicking, fully formed fetuses with beating hearts were slaughtered for their organs by abortionists.
However, at a minimum, that Holly O’Donnell has said otherwise.
If Holly lied, she should be appropriately punished, to the full extent of the law. You’d be OK with some kind of court process with discovery and cross-examination and testifying under oath – of O’Donnell AND the person or people she alleges were doing the live harvest – wouldn’t you?
I would.

But you’re OK with harvesting the organs, as long as the abortionists slaughter the kicking, fully formed fetuses first.
After all, you’d never stop a woman, even if you could, from having any abortion she wanted.

If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business.

You don't say. Remember when you ran away from this one?

And very befitting wrt someone who claims conservatism is about taking responsibility while daydreaming about forcing his personal agenda on the nation his imaginary daughter to carry a rapist's baby to term against its her will at the cost of billions of dollars and then blaming it on Obama.

FTFY.

@See- That was a direct quote. I can link you to it if you want. Next time, when you post, ask yourself, "Am I committing blasphemy when I write this?"

If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business.

Do you have any idea how many large companies would be out of business without federal funding?

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-…

You don’t say. Remember when you ran away from this one?

That's nothing. He couldn't have made a living if he wasn't willing to see taxpayer dollars turned into private profits.

Which is also nothing, relative to the fact that if someone shows him a video that's not of anything he cares about, then proposes a political action that won't address any of his concerns, he's so dangerously stupid that he'll support them while they overthrow the government.

@#157 --

I'd be okay with any legal proceeding you care to name, as long as it met all the criteria for one.

But hauling people into court because one person made unsupported allegations is not how we roll here in the USA.

Especially since there's plenty of evidence that the Center for Medical Progress is lying and several state-level investigations have already failed to turn up jacksquat in the way of evidence that Planned Parenthood broke the law.

Under those circumstances, suggesting that a trial is warranted is basically just you fantasizing about making your irresponsible failures of good judgment somebody else's fault again.

Agency? When I hear “agency”, particularly in this context, I think government agency.

Your history of making up your own definitions is already well known here.

If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business

I’ll pass that along to GE, Boeing, DuPont and Verizon.

Tell us, oh MBA (alleged), how cost-effective is it to build, staff and equip new facilities to replace perfectly-functional facilities that already exist?

I've spent the last two hours listening to Ella Watson-Stryker speak, which makes reading SN's selfishness, arrogance and dishonesty all the more nauseating.

Ann -- I know. When the Attorney General of Louisiana, FCOL, couldn't find any grounds to charge Planned Parenthood, you know someone's house was built on sand.

To ann #155:

“The only thing defunding would accomplish would be to force states to raise taxes in order to meet their obligations. Because there would be just as many women on Medicaid as there were before.”

I don’t see why any additional taxes would need to be raised.
No change to Medicaid monies, just can’t use them at Planned Parenthood.
I’d bet those Medicaid patients would find alternative, non-PP clinics quickly (http://getyourcare.org/).

“The other 25% is Title X money, none of which funds abortion to begin with.”

Title X covers “family planning” services. Of course, it has the fine print footnote “By statute, Title X funds are not used to pay for abortions.”
But I imagine the funds could pay for just about everything surrounding and enabling the abortion (e.g. office space, utilities, instruments, training of personnel, disposal of deceased).

“Planned Parenthood would continue providing abortions as usual.”
I suppose so. And at about $2,000 per.
Not cheap, but probably less than you’d pay a hit man.

No change to Medicaid monies, just can’t use them at Planned Parenthood.

Why not?

I don’t see why any additional taxes would need to be raised.
No change to Medicaid monies, just can’t use them at Planned Parenthood.
I’d bet those Medicaid patients would find alternative, non-PP clinics quickly

Again, not exactly an advertisement for that Ivy League MBA program.

Yes, actually, cutting $375 million in Medicaid funding would be a change to Medicaid funding.

And no, existing clinics could not easily perform millions of services for patients they're not staffed, equipped, or prepared to accommodate.

So don't make a habit out of betting large sums.

Title X covers “family planning” services. Of course, it has the fine print footnote “By statute, Title X funds are not used to pay for abortions.”

That's because none of that money is used to pay for abortions.

But I imagine the funds could pay for just about everything surrounding and enabling the abortion (e.g. office space, utilities, instruments, training of personnel, disposal of deceased).

No. They would be spent on family planning services, as outlined by Title X.

That would just (once again) be you imagining a way out of your responsibility to be minimally informed.

“Planned Parenthood would continue providing abortions as usual.”
I suppose so. And at about $2,000 per.
Not cheap, but probably less than you’d pay a hit man.

Except that the cost is $390 to $1090 or less, the part about how you'd be doing nothing but mindlessly getting your hate on without preventing a single abortion is correct.

Thank you for conceding that defunding Planned Parenthood would just be an idiotic, pointless act of destruction that harmed innocent people for no good reason.

I have no idea how much it costs to take out a hit on someone. But I doubt there's a standard rate.

To shay #163:

Me: “If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business.”

You: “I’ll pass that along to GE, Boeing, DuPont and Verizon.”

No need to. There’s a substantive difference between the government purchasing something from an organization and the government funding an organization. As I explained on another blog recently:
“You apparently can’t see the differences between
1) Doing something yourself (e.g. building fighter jets with your own engineers and manufacturing plants; making massive mounds of paper for your endless laws and regulations with your own forests and paper mills; fashioning paper clips with your own mines and steel mills.), where, if you fail, you go out of business.

2) Paying other people, who have greater expertise and efficiency, to build fighter jets or make paper or fashion paper clips, etc., where, if the other people fail, they go out of business, and you look for other more reliable suppliers.

3) The above do-it-yourself operation or one-to-one/arms-length deal is replaced by a third-party (i.e. government) blob of other people’s money (i.e. taxpayers’ taxes) to keep the one party in business (e.g. Planned Parenthood) and the second party happy (e.g. the patients getting freebies).

You’re a 3) kind of guy.”

SN does not understand the difference between government subsidies and government purchases.

What alleged Ivy League school awarded him/her an alleged business degree?

SN said "But I imagine the funds could pay for just about everything surrounding and enabling the abortion (e.g. office space, utilities, instruments, training of personnel, disposal of deceased)."

In case anyone wondered, SN has just demonstrated beyond doubt the fact that it knows NOTHING of governmental accounting. All overhead costs are allocated to the activity when federal funds are involved. If 1% of an organizations activities are abortions then 1% of the rent, 1% of the electrical bill, 1% of the receptionist's salary, 1% of the director's salary, and so on ad infinitum is paid with non-federal funds.

The above is an overview suitable for those, like SN, with limited literacy skills.

More details here regarding basic rules: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2014-title2-vol1/CFR-2014-title2-v…, and

here, for the rules regarding medical costs: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title45-vol1/CFR-2011-title45…

It is not unusual for a cost allocation plan between a funding agency and a fund recipient to be so comprehensive that the random number generator used to determine which records are audited is specified and mathematically validated to ensure that patient records are truly randomly selected.

To ann #167:

“Yes, actually, cutting $375 million in Medicaid funding would be a change to Medicaid funding.”

You don’t need an MBA to know that no change in Medicaid funding would be required. The $375 million in Medicaid funding (and $125 million Title X funding) would still be expended, just not at PP facilities.
.....................
“And no, existing clinics could not easily perform millions of services for patients they’re not staffed, equipped, or prepared to accommodate.”

No, I think the 13,000 other clinics could probably pick up the load from the 600 PP clinics:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/17/planned-parenthood-loses-government-f…

And we could do some more out-of-the-box thinking.
Get wild! Even the craziest ideas are fair game.
For example:
-PP could stop doing abortions and so keep those many needy Medicaid patients and stay in business.
-The abortion-less PP might transform the former abortion facilities/resources into something it doesn’t currently have – like mammogram facilities.
-More and more people could refrain from sex outside of marriage and so reduce the incidence of STDs and PP’s need to treat them.
-What else?
.....................
Me: "But I imagine the funds could pay for just about everything surrounding and enabling the abortion (e.g. office space, utilities, instruments, training of personnel, disposal of deceased)."

You: “No. They would be spent on family planning services, as outlined by Title X.”

Oh, absolutely. And money’s not fungible.
..................
You: “Planned Parenthood would continue providing abortions as usual.”
Me: “I suppose so. And at about $2,000 per. Not cheap, but probably less than you’d pay a hit man.”
You: “Except that the cost [per PP abortion] is $390 to $1090 or less …”

Perhaps the $390-$1090 is the PP advertised “price”, but not the actual related cost or funding. My $2,000 was just some quick math: ~$645 million in PP abortion revenues divided by ~300,000 abortions.
..............
“Thank you for conceding that defunding Planned Parenthood would just be an idiotic, pointless act of destruction that harmed innocent people for no good reason.”

I’d normally say “You’re welcome”, but I won’t, because I made no such concession.
.....................
“I have no idea how much it costs to take out a hit on someone. But I doubt there’s a standard rate.”

Really? I thought you might have done some research on that recently.
Whatever the standard rate is, they might charge you more for me. Because I can shoot back. Go NRA!

To Opus #170:

“In case anyone wondered, SN has just demonstrated beyond doubt the fact that it knows NOTHING of governmental accounting. All overhead costs are allocated to the…”

That may be true.
It also may be true that I’ve forgotten more accounting than you’ll ever know, as my bachelors was in Accounting and in my early days I worked in accounting, even as a CPA in the health care/health care reimbursement field.

But a couple things I do remember:
-Figures don’t lie but liars can figure.
-Accounting, especially governmental accounting, is never wrong. Example: “GAO has designated Medicare as a high-risk program, in part because the program's size and complexity make it vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse… More broadly, in fiscal year 2013, CMS estimated that improper payments—some of which may be fraudulent—were almost $50 billion.” http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-712T

Why did SN stop working in accounting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMOmB1q8W4Y

Next time, when you post, ask yourself, “Am I committing blasphemy revealing too much when I write this?”

For example,

However, at a minimum, that Holly O’Donnell has said otherwise.
If Holly lied, she should be appropriately punished, to the full extent of the law.

What immediately stands out about this utterance is that it literally makes no sense: there are no criminal penalties whatever for lying in random propaganda videos.

My immediate reaction was "Oh, G-d, he's got the hots for her." But this didn't really come together until I ran across the retracted RH Reality Check item.

You’d be OK with some kind of court process with discovery and cross-examination and testifying under oath – of O’Donnell AND the person or people she alleges were doing the live harvest – wouldn’t you?
I would.

I suspect that there's no shortage whatever of '70s Eurotrash films that S.N. could choose from here as exemplars of his fantasy, but like everything else that might present a stress to the Shіt Noggin, it's not going to happen.

It also may be true that I’ve forgotten more accounting than you’ll ever know, as my bachelors was in Accounting and in my early days I worked in accounting, even as a CPA in the health care/health care reimbursement field.

Heh. The failed-interview blob-speech is a nice touch.

My poor father was perplexed for some time over the fact that there was, in fact, no way in which I could "minor in accounting." This isn't a slight against accountants per se – I know a very colorful one, against whom I have an unbroken arm-wrestling record (JP has documentary evidence) – but the already stupid babbling about, e.g., "fine tuning" of the cosmological constant has just taken a death blow.

Now, it's not entirely clear whether the CPA part came before or after S.N.'s shelling out for a terminal "Ivy League"* master's degree for the sake of résumé padding,** but whatever. Given S.N.'s frequent issues with a Cheneyeqsue*** cheese steak**** in his pants, the obvious target seems to be Wharton.

Perhaps he could regale the commentariat with reminiscences of the high points of the curriculum. After all, the "'No Fly'/'Do Not Call' list” has already been assigned to the wearing of delicious, fantasy ball gags.

* It should be kept in mind that the term refers to college sports.
** I've TA'd folks doing the same thing in computer science. Based on the graduates of the program that I've run into, that whole asymptotic-notation thing might as well have come with a guaranteed expiration date.
*** And I do mean -esque.
**** Whip, of course.

^ The boldface should have begun and ended with "after"; in retrospect, the omission of the '/' in </b> might be an improvement.

Shay and Ann, it has long been my view (based on direct experience of people holding it) that MBA stands for "Master of Bugger All" and acts as a pretty good marker for those who do not understand and cannot evaluate evidence and rely instead on assertion (see also pretty much any management "qualification" - I read a lot of assignments a colleague submitted as part of a "management degree" and they were utter rubbish, yet this person was awarded a good degree).

SN: "the elementary principle of the fungibility of money"

I think I see why you are not in accounting any more: You ran out of petards. . .

No, I think the 13,000 other clinics could probably pick up the load from the 600 PP clinics:

That MBA was truly worthless.

And we could do some more out-of-the-box thinking.

I don't think it's possible to be more of an inside-the-box thinker than you are. You literally don't appear to have a single non-prefab thought., or any capacity for original thinking whatsoever. You just swallow whatever bucket of sh*t Breitburp ladles out.

Get wild! Even the craziest ideas are fair game.
For example:
– PP could stop doing abortions and so keep those many needy Medicaid patients and stay in business.
– The abortion-less PP might transform the former abortion facilities/resources into something it doesn’t currently have – like mammogram facilities.

^^That, for example. Diagnostic imaging is routinely done at either specialty clinics or hospitals. By everybody. Every time you repeat it as if it were meaningful, you prove your inability to think at even the level of basic reality-based observation.

– More and more people could refrain from sex outside of marriage and so reduce the incidence of STDs and PP’s need to treat them.
– What else?

Thank you for conceding that none of this is actually about the fantasy criminal fetal organ trade and that all of it is about your wish to control the sex lives of other people.

Really? I thought you might have done some research on that recently.
Whatever the standard rate is, they might charge you more for me. Because I can shoot back. Go NRA!

Don't flatter yourself, you loser.

I want you to live. I just don't want to be exposed to your hateful, destructive stupidity.

Owing to which, I'm done here.

" More and more people could refrain from sex outside of marriage"

I think that probably sums it up entirely: he wants to dictate how others should behave because of his belief in his own moral superiority.

See, do you keep gun in your hand with your finger on the trigger, pointed at the nearest person at all times? Do you always stand with your back to a wall? Do you never sleep? If the answer to any of those is "no", then you may not always be able to shoot back.

Had a spare wasteable coffee break again, luckily the dishonest creep has slunk back after its ignoble retreat. Apologies about the thread jumping, but the source material keeps smearing itself into multiple places.

"We don't want your bigotry and idiotic opinioning here." says the former member of the audience, looking hopefully for the bus, but in vain.
"Oh, silly you", says See Noevo, "it was all an act - I'm not at all like you describe!"
"So that whole debacle was an act?"
"Indeed." See Noevo nods."I'm one of the few really decent guys, actually." See Noevo says, picking off imaginary dust from his collar.

(incredulous silence)

"Really?" says the former audience member. "So what you really think of gays?"
"Poor misguided souls, I'm afraid, but I have nothing personally against-"
"Misguided how?"
"Off the narrow road, and towards what I can only imagine is eternal damnation."
"'Decent', sure..."
"You're trying to trick me!" See Noevo screams suddenly. "I can spot a trap! You're no doubt some sort of commie atheist!"
"You're off the rails once again, I voted republican."
"You lie! No real republican would question my values! I bet you even dislike Trump!"
"I do, but that's nothing to do with the party..."
"Bah!" See Noevo exclaims. "Lies, all lies! Like evolution!"
"So how much of your 'act' wasn't just you spewing nonsense?"
"You're just ignorant!" See Noevo shouts, pointing at the people on the bus stop. "I used to be like you, believing in evolution, but I studied! I did! And got cured!"
"Studied? You?"
"Indeed. With my accounting degree from a super-uber highest top-tier ivy league school I easily deciphered their lies. The more I read about it the more obvious the idiocy of it became." See Noevo says, smugly.
"Care to give an example?"
"Darwinists think sunburn turns into eyes!" See Noevo literally jumps up as it shouts this. It does a little victory jig. "See how silly?"
"Yes. Yes I do see." say the people on the bus stop, in unison.

(still silence)

"What?" asks See Noevo, "No thanks for enlightening you foolish ingrates?"
"No." answer the spectators. "Can we just wait for the bus in peace?"
"You're evading! You're scared to engage in real debate! I win!"
"What debate?" asks the former member of the audience. "You're just spewing your f-"
"Any debate!" See Noevo insists.
"You're not debating, you're just shouting opinions in public."
"And there it is! I win! You couldn't make one argument without lying about me!"

(crickets)

"And all you'd do anyways is use words incorrectly, like say agency when I know you obviously meant government agencies alone, because you obviously lack my super-high advanced specialist ivy league not-to-mention so very expensive it must have been excellent and you lot could never afford such an education, uh, education. So you can't win. Zero for twenty already!" See raves, spittle flying every which way.

(crickets)

"And you socialists are ruining the country, not just this debate! Funding those serial killers at Planned Parenthood, resisting my accurate Christian values like stoning people I don't like for saying stuff I disagree with, or hating me when I celebrate nine-year-old pregnancy successs stories! You just mindlessly repeat what you've read somewhere and fawn that hidious muslim race-traitor spawn Bee Hussein Obama!" See Noevo is frothing at the mouth.

(crickets)

"I hope the government would shut down! Then you'd see how effective the Gee Ough Pee really is and how they're much better than any so-called democrats! Then you'd see!"

(crickets)

"Be awed by my reasoning!" See Noevo screams, out of breath, eyes nearly bulging out of their sockets. "I'm better than all of you!"

(crickets)

"You do realize none of us cares about your spew of verbal effluence?" says the former member of the audience, finally.

Except ignore the part about the thread jumping. That's what I get for opening multiple tabs and using a tiny tablet.

...and gaist wins an Internet!

– More and more people could refrain from sex outside of marriage and so reduce the incidence of STDs and PP’s need to treat them.

If you think married people don't need PP's services, including STD treatments and abortions, you are for some surprise.

"to refrain from sex outside marriage"? Good luck with that*. It didn't work that well for King David. He got his comeuppance, but the damage was done. If even god's chosen fall to the temptation...

* I strongly disapprove of cheating people and other relationship betrayals. That being said, syphilis is a nasty disease**, so as a microbiologist I'm all for limiting its spread by all means available. Dito for other STDs.
** it's also a baby killer, leading to fetus malformations or even miscarriage. I would have thought the pro-life crowd would be all for stopping it.

Murmur -- I tend to agree. I got my MBA from the University of Illinois for two reasons -- one, I figured two years in an academic setting would allow sufficient decompression time for someone fresh out of the military and leery about plunging into the work force right away (I still have colleagues gripe that I'm a little too USMC), and two, someone else paid for it.

The US has this lovely program called the GI Bill. I'm sure SN disapproves; it's a free ride to a college degree for those who qualify. I mean, practically welfare.

Helianthus, married people shouldn't need birth control. Women are supposed to stay home and have lots and lots and lots of babies, regardless of the couple's ability to provide the necessary emotional and financial support.

And those affordable cancer screenings for low-income women? Why, since the ACA was passed, ob/gyn's have been falling all over themselves to open offices in the poorer parts of town.

@ shay

married people shouldn’t need birth control.

Oh, I know.

I just wanted to inject the little fact that transmission of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not just the province of these godless, live-in-the-sin liberal people in extended singlehood, both historically and nowadays.

A decade ago, an article in Le Monde described the results of the thesis of a French/Moroccan student. It was a social study of the profile of French prostitutes' customers.
Contrary to the cliché of the young celibate man, the typical customer is married, in his 30-50, and have children. Quite often, he is on the road for business reasons.
All things being equals, I doubt it's much different in the US.

Bizarre:

http://www.newsflow24.com/meet-ben-carsons-medical-coalition-dv96

Whatever the standard rate is, they might charge you more for me. Because I can shoot back. Go NRA!

It's not often that one sees such a superfluous announcement of a whiny, golfing tough guy's having a three-inch barrel in his pants.

Bizarre:
What language is that?

Helianthus, it's not just SN -- I've yet to see an anti-PP.anti-abortion/anti-contraception rant that doesn't boil down to they're sinners and must suffer the consequences.

Go NRA

It never ceases to amaze me the number of civilians who think that a handgun and eight hours of instruction turns someone into Dead-eye Dick, the Two-Gun Terror of the Plains.

Bizarre:

What language is that?

It appears to be a novel approach to avoiding plagiarism. They registrant is nominally in Hungary, but I'm not sure how seriously to take "Janos Nagy."

I justify this post for several reasons:

-This blog article and at least the initial comments were about Ben Carson and doctors not being scientists.
-The Surgeon General of the United States, Vivek Murthy MD, seems to believe gun control is an issue his agency should have control over or at least have a say in. (One particular tweet of his:“Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of [National Rifle Association]. Guns are a health care issue.”
-Dr. Ben Carson has dipped his toe into one of the hot stories of the day – the Oregon school mass murderer who singled out Christians for his slaughter – by holding an “I am a Christian” sign.
-Regarding the hot “health” topic of gun control, I have three comments “awaiting moderation” over on Greg Laden’s Blog for “What YOU can do about gun violence”. The first two have been in his review loop for several hours. All my posts on Laden’s blogs are put into that ‘pending’ mode, but at least in the last month they usually get posted. (A while back, for a month or two none of my posts got through. Lately though, it appeared my banning had ended.). So, in case my three comments don’t get posted on Laden’s blog, I’ll post them here:

1)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
To Jesse #16:
“You want to protect yourself? Fine, use bo (it can be had around the house if you own a mop) or a machete. Carry a knife. I happen to like sais. The targeting is easier, and at close range it’s faster, and you can’t accidentally kill yourself with them. (Well, I suppose you could, but it would be hard to do).”

That might be fine when the attacker is using a bo or a machete or a knife or a sais. But what if the attacker is shooting?

OR what if he looks better with his sword than you are with yours?

I’d side with Indy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs
…………..
2)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The NRO article on the “Australian Model”:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obam…
…………………….
I might *briefly* consider giving up my guns,
as soon as the criminals, crazies and the evil no longer have guns.
But then, we’d still have this government.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century
criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
………………
3)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I read today that the Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009, and that homicides involving firearms dropped from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that trolls gotta troll.

Sn, everyone has comments go to moderation at Greg's when they repeatedly post links. You've been told that before, so implying you are being singled out is simply mote of your bs.

Your nro article should be blocked - it's a load of horse crap. But again, partly for your course.

Shay: yes, an actual review of data shows that, unless you include movies, a brave gun owner stopping a crime is vainishigly rare. It's amusing that sn has referred to the community college campus in Oregon as a "gun free zone" when, in fact, several students who had weapons on them have said they were on campus but we're smart enough to know that had they shown up the swat team would have had no way to know they weren't helping the shooter.

"“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”"

sn, like so many other tea baggers, you can't even get an attribution correct. That is not Jefferson's quote, he was repeating something from Cesare Beccaria's "Essay on Crimes and Punishments.". The greater context where Jefferson used it was not, as you would imply, that restrictions against guns are not constitutional, it was a discussion of how such laws would be enforced.

Since firearms-related homicides/suicides are one of the leading causes of death in Americans aged 15-24, why wouldn't the surgeon general be concerned?

(6,500 young Americans died from gunshot wounds in 2000, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “WISQARS: Fatal Injury Data, 2010).

So, in case my three comments don’t get posted on Laden’s blog, I’ll post them here

Yah, you've done this before. It's pathetic display of your juvenile need for instant gratification in addition to being an utterly moronic attempt at further threadjacking, since the people you're replying to aren't even here.

^ "a pathetic display"

'Tis truly heartwarming to see SN, our itinerant monk, wander through in search of his posterior, which hath been handed unto him so many times that it is worn to a veritable nubbin.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! See Noevo just go get laid already but do human kind a favour and wear a condom.

"Tell Jesse he obviously haven't thought things through, I mean, what if they come at you with guns!" See Noevo tells, to the gathered crowd.
"What?"
"Who's Jesse?" asks the crowd.
"They're trying to silence me! Me! So you tell him Indiana Jones was right shooting the swordman!" See Noevo is hyperventilating.
"He's finally lost it..."
"Is that some code?"
"It's speaking in tongues" says the crowd.
"How about you calm down, and shut up for a change." says a former member of the audience, patting See Noevo on the shoulder. "I'm sure they pick up your monke-"
"Don't touch me! I'm armed!" See shrieks, and moves to pull a revolver from the front of his pants, but the bulky gun gets stuck on his belt buckle.
Everybody moves away from the fumbling See, who finally gets the gun free and waves it about. "Don't be shocked, I have to" he reasons, "I'm an important man, friend to the Pope and all that, I have to be prepared to defend myself against atheists..."
"Just put the gun down, okay..." says someone, as calmly as possible.
"They no doubt have put hits on me, those godless bastards. Hits! On me! Can you imagine, a world without See Noevo in it! I can't, so it must be really awful!"
"Easy there, just point it away, all right, nobody's going to hurt you..."
"You lie! You're all criminals or crazies or evil or government employees! You're dangerous!" See hisses.
"You're the one waving the gun around!" someone points out.
"We don't even know any Jesse!" points another.

See Noevo@196:

I justify this post for several reasons:

p.s. You forgot:

– I am a giant sucking rectal wound in major need of attention.

Hey, a least you're on a medical blog – I guess that's close enough.

From GOP's Case Against Planned Parenthood Collapses: Jason Chaffetz Admits He Uncovered No Wrongdoing:

“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any,” Huffington Post’s Jennifery Bendery reports the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman admitted during yet another hearing on Thursday.

(Not that it will make any difference. Carly Fiorina saw an imaginary video that was kinda similar to one of who-knows-what that somebody later posted on the internet, after all. That's what really counts.)

All Doctor's I know of, Ben Carson included, believe in that species change over time and that natural selection can play a role in that. As such, they understand that germs develop resistance to antibiotics. What millions of doctors reject, is the idea of a species evolving into another species. Academic scientists are afraid to admit their doubts because they will lose their jobs.

Darwin's theory is simply not supported by the fossil record

@Roger C D'Aquin:

Darwin’s theory is simply not supported by the fossil record

Homo Naledi would seem to disprove you.

Darwin’s theory is simply not supported by the fossil record

Ah, the "missing link" fallacy.
Whenever paleontologists find a new fossil to insert into the chain, creationists wail about the gaps between this new fossil and its two neighbors. A variation on Zeno' paradox.

What millions of doctors reject, is the idea of a species evolving into another species.

And yet, the London underground has its own species of mosquito.

@Helianthus:

And yet, the London underground has its own species of mosquito.

Ruddy great big things they are too.

All Doctor’s I know of, Ben Carson included, believe in that species change over time and that natural selection can play a role in that. As such, they understand that germs develop resistance to antibiotics. What millions of doctors reject, is the idea of a species evolving into another species. Academic scientists are afraid to admit their doubts because they will lose their jobs.

Darwin’s theory is simply not supported by the fossil record

First of all, not only is the theory of evolution quite well-supported by the fossil record, it has proved to have significant predictive power for the fossil record, e.g. Tiktaalik -- so on that score you are simply wrong.

Second of all, you do not seem to realize all the implications of what probably seems to you like a minor admission. You acknowledge that species can change over time. But, you say, there is some limit. Let us refer to this as "the species boundary". Species can change over time, but only up to the species boundary; when they encounter the species boundary, the process of change... what? Does it just stop dead? Does it rebound, as if off a wall? Do individuals sometimes in fact cross over that species boundary, only to find that without exception they have paid the ultimate price for their transgression-by-birth, inevitably being sterile or mateless or hopelessly unfit for the process of living?

The reason I have to ask is that actual scientific evidence doesn't support the idea that such "species boundaries" actually exist -- much less the mechanisms to enforce them that would have to exist. If you acknowledge that species can change over time, congratulations, you are right on at least that much. If you want to assert, however, that these "species boundaries" exist which keep species from evolving into other species, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for their existence.

I recall Orson Scott Card commenting that if every living thing had died rignt on top of its parents and been perfectly fossilized, there would still be people saying "but where are the transitional forms?".

Indeed, O Feldspathic One, there is a whole set of debates to be had around the concept of speciation, its limitations and validity - just get a group of taxonomists in a room with some palaeontologists.

On a more prosaic level I can remember doing a botanical survey of an Irish island, crawling around fields with a hand lens, a copy of Clapham, Tutin and Warburg's excursion flora and a monograph on the Dactylorhiza orchids of western Ireland and finding Dactylorhiza specimens showing features belonging to 4 apparently separate species. Little sods those orchids!

BTW, the Nation of Islam–led CDC protest is only eight days away!

Carson, a neurosurgeon who waffled on creationism and vaccines, the alleged educated neurosurgeon, thinks he's a aqualified, presidential candidate ? What a sick statement about the best country in the world USA ? This is a joke, right?
The country that went to the moon six times has people running for the presidency who doubt the utility of vaccines and believe in delusional concepts of creationism, and think they it can deal with the Middel East? We will be eaten alive. We get what we deserve... The end has never been closer. A senator of immigrant parents who's elected to the senate and has the worst senate voting record of any of his peers. He should be turned out of office. He said it doesn't matter because the president will veto anything. He should not be a US Senator. And president? What is it he does not get? Why does the public not think this is relevant?

You also need to remember that science was not a requirement for medical school pre-1977 (the start of MCAT's). Even after that, it took a while before medical schools started considering science as integral to a medical education. Carson got in with a degree in 1970's psychology.... Even today, most science folks will state that psychology is not a science (including myself and I was going to be one until I took 4 classes and realized it was 99% BS).

The antivaccine movement wins in Oregon: Senate Bill 442 is dead

oracknows — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 05:45:32 +0000

The antivaccine movement wins in Oregon: Senate Bill 442 is dead

How quickly things change.

If there's one thing I always feel obligated to warn my fellow pro-science advocates about vaccines and the antivaccine movement, it's that we can never rest on our laurels or assume that the tide is turning in our direction. The reason is simple: Antivaccinationism is a powerful belief system, every bit as powerful as religion and political ideology. It's powerful not just among antivaccinationists, but also because it taps into belief systems that are very much part and parcel of being an American. In fact, depressingly, yesterday I learned of a perfect example of this unfortunate phenomenon. Remember my discussion of Oregon Senate Bill 442? It's a bill that was being considered in Oregon in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak that would eliminate nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates. It's also the same bill that chiropractors (amazingly) wanted to have antivaccine guru Andrew Wakefield testify in front of the Senate health care committee, but that plan was rendered null and void by the justifiably negative reaction to the possibility of having a scientific fraud like Andrew Wakefield testify against a bill. At the time, I thought that was an indication that the bill might have a chance of passing.

I was wrong. I should have known better. The power of the antivaccine dog whistle is not easily denied. If you don't believe me, take a peak at the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism and what it posted last night, basically a link to this article in the the Statesman Journal entitled Oregon senator to propose new school vaccine policy:

Oregon legislators are backing off a proposal that would have made it tougher for school children to opt out of vaccinations.

Instead, Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward said Wednesday she will propose a different policy that would encourage more school children to get vaccinated but continue to allow nonmedical exemptions. It also would provide alternative paths for parents to comply with the law.

Senate Bill 442, which had one public hearing and attracted national attention, would have eliminated religious and philosophical exemptions from school shots. Only medical exemptions would have been allowed.

So why did this happen? Why did Steiner back off? Simple. pressure from an unholy coalition of antivaccine loons and "health freedom" advocates:

Before the bill's first public hearing, Steiner Hayward was confident it had the majority of votes in both the Senate and the House. However, on Wednesday, she said that support had weakened, necessitating an alternate course.

"Some of my colleagues changed their minds," she said. "They got a lot of pressure one way or another. This is an issue that really mobilizes a very small minority of people, but it makes them very loud. I get that. That's their right. But there were a bunch of people who weren't prepared to take on this controversial of a topic at this point."

While the bill had strong support from public health and medical leaders, including Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon Medical Association and Providence Health & Services, a vocal group of parents who either delay or avoid vaccines for their children has been active in opposing the bill.

While many are concerned about vaccine safety, some opposed the bill on grounds of medical freedom and parental autonomy.

If you want to know how bad things got in Oregon, consider this. After the furor over the invitation by chiropractors to Andrew Wakefield to testify in front of the Senate committee, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr—RFK, Jr.!—lobbied Oregon lawmakers not to pass this bill. As a result, the bill appears to be dead, although it sounds as though Sen. Steiner wants to try to pass a bill similar to California Bill AB 2109, which requires parents seeking a personal belief exemption to vaccine mandates to see a health care professional to sign the exemption form. the purpose, as I discussed before multiple times when AB 2109 was being considered, was to make it more difficult for parents to claim personal belief exemptions than just signing a form. Even then, Governor Jerry Brown neutered the new law with a signing statement instructing the California Department of Public Health to include on the exemption form a religious exemption that doesn't require a healthcare professional to cosign the form. It was a profound betrayal of California children and an almost certainly unconstitutional abuse of his authority as Governor in which he basically overrode the legislature's intent.

So, instead of a strong bill that eliminates nonmedical exemptions to vaccine mandates, Oregon is likely to pass a much weaker bill, although even that is not assured, given the fierce resistance of antivaccine groups, who have been relentless. In the meantime, there is even a legislator, Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, who is considering this, ""Ultimately, we probably need to review whether or not Oregon needs a constitutional amendment to make sure parents are in control of their kids' health care." Meanwhile, another legislator, Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg, published a newsletter saying he believed vaccines are linked to autism and accusing the CDC of mismanagement and corruption, both of which are talking points "made in the documentary Kennedy showed to lawmakers last week." What documentary was that?

Trace Amounts:

He showed the documentary "Trace Amounts," which centers on mercury in vaccines and its relationship to autism, at Cinebarre in downtown Salem. The documentary also accuses government researchers and public health agencies of corruption and fraud.

Kennedy made the trip to Salem with one goal. To influence lawmakers to vote against Senate Bill 442, the vaccine mandate bill.

It wasn't just Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., either:

Kennedy was accompanied by Brian Hooker, a California biomechanical engineer. Hooker wrote a reanalysis of a 2004 research that found no links between the measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine and autism. In the paper, Hooker accuses the CDC of covering up data that showed black boys had a 3.4 times greater risk of autism associated with the MMR vaccine.

Hooker's study, which was published in Translational Neurodegeneration in October 2014, has been retracted. The retraction statement reads that "post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings."

Despite that, Hooker's findings continue to be used to argue against vaccines.

You remember Brian Hooker, don't you? Think "CDC Whistleblower" pseudo-scandal. Think a reanalysis of the 2004 DeStefano et al paper that was so utterly incompetent that even a brand new journal eager to attract submissions saw no other choice but to retract it. Think a biochemical engineer who believes that the simplest statistical methodology is the best and applied it to the DeStefano et al data in such a way that epidemiologists who saw what he did wanted to tear out their eyes to unsee the atrocity against epidemiology he had committed in the name of "simplicity." (Let's just put it this way: "Simple" often means not adjusting for confounding factors.")

I've discussed the concept of the "antivaccine dog whistle" on multiple occasions before. A dog whistle, of course, produces a sound at a higher frequency range than most humans can hear, but dogs can hear it. In politics, a "dog whistle" says something that most of the population finds admirable (or at least inoffensive), but people of certain groups recognize it as speaking to them, as telling them that the person blowing the dog whistle is "one of them." It's a technique that's been used of late by everyone from antivaccine-sympathetic pediatricians like "Dr. Bob" Sears to Rand Paul to the aforementioned Oregon Sen. Robert Kruse to, yes, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.:

Kennedy made the trip to Salem with one goal. To influence lawmakers to vote against Senate Bill 442, the vaccine mandate bill.

"We can't solve a credibility problem by forcing people to undergo a medical procedure without informed consent," Kennedy said before the event.

That "health freedom" argument in which vaccine mandates are portrayed as denying parents "informed consent"? Pure antivaccine dog whistle, an appeal to parental "rights" over the rights of their children. True, it's not as blatant as Rand Paul's infamous statement, "The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom." It does, however, do what most antivaccine appeals to "freedom" and "informed consent" do, and that's to ignore the child as an autonomous being. Rather, the child is simply an appendage of the parent, and it is the parents' "freedom" and "rights" that trump the child's right to good health care and preventive medicine.

More importantly, as I've explained multiple times, what antivaccinationists like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. are really arguing for is something I've dubbed "misinformed consent." That's consent based on the antivaccine message, which massively exaggerates risks of vaccination, makes up risks that science has not found despite looking intensively (such as autism due to vaccination), and greatly underplaying the benefits of vaccination. If enough misinformation is aimed at parents to demonize vaccines as dangerous and ineffective and the parents accept that information, either because they don't know any better or because there is no counterbalancing source of information, then it becomes "reasonable" to refuse vaccinations. That is the very essence of misinformed consent.

Lately, the grande dame of the antivaccine movement, Barbara Loe Fisher herself, has been dog whistling up a storm, invoking language favored on the right of the "culture war" in a post entitled The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready?:

In this case, in addition to the usual appeals to "freedom" and "rights," Barbara Loe Fisher takes a particularly despicable turn:

More than 1.2 million people in the United States are infected with HIV 1 but government officials do not ban HIV infected children and adults from attending school, receiving medical care, being employed, or otherwise participating in society. In fact, there are anti-discrimination laws that guarantee civil rights protections for Americans infected with HIV or living with AIDS.

In 2012, public health officials reported that about two million people in America are infected with chlamydia, tuberculosis, syphilis and gonorrhea, 3 and they estimate another three million people are infected with hepatitis C. 4 Like those with HIV or AIDS, these citizens are not targeted for discrimination and blocked from getting a public education, being employed or moving freely in society.

Right off the bat, Fisher is being intellectually dishonest to a degree even beyond what I'm used to seeing from her. You can see her setting up a comparison to unvaccinated children by comparing how they are not allowed to go to school with how children with AIDS and various sexually transmitted diseases are. It's clearly and blatantly an attempt to argue that the government treats people with these diseases better than it treats unvaccinated children. Of course, HIV is not easy to spread. It requires sex or contact with blood or bodily fluids like semen, and even then it's not that easy to catch. Hepatitis C also requires direct contact with blood or bodily fluids, although it is much easier to spread by those means than HIV. The rest of the diseases, with the exception of tuberculosis, are all sexually transmitted diseases that won't spread unless the kids are having sex.

Tuberculosis itself is—fortunately—no longer that common in the US, and, if it has been treated properly, rapidly becomes no longer contagious. Moreover, if a case of active TB is identified in a student, health officials do take strong action. It just happened in Oklahoma a week ago, when a student with active TB was identified. This student was isolated and treated, and 315 students were ordered to undergo TB testing.

So what's the problem? The diseases vaccinated against, with the exception of HPV, vaccination against which is intended to prevent cervical cancer, the diseases vaccinated against for school are highly contagious. Measles, for instance, is one of the most contagious diseases known to humans, with infective particles hanging in the air for long periods of time after a measles victim coughs. To compare a bunch of diseases transmitted by sexual contact and blood contact with diseases spread through the air with droplets or through contact with fomites is as intellectually dishonest as it gets. In any event, the rest of Fisher's tirade is a "greatest hits" of recent antivaccine responses to the Disneyland measles outbreak (e.g., this one) and any whiff of a hint that states want to restrict non-medical vaccine exemptions, with complaints about censorship, "shaming," and concerns about revocation of the licenses of antivaccine doctors (this last of which, by the way, will almost certainly never happen anywhere).

Here's where Fisher goes into full dog whistle mode:

Rational thinking has been the first casualty in this 21st century equivalent of a 17th century witch hunt 43 led by defensive doctors in government, industry, academia and media, who are fed up with parents asking them questions about vaccine risks and failures they can’t answer. 44 45 46 47 Assisted by communication conglomerates 48 and Astroturfers, 49 50 51 52 53 they piously wave the science flag and call parents “anti-social” if they don’t vaccinate 54 but completely ignore parents with vaccine injured children talking about how their vaccinated children are never healthy anymore. 55 Some of the most vicious attacks have been on families consciously choosing to stay healthy a different way 56 57 and on doctors caring for families whose children are unvaccinated or receive fewer vaccines on an altered vaccine schedule. 58 59

After headlines like “What would Jesus do about measles?” 60 and “God wants you to vaccinate your children” 61 marked a new low in American journalism, it became clear that the so-called “vaccine war” 62 63 is really a culture war 64 on freedoms, values and beliefs that have long defined who we are as a nation. 65 66 67 How it is fought and where it ends will determine the kind of nation America will become in the 21st century.

Funny that Barbara Loe Fisher would make a reference to the 17th century, given that the views that lead her to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about vaccines derive from ideas dating back at least that far. In any case, notice how neatly she co-opts the language favored on the right of the "culture war," language that was rose to prominence when Pat Buchanan, in his speech at the 1992 Republican Party Convention, declared a "cultural war," a "struggle for the soul of America." Her video is about as obvious an example of the antivaccine dog whistle as I've been able to find, in which it's not really about vaccines but rather about "freedom," "values," and what America should be.

If you want to know why antivaccinationists use this rhetoric, look no further than Oregon. It works. It taps into a very deep well of distrust of overweening government dating back to the very formation of our country and deeply embedded into the very DNA of our culture. Because of that, it attracts people who are not antivaccine to work for antivaccine goals, such as easier-to-obtain non-medical exemptions, all in the name of freedom. It's why antivaccinationists won in Oregon even in the middle of a major measles outbreak, an outbreak that's accounted for 119 cases in Quebec alone due to a the child of a missionary who visited Disneyland on the way home and brought measles to a religious community whose members don't vaccinate. It worked even though the Disneyland measles outbreak had seemingly turned the tide of public opinion against the antivaccine movement. Antivaccine loons will quite possibly win in California again against a similar bill designed to eliminate non-medical exemptions, SB 227 for the same reasons. Antivaccine activists appeal to emotion because they don't have the science, but it's a potent weapon, as emotion frequently does trump science. It's not enough for us to fight antivaccinationism with science. We have to find a message as potent as the invocation of freedom to counter the antivaccine dog whistle. Until we do, we will likely continue to lose.

oracknows Thu, 03/12/2015 - 01:45

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

autism

complementary and alternative medicine

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

Elizabeth Steiner Hayward

Jeff Kruse

Jerry Brown

measles outbreak

National Vaccine Information Center

Oregon

Oregon Senate Bill 442

Rand Paul

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

complementary and alternative medicine

Categories

Unfortunately, we cannot fight fire with fire on this one. We can't lie. We can't missinform. We can't make spurious associations between things and publish papers to be retracted. The cult of the antivaxxers operates on the same principle as terrorism in that they only need one win to get their ideology to be heard. They only need one child to have a bad reaction to a vaccine, one lot of vaccines to be recalled, or one misstep from one of us to have a big impact on their followers and on those siting on the fence. We have millions of scientists, yet they wave Hooker and Wakefield around as if they're the high priests of all that is science. We have millions of committed physicians that love their patients and do what is best for them. They have Sears and Gordon, two men with medical degrees, to tear apart the truth that pediatricians the world over see vaccines as life savers and see even a handful of measles cases as an enormous threat. We have thousands of hours invested in our educations, verified our knowledge through exams and certifications... They have Google.
We have your blog, my blog, Todd W's blog, to explain in clear language what the science means. They have their blogs and celebrity spokespeople to obfuscate the truth. And now I have this entire comment while they're likely to take the "terrorist" part and accuse everyone who comments here of calling them terrorists.
It makes me wonder why I'm heading into Baltimore to take a biostats final exam... Oh, that's right. It's so I don't make an ass out of myself and have people laugh at me for thinking that simple statistics are more elegant than actual statistics.

A similar lobbying effort is being made by antivaccinationists in Minnesota to block a bill that would require parents be informed about the risks and benefits of vaccines before they can get a philosophical exemption. More info on that here.

I have to admit I can't be entirely rational when viewing the Barbara Loe Fischer' video. The appeals to emotion on which she relies have the opposite effect on me: it makes me ANGRY to hear her treat vaccine exemption as equivalent to HIV status in legal protection. As though being HIV+ is something that people choose to do. The rhetoric is just sharp enough to hide the fact that her viewpoint is based on fear, uncertainty and doubt.

An effort to eliminate personal exemptions in Washington state died yesterday too.

Getting vaccines is about having freedom, actual, authentic freedom, not the ersatz "treat your children like chattel" freedom that anti-vaccine activists promote.

Freedom from illness. Freedom from injury and death. Freedom from the fear of these things.

What is truly sad here is that public health policy is being decided by who is screaming the loudest instead of rational examination of medical and scientific evidence. If the people of Oregon would rather follow the misinformation and flat out lies of completely unqualified stooges like Kennedy, Hooker and Wakefield then their children will ultimately pay the price.

Did some reading on newsletter articles by Senator Jeff Kruse, the Vice-Chair of the Oregon Senate Committee On Health Care. State Senator Kruse is a turkey farmer by occupation, and his newsletter is a hilarious collection of anti-science essays:

Here's a taste, verbatim:
"The issue is not the vaccine itself; it is the chemicals they put in the vaccine to extend the life of the product which are mercury and aluminum. I have believed for some time that there is a real link between vaccinations and autism, and it is connected to these two chemicals. Unfortunately the CDC continues to deny any connection and will not allow access to the data which would either prove or disprove the assertion. Our frustration is we are not allowed access to the hard science we need and should have access to. It should also be pointed out there is no accountability, as the CDC is both judge and jury in the matter."

Re: Jeff Kruse, yes, he's the vice-chair of the health committee that would have had to vote affirmatively on this measure before it could advance to the senate as a whole.

His other views include support for anti-immigration policies and global warming denialism. He's in favor of the use of GE crops, though, so I wrote to him and asked whether he was aware that every single argument in his newsletter against vaccines had been used virtually word for word against GMOs (BigAg corruption, revolving door FDA, not enough safety studies, glyphosate causes autism, toxins, toxins, toxins).

Sadly, he hasn't written me back.

Just consider this exhibit Q that antivax sentiments do not confine themselves to a single political party. This is a sobering loss, to be sure, but we're not done trying.

“The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.”

This statement made me think about a question. Would those people rise to defend a person who took a gun and shot their child in the head? No reason, just because they could.

Because really, why shouldn't parents be allowed to do that? That is serious limitation of their freedom to do as they want with their "property".

I thought RFK Jr claimed he was NOT anti vaccination and he was simply concerned about "mercury" in vaccines. His actions opposing the Oregon bill certainly put the lie to that. What a loathsome piece of work he is.

Ren @ 1: The real fire is not the lying & so on, it's the use of emotional messaging. And we can fight that fire with a far more powerful fire, all of it squarely based in facts.

The antis' emotional messages have two parts: One, "freedom," the other, "fear."

Stirring up "freedom" emotions basically comes down to making a value statement: "Freedom is a good feeling. You feel more free when nobody can tell you what to do." As a generalization, that's _true_, but the angels are in the generalizations and the devils are in the details. The good feeling is one of unfettered ego, which, taken to an unreasonable level, is easily identified as egotism.

Stirring up "fear" is where the overt lying etc. comes in, and we all know the list.

What do we do about that? To counter an emotional message effectively, requires invoking and inducing emotions that overcome and/or that transfer the emotions that the other side is seeking to invoke and induce.

Fear can be transferred, and this one is easy: The fear of autism is a "modern" fear, but it pales into insignificance next to the ancient and deeply-engrained fear of measles and other life-threatening contagious diseases. This we saw when the outbreak was all over the news.

Freedom has a complimentary civic value: responsibility and good citizenship. Freedom without responsibility is seen as recklessness or selfishness, both of which bring scorn that partially nullifies whatever pleasure comes from feeling "more free." Invoking the feeling of responsibility and good citizenship successfully, works in two steps: One, invoking guilt, shame, contempt, etc. toward unacceptable behaviors. Two, invoking a shift of ego identification toward responsibility as an expression of maturity.

Examples:

Slogan for use as headline on print media ads: "Measles is eight times as contagious as Ebola. Do the right thing. Protect your child and your child's friends." The first sentence is literally true, it intrinsically evokes fear, and any attempt to refute it is easily found to be an overt lie. The second sentence is a value statement appealing to the sense of responsibility. The third sentence is the action that the audience is asked to perform, and it identifies the individual child with the community at-large.

TV or radio spot: "The sound you are hearing in the background, is the sound of a baby with whooping cough. (here are some facts about whooping cough, etc.). Do the right thing. Protect your child and your child's friends." Here the audio invokes fear, and the closing lines invoke identification with the sense of responsibility.

Any testimonials by people who survived these diseases, were disabled by them, or know someone who was seriously ill, disabled, or died as a result, will also evoke fear that makes the fear of autism seem insignificant.

Statements about civic responsibility and good citizenship, by respected figures, will evoke the relevant feelings and the desire to be identified with those feelings and figures.

Putting these elements together using evocative symbols and statements, and (important) using sufficient repetition to become familiar, will overcome the antis' messages and make them seem selfish and irresponsible. This probably won't change any antis' minds, but it can reach undecideds or people who are leaning anti. And if the antis try to argue against a civic responsibility message, they will only expose themselves further as being utterly selfish and lose support.

Legitimate public health risks aside... has anybody considered the possibility that attempting to enshrine scientific consensus into law is a really, really, really, BAD idea?

I don't know what you mean, Matt--in what way is that happening in this situation?

@Gray and Ren > unfortunately in the political arena emotional appeals so often hold they day. The muck one gets into in legislative business always leaves an honest person feeling slimy. Having worked at advocacy for some time now I find focusing on the outcomes makes the inevitable appeal to emotion slightly palatable. Though facts are a very important backbone, they have to couched in rhetoric that appeals to the audience.

"But there were a bunch of [cowards] who weren’t prepared to take on this controversial of a topic at this point.”

FTFY, Senator Steiner.

I was just speaking on general philosophical grounds- not specifically to this bill.

Taking a look at this bill in particular I see now that it doesn't do that.

It does, however, declare a state of emergency. A poor choice, and dishonest in my opinion.

Scientific consensus is not in any way being enshrined in law--instead, legislation addressing public health policies are being rationally informed by scientific consensus.

Which is, or course, exactly as things should be.

So, let's see if I understand correctly:

"Health Freedom" doesn't matter when I want to put other people at risk by smoking in a restaurant

BUT

"Health Freedom" DOES matter when I want to put other people at risk by not giving my kid the polio vaccine

And nobody in Oregon sees the problem with this?

Commenters at AoA appear to be quite happy.

It does, however, declare a state of emergency. A poor choice, and dishonest in my opinion.

Only in the language of policy, which translates to the ability to enact the new measures as soon as the bill passes, rather than waiting for it to grind through months of procedural paperwork. Opponents like JB Handley made a lot of hay out of 'emergency?? I don't see any emergency!!' mockery, but a cursory understanding of the legislative system reveals that it's a strategic characterization that's used fairly routinely.

To Todd W. on comment #2-

Thank you for that information. Reading through the post that you linked to, I noticed that only certain representatives and senators were mentioned as people to contact. Why not the others as well? Does this mean that the others are definitely in favor of SF380/HF 393?

Here, for example, the same tactic is used so that legislation regulating legal marijuana sales doesn't lag behind the onset of legalization itself: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/SB124

A policy is different from a law. Policies are set by agencies which are typically authorized by law to create said policies.

Policies can, and should, be rationally informed by scientific consensus because, as policies, they can be updated and changed if and when the consensus changes.

Laws are much more difficult to change. As evidenced by the plethora of outdated (and ridiculous) laws on the books. For example, laws forbidding one to swear in front of a lady, or have sex in any position other than missionary.

Lately, there are attempts springing up to use the force of law to compel people to follow their doctor's advice. Vaccination is just one example. In my opinion, this is a really, really, really BAD idea.

Perhaps- similar to what was proposed in this here bill- people (including apparently Congresspeople) should be required to demonstrate that they understand how our legal system works before attempting to tinker with the laws.

@Jen Phillps

That you refer to it as a "tactic" proves my point. Words have specific meanings. The entire idea behind laws themselves rely upon words having particular meanings which everybody can agree upon.

When we change the meaning of words for reasons of "tactics" or expediency (in other words because we're too lazy to do it the right way) we undermine the entire fabric of linguistics upon which the whole concept of law is predicated.

"Commenters at AoA appear to be quite happy."

I have it on good authority that Wakefield open-mouth kissed Hooker... On the mouth.

Lately, there are attempts springing up to use the force of law to compel people to follow their doctor’s advice. Vaccination is just one example. In my opinion, this is a really, really, really BAD idea.

What? The LAW already requires that children be vaccinated as a condition of attending school or daycare. That's why the language attached to all these subsequent bills deal with "exemptions" [to the pre-existing law]. It's constitutionally established that matters of public health trump personal health freedom. Just as smoking in the theater or being naked in a convenience store, etc. are violations of established health codes, so is being unvaccinated in school. In all cases, states are allowed to regulate their own exemptions and enforcements.

Clarification of this point is really important, IMO. Many people banging the health freedom drum interpreted SB 442 as "MANDATORY VACCINATIONS OMG", which is not at all the case. Had it passed, parents would still be able to choose not to vaccinate, they just wouldn't be able to enroll their kids in school or daycare.

That you refer to it as a “tactic” proves my point. Words have specific meanings. The entire idea behind laws themselves rely upon words having particular meanings which everybody can agree upon.

When we change the meaning of words for reasons of “tactics” or expediency (in other words because we’re too lazy to do it the right way) we undermine the entire fabric of linguistics upon which the whole concept of law is predicated.

Jeez, dude. Look, if you feel that the use of the word 'emergency' is so empirical that you cannot abide its utterance outside of a very specific set of circumstances, whatever. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. My point is that, at the present time, this is how the political system works. 'emergency', in that parlance, means 'expedient'. Most importantly, the characterization of emergency status was NOT unique to this bill.

Policies are set by agencies which are typically authorized by law to create said policies.

Policies are also defiined through legislation--what other than public health policies addressing prophylactic vaccination would the now-quashed legislation eliminating non-medical exemptions have affected?

Lately, there are attempts springing up to use the force of law to compel people to follow their doctor’s advice.

What laws are you speaking of? I'm aware of none.

There have been, to be sure, attempts to craft laws which again address or establish public health policy (such as California's 2009 legislation banning restaurants from using of trans-fats), but I know of none that atempt to force ndividuals to comply with their doctor's recommendations.

Here's an example:

Arrest Warrant Issued for Florida Mom Who Refuses to Get Son Circumcised

@Jill

I included the emails for the representatives and senators on the respective committees reviewing the bills. Those who are not listed, I wasn't able to find emails for at the time I was writing the post. While it would be useful to contact other state legislators, those are the key members to convince of the facts at the moment.

Here's another example:

Should Physicians Force Patients to be Incarcerated?

... and the link to the NEJM article:

Court-Ordered Care — A Complication of Pregnancy to Avoid

@Jen Phillips

Apparently, you are of the opinion that we can just willy-nilly change the definitions of words to suit our purposes in the moment.

As such- there is no point in me conversing with you further as I cannot be assured that the words we exchange will be held to commonly-accepted definitions.

Have fun re-inventing language for the "greater good." I hope it doesn't work out for you.

And nobody in Oregon sees the problem with this?

I highly doubt that nobody in Oregon sees the problem with this, having lived there for a time myself.

Have fun re-inventing language for the “greater good.” I hope it doesn’t work out for you.

LOL. Have fun sticking to your premise that words can only mean one specific thing in all contexts. I'll bet there are some creationists out there who'd love to have your support over the definition of the word "theory".

I have to admit the picture looked so happy I misread this as SB442 passing at first.

A few points:

A. It's especially ironic in my view that NVIC, for example, opposes not just attempts to restrict exemptions but also resolutions and statements to encourage higher vaccination rates (and of course educational requirements). More than anything I think that highlights that it's really about reducing vaccine use, not increasing vaccine choice.

B. We can and should take the language of rights back. The people arguing against restricting exemptions are -
1. As Orac highlighted, preferring their right (specifically their right to reject science) over their children's right to health.

2. Even if we accept that they have a right to choose the bigger risk for their own child - the risk of disease - school immunization requirements aren't about that: they're about their right to impose the result of that choice on other parents and children, by making school environments less safe for those children. People do not have a right to do that.

3. This isn't about forcing people to take medical advice. Absent a court order, a parent still has to consent to a vaccine. But choices have consequences, and it doesn't follow that refusing a vaccine means you get a free pass.

C. It might be good to remember - and highlight - that the general law is the law of school immunization requirements. People requesting exemptions are requiring waiver of the general law applicable to everyone else. They're asking not to be subject to the usual requirements. This means:

i. It's completely fair to condition the waiver on whatever conditions the state wants.

ii. They're asking for a privilege. I think letting them claim the mantle of freedom when they are really asking that reasonable, important laws that apply to everyone else not apply to them is giving a free pass to special treatment. They're not asking for equality or non-discrimination: like people asking for tax exemptions, they want the laws - and the societal burdens - to apply to others, but not to them.

@ Matt

Seriously? Having mandatory vaccination in specific contexts is going to lead to/condone forced incarceration or circumcision?

By your logic, maybe we should disband child protection services. Same stuff. These government agencies are here to enforce policies and laws telling parents what they should do or not do to their children.

Read on the slippery slope fallacy.

No, Matt: that isn't an example of criminalizing the failure to obey one's doctor's orders.

Thats an example of a woman being arrested for willful refusal to abide by the terms of a joint custody agreement in place between herself and the child's father.

I agee that in your second example the judge's order that the woman be required to submit to her physician's care and that they be allowed to physically prevent her from leaving the hospital was a violation of her constitutional rights, but again this doesn't represent an example of a law enacted requiring patients follow their physicians orders or advice. It's a judge, issuing an order from the bench directed at a single individual, and as far as I can tell without any legal basis.

Your second link appears broken.

Air travel now involves mandatory violation of personal rights, specifically, the right to be free from search and seizure without probable cause. You are free to refuse this violation by choosing alternative means of travel. How is making vaccination a requirement for public school admission any different?

Why is Hep B vaccine mandated? It is not a very contagious disease. Moreover, the number of Hep B deaths have actually increased after the introduction of the vaccine in 1990. See fig. 7 here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3290915/

How is making vaccination a requirement for public school admission any different?

I've asked numerous variations of that question over the past months. The answer is always something like "Because [air travel] doesn't involve injecting dangerous toxins and aborted fetuses into my child."

Going by evidence-based science regarding infectious disease, I'd be hard-pressed to say anti-vaxers in the Oregon community "won" anything. But, if portlandians feel like taking themselves out of the gene pool, more power to them.

Matt: You know nothing about public health law and education law. That's why the Oregon State legislature had a "bill" sponsored by an Oregon State Senator. Most States have two legislative bodies (Nebraska is a a unicameral State). Once the bill is passed in States' legislative chambers and is signed into law by the Governor, those bills become laws.

Seriously, get a clue.

@Ren and @Gray Squirrel:
The antis are way more social media-savvy than we are. Just check out all the eye-popping misinfographics they have. We need people who know how to do things like that that people actually share and actually influence people who aren't following ScienceBlogs every day.

@MarkN--
not just Portlandians, lots of folks in Eugene and Southern Oregon as well.

I'm not ok with the idea that anyone should suffer from VPD as a result of this stupidity, but knowing that the suffering won't be restricted to the unvaccinated by choice makes it even harder to bear.

@#33 Well yes, that was a bit of hyperbole on my part, in this case "nobody" should be read as "the clowns who are calling the shots".

By the way, the comments on that Statesman-Journal article linked in the OP are teeming with every antivax conspiracy theory ever conceived. In the interest of spreading the word beyond Scienceblogs, please consider chiming in.

@ Vijay

As usually, the devil is in the detail. Actually, let me quote the abstract of the article you linked to:

An encouraging trend is that the incidence of acute hepatitis B in the United States declined as much as 80% between 1987 and 2004, attributable to effective vaccination programs as well as universal precautions in needle use and in healthcare in general. While encouraging, these decreases in acute infections have not translated into diminished prevalence or burden of chronic HBV infection. The prevalence for HBV in the United States has been estimated to be approximately 0.4%. However, these estiamtes have been based upon surveys conducted in samples in which population groups with high prevalence of HBV infection, namely foreign-born minorities, were underrepresented.

In short, the reason Hep B-related deaths augmented may have something to do with the underestimation of actually sick people and the recent arrival in US of people from regions where hepB is more active.

As to not very contagious... It depends on what you do. As a biologist, I am expected to have to manipulate blood and other bits of human origin and this vaccine was mandatory for me before attending university.

@ Helianthus

Yes, the devil is in the details. Everything has pros and cons. According to this statement from AAPS:

"For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B."

http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/hepbcom.htm

Even so, I have nothing against the Hep B vaccine. But you can't mandate anything that YOU believe is good for others.
Can I mandate broccoli for you thrice a week?

Vijay,

Moreover, the number of Hep B deaths have actually increased after the introduction of the vaccine in 1990.

I would hazard a guess that this is a baby boomers phenomenon. There is a mass of people born post-WW2 currently heading into old age, and we will see a rise in death rates from all causes as a result, despite a falling birth rate. Some of those baby boomers will have hepatitis B, which takes decades to cause liver cancer and death, so the effects of vaccination on deaths have not yet had time to become apparent, if you see what I mean.

As for it not being very contagious, I worked with a woman who discovered she had contracted the virus, presumably from working with blood, as she wasn't in a high-risk group. She had cleared it uneventfully, as most people do, and only found out when her antibody titres were checked.

Vijay,
AAPS is not considered a reliable source of information by reputable doctors. They are a bunch of right wing loonies, in my opinion.

But, if portlandians feel like taking themselves out of the gene pool, more power to them.

1. It's Portlanders, not Portlandians.
2. Watch it.

@Krebiozen,
Okay, let us ignore AAPS. Can you go to your trusted sources and fill in the blank in the following sentence:

“For most children, the risk of a serious Hep B vaccine reaction is ____ times the risk of getting a hepatitis B infection.”

What if this spreads to other areas outside of Oregon, like Austin , TX or Boulder, CO? What if the anti-vax movement is nothing mire than the right wing trying to take out the lefties???

Maybe the problem lies with trying an approach using medical science, instead use more of an irrational approach.

If you can convince the anti-vaxxers that really it is a conspiracy as they all feared, that the conservatives are trying the infectious disease approach, getting these liberal communities to reduce voter numbers by not vaccinating. YES, that's how you do it.

If we have to lose a few neonates along the way, well that's certainly a sacrifice the anti-vaxxers are willing to make for everyone.

Hey JP,

bicycle rights!!

I f*cking hate that show.

Mainly because it's not even funny.

I wonder what the antivaxxers will do if other countries pass laws that prohibit entry into their country unless your vaccinations are up-to-date and you can provide proof that they are so?

Krebiozen is not the only scientist who thinks the AAPS (and their now defunct journal), is not a valid source of science-based information:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Sur…

“For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B.”

http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/hepbcom.htm

She did some VAERS dumpster-diving to come up with that number rot.

“For most children, the risk of a serious Hep B vaccine reaction is ____ times the risk of getting a hepatitis B infection.”

Orders of magnitude less than.

Vijay,

Okay, let us ignore AAPS. Can you go to your trusted sources and fill in the blank in the following sentence:
“For most children, the risk of a serious Hep B vaccine reaction is ____ times the risk of getting a hepatitis B infection.”

The risk of a serious reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine is in the region of 1 in 1.1 million.

In the US 12 million people have been infected, making the lifetime risk of infection roughly 1 in 30. In children under 19 alone, 3.4 per million are infected.

Based on that I would rearrange your sentence as follows:

For most children, the risk of getting a hepatitis B infection is 3 times the risk of a serious Hep B vaccine reaction.

Following the child into adulthood, it's more like:

For most children, the lifetime risk of getting a hepatitis B infection is 36,000 times the risk of a serious Hep B vaccine reaction.

These are very rough ballpark estimates but I hope they help.

AAPS is not considered a reliable source of information by reputable doctors. They are a bunch of right wing loonies, in my opinion.
Krebiozen is too kind. I go for "The John Birch Society with stethoscopes".

and their now defunct journal
The JAP&S is still extant.

You forgot:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/03/14/journal-of-american-physic…

Basically, if the journal of the AAPS, JPANDS, published that the sky is blue, I'd look outside of my window to confirm before I'd believe it.

BTW, Matt, whoever you are, you come across as someone with an ax to grind. Perhaps I should ask: Which vaccines do you consider effective and safe and why?

Laws are much more difficult to change. As evidenced by the plethora of outdated (and ridiculous) laws on the books. For example, laws forbidding one to swear in front of a lady, or have sex in any position other than missionary.

For someone who is nattering on about the meanings of words, you seem to have an awfully loose grasp on "evidenced."

"For most children, the risk of a serious Hep B vaccine reaction is ____ times the risk of getting a hepatitis B infection.”

FTFY Vijay:

"For ALL children, acquiring Hep B infection/remaining as a lifelong carrier and at risk for fulminant liver disease or hepatocellular cancer, is thousands of times the risk of receiving hepatitis vaccine".

Vijay, hepatitis B is on the list because:

It's a highly contagious disease

It's spread by contact with infectious blood and body fluids and not only through sexual contact or intravenous drug use

Exposure to hep B can result in development of a chronic infection, where one is asymptomatic but has significant circulating elvels of hep B virus, making one a potential vector for new infection

65% of all people who have a chronic hep B infection are completely unaware of the fact that they are infected

The likelihood of developing a chronic he B infection following exposure is inversely related to age at the time of exposure (the younger you are, the greater the risk)

80–90% of infants infected during the first year of life develop chronic infections and 30–50% of children infected before the age of 6 years develop chronic infections.

Overall 30 to 40% of all chronic hep B infections are acquired during childhood

20 to 40% of chronically infected individuals will develop cirrhosis or liver cancer as adults

In the US alone there are roughly 1.3 million chronically infected individuals, and we record between 2000 to 3000 deaths associated with chronic hep B every year

And finally

The hep B vaccine is 95% effective at preventing infection and the development of chronic disease and liver cancer due to hepatitis B

That answer your question?

Matt:

Here’s an example:
Arrest Warrant Issued for Florida Mom Who Refuses to Get Son Circumcised

I hope this is not intended as an example of "attempts springing up to use the force of law to compel people to follow their doctor’s advice", because following the link, it has nothing to do with medicine or doctors.

@Gray Squirrel:
Your first example would make an excellent basis for an infographic that could be socially mediaed. Anyone here have the skills to make it or knows someone who does?

@Krebiozen
"For most children, the risk of getting a hepatitis B infection is 3 times the risk of a serious Hep B vaccine reaction."

But do you know that most cases of childhood infection are caused by mothers who are infected with hep B? So for kids whose mothers are not infected, the risk is much lower--lower than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction.

But you still believe that the hep B vaccine should be mandatory for a one-day old infant whose mother is not infected?

(Teenagers or adults can decide for themselves whether they want a hep B vaccine. It is also safer by then.)

Actually, this study found that about half of infections under 10 were from infected mothers and about half were not. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/5/1123.abstract?ijkey…

That anti-vaxxers sure hate the Hep B shot. Perhaps Matt is not aware that one of the main ways babies get Hep B is at birth from their mothers. The birth shot is intended to reduce that risk. Though if the mother is known to be infected at birth the child will get vaccine and immune globulin at birth to further reduce their risk of contracting the infection. Besides, the vaccine is very (very very very very very) safe, so why not give your kid the best shot at not getting a chronic disease that is likely to go on to give them permanent disability or death by getting them vaccinated? I crunched the numbers on Hep B for a class I took and its truly frightening the number of people who are very shortly going to be dying due to liver failure due to Hep B.

Vijay - not all women presenting to deliver their child have a Hep B status that is known. Even if it is known, they can still refuse the shot. Since the risk is highest to get Hep B young (as explained above it significantly increases the risk of chronic infection and subsequent liver damage) then children should get it as soon as possible. Birth is a good time. That way if mom is infected and it isn't known, baby still has a good shot at not contracting. It also protects them during the time period where if infected they have the highest risk of harmful effects from the virus. Plus it is safe to give at birth.

Vijay,

But do you know that most cases of childhood infection are caused by mothers who are infected with hep B? So for kids whose mothers are not infected, the risk is much lower–lower than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction.

Citation? Does horizontal transmission to children only happen in fewer than 1 in 1.1 million children? I don't think so. Horizontal transmission of hepatitis B in children is by no means uncommon:

Children with chronic HBV are more prone than adults to be HBV e antigen positive and to have a high viral load. At the same time, children are more likely to have contact with each other’s body fluids, such as saliva and tears, and therefore have a high risk of horizontal transmission. Horizontal transmission is especially important in children who are at a high risk of acquiring chronic, asymptomatic infection when exposed to HBV. That children often are asymptomatic after infection with HBV lets them enter the large pool of chronic carriers unnoticed.

Why not vaccinate all babies? The risk is tiny, and as far as I know the only severe reaction to hepatitis B vaccine is anaphylaxis, which is easily treated.

But you still believe that the hep B vaccine should be mandatory for a one-day old infant whose mother is not infected?

Yes. I live in the UK where only babies of high risk mothers are vaccinated. I wish it was routine for all babies. This disease has no animal reservoir and could be eliminated if universal vaccination could be achieved. Then no one would need vaccination.

(Teenagers or adults can decide for themselves whether they want a hep B vaccine. It is also safer by then.)

What makes you think it is safer then? Parents can refuse the vaccine if they wish anyway. I don't see the problem.

Jen Phillips: “The LAW already requires that children be vaccinated as a condition of attending school or daycare. “

Uh, no it doesn't. It might be on the books that unvaxxed kids aren't allowed to attend public school or day care, but the actual laws are so watered down- and there's no way to enforce it- that there might as well not be laws at all. Heck, people would be more worked up about random nude people in convenience stores than they ever get about unvaxxed kids.

Dorit Reiss: It might be good to remember – and highlight – that the general law is the law of school immunization requirements.

Again, you are the expert on this, but keep in mind there's no mechanism of enforcement. If there's no enforcement, and lots of ways to get around a requirement, the law may as well not exist.

Frankly, I am so sick of this. Why not just give the parents what they want and take away vaccines, hospitals and medical personnel and give them to areas that actually want all three? We'll see how long anti-vaxx sentiment lasts when the parents have to set their little snowflake's bones, by themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean no mechanism of enforcement. If a child doesn't have an exemption, the child can be barred from school, and several states have - including in recent times - enforced that.

If the parent doesn't vaccinate, doesn't send the child to school and doesn't meet the state's homeschooling requirements they may face penalties for truancy.

@ justthestats:

Agreed about Gray Squirrel. And yes, we do have a graphics person about. A few actually.

For a contrast- go over to Natural News today ( Vaccine Cultural War) to see Mikey's creativity at work ( you may need to go to NN TV, which is linked) : an 8 minute video about vaccines and fascism. Designed for facebook.

AS we say around here: Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!

@Krebiozen

I think we could go on arguing about the exact numbers. The point is that there is some risk of hep B vaccine and there are some benefits. Different people disagree about the exact numbers (which is as it always is, and which is as it should be).

But here is a deal. I know that vegetables are good for your kids. So for every vaccine you mandate for my kids, I would like to mandate one veggie for your kids. Deal?

@Kiiri

"That anti-vaxxers sure hate the Hep B shot."

Well, no more than anti-vegetarians hate broccoli. And who are these anti-vegetarians. They are people like you who oppose mandatory vegetarianism.

Frankly, I am so sick of this. Why not just give the parents what they want and take away vaccines, hospitals and medical personnel and give them to areas that actually want all three? We’ll see how long anti-vaxx sentiment lasts when the parents have to set their little snowflake’s bones, by themselves.

You do realize that this is never going to happen, and shouldn't happen, right? For one thing, find me an area where the majority of parents don't vaccinate. Not that even if a majority of parents in an area didn't vaccinate your idea would be ethical. The Biblical G-d was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of ten righteous men - one would think we could show at least as much mercy.

So you're going to say, well, the people in those areas who do want healthcare can move somewhere else - but I've got something to tell you - mass resettlement is a weird freaking Stalinist fantasy. Seriously. So yeah, the whole idea is absurd.

Speaking of awful Russian leaders whose names end in "in," Putin fell off the radar entirely about a week ago, it seems. I'm hoping he's very ill, dying, or dead.

Vijay,

I think we could go on arguing about the exact numbers. The point is that there is some risk of hep B vaccine and there are some benefits. Different people disagree about the exact numbers (which is as it always is, and which is as it should be).

Not really. As someone once wrote, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Whatever way you look at it, the benefits of hepatitis vaccination vastly outweigh the risks.

But here is a deal. I know that vegetables are good for your kids. So for every vaccine you mandate for my kids, I would like to mandate one veggie for your kids. Deal?

I'm not mandating anything for your kids. I think it is reasonable to ask that parents take all safe and practical measures to prevent their children from contracting and spreading contagious diseases in schools. You don't want to vaccinate? Home school or find a state where you can get an exemption.

How does my child's vegetable consumption have any potential impact in your child's health?

Vijay: Here's a reason to give children the Hep B vaccine: children bite.

Imagine this scenario: one child bites another at the playground. Years later, the bitten child discovers that they have chronic Hep B, which means that they have to be very careful with any sexual partners, probably shouldn't have any biological children, and will probably need a liver transplant.

Dude, the childhood Hep B shot prevents serious liver disease, for which there is no infection-specific treatment (unlike Hep C). The better question is; why wouldn't you want to protect all children?

Doris:

If a child doesn’t have an exemption, the child can be barred from school, and several states have – including in recent times – enforced that.

Not very often, though. I mean, I've got two kids in public school. Fully vaccinated. And do you know how the school knows that they're vaccinated?

They politely asked me.

That is literally the only enforcement there is. No evidence is requested or pursued. No doctor's note, vaccine records, nothing. Just a sheet of paper from the school where they cordially request you enter the approximate date each was given. And thay completely trust you.

The districts got very concerned during a recent chickenpox outbreak here, because though chickenpox vaccination was recommended, it was not mandatory. So they launched a new policy, where if a chickenpox case was observed in a school, all non-vaccinated kids would have to stay home for the duration to keep them safe and limit the spread of the diease. Again, their status as non-vaccinated was based entirely on parent reports.

So the only kids who have been expelled for non-vaccination are the ones whose parents feel strongly enough about anti-vaccination to make an issue of it. The ones who just lie, or who assert that they are doing a catch-up regimen, face no penalty whatsoever. And heck, how would anyone ever find out? If their kid gets a vaccine-preventable disease, it'll just be chalked up to vaccine failure.

The laws do definitely have merit, and they definitely work to encourage widespread vaccination of school-age children. But the enforcement is comically mild.

I would like there to be a law mandating certain vaccinations for air travel. Air travel is unhealthy, I make several international flights each year and every year I I usually get at least one respiratory infection following a flight.

Uh, no it doesn’t. It might be on the books that unvaxxed kids aren’t allowed to attend public school or day care, but the actual laws are so watered down- and there’s no way to enforce it- that there might as well not be laws at all.

Nonsense. In the state of Oregon, schools and childcare facilities are required *by law* to keep vaccination records on each child. They are required for enrollment. Each year at the end of February is the reporting date for vaccine compliance within all facilities statewide. Kids whose records indicate that are not fully compliant with the standard vaccine schedule by that date must either provide proof of vaccination or one of the aforementioned exemptions. To do nothing results in expulsion. This is annually enforced by public health entities across the state.

To follow up on Calli's experience, all the records I've ever provided for my kids had to be signed by a health care provider.

@Krebiozen
"I’m not mandating anything for your kids."

Wow. Thanks for redefining the word "mandate." If you can elaborate on the new definition, I will let the Oxford dictionary folks know.

Wow. Thanks for redefining the word “mandate.” If you can elaborate on the new definition, I will let the Oxford dictionary folks know.

"I'm not [instructing or ordering] anything for your kids."

What part of that doesn't make sense to you, Vijay? The vaccination schedule is a recommendation (with some consequences for non-compliance), not an order that cannot be refused.

"recommendation (with some consequences for non-compliance)"

Is there a single word for this description that is used by ordinary folks who are not linguists.

Vijay, you are the one claiming that 'mandate' was incorrectly used by Krebiozen. I still don't know the basis of that claim. A recommendation with some consequences for non-compliance is not the equivalent of a mandate. As discussed, vaccination is a *requirement* for enrollment in public school or daycare. Medical or personal belief exemptions to this requirement are available to qualified individuals in many states. There is the additional option to *not* enroll your unvaccinated child in public school or daycare. That is a far cry from a blanket mandate.

A general order to the public to be vaccinated doesn't exist anywhere in the US.

I know that vegetables are good for your kids. So for every vaccine you mandate for my kids, I would like to mandate one veggie for your kids. Deal?

The two mandates are not analogous, I'm afraid.

But if you can demonstrate that not eating vegetables in a timely fashion places not only my chidlren but also others at risk, in the same manner that seeking non-medical exemptions from routine childhood vaccinations places my chidlren at increased risk of infection and by comprising herd immunity others at risk of serious harm I'll gladly accept a mandate they eat veggies on a regular and specified schedule--say, daily at lunch and dinner.

Oh, wait:! They already do...

Viajy, is it your belief that "mandate" and "prerequisite" are synonyms?

Wow. Thanks for redefining the word “mandate.” If you can elaborate on the new definition, I will let the Oxford dictionary folks know.

When Krebiozen in South London acquires legal powers over your children, you might have more pressing concerns than notifying the lexicographers.

@Jen,
In the media and elsewhere, the word used is "mandate." If you disagree, then let me know, what word you would use instead. Of course, every word in a language has many shades of meanings.

Talking about the misuse of language, the pro-vax folks are calling people who want a choice as anti-vax instead of pro-choice.

Ultimately, this endless vaccination debate is all about the unsavory consequences for parents who don't comply with these recommendations. If you don't support the unsavory consequences, then I have nothing to disagree with you. But as far as I can tell, everybody who argues in favor of vaccines supports the unsavory consequences for non-compliance. That includes you and Krebiozen.

I'm unaware of any "unsavory consequences" having been discussed here, but if you consider it an unsavory consequence to be excluded from public spaces that are also occupied by medically vulnerable individuals then sure, I'll cop to that.

@JGC
"Vijay, is it your belief that “mandate” and “prerequisite” are synonyms?"

No, it is my belief that the commonly used word for required vaccination is "mandate."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20230978

Talking about the misuse of language, the pro-vax folks are calling people who want a choice as anti-vax instead of pro-choice.

I'd say whining for a special dispensation to, y'know, not vaccinate and be completely free from consequences falls pretty squarely in the former category.

WTF is "unsavory consequences" supposed to even mean? Unless there's a valid medical reason, kids should be vaccinated before they're sent off to hang out in a room all day with a bunch of other kids, some of whom might be particularly vulnerable to disease. If parents are really committed to not vaccinating, they can homeschool, as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, we also don't just let people go grocery shopping in the nude and rub their crotches all over the produce. There might be unsavory consequences.

No, it is my belief that the commonly used word for required vaccination is “mandate.”

In specific situations when vaccination is a *prerequisite* for participating in something (like school or a job), yes. As a general tenet of society, no. No one is MANDATING that you or your child be vaccinated in general. That vaccination is a requirement for inclusion in some circumstances is not the same thing.

I mean, we also don’t just let people go grocery shopping in the nude and rub their crotches all over the produce. There might be unsavory consequences.

But what about my health freeeeddooooommmmmmm? I deserve the right to do my own research on how wearing clothes inhibits my ability to bond with my food. And that produce is too damn sexy for its own good, anyway.

Dude, have you ever seen an eggplant? And let's not even get started on crookneck squash.

@Narad
"I’d say whining for a special dispensation to, y’know, not vaccinate and be completely free from consequences "

Thanks for calling this land of the FREE, a land of the WHINERS. The free folks have won in Oregon for now. And as they say, liberty and freedom can never be taken for granted because medical fascists will always try to take it away.

Dorit: " If a child doesn’t have an exemption, the child can be barred from school, and several states have – including in recent times – enforced that."

They can't enforce it if the child goes to a charter or a private school. Charters are legally protected and don't have to abide by any regulation covering a public school.

JP: I'm a little confused. Why would people be upset about services they never used not being available anymore? Oh, they might be a little embarassed when the former local ped writes about how wonderful her new life in Rwanda or Brazil is, but I doubt they'd be upset. It's just a matter of fiscal prudency- taking services that aren't used to areas where they will be used and appreciated. And it is just a fantasy- I'm not that heartless in real life, but I do think anti-vaxxers need to start paying the price for their convictions.
For my money, he's just lying low until the Nemtsov thing blows over. Very few people are buying the cover story, and he knows it's flimsy. I do hope he dies a flashy, embarrassing, improbable and public death, (meteorite at close quarters,preferably) but we both know rotten people live forever. Anti-vaxxers are living proof of that.

Talking about the misuse of language, the pro-vax folks are calling people who want a choice as anti-vax instead of pro-choice.

Because it's a false choice based on misinformation and willfull misinterpretation of science.

the unsavory consequences

I think I will start lobbying for the right to be exempted of paying the entrance fee when I want to go watch a movie. I believe I should have the choice to decide if I want to pay or not. Being barred from watching the movie is an unsavory consequence and an affront to my freedom.

liberty and freedom can never be taken for granted because medical fascists will always try to take it away.

I didn't realize that George III was a physician.

George III
Another victim of MEDICAL FASCISM.

Thanks for calling this land of the FREE, a land of the WHINERS.

Believe it or not, Francis Scott Key is not actually the foundation of U.S. government. Get back to me when you can figure out the difference between liberty and freedom.

Why would people be upset about services they never used not being available anymore? Oh, they might be a little embarassed when the former local ped writes about how wonderful her new life in Rwanda or Brazil is, but I doubt they’d be upset. It’s just a matter of fiscal prudency- taking services that aren’t used to areas where they will be used and appreciated.

That's the whole thing. There's no "area" where people don't "use and appreciate" health care. Despite MarkN's above stated opinion that Portlanders should "take themselves out of the gene pool," Multnomah County, where Portland is, has vaccination rates for childhood diseases hovering generally between 94 and 95%. That's better than Oregon's average rate. It's a small minority of people there who don't avail themselves of vaccinations, and that's just one piece of health care. Personally, I like children, and I don't want to see them suffer and die needlessly in various awful ways because all the health care in their area was "moved" somewhere where people would "appreciate it" more, even if their parents are stupid.

Re: Putin. He's not the type of guy to "lay low" for any reason at all, as far as I can tell. He didn't bother laying low after invading freaking Ukraine and annexing Crimea, for instance. I suspect I may be disappointed, and I actually don't wish any particular suffering on the man, but I do think his swift death would be a boon for the world, Russia in particular.

From this day, henceforth, I mandate that all infectious diseases must receive permission from parents on whether they can infect kids. Those diseases that have not received such approval will therefore be declared non-gratis and shall be banished from the kingdom.

A. In my son's school too immunization record was required. People can lie or fake records, but they take a risk doing that.

B. In states whose laws I examined, immunization requirements also apply to private schools. The legislature cam
Certainly require it. I came across no state that doesn't, though I haven't looked in detail at all state statutes.

We have to find a message as potent as the invocation of freedom to counter the antivaccine dog whistle

How about a world without measles?

@PGP

They can’t enforce it if the child goes to a charter or a private school. Charters are legally protected and don’t have to abide by any regulation covering a public school.

Uh, yes, they can. Most states include private and charter schools in their vaccine requirement regulations.

Why would people be upset about services they never used not being available anymore?

We've been over your abhorrent recommendations before. Go back and re-read the responses you got the last time you suggested this.

And it is just a fantasy- I’m not that heartless in real life

The way you talk on here suggests otherwise, but it could be you feel more free to say what you really think online than you do IRL. Not exactly reassuring, though.

@Vijay

Perhaps you can explain which vaccines are safe and worth getting as recommended.

The political influence of loud minorities goes nowhere without money. With enough money, it can trump overwhelming popular support. Obvious example: the NRA. There's overwhelming popular support to do SOMETHING about gun violence, but even the most lukewarm policy proposals are anathema to legislators, because the gun nuts are so well-organized, so activist, and have so damned much money they can not only fund all the work of organizing and agitating, but swing the even more important campaign contributions.

So the questions for Steiner Hayward's back-down are:
1) Who were the key legislative leaders who organized their colleagues to tell her they wouldn't support the bill?
2) Which legislators who expressed non-support were folks we might reasonably have expected to be on board? I.e., who got scared, rather than being genuinely ideologically opposed as we'd expect Jeff Kruse and other TeaBaggers to be?
3) What/who scared them? Was there actually enough swing vote in their district that a mobilized anti-vax base could swing an election (that wouldn't be that common, methinks)? Or was it a money issue — i.e. significant anti-vax money would go to an opponent who would campaign effectively on OTHER issues? If so, who/what was the source of the money threat?
4) Was SB442 always a negotiating chip to begin with? Did Steiner Hayward and other pro-public-health legislators know eliminating all non-medical exemptions wouldn't fly, but put it forward as a means to gauge the ground, flush out the opposition, and make a more limited measure seem more palatable? I.e. throw the dogs a fake bone, so they don't bite so hard on the 'compromise' that will follow. E.g., the Obama Administration has been widely criticized by progressives for putting forth the 'compromise' measures to begin with, only to have the partisan forces of the GOP abandon their previous positions and demand even more movement toward their new more-extreme positions, while seeming 'reasonable' in criticizing the Dem's for failing to participate in 'give-and-take'. Thus something like CA AB2109 (minus Brown's de-fanging) could have been the presumed end-game from the get-go.

I'm all for more potent messaging, of course :-), but that may have more effect on actual public sentiment and encouraging truly responsible 'vaccine choice' than in changing legislation.

JP: "It’s a small minority of people there who don’t avail themselves of vaccinations, and that’s just one piece of health care."

I personally see it as a big part of health care, and it disgusts me that anti-vaxxers, who yell about how awful doctors and immunizations are, still want bones mended, tumors taken away and appendixes removed. They shouldn't expect any sort of treatment at all. The only pressure they might respond to is social pressure- if the neighbors won't speak to them because the doctor moved away because of them, that might make anti-vax people reconsider.

Todd W: The way you talk on here suggests otherwise, but it could be you feel more free to say what you really think online than you do IRL. Not exactly reassuring, though.

Isn't that the point of the internet? To say stuff you never would in life? And why isn't that reassuring? The internet is a stage with a costume party on it, not merely a news service/messaging board.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but it's probably going to take the reappearance of one of the REALLY scary diseases, like polio, in America or Europe to get legislators to take action.

I personally see it as a big part of health care, and it disgusts me that anti-vaxxers, who yell about how awful doctors and immunizations are, still want bones mended, tumors taken away and appendixes removed. They shouldn’t expect any sort of treatment at all.

However big a piece of health care, it's just one health part of health care, and I wouldn't deny life-saving care to anybody, even if they're stupid. I especially could never conscience doing that to children. But then, like I said, I like children. I realize some people might be able to think of them as just little "disease vectors," but every job except one that I had before grad school involved working with kids. (The one that didn't was a year I worked providing in-home care for developmentally disabled adults.) Kids are people - particularly vulnerable little people who don't have much control over their own lives.

The only pressure they might respond to is social pressure- if the neighbors won’t speak to them because the doctor moved away because of them, that might make anti-vax people reconsider.

Uh, what? Do you not realize that taking away healthcare from an entire "area" would be an immensely larger evil than a small percentage of people not vaccinating their kids? The whole point of medicine is to help people. I mean, Holy Christ. I don't want to see anybody suffer needlessly, even people who dumb things, but especially not people who just happen to live near those people. But then malice in general is genuinely foreign to my soul.

@DarkScholar82

I would argue that measles is a scarier disease than polio. Much more contagious, much greater risk of serious injury. Diphtheria and Hib probably also rank higher than polio. Not as contagious as measles, but more deadly. Granted, I've actually looked at what these diseases do and hope I have a reasonable ability to assess risk.

Who knows, though, what people would consider to be a "really" scary disease. They might see polio as scarier than measles or pertussis because, well, people are in general pretty poor at assessing risk.

@JP

Don't bother. PGP is a misanthrope. She has very black-and-white thinking, absolutist opinions, and is generally extraordinarily offensive. She also stubbornly refuses to learn from her past gaffes. Nuance and ethics are lost on her.

Here's a sample of the depressing comments on the S-J piece:

My child has a right to a free and appropriate public education, end of story. Anything that infringes on that right is not constitutional, is immoral, and in this case there is no emergency that would come close to justifying the removal of parental rights nor my child's right to an education. In fact this law would have bumped up against federal laws that mandate our school provide my child with speech therapy, and occupational therapy even if home schooled because of her disability. And thanks to my fellow Oregonians my child will continue in school as it should be. There would have been so many devastating consequences of this bill; financially to schools and the state when people moved or removed their children from school, medical care as people would abandon standard caregivers to avoid the harassment and threats and turn even more to alternative caregivers, home birthing, and NO well-baby check ups. That is why this bill is in the dumpster...poorly thought out....poorly planned....poorly researched....and poorly executed. In fact it may have done more to win people to our side than anything I have seen in 20 years. Thanks!

This may answer some of Sadmar's money questions at #114

JP: "However big a piece of health care, it’s just one health part of health care, and I wouldn’t deny life-saving care to anybody, even if they’re stupid."

Well, the whole point of the anti-vax movement is that they're smarter than the doctors, and diseases will recognize their natural superiority and shy away. As far as I'm concerned, the parents deserve to be called on their bluff. I would, however support efforts to uncouple the medical care of minors from their parents, since so many parents are making bad decisions, and quite a lot aren't suited to taking care of disabled youngsters. As far as I'm concerned, being anti-vax should disqualify a parent instantly from being a caretaker of a disabled minor.

@Todd
"Perhaps you can explain which vaccines are safe and worth getting as recommended."

You could try to evaluate each vaccine on its merits. But it is a lot of work and there are many uncertainties.

An alternative that I suggest is to use an older CDC schedule- say the 1985 schedule (before the US law exempting vaccine makers from liability was passed).
Even in 1980s, there weren't any serious large scale epidemics.

If I remember it right, the 1985 schedule included polio, DTP and MMR. If you feel strongly about anything else, like Hib, you could add that as well.

I probably would not add Hep B, chickenpox, HPV, or flu. I haven't looked at the remaining four vaccines in detail.

The older vaccines are also likely to be safer (more time-proven). Your kid would also get fewer shots during any single office visit.

Funny thing about Brian Hooker and his autism study re-analysis. I have not been up to dig up the original data set, and Hooker is not talking, but at one point he lets slip a vital detail: in his chi squared test he says that the bins are redefined from 36+ months to 31+ months so that every cell would have an occupancy of at least five.

While it is good that he followed the recommendations for bare-minimal-acceptability, the strong implication is that his data set is tiny. Every practicing scientist knows that odd things happen sometimes, especially with small populations, so I am perfectly happy to conclude that a minimal significance criterion was met by the specific data set in hand yet it would be unlikely to see the result confirmed by an independent investigation.

Which is actually the function of significance testing, to guard against fooling yourself with spurious data sets, but that important fact has been drowned out by all the shouting from enthusiastic advocates who improperly believe that "p less than 0.05 proves that my theory is true."

@Robert Bell
If you like statistics, you should read this:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

In all likelihood, Hooker learned these statistical tricks from the authors of some pro-vaccination studies.

I'd rather my kids endure shots than the diseases they protect against. If it's a concern about "too many, too soon", there is a very pointed reason they recommend these shots at the age they do. I once asked my friend, a pediatrician working primarily in the NICU, why the shots are scheduled that way - is it b/c they have/encourage frequent well-child visits during the first 2-3 or 4 years of life? She replied with an emphatic "No! We recommend the current schedule b/c children are most vulnerable to VPDs the first few years of life!".

I think (and hope to the heavens) most anti-vax/vax-hesitant parents would protect their kids in the end, if faced with an urgent and tangible threat to their children's health. So I propose we offer, particularly to those who think that these diseases are "no big deal" or "it would be better for them to have the actual disease than the protection from it", this choice (as they are genuinely and primarily concerned with the "choice" than the shot itself): if you want to place your kids in a public setting where their health status could impact that of others, take your choice of a syringe filled with a targeted protection of a disease or a syringe full of the disease itself. Again, I hope to high heaven that at least half would choose the former. A girl can dream, right??

@Jessica
"...take your choice of a syringe filled with a targeted protection of a disease or a syringe full of the disease itself."
Interesting thought, but flawed. CDC had only 7 different vaccines in the late 1980s; now they have 16. And at the rate they are going, they could have dozens more in the near future.
In normal course of life, an unvaccinated kid would only get a few of these diseases , not all.
Exposing a kid to ALL the diseases is insane.

If you like statistics, you should read this:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Vijay, given that you have, of your own FREE Will,* invoked this particular Ioannidis item, please explain – in your own words – the difference between PPV and NPV.

* No, Gordon Liddy's better than that.

@Narad
PPV = TP/(TP+FP)
NPV = TN/(TN+FN)

Anyway, here is a question for you:

The PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test commonly used for prostate cancer screening has a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 60%. Based on his age and race, a man has a 1% probability of prostate cancer before the PSA test. What is his probability of cancer after the test if he tests positive?

Anyway, here is a question for you

No. If most positive findings are false in this framework, what are most negative findings?

@Robert L Bell

the strong implication is that his data set is tiny

Indeed, Hooker (1) looked at a very small sample AND (2) truncated that sample--which is remarkable, given that he complains that CDC did not report all the data, Hooker threw out data.

Here's a nice analysis of Hooker's incompetent, brief visit to the land of statistical analysis:

http://www.stats.org/african-american-boys-and-autism/

@Narad
Most negative findings are never published. Either the sponsor of the trial buries them, or the journal finds them uninteresting.

Please read this. (The author RS was the editor of BMJ for 25 year):

Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0…

BTW, only 15% of doctors who order the PSA test can answer my key question about the test correctly.

Most negative findings are never published.

1. Answer the original question. Nobody asked you to blunder into Ioannidis in the first place.

2. What does this say about those that are published? Oh, wait, it's the PAYMASTERS.

The German antivaxxer Stefan Lanka pledged to pay 100.000 Euro to anyone who could prove the existence of the measel virus. Some biologist accepted and sent pictures and more. Of course Lanka wasn't gonna pay so they went to court where he now was ordered to pay.

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/diagnose/existenz-des-masernvirus-stef…

@Narad
"Nobody asked you to blunder into Ioannidis in the first place."

Do you own the copyrights to Ioannidis' paper? Should I have taken your permission before posting a link to his paper?

Of course Lanka wasn’t gonna pay so they went to court where he now was ordered to pay.

Needs more Kary Mullis.

@Narad
“Nobody asked you to blunder into Ioannidis in the first place.”

Do you own the copyrights to Ioannidis’ paper? Should I have taken your permission before posting a link to his paper?

Singular "paper"? "Copyrights?"

Even in 1980s, there weren’t any serious large scale epidemics.

No kidding really?
Hib disease was endemic with ~20,000 children infected annually.
Hepatitis b caused about 26,000 infections annually.
There was a nice little measles outbreak (again primarily amongst unvaccinated) with more than 55,000 cases and more than 150 deaths.

I probably would not add Hep B, chickenpox, HPV, or flu. I haven’t looked at the remaining four vaccines in detail.

But you say you recommend an alternative schedule based on what exactly? The number of jabs? How very scientific.

@Science Mom

Perhaps Vijay was using the following definition of epidemic: more cases than would be expected. I mean, he still fails, but just trying to understand.

@Vijay,

Okay, so you agree that MMR, DTP (as opposed to DTaP), polio and Hib are okay to give on-schedule?

not add Hep B, chickenpox, HPV, or flu

Why not those vaccines? Do you have a scientific basis for your reasoning, or is it just your feeling about them?

And you feel that the older formulations are safer? Based on? What about changes that were made to formulations specifically to make them safer?

It took a little bit of digging around, but I found a copy of the 1985 vaccination schedule in a PKIDS newsletter. Some things to point out to Vijay:

* Whole-cell pertussis vaccine was on the schedule. It is more effective than the current acellular version, but also carries a slightly higher risk of adverse reactions (though still mostly minor).
* The polio vaccine that was on the schedule then was the oral polio vaccine, which is a live attenuated virus vaccine. Again, while more effective then the current IPV, it also carried the risk of VAPP.

So, you're actually advocating for an increase in risks. I find that very interesting.

Even in 1980s, there weren’t any serious large scale epidemics.

Well, sure, if you take the black plagues sweeping whole countries as a reference.

Seriously, anti-vaxers, could we try to implement health policies before situations start spiraling out of control?

Taxes. We use them on tobacco with some effect. I know it's a bit creepy, but in a single payer system with electronic records, when folks want medical treatment you could catch whether their vaccinations are up-to-date, and send them a bill if they aren't. Not helping out by immunizing creates costs that the person is not paying for. We fine people for going too fast on the roads because it endangers others.

rork, not sure if that would be legal. However, I have a Medical Aid (Discovery). They let me get the flu jab for free, and even give me rewards points for doing so. What might work is for Medical Aids to charge higher rates to those who don't vaccinate or give extra benefits to those who do.

Vijay, In the early 1990s--before the addition of varicella vaccine to the recommended childhood immunization schedule--in the United States each year we saw on average 4 million people (mostly children) become infected with chicken pox, 10,500 to 13,000 of whom would require hospitalization and about150 of whom would die due to the disease. .

That's why we vaccinate against it.

Would you like to try explaining the reasons why you wouldn't vacinate against it?

@vijay

I have looked at the paper you have referenced and it seems that you either did not read it or your thinking is a bit muddled, or both. Actually, the answers to your questions are all there for your perusal. You are fearmongering about the vaccine because the frequency of deaths due to HepB increased for some years after the introduction of vaccination and yet you fail to notice that since than the frequency plateaued and started to decline (see fig.7 you cited). Surely you did not expect that the trend would be reversed immediately by vaccination of newborns (it takes some time before the people, who acquired the disease before the start of vaccination, die of it), didn't you?
You would be much more effective troll if you did not cite papers that contradict what you want imply.

Martin

"want to imply ", sorry.

Regarding the hep B vaccination, I recently was evaluated for my fitness to donate a kidney to my brother. My first sets of bloodwork indicated that I was not exposed to hep B. However, later in the process a different test came back positive. After a work up with an immunologist, they still don't know why I tested positive. While I could have had it and it resolved without me knowing it, that appears unlikely since I did not have a significant reaction to the vaccine. But given the risk, I am incredibly glad I had all 4 of my children vaccinated at birth.

I have all the past CDC Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedules here. Prior to 1995, the CDC did not issue yearly vaccine schedules:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/past.html

Perhaps Vijay would like to provide us with his/her qualifications to comment about the decisions made by the FDA to license vaccines and the ACIP and the CDC to place those vaccines on the Childhood (and the Adult) Recommended Schedules.

Denice Walker @ 78
I could not get the player to work at Natural News,but the video has just been posted on YouTube this morning.The weapons grade burning stupid is something you might want to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsQgR_oAolM

JGC@ 93
That gets to the message of the video.Any prerequisite is a forced government mandate that leads to Nazi "death panels".

Jen Phillips @101
Unless I see anything to the contrary,I am convinced these people believe their "freedom of choice" trumps everything.Including herd immunity,protecting medically vulnerable populations.As has been said many times before,generations of vaccine compliance have given antivaxers an unrealistic picture of how serious diseases like measles are.

I don't even think the reemergence of polio is going to change these people's minds,and I do think that is around the corner.

Vijay@131

The comments to this article are especially telling,and worth a read.

@Narad
Thanks for correcting the grammar. With so much stuff going on, the Internet could always use a good grammarian.

By the way, which drug company do you work for?

@ Science Mom
Yes, an epidemic is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you know that over 300,000 Americans die every year from hospital and medical errors, and over 100,000 die from adverse drug reactions. Ten times as many are seriously injured.

But that does not qualify as an epidemic because it is not in the news. Why? Because no newspaper benefits (commercially) by talking about it. Nor is any shill paid to talk about those deaths.

@Todd
"So, you’re actually advocating for an increase in risks. I find that very interesting."

No. You could use the current version of the polio vaccine. I am not saying to use the 1985 versions of the vaccines. But use the 1985 vax schedule (with minor adjustments that make sense for 2015).

And Vijay finally dove into the shill conspiracy.

And actually, plenty of people talk about adverse events in healthcare. It's publicly reportable and CMS takes money AWAY (in the form of reimbursement, as in, that big shill money making enterprise will show they can be safe or they won't get reimbursed) from hospitals that don't meet patient care/safety benchmarks. Several states require public reporting so the public can look. Even hospitals formally exempt (PPS-exempt) due to high patient risk for complications (such as cancer hospitals, research facilities with transplant and burn units) are no longer going to be exempt. So yes, there are plenty of people talking about patient safety. YOU just don't know enough about what you're talking about to look for where it's mentioned. And EVERYONE can look at it. https://data.medicare.gov/data/hospital-compare

Also, you said The older vaccines are also likely to be safer (more time-proven). Your kid would also get fewer shots during any single office visit. indicating that yes, you did want to use the 1985 versions and therefore have no idea what you're talking about.

@Vijay

"Thanks for correcting the grammar. With so much stuff going on, the Internet could always use a good grammarian."

Certainly more than any cluless anti-vaxxer asshats like yourself. You're welcome.

Vijay,

Yes, an epidemic is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you know that over 300,000 Americans die every year from hospital and medical errors, and over 100,000 die from adverse drug reactions. Ten times as many are seriously injured.

Errors happen, and measures are taken to prevent them. Things have improved greatly over the past few decades. When you consider that over 50 million medical procedures are carried out each year in the US, many of them that carry a serious risk, that's a 0.6% fatal error rate, which puts it into perspective.

As I wrote in reply to a similar claim a couple of days ago, even assuming that the claim about fatal drug reactions is true (it isn't), it is meaningless unless we consider the benefits of these drugs as well. How many people's lives are saved by these drugs? How many of these patients would have died anyway, without conventional treatment? How many patients have their quality of life improved by these drugs?

For example, anticoagulant drugs are among the most dangerous prescription drugs; they cause an estimated 2,800 excess major bleeds a year in the UK. They also prevent an estimated 16,100 strokes a year, including 4,400 fatal strokes (PDF) and the NHS estimates that prescribing more of them would prevent an additional 3,500 deaths each year. I'm sure that the figures in the US are very similar.

@Vijay

No. You could use the current version of the polio vaccine. I am not saying to use the 1985 versions of the vaccines.

Frequent Lurker beat me to it, but you definitely stated the following:

The older vaccines are also likely to be safer (more time-proven).

That implies that you think the older formulations were safer than newer formulations. Also, if you want to go by the 1985 vaccines schedule, it clearly has the OPV, not the IPV (which was also available at the time), on it. So whether we go with your argument that the older vaccines are safer or by the 1985 schedule, you are advocating for using vaccines that carry a greater risk than today's schedule/vaccines.

This suggests to me that you really have not properly researched the subject and do not know what you are talking about.

The primary reason the vaccine companies want to take away all vax exemptions is so that no unvaccinated or undervaccinated kids remain around for comparison with fully vaccinated kids.

Because the worst thing for them is a future study which shows that unvaccinated or undervaccinated kids remain healthier and live longer on average than fully vaccinated kids.

Meanwhile, if all vax exemptions are taken away, the least we should do is to change the US national anthem from
"Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave"
to
Land of the Sheep, and Home of the Fascists"

Vijay, any chance you'll answer my question @ 144? I'm curious why you believe returning to an average of 4 million chicken pox infections every year, many of which will require hospitalizatios and some of which will lead to deaths, is something to be embraced.

@Todd
"This suggests to me that you really have not properly researched the subject and do not know what you are talking about."
Thanks for your extremely kind and profound comments.

Thanks to all you guys for an entertaining discussion. It is interesting to see than one pro-choice guy can keep several vaccination-fascists busy for a long time.

@ Roger Kulp:

Oh I know! I saw it via NN's direction to Natural News TV.
Mike's videos compete with Gary Null's films for egregious quotes and un- restrained inappropriate analogies.

But then I would expect that.

Vijay: "If I remember it right, the 1985 schedule included polio, DTP and MMR. If you feel strongly about anything else, like Hib, you could add that as well."

Proof you have no idea what you are spouting off about. Under that schedule I had to deal for month with very sick kids suffering from chicken pox, including a six month old baby. I assume that as a guy, it would be beneath you to attend to an infant in pain all night long. Nor would you care about her pain.

Only a sadistic child hater would want them to suffer with dozens of itchy open wounds (pox) for up to two weeks. I wish the varicella had been available a year or two earlier.

Though before she was born, the oldest child got a disease we now vaccinate for and had seizures, with a trip by ambulance to the hospital. You see, unlike some of the anti-vaccine types like Cia Parker who claims her daughter had encephalitis... I actually did call 911 and took the kid in for medical care. By the way, that seizure may or may not be the reason for his disabilities.

"It is interesting to see than one pro-choice guy can keep several vaccination-fascists busy for a long time."

Actually you are not "pro-choice", you are pro-disease, and do not care one bit about the health of children.

Thanks to all you guys for an entertaining discussion. It is interesting to see than one pro-choice guy can keep several vaccination-fascists busy for a long time.

Don't flatter yourself. Most of the effort that goes into debunking the BS you're spouting isn't for your benefit, but to try and provide resources for those who might be seeking honest, objective answers. So thank YOU for being such an excellent foil.

By the way, which drug company do you work for?

When all else fails, fall back on the pharma shill gambit. Hey, at least it's a switch from "I didn't post what you guys say I posted!"

Indeed. Man, these antivaccine types have an inflated view of their own importance!

@ Vijay

vaccination-fascists

Showing your true colors, eh?

As someone whose grandparents went through true fascists regimes, I'm amused you think yourself of a rebel.

One of my great-uncle, when asked about what he did around the 40's, answered humbly and tongue-in-check that he was working at a railroad station and "I was keeping the doors open".
He was a much more courageous guy, and way much more of a rebel than you will ever dream to be.

Yes, an epidemic is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you know that over 300,000 Americans die every year from hospital and medical errors, and over 100,000 die from adverse drug reactions. Ten times as many are seriously injured.

Just goes to show how much you know about epidemiology and argument fallacies. There are specific criteria for what constitutes an epidemic. Your Tu Quoque fallacy has been noted and slapped down by others.

The primary reason the vaccine companies want to take away all vax exemptions is so that no unvaccinated or undervaccinated kids remain around for comparison with fully vaccinated kids.

Someone's tin foil beanie is too tight. "Vaccine companies" (as if there is even such a thing) have nothing to do with vaccine exemptions; those fall under the purview of state legislatures. You are clearly using the braindead rallying cry of your fellow dimwitted anti-vaxxers re: health freeeedumb!!!11 Even if non-medical exemptions were removed you are still free to keep your spawn unvaccinated, pure and toxin-free.

@Narad
...
By the way, which drug company do you work for?

That's rich.

It is interesting to see than one pro-choice guy can keep several vaccination-fascists busy for a long time.

I wonder what color I should get my jackboots in? I suppose pink would be appropriate, since I'm also a Feminazi, but my lands, I detest pink clothing.

Thanks to all you guys for an entertaining discussion. It is interesting to see than one pro-choice guy can keep several vaccination-fascists busy for a long time.

In what way is that interesting, Vijay?

-btw- AoA is crowing that tighter vaccine exemption laws are being withdrawn in various jurisdictions.

I am glad to see this article, but I confess I did not read through all of the comments as it seemed to be descending into another pro vs. anti argument. As someone who is pro-science, I think it is key for us to recognize that our "we are right because we are the experts" approach to this discussion is failing us. I understand the frustration felt when you spend a large portion of your life studying a subject only to have your expertise dismissed by individuals who have little knowledge on the topic but spread a lot of rhetoric. However, it is key for us to ask ourselves what has happened that public trust has been lost, and how do we change that? We can not expect everyone to know or understand science, just as we do not expect all scientists to know and understand art, literature, poetry, economics, business, humanities etc. So how do we regain our expert status and regain public trust. Scientists solve puzzles. Complex, layered puzzles. So this should be a really fun challenge. I hope we can start to have more productive conversations about how to resolve this issue, because all we are doing now is driving more people away.

-btw- AoA is crowing that tighter vaccine exemption laws are being withdrawn in various jurisdictions.

I don't doubt it. The past few days in Oregon have been frigging unbearable. Because I am a glutton for punishment, I just paid a visit to the page of an .'Alternative' Pediatrician based in Portland. A few weeks ago when SB 442 was alive and kicking, he assured parents on his blog that, should it pass, he would "find a way" to give them a medical exemption so that they could continue not vaccinating their children. Now that the bill is dead, the jubilant 'Health Freedom' stank is potent, indeed.

It is interesting to see than one pro-choice guy can keep several vaccination-fascists busy for a long time.

While your accomplice ransacks the vault? Is that what you mean? What happened while you so cleverly distracted us with your idle chitchat and meaningless banter? ZOMG - we are in the presence of a criminal mastermind!

Everybody count the spoons.

Vivian: " We can not expect everyone to know or understand science, just as we do not expect all scientists to know and understand art, literature, poetry, economics, business, humanities etc. So how do we regain our expert status and regain public trust."

My expertise was only in having children who suffered through the diseases under the 1985 vaccine schedule, because those particular vaccines were not available.

You may note I am not happy with those who think kids should get sick. Especially after taking care of a baby with chicken pox and before that seeing my toddler go into a grand mal seizure, just a day after the doctor said he seemed be getting better.

What kind of special expert does one have to be to not want children to suffer?

As someone who is pro-science, I think it is key for us to recognize that our “we are right because we are the experts” approach to this discussion is failing us.

I haven't been seeing anyone taking that approach, however.

Instead, I'm seeing the approach "The following evidence demonstrates the anti-vax claims you've offered are false".

So it would turn out that the much touted 'measles death' in Germany was a child who had been vaccinated, who also had an underlying heart condition. Two questions, Germany, which has 95% uptake of MMR - herd immunity is obviously a fantasy and why is the pro vaxx unit using this as an appeal to emotion?

The CDC originally said that an unknown women who was probably unvaccinated and may have stayed at Disneyland who may have had measles............... how have you got to the point that you have a point about anti vaxxers?

How sick can you get, selling snake oil MMR on the back of this death. If I was the parent I would be well pissed.

Surely the point is that vaccination is based on the biggest woo. At least it started with Disney.

"You may note I am not happy with those who think kids should get sick" chris

You have to qualify what sick is. When your child had chicken pox did you give them anti pyretics before the seizures?

johnny: "So it would turn out that the much touted ‘measles death’ in Germany was a child who had been vaccinated, who also had an underlying heart condition"

Citation needed.

And who are you to decide if a child should live or die? As a parent of someone who had open heart surgery due to a genetic heart disorder, obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, I find your attitude rather disgusting.

"selling snake oil MMR"

It's been around since 1971. If you have evidence that it causes more harm than measles, then provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers.

johnny,

Where are you finding that the child was vaccinated for measles? All official sources have confirmed he WAS NOT vaccinated. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/german-health-official-man…

Also, the presence of a heart condition is EXACTLY why vaccination is important, especially since so many indolent conditions exist and only come to light when someone is exposed to a disease that can kill them.

" Now that the bill is dead, the jubilant ‘Health Freedom’ stank is potent, indeed." Jen

You gotta realise Jen that the 'evidence' for vaccine efficacy is not clean at all. Why on earth would you believe CDC dictat on vaccine benefit? Where is the evidence that their predictions of mass disaster with flu for example have been born out in any reality. Last years whooping cough vaccine failure, this years flu and measles vaccine failure. In the Western world mortality rates from wild measles are the same as 50 years ago, so years of vaccination have made no difference. What we do have though is epidemics of atopy and now as reported in the UK hundreds of cases of narcolepsy in kids from flu vaccination. You only have to study the woo of vaccination for a very short periods

Yes, citation please Johnny - and how about examining the actual course of the German epidemic, which started in unvaccinated enclaves.....even if 95% of the people are vaccinated, guess what happens when large numbers of the other 5% live in the same communities together.....

johnny: "You have to qualify what sick is"

Spoken by someone whose children are protected by community immunity.

."When your child had chicken pox did you give them anti pyretics before the seizures?"

Work on your reading comprehension. Different disease, note the words "before that" and the earlier comment #162 I said "Though before she was born, the oldest child got a disease we now vaccinate for and had seizures, with a trip by ambulance to the hospital."

Johnny, why do want kids to get sick? And why do you hate those with genetic disorders?

@Johnny - stop displaying your profound ignorance....mortality and incidence are two completely different things.

Johnny,
As Frequent Lurker has shown, you are a liar.

Thanks for correcting the grammar. With so much stuff going on, the Internet could always use a good grammarian.

The comment itself was nonsensical. Again, it's not my fault that you happened upon the bright idea of invoking something that, to the extent it is apropos of anything, works directly to your detriment.

johnny: "In the Western world mortality rates from wild measles are the same as 50 years ago, so years of vaccination have made no difference. "

Due to improvement in expensive hospital care. Things like artificial respiratory support for one of the more common complications of measles, pneumonia, plus antibiotics for the secondary bacterial infections.

Wow, you really love seeing kids suffer. It must excite you see a child hooked up to tubes to keep them alive by helping them breathe.

So tell us when did mortality decline between the invention of those interventions in the 1950s to when the first vaccines were available. Here is the CDC Pink Book Appendix G data from 1950 to 1975. Point out that year, and don't mention the comparison to 1900, it will only make you look more like an idiot:

Disease: Measles in the USA
Year__Cases___Deaths
1961__423,919_434
1962__481,530_408
1963__385,156_364
(^^ first vaccine licensed)
1964__458,083_421
1965__261,905_276
1966__204,136_261
1967___62,705__81
1968___22,231__24
1969___25,826__41
1970___47,351__89
1971___75,290__90
(^^^ MMR licensed)
1972___32,275__24
1973___26,690__23
1974___22,690__20
1975___24,374__20

Why on earth would you believe CDC dictat on vaccine benefit?

Oh, look, it's Philip Hills, aka "pop sucket," aka "pop socket," aka "Johnny Labile," etc., etc., here to ramble on about the NICE guideline that only he is unable to find.

epidemics of atopy
Ah, it's *that* Johnny. "Cochraine reports" cannot be far away.

Johnny,
As Frequent Lurker has shown, you are a liar.

As did HDB a week ago.

I wish this johnny would choose another 'nym, as we actually have a sane johnny who posts here.

The measles outbreak in Germany has been traced to an unvaccinated Bosnian child. There are significant numbers of refugees from the former Yugoslavia in Germany, many of them unvaccinated -- odd how a little thing like a civil war can throw public health activities like childhood vaccinations completely off track.

As an aside it is clear that Robert Kennedy Jr.'s activities are in fact anti-vaccination in spite of his assertion that he is pro-vax because he and his children were all vaccinated. He leaves out the part that they were all born years before his foray into really bad anti-vaxx pseudoscience. A typical claim by those who wish to avoid the dreaded anti-vaxx label.

You gotta realise Jen [wall of absurd falsehoods]

Pfft. The only thing I 'gotta realize', you incompetent sock-puppet, is that people who believe as you do will return our civilization to the dark ages sooner than ever if we don't figure out an effective way to counter the pig-choking volume of misinformation that you and your misguided brethren are churning out.

“Though before she was born, the oldest child got a disease we now vaccinate for and had seizures, wtf does that mean?

How does anyone get a disease before they were born?

So do you believe in Disney or vaccination?

So the rates of medically induced atopy are not suffering right?

" The only thing I ‘gotta realize’, you incompetent sock-puppet, is that people who believe as you do will return our civilization to the dark ages sooner than ever if we don’t figure out an effective way to counter the pig-choking volume of misinformation that you and your misguided brethren are churning out." Jedi knought

What like the 800+ with narcolepsy after the fictitious swine flu pandemic. Are you a flu woo believer or just a drive by commentator?

"The measles outbreak in Germany has been traced to an unvaccinated Bosnian child. There are significant numbers of refugees from the former Yugoslavia in Germany, many of them unvaccinated — odd how a little thing like a civil war can throw public health activities like childhood vaccinations completely off track." Shay

there is always a convenient excuse for vaccine failure, if Germany has a 95% uptake rate of MMR how come herd immunity failed - again? Was it a dodgy batch, when exactly is the vaccine supposed to work.

Blame it on the foreigners. Why are all the flu's called Beijing, Asian, Spanish etc. Why don't we have Bush flu or whitehouse flu? All this empire crap is rather shallow.

We are waiting. Who traced it - please qualify

Weave us a magic EBM reply please, make it Disney

What like the 800+ with narcolepsy after the fictitious swine flu pandemic.

Which was studied and found not to be linked to the vaccine at all. I wonder what else happened after that global vaccination effort?

Millions of women got their periods! OMG, the flu vaccine contains FEMALE HORMONES!
Millions of children lost teeth! OMG, The flu vaccine is linked to root resorption!!
Should I go on?

Are you a flu woo believer or just a drive by commentator?

Neither. I'm a biologist who's been commenting here since roughly 2007, and I'm done with you.

Johnny, your evidence that routine childhood vaccination is ineffective at reducing the incidence of the infectious diseases targeted, and that last year’s whooping cough, seasonal flu and the current MMR vaccine is ineffective at reducing the incidence of those diseases , would be…what, exactly? Be specific.
I mean, you do have some-right?

In the Western world mortality rates from wild measles are the same as 50 years ago, so years of vaccination have made no difference.

Made no difference, or made no difference in one’s risk of dying once they have contracted the disease? We don’t expect vaccines to make a disease less deadly, only to prevent you from acquiring it. And if you’ll check the incidence rate before and after vaccination was introduced, you’ll find it’s made a very, very large difference.

What we do have though is epidemics of atopy…

Citations needed: your evidence that such epidemics are occurring and that the atopy observed is causally associated with vaccination would be what? Be specific.

…and now as reported in the UK hundreds of cases of narcolepsy in kids from flu vaccination.

Citation needed. To the best of my knowledge narcolepsy was associated only with the 2009 Pandemrix flu vaccine, and there were less than 100 cases observed in total.

It is interesting to see than one pro-choice guy can keep several vaccination-fascists busy for a long time.

I have also seen the proverb worded as
"A fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer."

Further to Moon's comment, here's the story on the BBC website.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31864218

Do you know that over 300,000 Americans die every year from hospital and medical errors, and over 100,000 die from adverse drug reactions. Ten times as many are seriously injured.

Does anyone have a citation for this? It sounds rather argumentum ex culo.

<Who traced it – please qualify

The German Ministry of Health.

if Germany has a 95% uptake rate of MMR how come herd immunity failed

You truly don't understand how herd immunity works, do you?

(sigh) Italics fail. C'mon, Wordpress, make with the preview function!

OT: But a child is death by measle in my country, Italy. A four years old, unvaccinated.
:( I fear that it is only a matter of time before more will join the count.

What we do have though is epidemics of atopy and now as reported in the UK hundreds of cases of narcolepsy in kids from flu vaccination.

ORLY, Philip Hills? You seem to have an order-of-magnitude problem. Indeed, given that uptake of all influenza vaccines in the UK was less than 10% of the population (PDF), the upper end of the attributable-risk estimate doesn't even make it to 200 for all age groups.

The child was a vaccinated child and also had a heart condition.
This seems to have become a tenet of faith in the disease-apologist catechism. Meanwhile, according to the hospital and the German authorities,
The child was not vaccinated against measles and had no pre-existing conditions.

I expect Johnny to flounce again......since his lies have been called out.

Do you know that over 300,000 Americans die every year

That's impressive. WIthin 24 hr, 3 different people came on RI and posted something like this.
Except one time it was 100,000 people, next time 200,000, and now 300,000 people.
At least, I hope for their sanity that these are different people.

Now, could our opponents please compare notes and come back with some consensus? It's a bit confusing right now.

@ JGC

We don’t expect vaccines to make a disease less deadly

Nitpicking, but we do.
Well, among the successfully vaccinated anyway. A faster immune reaction should either protect from the disease, or make it last a shorter time.

Among non-vaccinated, you are right. For the disease, it's unfortunately business as usual.

This is the high point of woo. It's soon going to go downhill and fast.

Why? Because Google is going to replace its easily-gamed PageRank system with a system that ranks pages according to how reality-based they are.

And the Usual Suspects are already freaking out.

JGC:
Instead, I’m seeing the approach “The following evidence demonstrates the anti-vax claims you’ve offered are false”.

You are correct. Perhaps the language I chose was too simple or too strong. My point is that using evidence based medicine arguments, while 100% valid and the gold standard for arguing science, it is failing us in trying to win the confidence of the general public. We need to find a way to communicate these messages in a way that builds public confidence rather than losing people to the anti-vax movement.

The UK checks in with 70 total cases (PDF) reported to the European Medicines Agency. There are 68 plaintiffs in the class action. The estimates suggest that around half of those are bona fide.

You lose again, Philip Hills.

My point is that using evidence based medicine arguments, while 100% valid and the gold standard for arguing science, it is failing us in trying to win the confidence of the general public. We need to find a way to communicate these messages in a way that builds public confidence rather than losing people to the anti-vax movement.

TINW.

Because Google is going to replace its easily-gamed PageRank system with a system that ranks pages according to how reality-based they are.

I'm afraid that this remains a hopelessly primitive misunderstanding.

In the Western world mortality rates from wild measles are the same as 50 years ago, so years of vaccination have made no difference.

That may be the most foolish thing I have seen anyone write about vaccines. Measles mortality rates, looking at the entire population, has been reduced by almost 100% in the US since the measles vaccine was introduced. It's like complaining that seat belts are useless because the death rate in people thrown through the windscreen in RTCs is the same as it was before they were introduced.

Vivian: However, it is key for us to ask ourselves what has happened that public trust has been lost, and how do we change that?

Americans got dumber and affluent, it's as simple as that. There are also fewer people who actually suffered those diseases, so people don't grow up listening to horror stories about mumps, measles, and etc. People also don't read anymore- Little House on the Prairie, Little Women and Eight Cousins and the Mirror Crack'd ought to be required reading for new parents, since all mention mumps, measles and rubella and the consequences thereof.

Vivian: "We can not expect everyone to know or understand science, just as we do not expect all scientists to know and understand art, literature, poetry, economics, business, humanities etc. "

I don't know where you're getting this. Every single undergrad student at my college was required to have classes in art, literature, theology, philosophy, at least two writing-heavy courses, sociology, history and math. Granted, that was just one college, but lots of people go to liberal arts colleges for their bachelors. And in the professional world, scientists have to understand politics and economics so they can keep their jobs.

@ Helianthus:

And I've always heard that it was *600 000*.
So I suppose they haven't read 'Death By Medicine".

@Vijay, As for "Herd Immunity why do you believe human beings have to be treated like cattle, after all cattle are not given a choice or given free will, but aren't most free human beings who are not enslaved or imprisoned granted that right by their creator?

@ Phoenix Woman:

I think that Narad is right.

And woo-meisters might use studies as the verifiable/ factual basis and manage to eke by. Right now, they certainly claim that _research_ shows they're right and they have the studies- all cited and quoted to illustrate that.
Altho' I did briefly hear a statement by Mooney about g--gle.

@ PGP:

Most of the relevant background in general science, bio and chemistry should be acquired before students attend universities. Hopefully.

@brian

Thanks for the link to the stats.org article. It was most entertaining.

DW: Of course, high school students should have had some science courses, especially those who chose to go to college. But in the states, science education has become so politicized that most high schools teach only a very watered down version of biology- if they think they can get away with it and not earn the ire of the school board. A lot of districts have probably done away with biology all together.

@Vivian
I want to thank you for your contribution to the conversation.

it is failing us in trying to win the confidence of the general public. We need to find a way to communicate these messages in a way that builds public confidence rather than losing people to the anti-vax movement.

I think that we cannot expect the general public to understand the science to the depth required to refute many of the anti-vax studies. It takes a certain level of knowledge to distinguish between studies that are decent science with a funding bias and pseudo-science. Not every parent was a 'A' student and made good choices in adding to their family.

It comes down to how much they trust the people that are behind the recommendations and push for stricter school requirements. That means more than just having evidence on your side. It means having their trust regarding whether those recommendations are in their best interest. Sadly, the medical industry as a whole is simply no longer as respected as it once was. The pharmaceutical companies have been particularly derelict in their actions and the distrust spills into everything they manufacture, particularly products like vaccines because they are required to attend public schools.

Interesting-
Unaswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced
Brain Injury www.digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pe…

Regarding science education in schools- I think it is more fundamental than that. In my opinion, the crux of the matter is that too much focus is being placed on what to think, rather than how to think.

For example, why aren't grade students being taught how to recognize logical fallacies, and avoid them in their own thought processes?

I think that we cannot expect the general public to understand the science to the depth required to refute many of the anti-vax studies.

Beth, you yourself have stubbornly refused to do your own homework regarding MRLs and complained about the quality of others' doing it for you.

@Narad

you yourself have stubbornly refused to do your own homework regarding MRLs and complained about the quality of others’ doing it for you.

Not quite how I would have put it, but I have a solid academic background and I don't have toddlers around to distract me and occupy all my attention. I was able to spend more than an hour reading and trying to understand the two papers you linked. How can you expect the parents of young children to put in the time and effort to understand the science underlying those studies? For every vaccine?

Most young parents will make their choices based on their trust in the system making the recommendations.

Beth: "Most young parents will make their choices based on their trust in the system making the recommendations."

And not understanding the pain and suffering many of these diseases cause. Since they have grown up after measles and mumps was common, and often not seeing younger siblings suffer from chicken pox... they simply do not understand the gravity of the illnesses.

It was twenty five years ago when my oldest as a toddler had a seizure from a now vaccine preventable disease. Which was about the time that another mother I met later had her child die from Hib meningitis. Then later "just" a bit over twenty years ago all the kids had chicken pox including the baby (who turns 21 in two months).

Perhaps this would be useful: Vaccine Preventable Disease - The Forgotten Story

How can you expect the parents of young children to put in the time and effort to understand the science underlying those studies? For every vaccine?

It is unclear to me here the degree to which the idea is to emulate the sales tactics of the antivaccine brigade, but I'm not really seeing a way in which is isn't.

Most young parents will make their choices based on their trust in the system making the recommendations.

"After the crucifixion mania passed, Haines and all his followers had been invited to attend a kind of ecumenical LSD session with the League in Tim’s room on the third floor. Everyone sat in a circle, with Tim at one end and Bill at the other, and this time the implication was that Bill and/or the Ashram in general desperately required some kind of spiritual tranquilization. Tim kept droning 'find your calm center, find your calm center' every few seconds and Carol Ross, who was seated next to him, chanted when he didn’t.

"'I can still hear it,' Haines said. 'It was unbelievable.'

"He widened his eyes, made his mouth into an 'o,' fluttered his hands and assumed a falsetto voice:

"'"Skies of blooooooo, skies of bloooooooo.["] She just kept saying that, over and over. If it wasn’t "find your calm center" it was "skies of blooooooo, skies of bloooooo." I mean, I don’t think I freak out easily, Art, but five minutes more of that and I might have gone out of the window.'

"'How long did it last?' I asked.

"'I don’t know. I guess I took it for about fifteen minutes and then I just stood up, excused myself, and walked out the door.'”

Seriously you expect parent whose children they suspect were seriously damaged by vaccines, to ever trust vaccinations again? Don't bet on it!

I am just now beginning to understand a conversation I had with Kyogen, my old Zen teacher, when I was 21 or maybe 22. I had just told him a very strange story (I'm not going to go into it now) of high synchronicity that I had experienced.

"Oh, yeah, I have some familiarity with that kind of thing."
"You do?"
"I mean, yeah, I went to Berkeley in the 60s. I guess I was ultimately drawn toward something a little more orderly."

Not that there weren't moments at Shasta that might have seemed a little Millbrook to outsiders:

On another evening the senior monks were gathered in that same common room enjoying some camaraderie. We had an old hound dog who would howl whenever he heard a siren. Sometimes if we worked at it, we could imitate siren noises and get him going. The lot of us were at it that evening, Roshi included, when someone heard footsteps in the cloister just outside. It was the lay guests attending an introductory retreat on their way from the Zendo to their evening tea before bed, silently and mindfully making their way while the senior monks and Abbot howled like maniacs in the common room.The alarm was sounded and we all shushed each other, stifling our laughter. I remember Roshi with one hand on top of her head, the other covering her mouth as she sank down in that same chair, tears running down her cheeks, trying so hard to contain herself that she shook. How different things would become.

^ Should have been a blockquote for that last paragraph.

@Helianthus:
You don't understand. It's going up really fast. At the current rate it will be 700,000 by tomorrow afternoon.

@Narad:
If you have better ideas for sales tactics, I'm all ears. But that's just a necessary stopgap. The real value is in fixing the trust problem.

@ ken:

Orac has already dealt with that article : "Another swing at the fences,,,," , May 11, 2011. Place "Mary Holland" in the search box.

@ Beth:

One of the problems is that young parents get information on the internet from *untrustworthy* people who distort the facts and present material to frighten them. Orac has been writing about this= and illustrating it- for years.

One item you mention involves mistrusting medicine because of the pharmaceutical companies. Did you know that this is one of the chief talking points of both the anti-vaccine movement and alternative medicine? Don't some physicians- like Orac and Ben Goldacre- criticise these very companies? Because a company has behaved in an unseemly fashion doesn't mean that medicine as a whole is corrupt and wrong about its research.

The question I have is why do parents place their trust in people who frequently have an agenda fuelled by emotional or monetary factors?They present material about the corporations which may be true in part although it is vastly exaggerated and embellished to suit their needs.
What makes *these* people more trustworthy than the so-called medical establishment? Mike Adams sells supplements and superfoods as well as media; contributors @ AoA are selling a theory and their books which often brings each a measure of celebrity. Don't they have a conflict of interest?

Advocates like these are asking parents to be suspicious of most doctors, scientists, research journals, governmental agencies ( around the world) and the media YET to instead place their trust in supplement salesmen and distraught parents who have little to no education or expertise in the complex science which they blithely discuss. Isn't there something wrong with that?

And exactly on cue, Dan Olmsted has an article @ AoA asking people EXACTLY that- believe him, not the evidence-based consensus.

@Narad - What Justthestats said #230

@Denise

I'll try to answer your questions:

"One item you mention involves mistrusting medicine because of the pharmaceutical companies. Did you know that this is one of the chief talking points of both the anti-vaccine movement and alternative medicine? Don’t some physicians- like Orac and Ben Goldacre- criticise these very companies? Because a company has behaved in an unseemly fashion doesn’t mean that medicine as a whole is corrupt and wrong about its research. "

Yes to all three questions. It's still a powerful point because it's true. And while it doesn't mean that medicine as a whole is corrupt and wrong, it means that most people are justifiably leery about trusting ALL of medicine because it might be corrupt.

The question I have is why do parents place their trust in people who frequently have an agenda fuelled by emotional or monetary factors?
What makes *these* people more trustworthy than the so-called medical establishment?

These I can't answer. People have to choose who to place their trust in and they rarely do it based on rational and evidenced reasons. That's sort of the point I'm trying to make and I think that Vivian was also trying to make. I don't think you can present sufficient evidence to make someone trust you although you can present enough evidence to destroy their trust in someone else.

Once trust is gone, it's hard to recover. Building trust is a long term process. How do you convince someone who doesn't really trust the system that they should for vaccines?

If it helps, it's not just the medical system. Ferguson is now a well-known example of why many blacks don't trust the police. There is no easy fix for relationship problems.

@ Beth:

People may place their trust in these people because they advance stories that present them in a sympathetic or admirable light:
parents may identify with another parent whose child was 'damaged'; people may want to emulate a brave, idealistic scientist/ journalist who is sweeping dirt into public view and airing out the rancid inner sanctum of power.

And you are correct- one of the ways they get others to believe in them is by demolishing trust in institutions. For the past 15 years, I have been monitoring alt media messaging and this is the groundwork for all of their endeavors. Thus, I observe how the material changes and transforms to fit whatever is next on their agenda. ANYTHING that shows imperfect transparency is utilised to create mistrust HOWEVER the presenters themselves keep changing their own stories and re-assembling facts as they dissemble.The same stories are told and re-told and as we know, repetition increases what is remembered. In addition, pointing your finger at others' malfeasance distracts your audience from looking at your own

A few days ago I watched a documentary, Citizen Four, about Edward Snowden in which he compared informers on the internet to the mythological Hydra- if you cut off one head, five more pop up.
Unfortunately, this applies for misinformation purveyors as well.

@Beth

"I don’t think you can present sufficient evidence to make someone trust you although you can present enough evidence to destroy their trust in someone else."

I love it. Thank you Beth. This is the best quote about trust I have seen in a long time. And it applies so well to the vaccination issue.

Here is one way to start building trust. We know that many drug companies have been fined for criminal wrongdoings.

http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma

Let us make it MANDATORY that when a drug company is found guilty of such a crime in future, the most senior employee who was aware of the violation MUST go to prison. No exceptions.

It's kind of depressing, but using facts and logic to show people how they're wrong doesn't really work. There are numerous studies about it, and I have all kinds of anecdotal experience that agrees. People don't like to be told they're full of horsesh*t, I guess, even if you try to do it as nicely and calmly as possible.

Building trust doesn't really seem to work all that well either, though. There's a pediatrician I know in Portland - one of my old housemates used to work as his secretary - who is about the nicest, most trustworthy guy you could meet. He runs a pediatric clinic which bills insurance but also runs on small yearly dues. The idea is to provide the kind of personal, attentive care that people seem to be seeking with "alternative" practitioners, but to do so with evidence-based medicine. I mean, he's a nice, hippie doctor who plays guitar and sings goofy songs to the kids - and yet he's got anti-vaxxers bringing down his g--gle scores because he doesn't "respect their choices."

All I can really come up with is that an actual skeptical or scientific worldview is profoundly countercultural, probably because it goes against something pretty deeply ingrained in human nature. "Question everything" is a hard row to hoe, a lot harder than "question the mainstream media" or "question the CDC" or whatever. Constantly being open to the possibility that you yourself could be wrong is not something most people are interested in doing.

@Helianthus

Seriously? Having mandatory vaccination in specific contexts is going to lead to/condone forced incarceration or circumcision?

No, not necessarily. I was asked to provide examples of where people are attempting to use the force of law to compel others to follow doctor's orders. So I did.

By your logic, maybe we should disband child protection services. Same stuff. These government agencies are here to enforce policies and laws telling parents what they should do or not do to their children.

Disbanding might be a little much. But maybe we should strongly consider reigning it in.

Maryland family under investigation for letting their kids walk home alone.

Mom arrested for leaving 9-year-old alone at park

Florida mom arrested after letting 7-year-old walk to the park alone.

Read on the slippery slope fallacy.

Yeah- I know what the slippery slope fallacy is. The problem is when people are using hypotheticals. These aren't hypotheticals.

(sorry, blockquote fail) :(

Slipping down a slope all the while proclaiming, "What slope? There's no slope!" is known as denial.

@JP

All I can really come up with is that an actual skeptical or scientific worldview is profoundly countercultural, probably because it goes against something pretty deeply ingrained in human nature.

Of course it goes against something pretty deeply ingrained in human nature... it goes against every aspect of consciousness that isn't the rational intellect. Emotions, feelings, intuition, insight, inspiration. The list goes on and on.

Rational materialism is obviously important to scientific inquiry. But attempting to elevate rational materialism to a worldview encompassing the whole of human experience is absurdly ludicrous. It doesn't even make rational sense.

I'm not a materialist, Matt.

JP- Never said you were. I was trying to agree with you.

I was asked to provide examples of where people are attempting to use the force of law to compel others to follow doctor’s orders. So I did.

No, you provided a link to a completely irrelevant custody dispute over circumcision and a broken one to this NEJM item, which shows that atavistic state intrusions into prenatal care are rare and fare poorly at the appellate level – indeed, Burton prevailed on appeal.

BTW, Matt, I'm still waiting for the follow-through on this one:

Laws are much more difficult to change. As evidenced by the plethora of outdated (and ridiculous) laws on the books. For example, laws forbidding one to swear in front of a lady, or have sex in any position other than missionary.

Never said you were. I was trying to agree with you.

Ah. Well, I don't think you do, although you might agree with a casual misreading of what I wrote.

Of course it goes against something pretty deeply ingrained in human nature… it goes against every aspect of consciousness that isn’t the rational intellect. Emotions, feelings, intuition, insight, inspiration. The list goes on and on.

First off, what I was referring to as "deeply ingrained in human nature" is not something I find appealing or interesting. It's the tendency to operate blindly on assumptions and biases. It's stupid and boring to base your life on hoary old assumptions that you picked up from your parents, your religious texts, your political party, your culture, your subculture, your own mental narratives, etc., etc.

I find an attitude of questioning to be much more "inspiring" and "insightful," actually. Question your own biases and assumptions. Question what this thing you so blithely call "consciousness" is and whether it exists at all. Question whether "you" really exist at all. Otherwise you're going to go through life missing out on at least 90% of what's right in front of your face.

Curses! Blasphemy, profanity laws still on the books

Since this article was from 2009, I thought I'd follow up on some of the links to the statutes in question. Yup, still on the books. Here is an example:

Michigan Penal Code

750.337 Women and children; improper language in presence.

Sec. 337.

Indecent, etc., language in presence of women or children—Any person who shall use any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Sex laws? Here is a reference guide:

The Complete List of Weird Sex Laws in the U.S.A.

@ JP:

No need to get morose because the same system operating in human nature that includes various biases is accompanied by the equally human quality of observing one's self and - possibly, if I do dare say so- self-correcting.

We learn that during adolescence, we develop a capacity to question the rules as well as ourselves- as kids develop abilities in abstraction, they may apply them to critiquing prevalent social conventions, their own identity and political or social norms. Alongside algebra and the scientific method, their 'studies' may include revolution, identity transformation and radical forms of idealism, as surely as integrating metacognition and other executive functions into their repetoire. They may try on different roles as well as embarking upon self- improvement- intellectually as well as physically .It's interesting that philosophies, religions and disciplines ( like meditation, martial arts and yoga) may be part of their itinerary.

So don't give up hope. There's an audience for scepticism as well as an audience for woo.

Beth: "Building trust is a long term process. How do you convince someone who doesn’t really trust the system that they should for vaccines? "

Ask which parts of the system they do trust and why. Point out that a surgery or chemo is a lot riskier than a simple poke.

Alternatively, call the parent's bluff- give them a first aid kit, wish them well, give them a fake phone number and contact their main doctor and say they no longer want medical treatment, ever. If they think they're smarter than the medical system, let them prove it.

Also, make perks dependent on vaccines, like airlines reserve humane treatment for first class travelers. If enough parents vaccinate in a ped's practice, they should have a party thrown for them, and the anti-vaxxers parents get to hear about the perks. Since the typical anti-vaxxer is a high-strung type-a, hearing about other parents (especially people who are doing parenting wrong in their opinion) something like that would bring 'em running.

First off, what I was referring to as “deeply ingrained in human nature” is not something I find appealing or interesting. It’s the tendency to operate blindly on assumptions and biases. It’s stupid and boring to base your life on hoary old assumptions that you picked up from your parents, your religious texts, your political party, your culture, your subculture, your own mental narratives, etc., etc.

@JP

I find an attitude of questioning to be much more “inspiring” and “insightful,” actually.

Have you ever questioned why an "attitude of questioning" has that type of effect on you?

Question your own biases and assumptions. Question what this thing you so blithely call “consciousness” is and whether it exists at all. Question whether “you” really exist at all.

Sure, why not? I agree these are worthy endeavors.

But when it comes to questioning the scientific consensus... is that something we shouldn't do? When it comes to the scientific consensus we should just trust whatever we are told or whatever is written in the textbooks?

And not only that, but we should pass laws compelling people to accept scientific consensus as their worldview and/or punishing people who do not comply? Enlighten me on your views in this respect.

Otherwise you’re going to go through life missing out on at least 90% of what’s right in front of your face.

90%?! Careful throwing out claims like that, or Narad might ask you for conclusive evidence to back up such a claim, thus diverting attention away from the actual conversation at hand. ;-)

Considering the supreme limitations of your physical senses and cognition, I would venture a guess that you can't help but miss out on a whole lot of what's right in front of your face.

And how can you be sure you are not missing out on something important with all the incessant questioning? Maybe there is something really cool you might discover by setting your questioning aside- even for a short time. Have you considered that possibility?

@Beth

Building trust is a long term process. How do you convince someone who doesn’t really trust the system that they should for vaccines?

How about... by making the system trustworthy? By actually addressing and correcting all the serious flaws in our medical system?

90%?! Careful throwing out claims like that, or Narad might ask you for conclusive evidence to back up such a claim, thus diverting attention away from the actual conversation at hand.

Given that I have a very good idea of what JP is talking about, that would be a "no."

But when it comes to questioning the scientific consensus… is that something we shouldn’t do? When it comes to the scientific consensus we should just trust whatever we are told or whatever is written in the textbooks?

Straw man. No one says the scientific consensus shouldn't be questioned. However, if someone questions it without sufficient data and evidence to support his "questioning" he will quite correctly be taken to task for that. In addition, when "questioning" based on pseudoscience and outright misinformation results in a threat to public health (such as antivaccine views) then that being taken to task will be that much more intense.

In other words, you can "question" the scientific consensus about this or that all you like, but if you don't have the science, data, and arguments to back your "questioning" up you will be subject to severe criticism. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism for your speech.

Since this article was from 2009, I thought I’d follow up on some of the links to the statutes in question. Yup, still on the books. Here is an example:

Michigan Penal Code

Which has been found to be unconstitutionally vague and therefore without effect.

Remember, your assertion was that such examples demonstrate something about laws being difficult to change, not that such laws hang around because they don't do anything and nobody gives a rat's ass.

Sex laws? Here is a reference guide

That's not a "reference guide," it's an unsourced listicle.

@Denice:

No need to get morose because the same system operating in human nature that includes various biases is accompanied by the equally human quality of observing one’s self and – possibly, if I do dare say so- self-correcting.

Oh, I'm not feeling particularly morose today. A little perverse, maybe, but that's pretty much par for the course. I do think it's realistic, though, to recognize that skepticism - even in a broad sense - has a minority appeal. Of course, I'd be open to changing my opinion if there are any good studies on the matter. :)

And, I remember a conversation I had about ten years ago or so about pessimism vs. realism:

"I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist."
"Yeah, you're a very realistic manic-depressive."
"F*ck you, Don."

They may try on different roles as well as embarking upon self- improvement- intellectually as well as physically .It’s interesting that philosophies, religions and disciplines ( like meditation, martial arts and yoga) may be part of their itinerary.

Incidentally, I don't know about other forms of meditation, but Zen is most emphatically not a course of self-improvement. It's also not "spirituality."

Being a good person is a desirable thing, though, which is where the Buddhism part comes in.

So don’t give up hope. There’s an audience for scepticism as well as an audience for woo.

Ahh, don't worry. I plan on being a royal pain in the a** 'till I croak.

Jamie, I used 'self-improvement; for lack if a better catch-all.
Perhaps there is no self.

Be that as it may.
and obviously scepticism will remain a minority view but hopefully it will inform general culture in some manner.
After all, the Enlightenment was not a mass movement but...

Now I have to run ...

@Matt:

Have you ever questioned why an “attitude of questioning” has that type of effect on you?

Of course.

But when it comes to questioning the scientific consensus… is that something we shouldn’t do? When it comes to the scientific consensus we should just trust whatever we are told or whatever is written in the textbooks?

What Orac said at #255. Also, scientific consensus is based on observation and evidence, not on assumptions. And it's constantly being refined and, yes, questioned, unlike, say, vitalism or whatever.

And not only that, but we should pass laws compelling people to accept scientific consensus as their worldview and/or punishing people who do not comply? Enlighten me on your views in this respect.

Another straw man. You can't legislate anybody's worldview, but you can pass laws about certain actions or lack of them, sure. Can you be more specific?

Considering the supreme limitations of your physical senses and cognition, I would venture a guess that you can’t help but miss out on a whole lot of what’s right in front of your face.

Obviously. I can make the best of the limited physical senses I've got, though. I don't know how far you actually want to get into this, but go read a primer on the three poisons, specifically "ignorance," and get back to me.

And how can you be sure you are not missing out on something important with all the incessant questioning? Maybe there is something really cool you might discover by setting your questioning aside- even for a short time. Have you considered that possibility?

A general attitude of questioning or skepticism doesn't mean I'm walking around cogitating all the time. You'd miss out on a lot of things that way, I'd guess, like cherry blossoms, to be cliched about it.

'Building trust is a long term process. How do you convince someone who doesn’t really trust the system that they should for vaccines?'

Matt: "How about… by making the system trustworthy? By actually addressing and correcting all the serious flaws in our medical system?"

You know, even with Medicare abuses, faulty medical devices, pharmaceutical company gouging, research fraud and other problems incompletely addressed, I still would accept antibiotic therapy for a severe infection, get my appendix removed if clinically indicated, or follow the vaccination recommendations that have eradicated or severely curtailed dangerous infectious diseases.

The alternatives aren't very attractive.

@Orac

It's not a strawman. That would mean I was intentionally misstating a view. I was asking for clarification on the view. That's the opposite of portraying that I already know what it is.

I disagree that one needs data in order to question. It's the question that drives the data-seeking. Not the other way around. Besides- not everybody is in a position to go about acquiring such data, or even being able to freely access that data which exists.

In the specific case of antivaccine tropes... yes the same old crusty ones keep getting trotted out again and again. But as you have pointed out, it seems that no amount of taking people to task about it is actually preventing the re-emergence of said tropes.

So what to do? Some people apparently believe it is appropriate to leverage the force of law in order to compel compliance with (what essentially amounts to) a doctor's orders. I happen to think that's a really bad idea.

As for "severe criticism" I believe that is appropriate for people who are actually making false claims. But to criticize for simply questioning? I don't see how that is productive.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

United States v. Flowers is similarly a dud.

Folks- I've gotta run for now. My pregnant wife is starting to "question" why I am spending so much time chatting with my
"Internet friends" instead of spending time with her this afternoon.

(haha Are we all friends now? If so I'm looking for a craft beer drinking buddy since my wife is out of commission.)

Ciao for now.

But to criticize for simply questioning? I don’t see how that is productive.

As demonstrated in the Seneff comments, your modus operandi is pretty much to throw out specific items, wait for other people to examine them for you, and then resort to increasingly nebulous positions.

There's <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions"a name for this.

Dammit.

I disagree that one needs data in order to question. It’s the question that drives the data-seeking. Not the other way around.

Then you're just JAQ'ing off. How did you arrive at the question that can potentially challenge a consensus?

Besides- not everybody is in a position to go about acquiring such data, or even being able to freely access that data which exists.

Oh so any schmuck with an internet connection is qualified to refute scientific consensus?

Then you’re just JAQ’ing off.

I think there's a case for an alternative classification as sealioning.

How did you arrive at the question that can potentially challenge a consensus?

You don't arrive at the question. You start there.

@Denice:

Jamie, I used ‘self-improvement; for lack if a better catch-all.

I see. I was being cantankerously precise, which is sort of what I do. ;)

Perhaps there is no self.

Yep.

@Matt

How about… by making the system trustworthy? By actually addressing and correcting all the serious flaws in our medical system?

That would be ideal. In the meantime, children are born and parents make a choice for them. That shouldn't change.

@Victor #238

Thank you for the kind words. It means a lot to me. I think your suggestion is excellent, but rather improbable for the U.S. I've heard they do something like that in China. I recall hearing about some Chinese company executive being executed when his companies product turned out to have poisoned babies. It will be interesting to see how that strategy works out for them.

the most senior employee who was aware of the violation MUST go to prison. No exceptions.

One of the perks of seniority is being able to avoid a paper trail.

You don’t arrive at the question. You start there.

Not in Matt's case I'm afraid.

Perhaps there is no self.

Yep.

Attempting to dispense with "the series of acts and mental states as introspectively recognized" does not strike me as a likely candidate for getting much of anything desirable* done.

* Now, that's begging the question. Sort of.

@JP:

Although it's a long story, I do recommend the 1977 Bench Press edition as a reckoning point if you're interested in Millbrook. I picked up a library binding for $5 or so a couple of years back. (I'm also mildly surprised that the price of the hardcover has dropped by an order of magnitude in the meantime.)

Attempting to dispense with “the series of acts and mental states as introspectively recognized” does not strike me as a likely candidate for getting much of anything desirable* done.

I was referring to the doctrine of anattā, to be more clear, not to some vague state of "egolessness." Obviously you need an "ego" to get anything done - the mistake is in believing that it has some sort of essence that's separate from everything else.

I got some good advice from a friend not too long after I'd moved out at 16, which went along the lines of, "You gotta be amphibious, kid. I mean, you have to play the game, or you're going to end up dead in a gutter or something."

@PGP

Ask which parts of the system they do trust and why. Point out that a surgery or chemo is a lot riskier than a simple poke.

*sigh*
Sorry to rain on your parade, but...
Did you miss the part where a lot of people are completely freaked out by chemo? Or surgery, for that matter. Just read the recent threads on the late wellness warrior. Chemo is not a good reference for risk comparison.
I also suspect that there is a lot of overlap between people wary of vaccines and those suspicious of chemo. They will just tell you they trust no part of the system.
Also, telling people poking is less riskier than chemo doesn't answer their question: is the vaccine safe? They don't care if chemo is riskier, they don't consider taking chemo, they consider taking vaccines. And they will also call you on your assertion, if you don't gave them evidence. After all, this little poke is just the Troyan horse for injecting a lot of ZOMG CHemicalz!!!

Beside, people who are sick are willing to take more risks than people who feel healthy. So healthy people are going to say it's not the same risk/benefit assessment. And they will be entirely right.

@ matt

How about… by making the system trustworthy? By actually addressing and correcting all the serious flaws in our medical system?

*re-sigh*
In a recent thread, we just agreed that one "cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into".
Fear could have rational triggers or enforcers, but at its core fear is in no way something rational.
The system could be perfect and there would still be people mistrusting it and other people interested at feeding this mistrust. Just look at all the threads these past 6 months about people refusing chemo for some nonsensical treatment. Even in cases where science can trot out numbers and testimonials of its success.
We have anti-vaxers in US, Canada, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, Japan... All countries with different medical systems, different healthcare management, and different cultural biases towards science. Seems to me the issue is more generic and widespread than just some local misbehavior.

That's not a reason not to try to improve things. Obviously, if only we scientists were only a little less asocial and a little more better at sharing our knowledge... If only physicians and nurses and all the others had more time and resources to take care of their patients... If we were better at rooting out corruption and incompetence (an issue of will, but also of resources - my country doesn't have that many nurses and doctors to spare, so in a way better have half-competent ones rather than none)...
If the individuals in the society at large were a little less prone to common fallacies and a little less more than ready to follow the first false prophet...

Oh, but what am I saying? People reaping that they sow?
In Florida, you have politicians writing in the law how much the sea level is going to rise, if any. You have states willing to enforce by law the teaching of Creationism in biology classes.
These laws are made because people like you elected these nutjobs in position of leadership.
So take a good look in the mirror and keep your advice on what scientists should do to get trust and respect.

Beside, you are talking about human endeavor and medicine, i.e. biology. I will tell you a little secret: humans, for all their smartiness, are very prone to buggering even the most simple tasks, and biology is very messy (well, since human behavior is just applied biology, no wonder we mishandle things).
It's bell curves all the way down. A few outperforming individuals, a big blob of more-or-less average individuals, and at the low end a few individuals who obviously got the biological short straw.
There will always be outliers who modern medicine wouldn't be able to help, and there will always be people being people and mucking things up.

tl;dr: trust isn't something which will be achieved rationally.
And medicine will never be perfect, and especially never be staffed only by jolly good - and all-knowing - fellows.
That's the reality we have been dealt, and going on "just do it" tangents isn't going to solve anything.

@JP #239
"Building trust doesn’t really seem to work all that well either, though. There’s a pediatrician I know in Portland – one of my old housemates used to work as his secretary – who is about the nicest, most trustworthy guy you could meet"

The distrust about vaccination has nothing to do with trusting/distrusting a pediatrician. It has to do with distrust in the government, in CDC, in pharma companies, and so on. They are the ones who have to repair the distrust.

There was a survey done some time ago (don't have the link) in which Americans were asked this question:

During peace time, a civilian Iranian jetliner has crashed in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian government claims that it was shot down by US military (possibly accidentally). The US government denies it. Which side's claim would you trust?

The majority of surveyed Americans said that they would need some more independent information about the crash before they can decide. In other words, the credibility of the US government was not much different from that of its archenemy Iran.

@Science Mom

First off... I really like your gravatar there. Secondly, don't be a ninny.

I wasn't questioning the scientific consensus on vaccines.

Sheesh.. talk about a strawman! (I'm sorry- does strawmanning get a free pass on this blog as long as the person doing it is on the "right" side of the debate?!)

@Beth #271
"I think your suggestion is excellent, but rather improbable for the U.S. .. I recall hearing about some Chinese company executive being executed when his companies product turned out to have poisoned babies."

Actually I wasn't thinking anything that harsh. A simple prison stay of a couple of years may provide sufficient deterrence to future criminals. Right now the fines in the US provide little or no deterrence. They just become a (small) cost of doing business.

@Narad

... and your modus operandi appears to be to start off with some causal trolling, and then make increasingly intrusive demands for evidence for every little comment that somebody makes once you've targeted them for elimination. (Or whatever it is that you do.)

Fact of the matter is: I've said nothing here that is anti-vaccine, and I've said nothing in the other thread that is anti-GMO.

I just don't happen to agree with some of the tactics that are being employed in order to deal with all the disinformation that is out there.

start off with some causal trolling

I'm having visions of God creating the world ex nihilo with a little causal trolling. I certainly feel trolled much of the time.

once you’ve targeted them for elimination. (Or whatever it is that you do.)

This may be the most entertaining thing I've read all day. Thanks for the break from the monotony of BSing this statement of purpose for a grant application. (I hate writing these things.)

Victor may be confused about actual polling that was done in 1988, after a U.S. military shootdown of an Iranian jetliner that was mistaken for a hostile F-14 (the polls, which were done before the U.S. version of events was substantially challenged, strongly supported the U.S. action):

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1988/Public-Backed-U-S-in-Downing-of-Irani…

As to who is more believable now, the U.S. government or that of Iran - 93% of Americans in a recent poll said that Iranian development of a nuclear bomb was a critical or important threat to the U.S., which is as strong or stronger a stance than the American government has taken on the issue.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

Matt: "Fact of the matter is: I’ve said nothing here that is anti-vaccine, and I’ve said nothing in the other thread that is anti-GMO."

But of course, you are Just Asking Questions, and expressing Concern about the tactics of pro-science advocates which might jeopardize acceptance of the science that you obviously hold in high regard.

Victor: "The distrust about vaccination has nothing to do with trusting/distrusting a pediatrician. It has to do with distrust in the government, in CDC, in pharma companies, and so on."

How does that explain the anti-vaccine movements in Japan, the UK, Germany, etc? Are you assuming the CDC and US government are the center of concern there?

Now, explain to us how Wakefield's fraudulent actions were the fault of the CDC and any pharmaceutical company.

@Dangerous Bacon

But of course, you are Just Asking Questions, and expressing Concern about the tactics of pro-science advocates which might jeopardize acceptance of the science that you obviously hold in high regard.

Yes, that's right. I don't think that shaming, ridiculing, or using the force of law, to get people to accept science is wise or ethical.

Most importantly- I certainly don't think it is effective. And unless you've got some hard data to prove that it is, you're just operating on conjecture. Hardly scientific.

@JP

Happy to be of service!

BSing this statement of purpose for a grant application

Wait wait... are you saying that you actually need to make stuff up in order to get money to perform research?!

Ah yes... the hallowed halls of science. So noble. So pure. (Well if it weren't for all the JAQ-off splatter all over the walls.)

I wasn’t questioning the scientific consensus on vaccines.

I never said you did. What was that again about ninny and strawman?

Ah yes… the hallowed halls of science. So noble. So pure. (Well if it weren’t for all the JAQ-off splatter all over the walls.)

Christ on a cracker; you really don't know how this stuff works do you? Magnets anyone?

@ Narad:

Well, I *could* have gone all David Hume on the subject of the self
BUT I DIDN'T.
I'm sure that all are thankful for that

@Matt:

I'm in the humanities; I'm also a poet. I make sh*t up all the time.

The grant is actually intended to defray the costs of a summer internship in the city government of L'viv. I'm considering a possible career in the Foreign Service, or maybe making connections that could lead to future ex-pat-hood, given the dearth of tenure track jobs in the humanities in general, my field in particular.

@Denice:

Aw, c'mon, it could be fun.

He's not JAQ'ing off...he's a concern troll, Science Mom.

Why don't you provide some suggestions about posting comments which are evidence-based/science-based, with some proof, that do not *antagonize anti-vaxxers, Matt?

* Calling Dr. Jay to tutor us in civility.

Well, I *could* have gone all David Hume on the subject of the self

You say "bundle of sensations", I say "Skandha".

Actually, bimler, most of my familiarity** with Buddhism can be attributed to listening to a bunch ( or bundle?) of psychologists sitting around and talking about the subject. A few of the them were psychotherapists. Go figure.

** other than a course in early Asian history and culture

G-d! I've had an interesting life!
But let's not go there. I wouldn't want to get sued.

A few of the them were psychotherapists. Go figure.

A lot of therapists are into Buddhism of a sort. Most of DBT was taken straight out of Buddhist practice, for instance.

G-d! I’ve had an interesting life!
But let’s not go there. I wouldn’t want to get sued.

so I guess it'll just be me
in the corner bleeding autobiography.

JP, I know so much awful stuff about people - and I exclude clients as a matter of course- just relatives, friends,
paramours and extended contacts through them. It's a veritable horror show**, not good at all. Sex. corruption, malfeasance, greed and incredibly nosey people who have no lives of their own to speak of so they have to mind others' business.

Right now I am trying to intervene for two extremely emotionally vulnerable cousins who are being harassed by distant relations seeking money and probably, entertainment at their distress.

** pun.

@Denice:

Oy. That does not sound fun at all.

Oddly enough, I relate to you quite a bit. I seem to be an unofficial therapist for almost everyone I know IRL, I guess because I really like people and I'm a good listener. I also have a memory like a fly trap. I've sort of been feeling, lately, like a sponge that's been soaked to capacity and is now being squeezed out by some invisible hand, probably ruining that rug forever. It's a bit like being "unstuck in time."

The general effect has also been causing my own stuff to spill out, too, although that's been going on a little bit longer, like a while back when I suddenly spat out to somebody "oh btw there was this rape a couple years back and I was on the wrong end of it and I sort of never said anything about it OOPS."

Good luck helping your cousins.

A lot of therapists are into Buddhism of a sort
Theravada OF COURSE.

I don’t think that shaming, ridiculing, or using the force of law, to get people to accept science is wise or ethical.

People are perfectly free to reject science if they feel like it, and would have been even if the bill had passed.

When we change the meaning of words for reasons of “tactics” or expediency (in other words because we’re too lazy to do it the right way) we undermine the entire fabric of linguistics upon which the whole concept of law is predicated.

The concept of law is not predicated on the fabric of linguistics. That's quite literally nonsense.

That’s quite literally nonsense.

You're talking to someone who thought this made sense in the You Fools Don't Know The MEANINGS Of Words Department: "A policy is different from a law. Policies are set by agencies which are typically authorized by law to create said policies."

Because laws have nothing to do with public policy. Or something.

@Matt
Thank you for your very insightful comments.

Looks like most of the aggressively pro-vax people here (if not all) work for drug companies. They have carefully avoided any comment about the sins of the pharma companies, e.g., the suggestion that pharma executives found guilty of criminal wrongdoing should go to prison.

Of course, they will either ignore this comment or mock it. But if their goal is to win more trust in the vaccines, they are not succeeding.

Helianthus: "Did you miss the part where a lot of people are completely freaked out by chemo? Or surgery, for that matter. Just read the recent threads on the late wellness warrior. Chemo is not a good reference for risk comparison."

Actually it is- anti-vax parents have no life outside of their kids, therefore they will do anything to keep the kids alive, and it isn't just chemo- I imagine that they might be a little more tractable once the pediatrician explains that the parents will have to set any bones kid breaks, and oh, yeah, the ped can't do anything if it heals wrong. Or that emergency surgery/transfusions/stitches are also off the table. Like I said, the parents need to be called on account- if vaccines are off the table, so is everything medical. Ever. Here's the first-aid kit, here are some bandages, there's the door.

"Like I said, the parents need to be called on account- if vaccines are off the table, so is everything medical. Ever. Here’s the first-aid kit, here are some bandages, there’s the door."

The arrogance of the vaccination fascists is beyond belief. They will make you an offer (a la Godfather) you can't refuse.

@ Pgp

Like I said, the parents need to be called on account- if vaccines are off the table, so is everything medical.

A bit harsh, especially since the ones which will suffer are not the ones deciding but rather their children.
But right now, I'm so tired of all this sh!t that I could go for this suggestion.

There is an old adage about the foolishness of ignoring the advice of experts.

Actually it is- anti-vax parents have no life outside of their kids, therefore they will do anything to keep the kids alive, and it isn’t just chemo-

People who would do anything to keep their kids alive? Freaks!

Sadly, though, people who are deep enough into alt med won't do anything to keep their kids alive. (Think of Makayla Sault, for instance.) And then the kids die. Poor kids.

I had a buddhist therapist once. Perfect match for a wasp like me. Feelings just never came up.

That's funny, feelings come up in my Buddhist practice all the time.

alright - they came up but they aren't permanent and don't get attached to them. Mostly it amused me and it was a very good match. Made a great bit in a stand up routine.

@Ann

The concept of law is not predicated on the fabric of linguistics. That’s quite literally nonsense.

Yes- you are right that doesn't really make sense the way I worded it. Good thing I wasn't attempting to draft a law with my post.

@brook:

Fair enough. :)

Of course, they will either ignore this comment or mock it. But if their goal is to win more trust in the vaccines, they are not succeeding.

ZOMG!!11 ZOMG!!!!11 YER ALL PHARMA SHILLZ.

There Victor, how's that.

@Science Lady

You said: How did you arrive at the question that can potentially challenge a consensus?

How did I arrive at the question that can potentially challenge a consensus? I didn't.

@Victor

I'm not on your "team" dude. I'm not on any "team" here.

According to my view- this whole "You're either for us or against us." attitude which seems to pervade just about every topic nowadays is the problem, itself.

You're projecting your view on to my words just like some other supposed "pro-vaxxers" here.

The problem is: Nobody ever really asked me what my view on vaccines was. They just jump to assumptions.

Well here... why don't I just tell you. Especially since I have a baby due in just a few weeks it's particularly relevant for me right now.

My view is: I distrust anybody who claims that vaccines are 100% safe, and that anybody who has a question about them must be an "anti-vax" nutter. I also distrust anybody who claims that vaccines are 100% unsafe, and that anybody who supports the current vaccination schedule is a "Pharma shill."

Why? Well first off, because there are different types of vaccines. Secondly, because each vaccine has a different risk/benefit profile.

So here's what I'm planning to do. I'm planning to vaccinate my kid, and to consult with a pediatrician about exactly which vaccines to give and when.

I'm hoping that the pediatrician can actually formulate a more nuanced opinion than simply, "Vaccines are the BEST THING EVARRR and you should do whatever the CDC says you should do because government agencies are AWESOME, and you should blindly trust whatever they say. And if you DON'T do whatever they say, I will kick you out of my practice, call CPS on you, and hope that you get put in jail."

(I'm exaggerating for effect BTW.)

We'll find out next week. Wish me luck.

At this moment I get an advertisement for Easy Health Options, with a poll about forced vaccinations. One could guess where that leads to.
Though my understanding of English, might be limited, but I think I can see the difference between forced and mandatory.

@lilady

Why don’t you provide some suggestions about posting comments which are evidence-based/science-based, with some proof, that do not *antagonize anti-vaxxers, Matt?

I imagine that "anti-vaxxers" will be antagonized whatever you say. But here are some suggestions for the vast majority* who live somewhere between black and white. (*no I don't have a citation for that)

If somebody rolls in with a "stupid" question or a nonsensical "anti-vax" trope that keeps rearing its ugly head no matter how many times it's been slapped down... first of all don't sit idly by while other members of your "community" (or whatever you want to call it) make troll-ish antagonistic comments about them.

You should have a zero-tolerance policy for trolling, name-calling, and other juvenile behaviors here.

Next up- you should attempt to establish rapport with the person by acknowledging that their concerns (however misguided you feel them to be) are actually coming from a place of love and care.

Assure them that's a good thing. For example: "It seems to me that you must really care about the health and well-being of yourself and your family. That's great! We also care a lot about people's health. We want people to be healthy too, and we applaud your efforts to look out for yourself and your loved ones."

How about starting there... and seeing if the conversation goes in a different direction.

My view is: I distrust anybody who claims that vaccines are 100% safe, and that anybody who has a question about them must be an “anti-vax” nutter.

That's good, because no one here says vaccines are 100% safe. Certainly I never have. What we do say is that the risk of vaccination is incredibly low and that the risk-benefit equation for vaccination comes out very much on the side of vaccination.

That being said, the claims that vaccines cause autism, that they don't work, that they cause SIDS, that they cause autoimmune disorders, that shaken baby syndrome is a misdiagnosis for "vaccine injury," that "shedding" from vaccinated children is really responsible for outbreaks, and a whole number of other demonstrably incorrect claims are based on misinformation, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories. These sorts of views are antivaccine.

I also distrust anybody who claims that vaccines are 100% unsafe, and that anybody who supports the current vaccination schedule is a “Pharma shill.”

Of course, only the most loony antivaxers claim that vaccines are "100% unsafe." Nice false dichotomy ya got there: You don't trust those who claim vaccines are "100% safe" (who don't exist) or those who claim vaccines are "100% unsafe" (who are rare), thus setting yourself up for the logical fallacy known as the appeal to the golden mean or the fallacy of moderation. The problem, of course, is that in science the correct answer doesn't necessarily lie between two extremes like this. There is a correct answer and there is an incorrect answer. The correct answer is that, to the best of science's ability to ascertain, the current vaccination program is safe and effective and does not cause autism, SIDS, autoimmune diseases, diabetes and other chronic diseases, and the like.

As for your disparagement of the CDC-recommended schedule, you seem to act as though the CDC and AAP pulled that schedule out of its nether regions. To co-opt Isaac Asimov's famous observation that "creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being out drunk all night," after having read several of your comments I find it hard not to conclude that you make it sound as though the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule is something the panel charged with making vaccine recommendations thought up after an all night bender, rather than a carefully crafted set of recommendations based on science.

Few pediatricians have the requisite background knowledge or familiarity with the scientific literature to formulate their own recommended vaccine schedule. Those who claim they do tend to demonstrate through their reasoning (or, more appropriately, their lack thereof) that they don't understand the issues. ("Dr. Bob" Sears comes to mind.) So it is not a mark of shame or incompetence for a pediatrician to follow the CDC guidelines, nor is it an indication that they unthinkingly believe that government agencies are "awesome" and that vaccines are the "best thing evar" (although from my perspective vaccines do rank high on the list of best things ever, as well they should given the number of lives they've saved).

You should have a zero-tolerance policy for trolling, name-calling, and other juvenile behaviors here.

Next up- you should attempt to establish rapport with the person by acknowledging that their concerns (however misguided you feel them to be) are actually coming from a place of love and care.

And how do you know that my commenters haven't done that in the past or don't do that? You don't. You're a newbie, and this blog has been in existence over ten years, nine years on the same ScienceBlogs.com platform. It has a long history for a blog, and a few of the regular commenters here have even been here since near the beginning, back when this was a teeny tiny little blog with teeny tiny traffic.

Here's the thing. My commenters (and I) have a pretty good nose for commenters who are genuinely puzzled and worried about vaccines compared to antivax trolls who come in to stir up trouble, the latter of whom deserve the comments they get. Is their detection perfect? No, but over the last decade I've observed that it's pretty darned good.

@Science Lady

I apologize for calling you a ninny.

@Matt

Congratulations on the coming baby. You will love it!

I think what you say about vaccines makes a lot of sense. Your approach is similar to what my husband and I did with our kids. It's great if you have the time and ability to research each vaccine a bit to make your decision. You are correct that the cost/benefit equation is a bit different for each vaccine. It certainly made sense to me to evaluate them based on our family history and the risk of each disease in our local area. For example, we decided to skip the Hep B vaccine back in 1999 due to low risk of our newborn becoming infected. On the other hand, measles is so contagious that despite it being essentially non-existent in the US then, I had no qualms about making sure they got that vaccine.

Here's hoping that the pediatrician Matt seeks out for "a more nuanced opinion" on vaccination can provide an evidence-based justification for whatever delayed/partial immunization schedule Matt evidently wants.

This sort of half-assed vaccination program a la Bob Sears has been discussed here on numerous occasions. None of the "more nuanced" supporters of such a schedule have been able to justify it on a scientific basis, other than to make vague and unsupported allusions to things like limiting "toxin" exposure.

Matt needs to do more than chiding those narsty "pro-vaxxers" for their "extremist" attitudes and patting himself on the back for seeking out that oh-so-reasonable middle ground. Using due diligence to find out the consequences of occupying a middle ground between science and quackery would be an excellent idea.

Victor, you failed to answer this question: "Now, explain to us how Wakefield’s fraudulent actions were the fault of the CDC and any pharmaceutical company."

@Orac

Nice false dichotomy ya got there: You don’t trust those who claim vaccines are “100% safe” (who don’t exist) or those who claim vaccines are “100% unsafe” (who are rare), thus setting yourself up for the logical fallacy known as the appeal to the golden mean or the fallacy of moderation.

I know what false dichotomy and the fallacy of moderation are. (No thanks to 12 years of public education or even an undergraduate philosophy degree. I had to learn about logical fallacies on my own.)

I can see where it might seem to you that I am setting one up, but that's not what I was attempting to say. What I'm trying to say is that I am skeptical of anybody who expresses an extreme view on any topic, for or against.

I understand that the truth might not always lay squarely in the middle of two opposing views. What I'm actually trying to say is that I'm exasperated by every hot-button issue being framed in the context of two opposing views, and by others trying to pigeonhole me into one of the "two camps" by projecting into my comments, rather than straight-out asking me for clarification of my views.

The problem, of course, is that in science the correct answer doesn’t necessarily lie between two extremes like this.

Yes, of course. But neither does the correct answer necessarily lie in whatever the "consensus" happens to be at any given moment. That's appeal to the majority.

The correct answer is that, to the best of science’s ability to ascertain, the current vaccination program is safe and effective and does not cause autism, SIDS, autoimmune diseases, diabetes and other chronic diseases, and the like.

I agree that is the correct answer, because you qualified it with "to the best of science's ability to ascertain."

As for your disparagement of the CDC-recommended schedule, you seem to act as though the CDC and AAP pulled that schedule out of its nether regions.

Sorry if it seems that way, but I do actually realize that a lot of careful thought by many different people has gone into making that recommendation. I do also realize how heavily swayed government agencies are by private industries who stand to make boatloads of money based upon their policymaking.

So that's life. I'm willing to accept it. But I don't like it.

after having read several of your comments I find it hard not to conclude that you make it sound as though the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule is something the panel charged with making vaccine recommendations thought up after an all night bender, rather than a carefully crafted set of recommendations based on science.

I'm not quite sure how you would make that assessment based upon several of my comments, since only a couple of them actually referred to the CDC vaccination schedule.

Remember- I'm not here to argue against vaccines. I'm here to argue against making laws to enforce the scientific consensus about vaccines. (Or any other scientific consensus, for that matter.)

And how do you know that my commenters haven’t done that in the past or don’t do that? You don’t.

You're right; I don't. All I have to go on is my own experience. Thus far, I've encountered several people who have engaged me in a polite and civil manner. I've also encountered several others who are rude and insert disruptive troll-ish comments into conversations I am attempting to have with others.

Sadly, it seems to me that certain individuals are given a "free pass" to be disruptive here on this blog, for reasons that I don't understand.

Here’s the thing. My commenters (and I) have a pretty good nose for commenters who are genuinely puzzled and worried about vaccines compared to antivax trolls who come in to stir up trouble, the latter of whom deserve the comments they get. Is their detection perfect? No, but over the last decade I’ve observed that it’s pretty darned good.

Well, at least you and some of your commenters are trying. As for others, I believe their detection methods need a little more work.

I am not here trying to "stir up trouble." I can assure you of that.

@Science Mom #311

Just as I thought. Mocking comes easy when you don't have anything better to say.

But I still see no takers on the simple suggestion that pharma executives who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing (in relation to drug testing, promotion, etc.) MUST go to prison.

Everybody loves to hate Wakefield. But I think he should probably get a Nobel Prize if only for making people realize the extent of corruption inside the pharma industry and the drug marketing journal (aka medical journals) industry.

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0…

@Science Lady
I apologize for calling you a ninny.

Thank you and accepted. Though my 'nym is Science Mom or SM if you prefer.

Victor, so Wakefield's actions are forgiven by you because he was being paid by a lawyer while working for the NHS? Do they give Novel prizes for those who lie about their work?

So exactly how did the CDC and pharmaceutical companies cause Wakefield to commit change the data on the several of the dozen kids?

And exactly which of the three MMR vaccines that the UK introduced in 1988 was his research on? And why was there an American kid who got the American MMR vaccine?

Just as I thought. Mocking comes easy when you don’t have anything better to say.

And your "better things to say" include calling us pharma shills because we are muttering the Victor-approved indignation about sleazy pharma practises?

Everybody loves to hate Wakefield. But I think he should probably get a Nobel Prize if only for making people realize the extent of corruption inside the pharma industry and the drug marketing journal (aka medical journals) industry.

I hate to break this to you Victor but pharma misdeeds are pretty transparent. Have you ever even gone to the FDA or EMA websites to peruse the countless documents regarding violations and fines? Has Dr. Ben Goldacre been somehow silenced for his crusade against pharma shenanigans? Also, Wakefield should know about corruption; he falsified data, took a lot of money from the UK Legal Aid Board to do it, abused special needs children, was struck of the GMC for doing so (amongst other gross violations) and started up his own companies to profit off of his fraud. Sure give that man a Nobel prize.

@Chris

Wakefield's ethics do not matter in the bigger picture. The ethics of pharma industry do. Vaccines are made by the pharma industry, not by Wakefiled in his garage.

I don't really care that much if Wakefield goes to prison or gets a Nobel prize. But I do care a lot about the ethics of people who test my vaccines. So what do you think of the suggestion that pharma executives who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing (in relation to drug testing, promotion, etc.) MUST go to prison?

Remember- I’m not here to argue against vaccines. I’m here to argue against making laws to enforce the scientific consensus about vaccines. (Or any other scientific consensus, for that matter.)

Really? Do you think we should go back to allowing the sale of lead paint and lead children's toys? The ban on those things was based on the scientific consensus that lead is an extremely potent neurotoxin, after all.

^aren't FFS.

Really? Do you think we should go back to allowing the sale of lead paint and lead children’s toys? The ban on those things was based on the scientific consensus that lead is an extremely potent neurotoxin, after all.

You beat me to it, and there are many more examples.

For instance, should we allow the sale of leaded fuel again? After all, it's just a scientific consensus that lead in gasoline was a substantial contributor to pollution and potentially neurotoxic? Or perhaps we shouldn't be requiring adults to wear seat belts or babies and young children to be placed in car seats any more? After all, it's just a scientific consensus that people have a much greater chance of survival and of avoiding serious injury in a car crash if they are properly restrained. How dare the state enforce a scientific consensus forcing people to buckle up for greater safety? Or what about indoor smoking bans? After all, how dare the state enforce a scientific consensus that being around secondhand smoke all day at work raises the risk of respiratory and heart disease in workers? Or what about various pollution standards? We can't enforce a scientific consensus that certain pollutants cause harm to the environment and people and therefore should be limited, can we?

Funny how selective Matt seems to be about his dislike of "making laws to enforce the scientific consensus." It seems to be just about vaccines.

Victor: The arrogance of the vaccination fascists is beyond belief. They will make you an offer (a la Godfather) you can’t refuse.

Nope, simple logic. If the parents don't trust a pediatrician to give vaccines, they won't trust the pediatrician to provide other sorts of medical care. And why should the pediatrician have to put up with that? Also, the parents already believe that the education they have is superior to the ped's and therefore, only went to the office to antagonize the doctors. They don't actually want any medical care.

Matt: But here are some suggestions for the vast majority* who live somewhere between black and white.

I pointed out a while ago, that on this issue, there are no fence sitters. Pretending that there are is a flat-out lie.

Matt, again: Next up- you should attempt to establish rapport with the person by acknowledging that their concerns (however misguided you feel them to be) are actually coming from a place of love and care.

Oh, boy, you haven't actually met many anti-vaxxers have you? I dare you to read any ten posts at Age of Autism and Thinking Mom's Revolution. If you still think the parents at those blogs are capable of "love and care" for any one but themselves after reading their posts, I just don't know what to say. And these are the people who bankroll the famous anti-vaxxers, not a bunch of random trolls.
A lot of the other posters here have had more direct engagements with the people at those blogs. Rappaport isn't possible- I'd rather deal with pond scum any day.

Victor: "But I do care a lot about the ethics of people who test my vaccines"

And yet you are a Wakefield fanboi. You go on about how bad "Big Pharma" is, and yet have decided to defend Wakefield and his blatant fraudulent actions. This also includes his worthless lawsuits, and recently making videos where one included recording taking without the person's permission or knowledge.

@Politicalguineapig #331
Looks like the arrogance here is really deep-rooted. You are forgetting that the doctors work for the patients and not the other way around.

Businesses always put up with the whims of their customers even when they seem irrational.

@Chris.

I said I really don't care about Wakefield that much.

BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE SUGGESTION THAT PHARMA EXECUTIVES WHO ARE GUILTY OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING (IN RELATION TO DRUG TESTING, ETC) MUST GO TO PRISON?

Your silence (and that of others) on the above question is quite deafening.

So what do you think of the suggestion that pharma executives who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing (in relation to drug testing, promotion, etc.) MUST go to prison?

It depends - what are the prescribed punishments for the crimes for which they've been found guilty? If they're guilty of a crime and the law says they must serve prison time, then of course.

Victor: "Businesses always put up with the whims of their customers even when they seem irrational."

Like the ones created by Wakefield? Are you are also a fanboi of his "Autism Media Channel"? Have you donated to his “Defending Academic Integrity and Research”, "Academic Integrity" and “Dr. Wakefield Justice" funds?

I’m here to argue against making laws to enforce the scientific consensus about vaccines. (Or any other scientific consensus, for that matter.)

Rules on vaccination aren't intended to enforce the scientific consensus - they're intended to preserve public health and should be based on the scientific consensus for what will best achieve that goal.

@mob #335
I am suggesting a tightening of the law. So a drug company found guilty of drug testing/safety/promotion related crime cannot get away with it by simply paying a fine (even if the fine is a trillion dollars). They must name the most senior person aware of the violation and offer him for sentencing.

Victor: "I said I really don’t care about Wakefield that much."

Ah really, fanboi? Here are your words: "Everybody loves to hate Wakefield. But I think he should probably get a Nobel Prize if only for making people realize the extent of corruption inside the pharma industry and the drug marketing journal (aka medical journals) industry. "

Oooh, you have become a bit shouty: "BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE SUGGESTION THAT PHARMA EXECUTIVES WHO ARE GUILTY OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING (IN RELATION TO DRUG TESTING, ETC) MUST GO TO PRISON?"

You have no real evidence that anyone associated with the development, manufacturing, testing and distribution of vaccines have engaged in any illegal activity. If you did you would not have made vague pronouncements.

Do tell us who is guilty and of what crime with real specifics. Just don't mention this one, which is just silly.

Victor: "So a drug company found guilty of drug testing/safety/promotion related crime cannot get away with it by simply paying a fine (even if the fine is a trillion dollars)."

Who did what, and where was it proved? Stick to vaccines and real crimes/

@Chris #334 and #336
You are so obsessed with Wakefield!
May be you are one of the pharma executives that I was referring to in #334.

Matt, you've been squatting here for days and have engaged in blatant concern trolling and tone trolling. You've also brought up archaic State laws, regulations and court cases, that have nothing to do with pending vaccination bills before multiple State legislatures.

You've been called out multiple times for your insulting, devoid of content, citationless comments....yet you still persist.

You've got your colossal nerve to presume to give me advice about how I comment, the content of my comments, the frequency of my comments and how I do or don't indulge thread-derailing tone trolls, concern trolls and other assorted cranks. Unlike you, I do have a real life and I do participate in discussions on many other science blogs, when I am online.

I suggest the next time you post a comment on Respectful Insolence that you refrain from engaging commenters who are actually knowledgeable about childhood vaccines, vaccine-preventable diseases, immunology, bacteriology, epidemiology, Constitutional law and State laws and regulations.

@Chris

http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma

I am suggesting a tightening of the law.

Really? Which law?

So what do you think of the suggestion that pharma executives who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing (in relation to drug testing, promotion, etc.) MUST go to prison?

Well first, what crimes have been committed and by whom?

@ JP:

That's one of the risks you take whenever you communicate with others on a more than superficial level. Our memory contravenes by referencing similarities; underlying interconnections may exist of which we are unaware until they hurtle into us at full speed. For example, I find myself stepping around particular words or images with certain people necessitating extremely creative speech at times because I KNOW how they may affected and that it might set them back for a few days. As I just did on the phone an hour ago. Or I see a film with a bombing and feel repercussions because I have a friend who lost a family member long ago to a bombing - who had to identify the widely scattered remains- and I've witnessed her distress whenever present day wartime or other bombings occur in the news so I react as if by proxy.

So what can you do to ameliorate unwanted recall? Perhaps you can turn it into something else- use your current energies in consciousness working at OTHER materials or transforming the outcome into art or fiction. It's very hard to do but possible. Talking about it is always a way of diffusing these bombs because other people have entirely different artillery of their own. And you ARE a poet.

I can't say that this doesn't take a toll on my emotions but for the most part, I'm reliably stable.

may AFFECT THEM.

I am suggesting a tightening of the law. So a drug company found guilty of drug testing/safety/promotion related crime cannot get away with it by simply paying a fine (even if the fine is a trillion dollars). They must name the most senior person aware of the violation and offer him for sentencing.

I personally have no issue with people who work for corporations being held legally liable for the illegal acts they perform on behalf of the company. The devil, as they say, is in the details. The wording above seems to suggest sending one person to jail to punish the group - regardless of that person's actual culpability in the crime. All they had to do was "be aware". I immediately see two issues with that proposal.
1. The most senior person aware may not have been culpable. Say the head of R&D finds that some people in marketing is bribing doctors. Does the head of R&D get sacrificed, despite her efforts to stop the practice?
2. A truly unethical company would budget for this and have designated scapegoats among their senior dead wood.

If the laws can be updated to punish the people actually culpable, I have no issue.

Victor: "http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma"

None of those have anything to do with vaccines.

Again what comes have been committed by the vaccine divisions of pharmaceutical companies? How are they worse than Wakefield's fraudulent deeds, and the Geiers chemical castration treatment, Boyd Haley selling an industrial chelator as a supplement and those who promote MMS, a bleach people are giving children in enemas?

You cannot claim unnamed persons need to go to jail for unnamed deeds, yet let the scams perpetrated on desperate be ignored.

@Denice:

I don't know if the recall is entirely unwanted; I've actually gone through a shift of late where the recall actually has emotional content, which doesn't strike me as an entirely bad thing. That is to say, I've always had a fabulous, almost freakish memory for details - to the point where people used to tease me about being a spy - but the facts and details were generally unconnected to any sort of affect.

There's also the fact that I've just got more time on my hands than I ever have before, which is a weird feeling. Even if I may seem to be slightly unraveling, I don't know if that's entire a bad thing either. For most of my life I've been working very hard to keep it together, which has been necessary but also required a certain amount of denial and/or repression on my part. Actually, I'm reminded of a friend, somewhat older than me, who I knew from back at the Zen Center in Portland. Similar history, cruddy family stuff, also moved out at 16, etc. Back about five years ago, she was in her late twenties and finally in a more-or-less stable position, and things sort of started to come apart in a certain way. She ended up quitting her job and went to Columbia to study physics, and is now applying to PhD programs, I think.

Perhaps you can turn it into something else- use your current energies in consciousness working at OTHER materials or transforming the outcome into art or fiction. It’s very hard to do but possible.

Yeah, I've finally been getting back into non-academic writing after an uncomfortably long hiatus. A year ago or so, my Bosnian BFF and I were talking on the balcony at 5 in the morning, as was our wont in that era - the relationship can be a bit Sid and Nancy at times, to be honest - and he said to me, "Seriously, you've gotta write this stuff down." So there's that.

I gotta say, the spring-like weather - though one never knows how long it will stick around - is providing quite a bit of psychic relief at the moment.

Do tell us who is guilty and of what crime with real specifics. Just don’t mention this one, which is just silly.

Actually, Krahling & Wlochowski would be one good place for Victor to start sorting out his now-shrieking thought-blob into something vaguely connected to the actual world.

May be you are one of the pharma executives that I was referring to in #334.

Is everyone who disagrees with you being paid to do so?

the relationship can be a bit Sid and Nancy at times, to be honest

"Mutually assured self-destruction" is a phrase that just occurred to me.

May be you are one of the pharma executives that I was referring to in #334.

Yay Chris got a promotion!! Drinks and monkey kidney hors-d'oeuvres at our weekly shill roundtable are on Chris.

So what do you think of the suggestion that pharma executives who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing (in relation to drug testing, promotion, etc.) MUST go to prison?

If Vijay was right back at #157, vaccination laws are a huge drug-company conspiracy to cover up the fact that vaccines shorten life-spans:

The primary reason the vaccine companies want to take away all vax exemptions is so that no unvaccinated or undervaccinated kids remain around for comparison with fully vaccinated kids.
Because the worst thing for them is a future study which shows that unvaccinated or undervaccinated kids remain healthier and live longer on average than fully vaccinated kids.

If they're that powerful, I'm sure the executives can conceal any evidence of how much they know

Science Mom: "Yay Chris got a promotion!! Drinks and monkey kidney hors-d’oeuvres at our weekly shill roundtable are on Chris."

Yeah, sure I got a raise that multiplied my income several times. But even multiply zero with googol comes out to zero dollars.

I still want to know what crimes were committed by those who work with vaccines. Also why folks like the Geiers, Haley, Rashid Buttar, Tenpenny and others like Roy Kerry who actually strapped a kid to a table and pushed drugs into his little body until his heart stopped are still considered "heroes" to the antivaccine folks.

@MOB #348

1. If a crime is committed by an employee X in marketing, the R&D folks should not have to worry about it. Only Mr. X and the people in the chain of command above X would be potentially liable.

2.Re scapegoating: If a guy is innocent, and does not want to be punished for the misdeeds of others, all he has to do is to notify his boss about any potentially criminal activity in his group through emails. Then his boss will be the one going to prison if he does not act to stop the illegal activity.

Matt: "But neither does the correct answer necessarily lie in whatever the “consensus” happens to be at any given moment. That’s appeal to the majority."

An excellent point. As you may know, there is a substantial, but relatively small element in the alt med community which holds that the germ theory of disease is wrong, that Pasteur recanted it on his deathbed and that infectious diseases are not caused by pathogens, but always result from some defect in the body (there are lots of potions, supplements and cleanses to remedy these defects).

Now the extreme alternate position is that there's excellent evidence including clinical data to show that pathogens do indeed infect healthy people and that antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral agents are often necessary to treat and cure infections. But following your logic, agencies that make recommendations for antibiotic use are heavily swayed by private industries that stand to make a boatload of money from antibiotic sales.

So you should give strong consideration, the next time you are diagnosed with, say, pneumonia or sepsis, casting a highly skeptical eye on the physician(s) who prescribe antibiotics or other measures, and look for a middle ground between these self-interested people and germ theory deniers.

How about an alternate antibiotic schedule? You could take half the recommended dose on alternate days, or maybe skip the antibiotics entirely until you see whether an alternative remedy is working.

Let us know how that turns out.

Victor, what kind of punishment do you think is fair for chemically castrating children?

Also, what about trapping a five year old down to push drugs into them until they died, only because the child was autistic?

Victor: "You are forgetting that the doctors work for the patients and not the other way around. Businesses always put up with the whims of their customers even when they seem irrational."

You don't understand what the medical system is, do you? People go to doctors because the doctors possess knowledge they don't have. Doctors are consultants, not waitresses or baristas who have to fill orders no matter how nonsensical it may seem. In fact, a doctor sometimes has to go against the patient's wishes or suggest a course of action that a patient may not like. For instance, say a patient comes in and wants their hand removed. The hand works perfectly well, but the patient doesn't like it. In your scenario, the doctor would have to sign the patient up for surgery. In the real world, the doctor would lose their job if they did that.

If a guy is innocent, and does not want to be punished for the misdeeds of others, all he has to do is to notify his boss about any potentially criminal activity in his group through emails. Then his boss will be the one going to prison if he does not act to stop the illegal activity.

To go to full on corporate intrigue/conspiracy mode: If I, as that person's boss, had deliberately set that person up as scapegoat, I would ensure I never read those messages and that they were accidentally deleted. Likewise, I'd ensure that the person I was trying to protect sent said messages to my chosen scapegoat at every opportunity - preferably in a way that would be ignored.

2.Re scapegoating: If a guy is innocent, and does not want to be punished for the misdeeds of others, all he has to do is to notify his boss about any potentially criminal activity in his group through emails. Then his boss will be the one going to prison if he does not act to stop the illegal activity.

Uh-huh.

Look, Victor, quit blowing smoke out of your ass and start demonstrating that you have anything vaguely resembling a grip on current law.

@ PGP:

That's a hilarious image: doctor-barista.**
Perhaps the woo-entranced carp about doctors' elitism so much because the latter DON'T cater to their every whim.

** and I'll leave the diverse medicinal uses of coffee aside

@ JP:

I wonder if various methods ( meditation et al) of emptying the mind might be replaced effectively with ways of filling the mind instead with better stuffing. Might be easier to manage.

@lilady

You’ve got your colossal nerve to presume to give me advice about how I comment

Why don’t you provide some suggestions about posting comments which are evidence-based/science-based, with some proof, that do not *antagonize anti-vaxxers, Matt?

*blink*

Here is another question: Mississippi and West Virginia have banned non-medical exemptions for nearly 40 years. What tangible health benefits have they reaped (compared to other 48 states) in terms of, say, infant mortality, life expectancy, physical fitness, health care cost, lost days from work (due to sickness), etc.?

Here is another question

Howsabout you deal with your first incoherent position rather than trying to escape to another dopily ill-posed one?

How about an alternate antibiotic schedule? You could take half the recommended dose on alternate days,

Note to bystanders in case there is any doubt: taking small doses of antibiotics is a good way to promote the happenstance of more antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

So what do you think of the suggestion that pharma executives who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing (in relation to drug testing, promotion, etc.) MUST go to prison?

You imagine that pharma companies cannot be trusted at all, yet you propose that they can be trusted on who they want to throw under the bus when someone does something deemed bad. Uh huh.
OTOH, we know of a famous vaccine developer/researcher who committed blatant fraud against his competition, also accepting Legal Aid funds in the process. Are you suggesting that Wakefield s[pend time in the pokey?

@Orac

Funny how selective Matt seems to be about his dislike of “making laws to enforce the scientific consensus.” It seems to be just about vaccines.

Point taken. I must concede that the argument doesn't hold up in light of those other examples. But no- it isn't just about vaccines.

I don't like some of those other laws you mentioned, either. I will have to reflect more deeply on why they irk me so much. It's not that I disagree with the idea itself- for example I wear my seat belt when I drive. But it irks me that "somebody, somewhere" is watching me to make sure I am wearing my seat belt, and will punish me if I don't.

@Bill
Wakefield is not that important to me. He is not making and testing MY vaccines.

Even if the pharma companies throw a few scapegoats under the bus, it would eventually lead to a less corrupt system. Employees will become smart enough to avoid becoming scapegoats. They may document/record critical conversations with their bosses to protect themselves, or have witnesses (or do whatever works). The current system has no accountability for criminal actions that threaten the health of tens of thousands.

Plenty of people don't trust the drug companies today (including me). And as someone said earlier, you cannot earn trust through bullying, mocking, trivializing, patronizing, and so on. You cannot even earn trust by presenting tons of statistics and scientific evidence. Building trust is a slow process and it requires doing things that seem trustworthy to others.

Howsabout you deal with your first incoherent position rather than trying to escape to another dopily ill-posed one?

Indeed, I would love to see people do that. I am tired of this bahviour; make a statement, people criticize it, and rather than dealing with that, just move on to another point.

@Dangerous Bacon

How about an alternate antibiotic schedule? You could take half the recommended dose on alternate days, or maybe skip the antibiotics entirely until you see whether an alternative remedy is working.

If I have a life-threatening bacterial infection- I will take the antibiotics as prescribed.

However, if for some reason I didn't... I don't think I should be fined or jailed for endangering public health, or have my child taken away for exposing them to dangerous pathogens.

@Matt #370
The seat belt may be annoying, but not many people believe that wearing seat belt is a significant risk to their health or safety.

The ban on lead in gasoline applies to industry, not to individuals.

Most regulations affecting individuals tend to be about prohibiting something: Can't smoke here, can't drink till you are 21, can't build house bigger than this, can't sell this or that. I can't think of any regulation where individuals are required to do something in order to live a normal life, and which even a a small percentage of people think may be risky to their safety or health.

Victor: "Here is another question"

How about you answering our questions on what specific malfeasance has been committed by any employee connected the development, testing, manufacturing and distribution of vaccines?

Plus compare that to the real crimes committed by those who prey on parents of disabled children. What punishment should Dr. Usman after her treating disabled children with unproven and unnecessary methods. By the way, she is the one who ordered Dr. Kerry to perform the treatment that killed a kid.

@Chris #375

I am the customer. I get to ask more questions. You get to answer more.

Why? Because in the best case, you are trying to "sell" me vaccines. In the worst case, you are trying to impose your will on me.

In either case, I get to ask more questions. You can either give me persuasive answers, or try to coerce me. It looks like most pro-vax people on this blog prefer the method of coercion.

I am tired of this bahviour; make a statement, people criticize it, and rather than dealing with that, just move on to another point.

I am tired of being asked questions by one party, and then being jumped on by a third-party when attempting to answer the question.

Or in at least one recent case... being asked a question by one party, and then being jumped on by the SAME party when attempting to answer the question.

Wakefield is not that important to me. He is not making and testing MY vaccines.

So you're only interested in revenge. If it doen't visably affect you, it's not a matter of concern.

Even if the pharma companies throw a few scapegoats under the bus, it would eventually lead to a less corrupt system. Employees will become smart enough to avoid becoming scapegoats. They may document/record critical conversations with their bosses to protect themselves, or have witnesses (or do whatever works). The current system has no accountability for criminal actions that threaten the health of tens of thousands.

Your proposal does not provide for any judicial determination: the company nominates a culprit, who is then jailed. Without the judicial process, you would have the company (and only the company) evaluate the evidence, should they wish to do so. Sounds like a wonderful situaution, for the most adept at corporate politics anyway.

@Denice:

I wonder if various methods ( meditation et al) of emptying the mind might be replaced effectively with ways of filling the mind instead with better stuffing. Might be easier to manage.

Actually, it's a common misconception that meditation means "emptying the mind," at least in regards to zazen. In fact, I was drifting away from the practice over the past couple years, due to being busy and also not in the best place mentally, sort of.

The practice is actually to let whatever comes up come up, without clinging to it or running away from it, which I think is actually psychologically useful. Some people do fall into trying to suppress thought or emotion, which is actually not recommended - it's like trying to climb out of one's humanity, which is impossible, really. In any case, since coming back to a more earnest practice over the past month or so, I have found it to be helpful in a certain way.

^ There's also a very nice Zen Temple here in town, which I was avoiding because of my own hangups about not being a good Buddhist - I particular suck at keeping the 5th precept, for instance, which was particularly apparent during a certain recent era - but that's a reflection of my own f*cked-up-edness, not the community.

@Bill

The company does not merely nominate a scapegoat. The company also allows FDA, DOJ, etc. to investigate individual culpability. It allows access to internal documents and emails. It cannot stonewall.

The judicial process determines the ultimate culprit. But if the FDA determines that there was a criminal violation, they would be required to nail down at least one employee (the senior-most possible). They cannot merely fine the company.

^ particularly, that is. There's also the messed up notion in my head that having emotional crises is something shameful that should be hidden away.

But if the FDA determines that there was a criminal violation, they would be required to nail down at least one employee (the senior-most possible).

At least now you've made it irrefutably clear that you have no fυcking idea how federal criminal prosecutions work.

@Narad #383

Anger is also not very effective at building trust.

@ JP:

I'm somewhat familiar with that from reading, training for working with people ( relaxation techniques etc) Some of the mindfulness ideas may be related.
My own approach is rather to actively *build* whatever one builds in the mind's eye/ ear. More related to direction via inner speech, self-talk, rehearsal, preparation. Writing.
Rather than allowing a stream, directing a stream.

@Denice:

Yeah, "mindfulness" comes straight out of Buddhist practice. I've never been one for guided or directed meditations, although some schools of Buddhism engage in them - Tibetan tong-lan, etc. But I have what basically amounts to a religious faith in zazen/shikantaza practice - in some cases, it can actually make thing worse for some people in the short term, which is why I actually feel sort of ambivalent about therapists who haven't been doing the practice for decades recommending it to patients. Having an experienced teacher is really important at certain stages.

See this article, for instance.

The company does not merely nominate a scapegoat. The company also allows FDA, DOJ, etc. to investigate individual culpability.

So you're changing your proposal again. Why not change it some more? I suspect that if you were to change it enough to pass constitutional muster, it will become indistinguishable from the current process.

Anger is also not very effective at building trust.

I'm not "angry," Victor, I'm pointing out a simple fact.

I will offer a protip, though: Tediously evading the implicit observation that you're full of shіt isn't a great trust-builder, either. Now, perhaps you could go Occupy!1!! your Propublica link instead of treating it like a magic talisman, and get back with the specific causes of action, the specific outcomes, what you would specifically disallow among those, what you augur the effects would be, and how you come to that conclusion.

I suspect that if you were to change it enough to pass constitutional muster, it will become indistinguishable from the current process.

What, you weren't aware that it's, liek, a totes nono to issue subpenes and convene grand juries?

Victor: "Why? Because in the best case, you are trying to “sell” me vaccines. In the worst case, you are trying to impose your will on me. "

Your my customer?

Oh, really? Point out the comment where I tried to sell you any vaccine.

You made a claim, and I am trying to get to prove that claim. You have not clarified what crimes have been made by any vaccine division employee of a pharmaceutical company. You have also not condemned any of the actions made by the Geiers, Roy Kerry, Boyd Haley, Wakefield and the other vultures who prey on parents of disabled kids.

Come on, tell us... do you support selling worthless and sometimes harmful stuff to be used on disabled kids?

To make an analogy, an inexperienced therapist recommending mindfulness meditation to a patient is kind of like telling them, "Hey, here's 500 mics of LSD, go home and take it and tell me how it went when we meet next week." Hyperbolic, sure, and I do think that meditation practice can do a lot of people a lot of good, but it's not without its pitfalls, either.

^That was @Denice.

By the way, Victor, you are not my customer. I sell nothing, I am just a parent who has been a target of a particular kind of critter who wants to make money off my kid's disability. I left a support forum because one of the "mothers" was actually an employee of Bradstreet trying to get more customers.

I left the week before one of their kind executed a little boy just because he had autism.

In the worst case, you are trying to impose your will on me.

It's a little-known fact that Wille zur Macht and Thelema were actually the underpinnings of common law before someone like Julie Christie birthed of The Age Of Impurity.

@ JP:

I don't recommend any of that - it's more about talking and planning- looking at situations from a different perspective. I've used minor suggestions about breathing for people experiencing stressful periods accompanied with verbal instructions ..

Actually, they were teaching various methods of internal control 30 years ago when I studied and trained. So not a spiritual method but a way of self-control .

Yeah, "spiritual method" and "way of self-control" are pretty different things. I just feel a little bit weird, to be honest, about the way that Buddhist meditation has been taken out of its 2500-year-old context and community in order to use it as a therapeutic modality. I mean, there are reasons why these communities and teachers exist.

That said, I do think there's a lot of value in what has been termed "mindfulness" meditation - I just wish that there was more recognition, within the psychotherapeutic community, that's it's not a panacea, and it's not a trivial thing.

I am tired of being asked questions by one party, and then being jumped on by a third-party when attempting to answer the question.

Matt, this is a more-or-less public forum (at Orac's discretion). Thus, the appropriate response to your complaint would seem to be Harry Truman's "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

If you want private conversations, you need to set them up elsewhere.

the way that Buddhist meditation has been taken out of its 2500-year-old context

I'm not so sure that those two noun phrases connect easily.

DW: "Perhaps the woo-entranced carp about doctors’ elitism so much because the latter DON’T cater to their every whim."

That pretty much explains the success Dr. Jay and Dr. Sears have had in the anti-vax movement- they do cater to their patient's every whim.

JP: "There’s also the messed up notion in my head that having emotional crises is something shameful that should be hidden away."

Yup, been there. That's the biggest reason why I'm not a fan of feelings.

@Matt
"If I have a life-threatening bacterial infection- I will take the antibiotics as prescribed.

However, if for some reason I didn’t… I don’t think I should be fined or jailed for endangering public health, or have my child taken away for exposing them to dangerous pathogens"

In the interest of exploring your legal philosophy, should the state take your children if exposing them to the infection risks their life? Let's say that you don't believe HIV causes AIDS or that your spiritual beliefs will clear your Ebola. Are you a caregiver who can be delinquent, an owner who can do what he wills or something else?

@Chris

If you support mandatory vaccination and I don't, then you are (at least indirectly) trying to impose your will on me.

If you support vaccination choice, then I have nothing to discuss with you. I apologize and take back all my comments/questions directed at you.

^ For example, the whole Mahakashyapa thing with the flower was invented out of whole cloth as a matter of Ch'an political jockeying.

Those people opposed to vaccines for their own children are not anti-science. In fact we have yet to see the science that confirms vaccines to be safe or to be effective. Rather is the pro vaccine cabal that are the loonies in this situation because they can't see the forest for the trees. You think we are not going to go down without a fight to let anyone rape our children with toxin containing syringes. We are doing what is best for our children. You might consider doing the same for your instead of believing every thing today's scientist tell you is the truth and seek out the truth for yourselves.

I’m not so sure that those two noun phrases connect easily.

Yeah, okay, I was being very general. There are a lot of different kinds of "meditation," and many different philosophical traditions within Buddhism. But there are certain "freak-outs" that can certainly occur even within the context of what's lately been termed, in a secular sense "mindfulness meditation." If you're really unlucky, for instance, and you don't have anybody around to set you straight, you might become convinced that you're the latest Incarnation of God, or whatever, and become a millionaire guru or something. These things do happen.

For example, the whole Mahakashyapa thing with the flower was invented out of whole cloth as a matter of Ch’an political jockeying.

Yeah, for sure.

Or gassing a Tokyo subway or something, say. I'm fairly sure that Asahara probably had some sort of "awakening" experience, but without any sort of proper context within which to deal with it. Like somebody smacking you upside the head and telling you you're not that freaking special, for instance.

If you support mandatory vaccination and I don’t, then you are (at least indirectly) trying to impose your will on me.

Yes, disagreeing with Victor is to strip him of his rights.

Victor, on the other hand, has no responsibility whatever, for anything, such as lifting a finger to try to lend sense to what he was pretending was his core proposition, now that it's become incovenient.

Victor: "If you support mandatory vaccination and I don’t, then you are (at least indirectly) trying to impose your will on me"

Where did I say that? It is okay dokay if you don't vaccinated your kids. Just make sure you don't whine when they have to stay home during an outbreak. If you are going to get an exception, then follow the rules.

Also thank your responsible neighbors who vaccinate their families, because they are protecting your kids by maintaining community immunity. Except, as we have seen recently, that did not work for several American and Canadian families who caught measles.

I want you to provide the evidence of the crimes of employees of the vaccine divisions of pharmaceutical companies.

Also I want to know why the misdeeds against disabled of Usman, Bradstreet, Buttar, the Geiers, Wakefield, and others are not given the same scrutiny.

Stop changing the subject and answer the questions.

Need better wording:

Also I want to know why the misdeeds against the disabled by Usman, Bradstreet, Buttar, the Geiers, Wakefield, and others are not given the same scrutiny. Why is it okay to torture autistic kids?

Like somebody smacking you upside the head and telling you you’re not that freaking special, for instance.

IIRC, this sort of behavior finds its ground in the Pai-chang/wild fox story, which didn't make its way into the Wu-men kuan without emendation.

@Niche Geek

IIRC, this sort of behavior finds its ground in the Pai-chang/wild fox story, which didn’t make its way into the Wu-men kuan without emendation.

Yeah, it's been around for a while.

^ I think my own personal issue with that story has basically amounted to, "Okay, but why do things still suck?" (In various ways.) Well, because that's how it is, and there's no running away from it, I guess.

[whoops, sorry]

@Niche Geek

In the interest of exploring your legal philosophy, should the state take your children if exposing them to the infection risks their life? Let’s say that you don’t believe HIV causes AIDS or that your spiritual beliefs will clear your Ebola. Are you a caregiver who can be delinquent, an owner who can do what he wills or something else?

In the interest of exploring my philosophy... being ALIVE exposes one to all manner of risks, and the only [apparent] certainty is that we are all going to die one way or another.

I don't believe it is the state's place to swoop in and protect everybody from all the dangers lurking around every corner.

I don't believe I own my [future] children. I believe I am their caretaker, and discharging that duty will surely come with all manner of ethical choices- none of which I believe the state has any business making on my behalf.

What if I allow my kid to play hockey, and they take a puck to the face in a freak accident and die? What if I allow my kid to subsist on cheetoes and happy meals, and they become obese and get diabetes and have their leg amputated?

What if...? What if...? What if...? Where does it end?

Heck- why not sterilize people with a high probability of passing on a fatal genetic disorder to their children? Or why not charge somebody who DOES pass along a fatal genetic disorder to their child with murder?

Why not force everybody to undergo daily cancer screenings under the guise of "preventive care" and then charge those who refuse treatments with crimes?

Why not form a Tooth Brushing Brigade to go up and down the streets every morning and night to issue citations to naughty citizens who don't follow their dentist's advice?

I know. I know... slippery slope fallacy. I get it. But sometimes you just don't know you're on the slope until it's too late.

Philosophically speaking- I want to know what is the principle upon where we draw a line. When do we say "enough" to the government "protecting us from ourselves."

I don't purport to have the answer. I don't know that there is an answer.

But what concerns me is that there appear to be a whole LOT* of people around that seem to have no problem willy-nilly banning "this" and mandating "that" all for the "greater good." (*no I don't have a citation for that.)

It concerns me. And I think you should be concerned too.

I don’t believe it is the state’s place to swoop in and protect everybody from all the dangers lurking around every corner.

What does this have to do with mandating vaccination for school attendance, which is very well settled law?

^ As is civil liability for negligent transmission of infectious disease.

What if I allow my kid to subsist on cheetoes and happy meals, and they become obese and get diabetes and have their leg amputated?

I suppose the child could sue you. Problem?

@Narad

It doesn't have anything to do with mandatory vaccination directly. I was asked to comment on my philosophy.

To your other points... yes if somebody feels they can make a case that an unvaccinated child negligently transmitted measles to their own child, thus resulting in harm, then maybe the parent can be found liable. Sue the parents.

Problem? No problem. I have -no- problem with that. Actually, I think that's a really great idea. Maybe people should try that.

Matt, if you can't see the difference between medical decisions that endanger other people—such as refusing vaccines—and those that don't —like all your other examples—I don't think you're ready for philosophy. Better retake kindergarten.

Matt, you still haven't answered the question about whether the state should allow the sale of lead paint and lead soldiers (among other toys.) Is that a case of "the state swooping in" to prevent children from harm? If it is, is that a bad thing?

Re: seat belts: I used to quite a bit more "libertarian" in my thinking on certain issues. This was partly due to my anarchism (which, in certain ways, I have to admit, I still hold to in my heart of hearts) and partly due to a certain frontier mentality I picked up from my relatives growing up.

I remember, though, a conversation I had with a friend when I was in college. I was sort of arguing the philosophical position that the state shouldn't be dictating safety measures to adults - for kids, okay, but not adults. She made a good point, though:

"Well, your decisions about these things don't affect only you. What about the onlookers who get to witness you flying through your* windshield? What if you fly into somebody else? What about the EMTS who'll have to pry your bloody corpse off of the freeway and deal with that experience, which will only add to the day-to-day trauma they experience? What about your friends and family who care about you?"

*I've never owned a car or had a driver's license, so this conversation was largely hypothetical. I am often enough a passenger in other people's cars, though, I suppose, so the point still stands.

Matt: "It doesn’t have anything to do with mandatory vaccination directly. I was asked to comment on my philosophy."

What is your philosophy about public health in general? Does it include being required to have your septic system inspected and then maintained? Do you think restaurants are over regulated?

Or does your philosophy on public health only extend to vaccines?

@Chris

My legal philosophy is this: If harm is shown to have occurred, then the person(s) responsible for causing the harm should be held liable.

^ But people shouldn't be held liable for what "might" have occurred, or what "could" occur, or any sort of "what if."

If my unvaccinated kid harms your vaccinated kid, then I should be held liable. But not until then.

If a restaurant serves up some funky chicken and people get sick, they should be held liable. But not until then.

If my septic system leaks into your yard and my feces infiltrate your garden, causing you to fall ill, I should be held liable. But not until then.

And so on.

^ But people shouldn’t be held liable for what “might” have occurred, or what “could” occur, or any sort of “what if.”

If my unvaccinated kid harms your vaccinated kid, then I should be held liable. But not until then.

If a restaurant serves up some funky chicken and people get sick, they should be held liable. But not until then.

If my septic system leaks into your yard and my feces infiltrate your garden, causing you to fall ill, I should be held liable. But not until then.

And so on.

Comprehensive bullshit. You reveal yourself as a complete sociopath.

Okay, but should there be laws in place to prevent these unfortunate things from happening?

I mean, should we just let buffets keep chicken salad out all day at any ol' temperature, and rely on people suing them for damages if they get food poisoning and maybe, uh, die from it?

Incidentally, I've had a pretty severe case of food poisoning before that I think was because of a deli sandwich I got from a convenience store. (Grad school, what can I say?) The thing is, I wasn't sure that's where it came from, so it would have been pretty hard to sue 7-11. It was an awfully miserable weekend, though, and happened to come right during paper-writing time, so missing that weekend of writing was a pretty major deal. (I probably should have gone to the doctor about it, but I didn't, because I'm sort of that way.)

Niche Geek: “Are you a caregiver who can be delinquent, an owner who can do what he wills or something else? “

In the US, letting children die for your spiritual beliefs is legal in many states.

Cynthia Maurer: Those people opposed to vaccines for their own children are not anti-science. In fact we have yet to see the science that confirms vaccines to be safe or to be effective. Rather is the pro vaccine cabal that are the loonies in this situation because they can’t see the forest for the trees. You think we are not going to go down without a fight to let anyone rape our children with toxin containing syringes.

1. You people are anti-science. Vaccines have been studied to death, you just stick your fingers in your ears and howl.
2. Comparing vaccines to rape. Really, lady, get some class. Or better yet, go back to Age of Autism with the rest of the scum-sucking amoebas.
3. I hope you get diptheria.

Chris: “Why is it okay to torture autistic kids?”

Short version is that to most anti-vaxxers, autistic kids don't make it into the category of human. Neither do depressed kids, kids with ADD, kids with cancer, or, in short, kids with flaws of any sort.

JP: This is getting eerie. Something like that happened to me.Only, thankfully, it was one evening, and the only lasting damage was a blood spot in my eye. I puked so hard I burst a blood vessel.

If my septic system leaks into your yard and my feces infiltrate your garden, causing you to fall ill, I should be held liable. But not until then *plonk*.

FTFY.

@PGP:

Yeah, it was only maybe a whole 24 hours with my head in the toilet for me. The next day or two, though, I was having a pretty hard time negotiating legs, and I was pretty much lying in bed trying to keep down water and saltines. I caught up on a bunch of episodes of Radiolab, though, to my memory.

If my unvaccinated kid harms your vaccinated kid, then I should be held liable. But not until then.

The legal system is limited in what it can do by way of repairing damages. If it's monetary, you could be ordered to pay, and the person you injured could try to collect. The me! ME! ME! attitude that comes through your writings is a strong hint that collecting monetary damages from you would be a nontrivial task.
But no amount of monetary compensation is enough to make up for the three weeks o downtime from the measles your VPD vector is distributing, much less any permanent damage—or death—your antisocial behavior caused. Yes, your willful failure to vaccinate your kid is definitely antisocial.
An ounce of prevention, as trhe saying goes, is worth a pound of cure; but only when cure is possible. VPDs are not always curable.

@PGP:

I have a certain feeling we are very much alike, in certain ways, actually, although I think we have taken very different roads in reaction to things.

^ But people shouldn’t be held liable for what “might” have occurred, or what “could” occur, or any sort of “what if.”

If my unvaccinated kid harms your vaccinated kid, then I should be held liable. But not until then.

If a restaurant serves up some funky chicken and people get sick, they should be held liable. But not until then.

If my septic system leaks into your yard and my feces infiltrate your garden, causing you to fall ill, I should be held liable. But not until then.

And so on.

Pure Libberish.

@PGP:

To be somewhat more precise, here's more or less how I think our similar paths may have diverged.

We were both weird kids, weird "girls" growing up, yeah? Both smart, etc. We both got along better with guys than with gals, etc.

But something happened when I was 15 or so. It was sort of like an emotional explosion, I guess: a whole bunch of stuff I hadn't been even able to deal with just blew up in my face, and I basically collapsed.

To be absolutely honest, the main thing that occurred to me wasn't "Those bastards, they really f*cked me up!" (Although that though did run through my mind more than once.) The main thing that hit me was: "Man, this really hurts. This sucks. This is like, the worst thing ever..." And then: "Man, all those people who go around getting in fights, and drinking, and doing drugs, and f*cking other people up? I bet this is why. Because it all just hurts so much. And that sucks. Man, I sure wish people didn't have to hurt like this."

And it's after that that I started to have what one might term "spiritual" experiences, for what it's worth. Because what it really comes down to is: None of us really knows what this whole thing is about, and nobody knows why it has to hurt so much. But d*mnit, we can at least try to be kind to each other, can't we? Because we're all there really is in this world to help each other get through this.

"But no amount of monetary compensation is enough to make up for the three weeks o downtime from the measles your VPD vector is distributing, much less any permanent damage—or death—your antisocial behavior caused."

I think a bigger antisocial behavior may be driving cars on roads used by pedestrians.
Thousand of peds are killed or maimed every year. It is easy to prevent it too. Just ban car-driving on roads used by pedestrians.

Matt: "My legal philosophy is this: If harm is shown to have occurred, then the person(s) responsible for causing the harm should be held liable."

So if your child gets measles and infects a child under age one year who later dies of SSPE, you will accept full responsibility. You will gladly accept that as your fault. Right?

Victor, you have not yet answered about the torturing of autistic children by those who chemically castrate them and shove bleach (MMS) up their bums. Why is that?

JP: We were both weird kids, weird “girls” growing up, yeah? Both smart, etc. We both got along better with guys than with gals, etc.

That's true. Though I got the memo that girls don't hang with guys outside of school pretty young. It helped that I ended up in a private school where I was often placed in classes with older kids. And my class was almost all boys, which, thankfully, eliminated much gossiping. Most of my friends are now female, which is less me changing than me being unwilling to navigate the minefield of being friends with dudes, which can get very unfortunately complicated very quickly.
As for emotional stuff, I tend to have a series of small crisises rather than big huge crashes. As far as spiritual things, the only thing I know is that I'm going to see a black rail before I die, if I have to crawl to the marsh. I'm far too high-strung and fidgety for meditation, and any other religion requires giving up too much.

Hey, Matt, I have a question- do you want a kid or a perfect kid? Are you planning to take them to a doctor if they break a bone? Get cancer? Get bit by a dog? And how miserable do you plan to make your child's life if they have ADD or autism?

JP: Oof, the food poisoning sounds rough. Makes sense that you'd be kinda shaky and logy after that. Most of my experiences with food poisoning tended to be nasty but over quickly. I think the worst one I had was on a cruise with my grandparents- couldn't keep anything down at all, and I put my head down around 4, intending to get in a quick nap before dinner. I woke up at seven the next day, feeling fine, but my grandparents almost worried themselves sick.

I see the "Oh you can just sue" argument come up all the time, in many different contexts, and it just seems so hopelessly naive.

Even with the lower standard of evidence in civil cases, it is going to be difficult to show responsibility for many things. Think you have food poisoning? It might be from that restaurant you ate at the day before, maybe, and we often attribute to that, but since it can take days for food poisoning to present itself, it might have been that egg salad sandwich you made for lunch. Unless there was a mass poisoning, it is going to be rather hard to find evidence.

It is also very classist. Lawsuits require resources, if you are poor, you are kind of screwed. Maybe you can find someone who will work on a contingency basis but maybe not. And as others have mentioned, suing someone might result in you getting some money, if you are lucky enough to sue someone with assets, but it is hardly compensation in many cases.

I think a bigger antisocial behavior may be driving cars on roads used by pedestrians.
Thousand of peds are killed or maimed every year. It is easy to prevent it too. Just ban car-driving on roads used by pedestrians.

Most of the roads in this country have rules of social conduct, promulgated and maybe enforced by the owners of the roads. These rules are part of the conditions for permission to use the roads. These rules, such as speed limits and rights of way, set forth the rights and responsibilities of the people allowed to use the roads, whether pedestrian or automobile or carriage drivers.
The (often unwritten) contract between road owner and user usually has a clause that says rather than immediate cancellation of the contract by which you may use this road, the owner may impose monetary fines or incareration as penalties for violation of the conditions of use.
In general, pedestrians have their own pavements, called sidewalks in the US. Automobiles are, by the common rules, required to avoid driving on them. Yes, to drive on a sidewalk would be antisocial behavior, even when it's not a contract violation. (YMMV in other jurisdictions.)

If my septic system leaks into your yard and my feces infiltrate your garden, causing you to fall ill, I should be held liable. But not until then.

So, Matt, if one were to dump a pile of human feces onto your lawn but nobody got sick, 'sall good?

@ Viktor

Just ban car-driving on roads used by pedestrians.

False analogy.
Drivers who maim or kill a pedestrian are held accountable for it. Depending on the place, the case and the prosecutor, it may even be qualified as manslaughter, with related jail time.
In short, there are already laws or rules in place to account for excessive behavior on roads.
Why is it so hard to have rules about vaccination?

You cannot even earn trust by presenting tons of statistics and scientific evidence. Building trust is a slow process and it requires doing things that seem trustworthy to others.

That's because you don't know science. Science is a method where we eliminate a truckload of hypothesis including the one you (or I) prefer in order to have the best hypothesis possible. That's it.

As for you, you have a bias that other have to overcome, i.e. being trustworthy but how can we determine that we got your trust? Post your criteria and definitely don't deviate from them; or at least, tell us so. The onus is on you. Period.

Alain

I am the customer. I get to ask more questions. You get to answer more.

Why? Because in the best case, you are trying to “sell” me vaccines. In the worst case, you are trying to impose your will on me.

Customer? Sell? Are you doing you best to be an id10t or does it come naturally? Public health workers (which I assume to be all of us working in SBM) do want to build sustainable development of the human race and that require a metric ton of work. Same for most scientists working in pharma companies but will you have the f*cking gall to say that all of them (and me) should be condemned because of a few bad apples? If so, you are more id10t that I have thought off.

Alain

Matt: "If my septic system leaks into your yard and my feces infiltrate your garden, causing you to fall ill, I should be held liable. But not until then."

Is your last name Sisley? Because we have one in our city, and he has totally blighted a neighborhood:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-pocket-park-may-…

Matt, you are quite welcome to live as you see fit. Just don't be anywhere near other people. I hear Somalia has the kind of government you would like, and it has (or had) nice beaches.

Chris @ 447:

Cripes! I think my (then) girlfriend lived right next door to that place in 1979-80. It was already a mess then.

@Matt:

But people shouldn’t be held liable for what “might” have occurred, or what “could” occur, or any sort of “what if.”

Matt, you are talking utter horse puckey.
If a person is caught driving drunk, that person is arrested, even if he or she hasn't caused an accident. If a building is not built to code, the authorities can get a demolition order, even before the building collapses and kills someone. The law entitles the authorities to take measures to prevent tragedies, and rightly so. We've had libertarians commenting here before, and we're most unimpressed with your (and their) "I'm fine Jack, toughies for you" attitude.

My legal philosophy is this: If harm is shown to have occurred, then the person(s) responsible for causing the harm should be held liable

Victor, is there a rational reason your focusing on assigning legal liability after that fac rather than preventing harm from occurring in the first place?

Because it seems to me to make a whole lot more sense to require documentation that workers have been trained in safe food handling techniques and to require business pass routine inspections of the kitchens where food is prepared to prevent the resutarant from serving that funky chicken in the first place, than to simply encourage anyone who gets food poisoning to sue.

Ooops-might have confused Matt and Victor...

@ JP:
@ PGP:

I'd glad to see you guys meet- I also discerned that you may have experiences in common.

I was quite fortunate myself because I come from a rather untraditional, far-flung, business-oriented, artistic, liberal-progressive family so my uniqueness was encouraged. There was some money as well- which didn't hurt.

@PGP

If enough parents vaccinate in a ped’s practice, they should have a party thrown for them, and the anti-vaxxers parents get to hear about the perks.

This is actually not a bad idea. I'm reminded of stopped clocks.

The distrust about vaccination has nothing to do with trusting/distrusting a pediatrician. It has to do with distrust in the government, in CDC, in pharma companies, and so on. They are the ones who have to repair the distrust.

Yeah, the antivaxxers I know in real life mistrust the medical system as a whole and aren't specific about the individual parts.

If you have better ideas for sales tactics [than emulating antivaccine cranks], I’m all ears. But that’s just a necessary stopgap. The real value is in fixing the trust problem.

Before I forgot, I had been meaning to say that this strikes me as lying with physicians (as, e.g., here, which I believe Krebiozen first mentioned) rather than positing an amorphous "We" blob to complain about the tone of a blog, but now you've advanced this:

Yeah, the antivaxxers I know in real life mistrust the medical system as a whole and aren’t specific about the individual parts.

But the obvious response – pointing out that antivaccine cranks rely on either lying through their teeth or ignorantly parroting those lies, generally with an gradual accretion of even more distorted versions of the original – puts you right back at square one, which is demonstrating why they're lies.

As for the various bills, I was never sanguine about the odds of getting rid of religious exemptions, and I've argued with both Dorit and Orac (at a not-so-secret other blogs) about the matter. If you want to get rid of those, it seems to me that a more promising approach is to get rid of the philosophical ones first and then make equal protection (discrimination against the nonreligious) and due process (almost necessarily whimsical enforcement) arguments against the latter.

@ Narad:

I would have to agree.
It always seemed to me that the philosophical exemption was just the religious exemption that was conveniently used by the non-religious.
Although if you think about it, perhaps anti-vaccinationism IS religion.

@Narad:
I'm not advocating lying by any means. But I feel like people who care about vaccination rates could do a better job of marketing vaccines.

The great and terrible thing about marketing is that it influences people even though they don't trust the marketers.

Though I got the memo that girls don’t hang with guys outside of school pretty young. It helped that I ended up in a private school where I was often placed in classes with older kids. And my class was almost all boys, which, thankfully, eliminated much gossiping.

Huh - I never got that memo, or if I did, I ignored it. I missed a lot of memos, though, growing up.

I went to public school, and I pretty much hated it it after elementary school, mainly because, let's be honest here, I was too smart for the place. I particularly remember getting in trouble a lot in junior high for reading during class - I mean, hey, it wasn't my fault I'd known how plate tectonics worked since second grade. I had a bit of an attitude, too, I suppose, which is not a welcome thing in a basically rural, working class school.

Most of my friends were guys pretty much just because most of the other weirdos and bad seeds were guys, with one or two exceptions. I actually got more flak for looking like a boy than for hanging out with boys, I think.

As for emotional stuff, I tend to have a series of small crisises rather than big huge crashes

I envy you. I have been cursed with a certain amount of northern reserve, or stoicism, or whatever you want to call it, and I tend to neglect my mental health, or bottle things up or whatever, until the point where I do have a major crisis. Other people have noticed this as well.

I’m far too high-strung and fidgety for meditation, and any other religion requires giving up too much.

It's not my intention to proselytize, but if meditation is something you're interested in, being high-strung and fidgety is not an obstacle; a lot of people get into meditation for that reason. If you have a hard time sitting still, you could start with, say, 5 minutes a day and work up from there. Jumping into an hour long meditation-with-chanting-service kind of thing would probably be a little much, though if you kept going with it, you'd eventually want to find a community to practice with.

Most of my friends are now female, which is less me changing than me being unwilling to navigate the minefield of being friends with dudes, which can get very unfortunately complicated very quickly.

Oh, you do have friend! Good. :) Most of my closest friends are still guys, actually, I have to admit. I mean, yeah, there have been a couple weirdnesses here and there, but that's kind of just the price you pay for having relationships. It's better than the alternative, I think.

JP: "have been cursed with a certain amount of northern reserve, or stoicism, or whatever you want to call it, and I tend to neglect my mental health, or bottle things up or whatever, until the point where I do have a major crisis."

I'm fairly stoic too, I just tend to prefer small controlled detonations where people can't see. Or in some cases, in public areas where screaming, shouting and elbowing people is acceptable.

JP: "went to public school, and I pretty much hated it it after elementary school, mainly because, let’s be honest here, I was too smart for the place. I particularly remember getting in trouble a lot in junior high for reading during class – I mean, hey, it wasn’t my fault I’d known how plate tectonics worked since second grade."

That was second grade for me, and a major reason why I transferred. Since the primary school in the school I transferred into was kind of a jumble, I took sixth grade classes in reading, and as long as I was quiet, and did a reasonable amount of work, no one noticed if I zoned out for a half hour or amused myself by working ahead. High school was okay, though, thankfully I was geographically isolated from the other kids and had a reputation as the tough chick- so, I didn't deal with the other girls outside of school much.
I have friends, yeah, I just don't see them much. I prefer solitude, and kinda fret over misunderstandings. Plus there's the problem of accidentally ruining a dude forever, not a responsibility I want.

Department of That Doesn't Sound Right on Second Thought:

I had been meaning to say that this strikes me as lying something that really happens by virtue of interactions with physicians

I think it was Matt who ventured the result that "approximately 1 in 3" people don't trust their doctors, which trivially proved to be 70% of people not even giving the matter a second thought. I just don't see any promise in the notion of wholly blobular "messaging."

"Where" is the "trust problem"?

There were a few classes where I annoyed the teacher in high school- one persistent mistake I make is pronouncing words as they are read, not as they are said, and I get defensive about mistakes like that. My health teacher was a creep- not an overt one, just having a general air of creepiness, and I disliked the shop teacher, as he took over from a guy I liked.

Plus there’s the problem of accidentally ruining a dude forever, not a responsibility I want.

No offense, but I don't think you're that powerful. People are hard to ruin, let alone to ruin forever, especially accidentally. And any guy worth being friends with in the first place won't be ruined forever because of something romantic happening or not happening, which I'm guessing is what you're concerned about.

I prefer solitude, and kinda fret over misunderstandings.

I like a fair bit of alone time myself - I'm sort of a very gregarious introvert. I don't know where I would be without my friends, though. Probably dead or something.

Misunderstandings happen. Grown-ups hash them out. Boy, I could tell you some stories.

one persistent mistake I make is pronouncing words as they are read, not as they are said, and I get defensive about mistakes like that.

I had a particularly mortifying experience in my first year of grad school when I asked what the word "enjambment" meant, as I had always pronounced it as "en-jam-ment," and I think hadn't ever even heard the Frenchy pronunciation.

Orac, maybe this makes you happier:
http://www.thelocal.de/20150312/doctor-proves-measles-virus
"Measles doubter must pay doctor €100,000"

@Matt

Thanks for the response, but it feels that you are rather muddled in your libertarian views. One of your first examples was a court enforcing a contract. Isn't that *exactly* what you say you want? That the contract is between two parents and concerns medical treatment should be irrelevant if you are following libertarian principles.

As for the issue of vaccination, you seem to be implying that public school is a right without any corresponding responsibilities. It isn't. For example, a child can be excluded from public school as a result of disruptive behaviour. That means we have an implied contract between the school (government) and the students/family. That contract includes rules intended to facilitate community learning. That includes minimizing the risk that children will miss lessons or die or, through their actions, cause other children to miss lessons or die.

I don’t believe it is the state’s place to swoop in and protect everybody from all the dangers lurking around every corner.

This suggests you do believe that it is the state's place to protect some people from some dangers, agreed?

By what rational basis does one pick and chose which dangers the state should "swoop in and protect people from" and which dangers they should not?

On re-reading my last post I feel that I imply that I'm a libertarian. For the record, I'm not a libertarian in any meaningful way.

If I have misunderstood your Matt's position then he is obviously free to clarify it. I recognize that I applied a label (libertarian) that he didn't claim for himself and that is always problematic.

Lastly, there are many libertarians and conservatives that see government regulation as inherently evil. They seem to forget that many of the health and safety regulations and systems that we have in place exist because we tried the alternative and realized that it didn't work (or caused a whole lot of suffering... same thing).

We've had private fire departments that only put out fires when you paid for their services - and we had whole cities burn.

We've had free-form construction where anyone could build anything they wanted - and we had whole cities burn.

We've had private land owners use their land to the fullest extent they want - and we've denuded whole islands resulting in mass starvation and societal collapse.

We've allowed people to sell any medicine they like and make whatever claims they want - and many people died and were disfigured.

A court cannot make you whole. Money does not replace a dead child or spouse. Smart contractors form shell companies and declare bankruptcy before they can be sued for shoddy workmanship (and reopen under a different name) - why wouldn't drug, device and other manufacturers do the same thing?

Why do we only hear about rights and not responsibilities?

Why didn't I proofread that... G'ah.

Niche Geek: "Why do we only hear about rights and not responsibilities?"

Which is why I suggested that Matt try Somalia, as it has a government more in tune to his philosophy. Especially after his comment on how well he would deal with a septic system.

And right on cue, our neighborhood Waldorf-inspired charter school is reporting a Pertussis outbreak. Sigh.
http://www.kmtr.com/news/local/4-cases-of-pertussis-at-Eugene-charter-s…

Notably, this school's vaccine exemption rate is greater than 50%.

Definitely need more gov't regulations-
(Friend just developed nasty intestinal infection after hospital operation)
www.cdc.gov/HAI/organisms/cdiff/Cdiff_infect.html

Take a look at these stats-
www.cdc.gov/HAI/surveillance/index.html

Based on the decrease in these infections, ken, over the past few years, it seems like hospitals are taking the problem seriously and addressing the problems.

l sympathize with libertarian views to a degree, but I also believe there are a certain set of basic rules that all civil societies need to have and a mechanism for their enforcement. And one of those principles? Making sure that while people can screw their own lives up to their hearts content, they don't screw other people's lives up in the process.

So yeah, when you send your kid to school without vaccinations and put my kid at risk for the measles, I think that's a pretty damn large infringement on my kid's right to live their life the way they see fit.

#474
I'm not sure I follow your logic. If your child is vaccinated how can one without vaccinations put your child at risk unless he is immunocompromised. My children were vaccinated-why would I worry?

#470 2 were vaccinated-2 were not out of 4 cases. Is this a 50%failure rate of the vaccine?

If your child is vaccinated how can one without vaccinations put your child at risk unless he is immunocompromised.

1. What do you have against those who are immunocompromised?
2. Vaccines train the immune system to respond to infections, but this is not a 100% guarantee. Some percentage of those vaccinated will not become immune to the disease, just as some percentage of those who catch the disease are not completely immune. If my child were vaccinated but not immune, your unimunized child places my child at risk.

2 were vaccinated-2 were not out of 4 cases. Is this a 50%failure rate of the vaccine?

No.

2 were vaccinated-2 were not out of 4 cases. Is this a 50%failure rate of the vaccine?

Only if the entire vaccinated population consists these two plus two others, for a total population of four people.

2 were vaccinated-2 were not out of 4 cases. Is this a 50%failure rate of the vaccine?

Only if the entire vaccinated population consists these two plus two others, for a total population of four people.

That would be a total population of 6 people (the 2 vaccinated who became infected, the 2 vaccinated who didn't become infected, and the two unvaccinated).

(Friend just developed nasty intestinal infection after hospital operation)

How do the statistics compare for at-home and in-the-field operations?

Also worth noting is that these students tested positive for pertussis; it says nothing about the severity of their symptoms. The pertussis vaccine doesn't always prevent infection, but it stimulates antibodies to the pertussis toxin, thus reducing or eliminating symptoms even if infection occurs. This means that a vaccinated person may be infected but not exhibit symptoms, or at least have much milder symptoms than an infected unvaccinated person. This reduces contagiousness by reducing coughing, which play a major role in spreading the disease.

To add to the refutation of Matt's tired use of a fallacious argument, a baby died from pertussis. He was too young to be vaccinated.

Sorry. Replace "Matt" with "Ken" in my above comment.

Can someone here (including orac) direct me to some collection of definitive studies that prove the claim of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines? Please leave out the ridicule, the arrogance and appeal to authority, the appeal to popularity, the appeal to emotion, the name-calling and general immaturity. What I am looking for is: objective peer-reviewed studies that clearly show the a) the relative safety and the b) effectiveness of any number of vaccines. It would also be helpful to see evidence refuting anti-vax claims. Seriously, I want to see this. I have genuine concerns about vaccines and I don't trust the hype on either side, because that is what it seems like to me, hype. And not just the CDC's site. Where is the sober, unbiased information about this?

Concerned Parent: Well, for a start, you could check the WHO webpage and track how many smallpox outbreaks there have been lately. Get back to us when you find them. (Spoiler alert, there aren't any. And the reason why starts with a v. )

And you know, when you refer to facts as hype, it really, really suggests that you aren't actually interested in the studies. I think you took a wrong turn on the internet.

@Concerned Parent

I appreciate that you want a serious answer, but it would help if you asked a slightly less open-ended question. You ask for evidence that vaccines are effective, in general. Vaccines have been in use for more than a century. In that time there has been a lot of research done by a lot of different people in a lot of different countries (and, to be clear, funded by a lot of different entities). A search on PubMed (an open tool that anyone can use) returns 246,674 publications with the key word vaccine. Of those, 3,038 are systemic reviews. Many of those are in animals, many are for vaccines you likely don't need. Of course that doesn't include the studies that were done in the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the 20th century that aren't online or indexed. I'm not saying this to be a jerk, I'm saying it because you've asked a very broad question. Perhaps if you specified which vaccines concerned you, or even what kind of evidence you'd like to see then you might get a more direct answer. For example, I could point to the eradication of smallpox as evidence that vaccines, at least one of them, work very well and can be, at least in that one case, far far far less harmful then the diseases they treat.

Concerned Parent: "Can someone here (including orac) direct me to some collection of definitive studies that prove the claim of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?"

Here you go: Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence

Now here is a question for you, I am going to list the US Census data on measles incidence for the 20th century. Since you said "prove the claim of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines"... so you now need to tell me why the incidence of measles in the USA dropped 90% between 1960 and 1970. Look at the data, and then give use documented reasons why that happened. Do not mention mortality, any other decade, any other disease nor any other country (despite Mr. Stone and Mr. Miller delusions, England and Wales are not American states):
From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
Year.... Rate per 100000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2
1997 . . . . . . 0.1

Politicalguineapig #486 "Concerned Parent: Well, for a start, you could check the WHO webpage and track how many smallpox outbreaks there have been lately. Get back to us when you find them. (Spoiler alert, there aren’t any. And the reason why starts with a v. )

And you know, when you refer to facts as hype, it really, really suggests that you aren’t actually interested in the studies. I think you took a wrong turn on the internet."

Thank you for your response. Although it is an interesting starting point to seeking more evidence, the lack of smallpox outbreaks isn't entirely conclusive for me. I'm sure you understand that correlation does not equal causation.

It really does seems to me like there's an awful lot of hype on both sides of this issue. It is very difficult to get through to the actual facts when there is so much posturing and emotion. I don't think I took a wrong turn on the internet. This seems like a good place to get some answers, although it seems to contains its fair share of emotion and hype as well. There seem to be a lot of scientists or otherwise pretty intelligent people here, most on the pro-vaccination side of the issue. So a sober presentation of that side shouldn't be hard to find here.

Niche Geek # 487

Thank you for your response. I realize that my question is broad, but I thought perhaps there is some collection of at least the most conclusive studies. Since, as I mentioned, there is a lot of emotion on both sides here, it is not going to be enough for me to just believe in either side - I need to see the proof itself.

Chris #488 -

Thank you for your response. That link seems to be just what I'm looking for, thank you. It will clearly take me some time to get through it, but I am looking forward to finding evidence there.

As far as the decline in measles, as I mentioned to the 2 other posters about smallpox - it does seem to point to a link, but correlation can't be considered ultimately conclusive. We would have to rule out every other potential reason, with some degree of certainty, then it would be pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but still not hard evidence.

And I get that I may not understand all the factors involved, so feel free to explain things to me (just in a nice, or at least neutral, way - it's hard to read with full attention while being berated). It is true that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, right? Or not?

Concerned Parent:

It is true that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, right?

Correct. The belief that the MMR vaccine causes autism was initially plausible because the MMR is given at a time when the symptoms of autism become very clear. After thorough investigation, it was confirmed that there was no causation.

Concerned Parent, you still have not provided us with any specific concerns you have about vaccinations.

If you are going to use the phrase "Correlation Does Not Imply Causation" you should be aware of the origins and meaning of that phrase as it applies to the scientific method:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

As far as the decline in measles, as I mentioned to the 2 other posters about smallpox

*koff*

– it does seem to point to a link, but correlation can’t be considered ultimately conclusive. We would have to rule out every other potential reason

*KOFF*

with some degree of certainty

"Were those hysterical screamsI could hear in the kitchen?"

then it would be pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but still not hard evidence.

Please define, specifically, (1) whether the "some" in "some degree of certainty" is supposed to mean anything in particular, (2) what the "degree of certainty" that underlies your "concerns" is, and (3) why you bothered to use the foregoing words in the first place if you can't answer Nos. 1 and 2.

You don't have many options, and none is promising other than changing the subject and pretending that nothing happened until you sniff the possibility to circle back around.

So choose. "Vaxxed/unvaxxed study" as 'stealth' payload fails immediately on your own terms. Ever-diminishing slices of "vaccine injury susceptibles" fails on your own terms.

There's something plainly self-consistent left, right?

@Concerned - you seem to be saying that you don't necessarily believe that vaccines work?

The problem with that thought is that we know exactly how and why the biological process works that allows vaccines to confer immunity - hence how we know that a person who has been vaccinated, when exposed to the pathogen, won't get sick.

The anti-vax brigade has yet to provide any biologically-plausible theories as to why vaccines would be harmful.

There is very good, factual information out there regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines - links have already been provided.

Use a critical eye, but don't be stupid.

Has Concerned Parent seen this?

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/matthewherper/files/2013/03/c6fb5feb7f1e…

Those statistics should be very difficult to wave off as "hype".

Concerned Parent,

I have genuine concerns about vaccines and I don’t trust the hype on either side, because that is what it seems like to me, hype. And not just the CDC’s site. Where is the sober, unbiased information about this?

I don't see any hype on the CDC website, I see sober, unbiased facts supported by peer-reviewed studies. If you don't trust them, the Institute of Medicine (a very eminent non-governmental organization) compiled a comprehensive review of the safety evidence of vaccines a few years ago. You can download it from their website (search for 'institute of medicine vaccine safety').

If you don't trust the IoM, you might look at the WHO information on vaccines, or other countries' websites on the subject, the UK for example. If you really think that all the information about vaccines available from public health organisations globally is hype, I really can't help you.

As for measles vaccine efficacy, we see measles incidence plummet by 99% in every country the vaccine has been introduced routinely, shortly after it is introduced, but not in countries where it is not introduced. We also see outbreaks in countries where it is in routine use when vaccine uptake drops below the herd immunity threshold. The proportion of unvaccinated people who get measles during an outbreak is much higher than the proportion of vaccinated people. Given also the various efficacy studies that were carried out when the vaccine was being developed, I think it is very fair to say that the efficacy and safety of the measles vaccine is beyond reasonable doubt.

You might also look at chicken pox incidence, and see that in the US it is about nine cases per 100,000, and in the UK 1,290 cases per 100,000, with 90% of the population contracting the disease and about 25 people dying of it every year. I struggle to think of any possible reason for this, other than the fact that chicken pox is routinely vaccinated against in the US, but not in the UK.

OT (almost)

One of my current banner ad is about "Should parents be forced to vaccinate their kids", from some EasyHealthOptions dot com group.

I got that ad as well, some time ago. If you look at the questions, you know where it's leading to.

@Concerned Parent: like the others, I do understand you want answers. And thankfully, Chris has posted one excellent site. But, as noted above, if you would be a bit more specific, and list the vaccines and concerns you have, we can point you in the right direction for good information.

As far as smallpox: one really good read is "Inside the Outbreaks", about the history of the CDC and the EIS. One section focuses on how smallpox was eliminated - by vaccination (sometimes forced, to be honest) and mandatory quarantine of infected (and possibly infected) persons. Probably neither would have worked alone as fast as the two together.

As a parent, like many of us, I had my children fully vaccinated with all the vaccines - and on time - that were available when they were infants/children. Unfortunately, my kids had to suffer through chickenpox. It's not fun to be up for days with a crying child who is in so much pain you have to give her narcotics for a "simple childhood disease", who is so covered with pox that she can't eat, drink, sit, or lie down. I'd have given anything for them to have had the vaccine, which came out 2 years later.

A question for Concerned Parent:
what reasons do you have to believe that WHO, the CDC and other governmentally sponsored agencies around the world are not to be trusted?
Who IS to be trusted?

Blowing the antivaccine dog whistle again

oracknows — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 07:10:30 +0000

Blowing the antivaccine dog whistle again

You remember Dr. Bob, don't you?

I'm referring, of course, to Robert "Dr. Bob" Sears, the Capistrano Beach, CA pediatrician who's arguably the most famous of the antivaccine pediatricians who have been spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about vaccines. (Sorry, Dr. Jay, but, regardless of your being Jenny McCarthy's son's pediatrician, I'd bet that more people have heard of Dr. Bob than have heard of you.) Dr. Bob has achieved this fame/notoriety based on his book, The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for your Child, which is chock full of exaggerations about the dangers of vaccination and advocates a "delayed" vaccine schedule that is backed up by no scientific evidence. Dr. Bob has basically been cashing in on fear for a long time.

Given that the epicenter of the Disneyland measles outbreak (i.e., Disneyland) and other recent measles outbreaks is uncomfortably close to Dr. Bob's practice, he's been feeling the heat lately. Beginning about a year ago during an earlier measles outbreak he started lashing out on social media at the parents of his patients who, quite understandably concerned about the measles outbreak, were calling his office. It began last March, when he downplayed the risk of the measles and told his patients' parents, "Measles will never go away – it’s always going to be a very small risk. If you aren’t comfortable with that, get the vaccine. If you don’t want the vaccine, accept the risk." Not long after that, Dr. Bob basically told his parents' patients, "Don’t worry, be happy, and if you’re worrying and not happy get the vaccine. Just don’t bother me about it anymore. Oh, and you nasty pro-science vaccine supporters out there are big meanies for pointing out that Dr. Bob is irresponsible." Then, beginning about a month ago, Dr. Bob went on an embarrassing tear on Facebook, condescendingly downplaying the risks of measles-related pneumonia with a jaunty, "Ya, you don’t want those things to happen, but they are treatable" and then whining about it when it was pointed out to him that at no time in his prior rant did he recommend getting vaccinated in the middle of an outbreak. It was the tried-and-untrue antivaccine trope that the measles isn't dangerous.

There's a term I coined reading Dr. Bob's nonsense: The antivaccine dog whistle. In politics, a "dog whistle" refers to terminology that sounds benign to most people but in reality tells those holding objectionable viewpoints that the speaker is sympathetic to them (or even one of them). In other words, most people can't "hear" the message, and only those for whom it's intended can "hear" it, recognizing for what it is. Let's just put it this way. Dr. Bob is very good at antivaccine dog whistling. (So is Rand Paul.) Now, in a "point-counterpoint" pair of editorials, Dr. Bob does it again. Now, don't get me started on the idiocy of false balance that presenting point-counterpoint editorials represents about a scientific topic like vaccination. Unfortunately, lately false balance has been rising from the grave again. (Apparently, like Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, it never dies.) Dr. Bob's editorial is entitled Mandatory vaccination is not the answer to measles and it starts out with some serious dog whistling right out of the box:

Measles. It used to be just a disease. Now it’s become a banner under which politicians gather to threaten one of our most sacred rights - the right to give informed consent for medical treatment.

Whether you are for vaccines, against them, or neutral, allow me to ask this question: Is vaccination a medical treatment which should fall under the protection of informed consent, or does the government have the right to force them on every American?

See what I mean? Right out of the box, Dr. Bob is trying to reframe the debate over a bill being considered in the California legislature that would eliminate non-medical exemptions to school vaccine mandates. I realize that often the editorial writer doesn't pick the title (usually the editor does), but the very title "mandatory vaccination" helps Dr. Bob frame the issue not as one of public health but rather personal freedom, just as Rand Paul did. Notice how obviously but nonetheless rather cleverly he does it, with a little rhetorical prestidigitation in which he's saying, "You know, what's important is not whether you're for vaccines or antivaccines or "neutral" (whatever that means in this context), it's that the government can't take away our FREEDOM!

Of course, this is Dr. Bob, and there's a whole lot of BS there. For one thing, what Dr. Bob advocates is not really "informed consent," but rather what I like to call "misinformed consent," wherein the severity of vaccine-preventable diseases and efficacy of vaccines are very much downplayed and the risks of vaccination exaggerated. It's one reason why Dr. Bob was so opposed to California Bill AB 2109, because that bill required that real informed consent be given by parents requesting philosophical exemptions to California's vaccine school vaccine mandate by requiring them to have a physician or other specified health care provider sign an attestation that the parents had been told the risks of not vaccinating.

The issue thus reframed, Dr. Bob launches into a list of the horrors of vaccination and the joy of measles. OK, I'm exaggerating, but not by a heck of a lot. It's the same stuff Dr. Bob's been spewing all along since the measles outbreaks began, antivaccine tropes about how the measles isn't that bad and how vaccines are "dangerous," all in the form of bullet points. For example:

About 2,000 severe reactions are reported to the CDC each year which result in prolonged hospitalization, permanent disability, or death. Most reactions aren’t even reported, so the true number may be even higher. Yet, because they can’t be proven, the medical community denies that they can happen.

Over $3 billion have been paid out to victims of vaccine reactions. Not $3 million. Not $30 million. Not even $300 million. But $3 billion. Are we paying that much money to victims of pretend reactions? I think not.

Dr. Bob should change that last sentence from "I think not" to "I don't think," as in "I don't think," a general statement of Dr. Bob's intellectual prowess with respect to vaccines. I'm guessing that 2,000 severe reactions a year is probably referring to the > (VAERS) database, which, as regular readers here know, is an open database to which anyone can report any "reaction" to vaccination, whether it's actually related to a vaccine or not. VAERS is not authoritative, and the adverse events are not generally verified. Indeed, as has been reported before, one pro-vaccine blogger, Dr. Jim Laidler, reported that the influenza vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk. True, the VAERS staff did contact this blogger and ask him about it, but, as he noted, if he had refused to remove the entry, it would still be there. Another pro-vaccine blogger, Kevin Leitch, verified that VAERS lets you enter basically anything by reporting that a vaccine had turned his daughter into Wonder Woman. That's why VAERS is the antivaccinationist's favorite database, and I like to refer to dubious correlations reported from VAERS as dumpster diving. Not surprisingly, antivaccine lawyers have made the database almost worthless as a source of information over the incidence of adverse events due to vaccines by encouraging their clients to enter all sorts of reports, in particular reports claiming that vaccines caused autism. Most recently, the Toronto Star completely misinterpreted how VAERS data should and shouldn't be used in its utterly botched story falsely linking all sorts of horrific reactions to Gardasil.

Then Dr. Bob lists a bunch of bullet points, all consisting of tired antivaccine misinformation that was old when Dr. Bob was in medical school, including (my favorite) the claim that measles isn't dangerous, a claim rebuked by medical science. For instance:

It has killed no one. It can kill about 1 person in every 1000 cases. Will someone die of measles in the United States in the years to come? Maybe. But it hasn’t killed anyone in the past 15 years or more.

The last time measles hit us hard was 25 years ago. Not last year, not this year, yet.

It’s measles, people. It’s not the plague. It’s not polio. It’s not Ebola. It’s measles. If the plague hits, let’s force everyone to vaccinate. But measles? Measles? We need something a lot more dangerous than that if we are going to rob each and every patient of the sacred right of informed consent.

So, measles is no big whoop, even though it can kill one out of a thousand children who get it. Of course, Dr. Bob neglects to note other, more common, complications of the measles that can be very serious, such as pneumonia (which he at least mentioned in his earlier rants) and he very much failed to mention how about one in four victims of this year's measles outbreak have had to be hospitalized.

But notice the overall construction of Dr. Bob's argument. To him, measles isn't serious (which he explicitly states multiple times) and the vaccine is dangerous (which he implies with his listing of "severe complications" of vaccination in general); so to him it follows that "forcing" vaccination is an unacceptable affront to freedom:

Let’s stop panicking over what measles might do and calmly examine what it is doing. It has a small and intermittent presence in our country. It makes people sick, then they get over it. It has complications, but rarely so. Vaccination is important and protective. But it cannot be forced; a parent must give consent.

If you would rather make your own medical decisions within the sacred confines of the doctor/patient relationship, then let Sacramento know now. If you would rather give politicians the power to make medical decisions for you, then give them your support. But you better hurry; the outbreak is winding down, and so is the fear. Give them the power before it’s too late. I’m sure they’ll make plenty of other wise medical decisions for you in the years to come.

Rand Paul couldn't have said it better. Do you hear the dog whistle? Vaccine "choice" is freedom for parents, the health of their children and yours be damned.

oracknows Fri, 02/20/2015 - 02:10

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

complementary and alternative medicine

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

Politics

Science

If his patients were actually "informed" about vaccines, he'd quickly lose them....conversely, if he came out and admitted vaccines were effective and necessary, he'd lose his patients too.....

So, he's backed himself into a corner - he can't change his mind or allow his patients to change their minds, because if that happened, he's quickly go out of business.

@ Orac

his patients’ parents

I appreciate the precision of this.
Many forget that, while the parents foot the bill, it's their children which are concerned by a pediatrician's advice and actions.

It's one thing to make questionable medical decisions for your own care; it's a bit more concerning when you claim the right to do so for your children.
This issue is not just about "medical freedom".

As for the right for "informed consent", no-one here is against it, Mr Bob. On the contrary, we would love for your patients to get a lot more informed.
Funny how Bob Sears mention "2,000 severe reactions are reported to the CDC each year which result in prolonged hospitalization, permanent disability, or death." but conveniently forget that contagious diseases like measles may have the same outcomes, and with a much higher risk.
I mean, 1 death by measles for 1000 cases, no big deal, eh?

If you don't like measles vaccination, there's an easy out:

Eradicate measles.

Granted you have to use vaccination to make that happen, but once it does, no one will ever need to get vaccinated for measles again.

And he seems to be wrong about there being no deaths due to measles in 15 years. According to table 12 here, at the end, there were 2 measles deaths in 2009 and 2010. Strangely, it seems this has not gotten much press at all, and many other news organizations have made the same mistake:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6153a1.htm

Still trying to wrap my head around the idea of the personal-belief exemption that also incorporates a medical license authorization.

Another to the point, not just of the 1:1000 possible mortality rate, but to the suffering & cost of the 25% hospitalization/admittance rate (I guess you could add also the ER visit, because that's not a trivial cost, anymore).

If the medical license signs off on the personal exemptions, without using an evidence-based medical reason, there should be some shared liability because of the disease spread causing preventable injury to others.

What's the defense, vaccines are inherently bad (for everyone) ??

I guess the way the state protocol for personal exemption presented is that it doesn't matter. There's really not much oversight in certain states, even if that reasoning causes harm across state lines. I'm probably choir preaching, I guess.

I'm not so keen on forced medical, but there should be some oversight or shared responsibility when acting outside of evidence-based medicine.

I'd add that he's also wrong when he claims that informed consent is violated by public health measures. it's not. Your right to refuse a treatment does not mean there will be no consequences - that is in addition to the point about misinformation included above.

When I made my 2004 film about Andrew Wakefield, I interviewed the father of a girl in Ireland who died of SSPE following a measles outbreak.

Unfortunately, our director stayed in London and the person supervising the shoot didn't remind everyone to turn off their cellphones. Thus, our TV audience didn't see the girl's father break down when describing the utter slow-to-die horror of that condition.

I hope there aren't any cases of SSPE in the United States as the pool of measles-susceptible children and young adults grows year-by-year (as it will). I can't imagine what it must be like to see your child die from an irreversible and untreatable neurologic condition.

But if there is to be even one such case, let it be a patient of Dr Bob's, so that this smug profiteer can go to the hospital with the parents, hold their hands and tell them how very, very sorry he is when the machines are turned off.

And then I hope they sue the ass off him.

Brian, much as I would like to see Sears face the consequences of his execrable decision to embrace antivaccinationism, I think he is so arrogant that even if a patient of his died of SSPE, he would refuse to own it.

@Yvette

Same point I was going to make, but it's even worse than that. In 2003 there were 2 deaths from measles. And if you search the National Vital Statistics System, it returns 10 reported measles-related deaths from 2000-2013.

Also, Bob shows his ignorance about infectious diseases in general. I'm more afraid of measles for this country than I am of plague (by which, I assume he's referring to bubonic plague). You see, measles can be prevented, but not treated once infected. Plague doesn't spread very well and is easily treatable with antibiotics without any serious sequelae. Now, if an antibiotic-resistant strain of plague evolved, then I might be more concerned about it. But for now, measles is by far a significantly greater threat to public health.

Okay, I may be slightly flip about plague, admittedly, but at least it can be treated and cured. Measles can't.

Not to come off like a liberal white dickhead, but only ten deaths? Don't deaths in the rest of the world count?

@ shay -- I think the WHO has about 118K pediatric deaths per year for measles. Overall about 1.5 million pediatric due to vaccine-preventable diseases -- which is about 15-17% of the overall mortality for pediatric.

There's also a history trend graph you can get online, showing morbidity/mortality before the U.S. had a vaccine, and the effect of the vaccine. Basically telling us the disease process is not just exclusively a 2nd/3rd world sanitation problem.

Todd, that's actually exactly what I was thinking too.

"You're right, Dr Bob. Measles isn't the plague. The plague is treatable. Measles isn't."

I mean, I think i'ts pretty scary that with even high rates of vaccine compliance, we still saw a hundred measles cases pop up in just a couple of weeks with this outbreak. That's a testimony to how damn contagious this thing is -- if you are not immune, you're almost guaranteed to catch it if exposed.

Plague, meanwhile, has been endemic in parts of the US for a long time, yet actual cases (much less deaths) are rare.

Plague has a bad rap, but I think I know which I'm more concerned about.

@shay

Of course, but not to people like Dr. Bob or the other anti-vaccine people. Those hundreds of deaths worldwide, according to them, are not because measles is dangerous, but because those people didn't have good nutrition. Or didn't breast feed enough. And so on.

Considering there were only 1,243 cases from 2000 to 2013, 10 deaths is a lot. Certainly it's more than we'd expect.

Remember, Hawaii's native population was nearly driven to extinction by measles. They had plenty of exercise and good nutrition. What were they missing, then?

I have a plan to eradicate measles that does not involve vaccines.

Year 1: expose everyone on earth over age 2 to measles.
Year 2-5: repeat year 1
Year 6: expose all children to measles on their 2nd birthday.
Year 7-10: repeat year 6
Year 11: evaluate plan effectiveness. If possible, start managing only isolated clusters

Advantages to my plan:
- does not involve vaccines
- can be done with no scary needles

M-O'B, You can do the same thing with rabies. Should solve most (99.9%) of the 'vaccine problem' in a year.

@Gray Falcon

Good sanitation, naturally.

Another to the point, not just of the 1:1000 possible mortality rate, but to the suffering & cost of the 25% hospitalization/admittance rate

I haven't seen much discussion of the economic cost of a measles outbreak vs the cost of vaccination.

We can estimate what the human cost, i.e. death/disability, might be but, what would the economic cost be of a couple of million U.S. kids coming down with measles every couple of years or so as opposed to the cost of vaccination?

I realize that discussing the economic cost associated with a measles epidemic may seem rather crass however, it should be considered in respect of the "benign" nature of measles portrayed by the Dr. Bob types.

Oh if only Roald Dahl were still alive! He was such a great imaginative writer that I think he would use words to destroy the Dr Bob's of this world. Possibly even better than Orac himself!!

But it hasn’t killed anyone in the past 15 years or more.

As ohters have pointed out, this isn't quite accurate, but let's for the sake of discussion assume that it is and think about why this might be the case.

Could it just possibly have something to do with the fact that we started rotuinely vaccinating children against measles more than15 years ago?

MarkN - True that - with rabies, we might not have to go past the second year. Of course, that would not eradicate rabies (unless we exposed every mammal).

Informed Consent soumds like a great idea. Inform me whenever I might get too close to a VPD vector; inform my kids likewise.

We can do this by two simple steps:

(a) require each person who is voluntarily unvaccinated to wear, front and back, a large marker: say a 6-inch scarlett "M" for no-MMR, "P" for no-DTP, "C" for no-chicken pox, etc.

(b) require each such potential vector to leave a notice in each place they've been, for the dwell time of infectiousness: two hours or so for no-MMR, for instance. The appropriate form of this notice is a flagman, with the scarlet letter. The flagman can leave, and rejoin the vector after time is up. This will allow the notice to be renewed if, for example, the proprietor of the establishment takes exception to a two-hour void in new customers.
The requirements would not apply to survivors of the VPD.
Thus, I have the opportunity for Informed Consent before I enter a place where I might be exposed to a VPD with my too-young-to-vaccinate greatgrandkid. You have that same Informed Consent.

@ M-O'B --- whatever I can do to improve your efficiency rating.
at least we'd know if the vaccine was worth "the risk."

@Bill Price

Intriguing idea, though I suspect that anti-vaxxers may not be very welcoming of that. Freedumb, and all that, y'know.

@ Bill Price:

I appreciate the creativity of your Hawthornian solution but in SoCal it might possibly become a *de rigeuer* fashion statement in some quarters.

@ToddW

Freedumb for me but not for thee, and all that, y’know.

FTFY. ;-)

@DGR #19
I don't think it's crass at all to talk about the economics. Ultimately many decisions in health come down to money. If you spend research dollars one place you can't in another. If you pay for some treatments you can't afford others. If big pharmas lower their drug prices Orac can't afford a new Ivory back scratcher.

The cost / benefit of a vaccination program is very clear cut. It seems a perfectly reasonable to state it.

Another example popped up recently here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31507861

Dr. Bob thinks the right response to the Pan/Allen bill is to send people to NVIC: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=851016828270136&id=11…

It's such a relief that he's not, in fact, anti-vaccine.

If Dr Bob was in favor of informed consent and individuals making “medical decisions within the sacred confines of the doctor/patient relationship,” he would have supported AB 2109, which required exactly this.

He did not: he publicly opposed it.

America’s parents, and in particular those of us in California, need to be reminded of that.

Dr. Jay Gordon also had a "problem" with California AB 2109. In fact, he went on a local radio program on March 30, 2012 to disparage the bill (since scrubbed from his website). He also consulted an attorney to find out about advising his patient's parents about the pros and cons of providing the first MMR II vaccine between 12-15 months of age (his recommendations used to be to get the first MMR II vaccine at 4-6 years of age, for school entry, now he claims he recommends the first MMR II at age three). He's also bragging now (since the start of the measles Disneyland Parks outbreak) that "he provided 35 MMR II vaccines in one day...more MMR vaccines than he provided during January-December 2014".

From Dr. Sears "opinion" published on the O.C. Register....

"....Last year’s 640 cases were an anomaly because over 400 occurred in one Amish community in New York and over 100 cases hit an unvaccinated church community in Texas. But for the rest of highly-vaccinated America, last year’s measles was business as usual. This year we are off to a tough start, but it’s slowing down...."

I don't seem to recall major outbreaks in an Amish community in New York State or in a Texas religious community during 2014.

Dr. Bob Sears...dyslexic or a liar?

Ooops, missing link to the measles outbreaks during 2014:

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

Wasn't that this outbreak http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/24/323702892/measles-outbreak-i… where they did all the typical public health measures including vaccination to get the measles outbreak stopped?

If the plague hits, let’s force everyone to vaccinate

So public health does trump personal preferences? Dr Sears seems to have accepted the principle and now is just haggling over the price.
I am puzzled by his enthusiasm for the Yersinia pestis vaccine when its efficacy and safety remain unknown and untested.

This just came up on the New Republic site:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121103/anti-vaccinators-unconvinced-…

I don't recognize the name of the author, who doesn't appear to be a New Republic regular. The article suggests taking a gentle approach towards anti-vaccine people, while presenting data about large increases in autism. There is a rebuttal of the vaccines vs. autism argument, but not a very good one.

I think that someone should contact the New Republic and request an invited article that treats the subject more seriously.

In addition to the 10 acute measles deaths, Dr. Bob forgets about the 31 SSPE deaths since 2000.

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/a/measles-timeline.htm

The Texas Eagle Mountain Church cases were in 2013, and there were less than 30 of them, mostly unvaccinated children ( http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-m… ).

And the Texas church folks, like the Amish, chose to vaccinate once the measles hit their community.

How does someone who is supposed to be a medical professional fail to fact check medical information?

I suppose that I am one of the few who has actually received a plague immunization (i was visiting prairie dog towns while a biology grad student) and it is not fun. I don't know whether it was the killed plague bacilli or the phenol preservative, but it made for one sore deltoid muscle..

over 400 occurred in one Amish community in New York

OK, 383 cases in Ohio, but NEAR ENOUGH.

Sears' point is that all previous outbreaks of measles among under-vaccinated populations don't count because they were outbreaks among under-vaccinated populations.

herr doctor bimler @39

Sears’ point is that all previous outbreaks of measles among under-vaccinated populations don’t count because they were outbreaks among under-vaccinated populations.

And then he can claim this one doesn’t count either, since it’s also among an under-vaccinated population, at least in California: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Documents/Measles_update_2_-_…

Among measles cases for whom we have vaccination documentation, 53 were unvaccinated and 15 had 1 or more doses of MMR vaccine.

That’s at least 45% of the total 119 cases in the state.

And why are they unvaccinated, Dr Bob? Because you keep telling them that it’s OK.

"15 had 1 or more doses of MMR vaccine."

I do wish they would break that down into those who had received all doses and those who hadn't.

Roadstergal @41

I do wish they would break that down into those who had received all doses and those who hadn’t.

The CDC report ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6406a5.htm?s_cid=mm6406a5_w ) has that information using Feb 11th CA numbers:

Among the 110 California patients, 49 (45%) were unvaccinated; five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status

And then he can claim this one doesn’t count either, since it’s also among an under-vaccinated population, at least in California

Sears' goal, I think, is to reassure his readers that measles outbreaks only happen to outgroups -- Amish, southern snakehandlers -- and pose no threat to *normal* people.

Is it a dog whistle when you publish a newspaper in a kennel? Man, that editorial hits EVERY OC-GOP talking point. Orac said it was point-counterpoint thing. I didn't see a counterpoint, so I looked back a few days in the register and found:
http://tinyurl.com/mfxvnl6

This is a surprisingly lucid debunking of the autism scare by arch-conservative columnist Thomas Sowell. Sowell is a dedicated Friedmanite/Randian free market libertarian guru. Buddies with El Rushbo, he says Limbaugh is the onlt radio he listens to.

Some say the decision whether to vaccinate should be the parents’ choice. That would be fine if their child would live isolated from other children. But that is impossible.

For a guy like Sowell to to take that position is a really big deal. This is a wedge between the libertarians and the 'parents rights' crowd. And it's admits the libertarian principles require vigorous government protection. Your rights DO stop at my front door, so maybe we need practical means to keep asshates out of my yard without me having to go buy a Bushmaster. Like maybe making your damn kid get a vaccination so the rest of the kids don't get measles germs sneezed over their transoms.
So how does Sowell play in the OC? He's a syndicated columnist the Register carries for lassiez faire economics and bashing of Affirmative Action. Since publishing his column, the Register has run two Op-Eds from in house blowing 76 dog whistles against Pan's initiative. Dr. Bob isn't a guest columnist at the Register, he's a "contributing writer". The there's this by Adam Summers, "Staff Columnist ":
tinyurl.com/lenmw5y

The headline (remove sharp objects):
"A pox on mandatory vaccinations"

False balance my ass. This paper is screaming anti-vax.

Chemmomo - they do try to find out who is vaccinated and who isn't but they require proof to be provided and don't just accept the cases' word that they are vaccinated. Most people will say they they're sure they had their shots, but no records exist. It is a grueling PH process. Plus the unvaccinated have now been instructed to lie to PH investigators and claim they were in fact vaccinated. Gotta love it.

DGR - the economics discussion is entirely valid. In a time of rapidly dwindling PH dollars the bills being racked up during these investigations mounts rapidly. That is the direct cost to PH, but it also hits the hospitals too. Imagine the hit they take to track down all of the patients in a waiting room to find out who is vaccinated, to offer vaccine to those exposed, to verify vaccination status of staff, to lose staff members to voluntary quarantine, etc. Plus, parents and families bear a huge cost. It is no picnic (as some have pointed out on social media) to be informed your infant is exposed and quarantined for three weeks. Particularly if you and your spouse work. Who is staying home with baby? I guarantee most workers don't have three weeks of paid leave saved up to use, so the household income takes a hit. Or in some circumstances they parent may lose their job. Or be forced to lie and send the baby to daycare (perhaps unlicensed) so they can afford to pay rent. These are the challenges faced and these costs hurt everybody in the community. It should be talked about because explaining that to even some die hard health freedom idiots can cause them to think about the monetary damages that are incurred by the unvaccinated. I like freedom as much as anyone but as the old saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

@ Bob #35
The New Republic article is serious, it's just dull. It's what you'd expect from TNR.

The most annoying part to me was the end, where the author fumbled the whole 'be nice to anti-vaxers' thing. Sbm critics share some blame here, but journlists ought to fact-check:
• There are very few hard core ANTI-vaxers. They are very loud. There are not enough of them to cause a measles outbreak. They will never listen to reason. Ever. You do not try to persuade them. The ONLY consideration you make when addressing them is how the exchange will be viewed by other people who may be listening in.
• All the data show the loss of heard immunity and the outbreak are a consequence of NON-vaxers. They are not necessarily committed partisans. Many if not most of them can persuaded. They do not have the same psychology as the anti-vaxers.
• There may be no worse strategy than identifying the NON-vaxers and the ANY-vaxers. Treating them as unifed group pushes the former toward the later. The point should be to separate the two. Yes, Mr and Ms. Non, we understand you are decent people, but take a close look at where these ideas are coming from — con men and conspiracy wackos. They are the opposite of you. They are selfish, blind, uncaring of others, unscrupulous and will stop at nothing to advance their batty jihad. It's not our contempt they deserve, but yours. For they have twisted your good instincts into real harm for innocent kids. Read Roald Dahl's letter. You'll understand.

And there's yet another cite of Nyhan. I can't go into details hear, but the Nyhan study is just awful, proves absolutely nothing, and shouldn't be relied on for anything.

To echo all the previous points in response to DGR. Yes the economics case is perfectly valid.

Discussing the economic cost IS crass if that's what you privilege and that's all you talk about. This is not a topic for a Freakanomics piece. Wrap the economic cost in the human cost going and coming.

Kiiri hits some of the more immediate human costs above. Phlebas makes the wider case: "If you pay for some treatments you can’t afford others." Where's that money to treat all the measles cases going to come from? The same fixed pool of resources. What happens to people who can't get those resources now devoted to measles? They get sick. They die.

Sears’ goal, I think, is to reassure his readers that measles outbreaks only happen to outgroups — Amish, southern snakehandlers — and pose no threat to *normal* people.

But that strategy is no longer viable, because the current measles outbreak is occurring among "normal" people who have not been vaccinated. If Dr. Bob is persisting in that strategy, he's even dumber than I thought.

Gray Falcon

Remember, Hawaii’s native population was nearly driven to extinction by measles. They had plenty of exercise and good nutrition. What were they missing, then?

MLM supplement marketing schemes.

Fergus

Oh if only Roald Dahl were still alive! He was such a great imaginative writer that I think he would use words to destroy the Dr Bob’s of this world. Possibly even better than Orac himself!!

It would definitely be shorter at least.

But it hasn’t killed anyone in the past 15 years or more.

Quite apart from being untrue, that's not exactly an obviously self-justifying cut-off point, is it?

I mean, why the year 2000?

We need something a lot more dangerous than that if we are going to rob each and every patient of the sacred right of informed consent.

I believe that particular right is secular. Actually.

Are the strains of virus the wild type or from the vaccine itself? www.vaccineimpact.com/2015/dr-suzanne-humphries-m-d-vaccine-strain-of-m…

Is it the wild type causing the outbreak? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23543773

Plus the unvaccinated have now been instructed to lie to PH investigators and claim they were in fact vaccinated. Gotta love it.

Back when I patronized MDC, the rationalization for lying in, oh, the ED, was "they've been vaccinated on schedule" – my schedule!.

On the public-health front, though, I distinctly recall people with exemptions that would be jeopardized by selective vaccination being advised to cross state lines and pay cash in order to avoid being captured by a state registry. I suppose that whether this group has any chance of being a significant noise component would have to be looked at state-by-state.

Is it the wild type causing the outbreak? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23543773

Yes.

Same type as that most commonly found in the Philippines. Where 110 people died of measles last year.

#55 citation please
www.cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/27/cid.ciu105

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-20150218-story.ht…

^^That would be genotype B3.

The vaccine strain is A.

#57 Thank you.

Yes indeed, the measles genotype identified in the Disneyland Parks outbreak is the B 3 genotype, not the A strain:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6406a5.htm?s_cid=mm6406a5_w#…

"....The source of the initial Disney theme park exposure has not been identified. Specimens from 30 California patients were genotyped; all were measles genotype B3, which has caused a large outbreak recently in the Philippines, but has also been detected in at least 14 countries and at least six U.S. states in the last 6 months (1)...."

@#52

Suzanne Humphries did not exactly knock herself out looking for an answer to the question she was raising, btw.

The type was reported as B3 a month ago.

Is it the wild type causing the outbreak? h_tp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23543773

Yes.

I infer that Ken is really tearing through the script.

NEVER FORGET: measles outbreak of 2013!
*All 58 confirmed cases were anti-vaxxers!
*Patient "0" picked up genotype D8 measles from LONDON, England.
*No deaths
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a5.htm

Here's what measles vaccine DEVELOPER, Dr. Samuel Katz, had to say about this outbreak:

""The last surviving member of the team of researchers that developed the measles vaccine 50 years ago believes it is “ludicrous,” however, to get upset over the Center for Disease Control’s December 5 announcement that there were 175 cases of the disease in the United States in 2013, a tripling of the annual average.

Notably, 58 of those cases were among Hasidic Jews in the Brooklyn’s Boro Park and Williamsburg neighborhoods. It was the largest outbreak of measles in the US since 1996.

“It’s ALL SO RELATIVE,” said Katz, who was HONORED last week by the CDC. “True, there were 175 cases in the US so far this year, but there are 3-4 million cases a year worldwide. In Western Europe alone there are 25,000 cases per year.”"
http://www.timesofisrael.com/measles-vaccine-developer-warns-jewish-ant…
Ultra-Orthodox communities refusing the 50-year-old vaccine were linked to a third of US measles cases last year
BY RENEE GHERT-ZAND December 11, 2013, 12:16 pm

Ken is another great example of how the anti-vax show their complete ignorance of immunology......how do they expect to claim that they've "done their research" if they don't even understand the difference in genotype vs. serotype?

Isn't it disturbing that a big part of the anti measles vaccine involves devaluating deaths by the numbers they occur in, and doing so seemingly arbitrarily? If that single death had occurred to a loved one, they would probably have a different view. I don't understand how 1 versus 100 versus 1000 deaths is any different. They are all human lives, and it is hard to see how people draw those lines.

It is a crap-shoot....if a child is infected & lacks access to basic medical care, then the odds of suffering a severe complication increases dramatically, as does the chance of death.

The "privileged" anti-vaxers forget that poverty is still extremely prevalent here in the States & that access to medical care is not universal.....

Isn’t it disturbing that a big part of the anti measles vaccine involves devaluating deaths by the numbers they occur in, and doing so seemingly arbitrarily? If that single death had occurred to a loved one, they would probably have a different view.

That's a grim, sad truth for them, poor things. Because, as that LA Times article I posted notes:

Of the 63 measles patients in California with vaccination records, 49 were completely unvaccinated. Twenty-eight were intentionally unvaccinated due to a parent's personal beliefs, one was on an "alternative plan for vaccination," and 12 were too young to be immunized, state officials said. Officials did not disclose other reasons patients were not vaccinated.

It's kind of like watching a car crash in slow motion.

@Lawrence --

It is a crap-shoot….if a child is infected & lacks access to basic medical care, then the odds of suffering a severe complication increases dramatically, as does the chance of death.

The “privileged” anti-vaxers forget that poverty is still extremely prevalent here in the States & that access to medical care is not universal…..

That's sadly, grimly true, too. But the thing is: Privilege isn't necessarily a guarantee. (As I'm sure you know; I'm just clarifying.)

...

Honestly, if I could figure out how to protect haters from themselves, I'd die a happy woman. The lack of a solution to that problem is the cause of all the wars in the world.

And yes, Toto "The Rock." I do mean you. You're only hurting yourself. Please stop.

(@R. Mutt -- Love your nym, btw.)

And yes, Toto “The Rock.” I do mean you. You’re only hurting yourself.

^^By which I meant: "The only thing you're accomplishing is damaging to you."

Because you might also be hurting others, obviously. That just wasn't the point I was making.

More epistles from Schadenfreudesville;

Dan Olmsted, today:

" it might be time for the vaccine injury deniers to get out of the marketplace of ideas, because everybody, and I do mean everybody, is convinced that they have the expertise and standing to tell the rest of us...

"Zuckerberg ... is way too powerful and uninformed for this type of cheap and easy commentary...

" Who's studying at the University of Google now?

"Snap out of it, fellow journalists, you're laying down a personal track record that will come back to haunt you.."

AND there's even more. He mentions Rolling Stone.

The world must be a blissful place for those who are not equipped with self-awareness.

I'm convinced that the live entirely in an alternate reality universe (of their own creation) - so all of this just makes sense to them & they can't understand how anyone would disagree with them......

Re: comments 52 - 59, I know its been mentioned before, but I just wanted to add that, while the vaccine and wild type measles are different genotypes, there is only one measles serotype, which is why the vaccine is still protective against wild type measles of different genotypes.

Yup, Olmsted and crew inhabit an alternate reality. It's constructed from extreme cherry-picking and just making sh!t up, much like the right-wing popular culture bubble, which is why the two are drawing ever more together.

The question is, how many non-vaxers are in that bubble? 37 of 63 measles patients were of age, yet not vaxed, 28 with PBEs. Disneyland being in the OC, and the disease having spread to other low-vax-rate pockets, probably more than a few. But we really don't know, I think, how far a parent had to be into the bubble pre-Disneyland to seek a PBE.

Most of the public probably inhabit some kind of mixed and contradictory reality-space, I'd guess most non-vaxer realities are mixed and contradictory on this subject. But I'd guess a lot of parents who had not-vaxed, or still have-not-yet vaxed would not want to be in that bubble, and would even find it repulsive if they took a good look inside.

Thus, in the interest of public health, imho it's crucial to:
1) observe the distinction of who is and isn't in the bubble,
2) realize failure to vax does NOT necessarily mean parents are in the bubble
3) critique the bubble in ways that separate the out-of-bubble non-vaxers from the in-the-bubble anti-vaxers, driving a wedge between them rather than pushing them together
4) which means centering the attack on the bubble on values likely to appeal to the out-of-bubble non-vaxers.

Which, dear minions, are not matters of scientific truth. Science is the back-up, the check on the validity of a pro-vax reality. But the core is n comments #64 - #67. Disturbing devaluation of others death and suffering, a grim crap-shoot with dice loaded for social and economic privilege, a slow-motion pile-up on an iced-over freeway, sad because it didn't have to happen and because the chain reaction has only just started and we see the line of drivers in the bumper-to-bumper traffic slamming on their breaks and going into the unstoppable high speed skids into the vehicles in front of them.

Put 'truth' in the back seat; 'pain' 'injustice' 'lies' and 'scams' (Dr. Bob's handsome profits as a public health menace) in the front.
_____

BTW, in a real-life skid, take your foot of the brake. Pump 'em if you can, but the more you brake the less you can steer, and your usually your only option is to choose what you steer into.
_____

Trivia question: The signature "R. Mutt" first appeared on what famous work of art?

@Ann...of Black Gables
YOU are anti the anti-vaccine orthodox Jewish community! #62
Your thinly veiled prejudice is SHOCKING!
To the jail house for you!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/20/man-jailed-antisemitic-t…

AND there’s even more. He mentions Rolling Stone.

And demonstrates that he has a poor grasp of the Decalogue.

Infamous history of a famous "pro-vaxxer"......before vaccines.

"James deWolf built a large warehouse on Thames Street made of heavy timbers and large stone blocks which had been imported from Africa as ballast. Here he loaded and unloaded his slavers and privateers. Not far from the warehouse was his large distillery which was capable of converting 300 gallons of molasses to 250 gallons of rum per day at the cost of about ten cents per gallon. In time, James deWolf became Bristol's most honored and respected man, but this was not the case in 1790. At that time a Federal Grand Jury, in its first session, returned an indictment of murder for jettisoning a female slave who fell victim to small pox. The indictment read:

...James deWolf, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil ...did feloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethought, with his hands clinch and seize in and upon the body of said Negro woman ...and did push, cast and throw her from out of said vessel into the Sea and waters of the Ocean, whereupon she then and there instantly sank, drownded and died."
http://www.warwickhistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article…

Don't you know? These diseases were brought from Africa with the slave trade. It is the judgement of God. In general, the early slave traders and plantation owners did not have long lives. The practice of inoculation against smallpox came through Cotton Mather's African slave:

"SLAVES AND SMALLPOX"
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi518.htm

This was the beginning of our now out-of-control Big Pharma industry.
The vaccines of today carry just as much risk of harm as did the early "inoculation". Today the risk comes from various vaccine additives coupled with multi-dosing at a very young age, as well as waning immunity. But remember, THE RISK OF HARM OR DEATH FROM SMALL POX bears no resemblance to the relatively benign risk from the so-called "vaccine-preventable" disease. After all, it is all about RISK. For many, the risk of long-term vaccine injury today is greater than risk of injury or death from the current staple of wild-viruses. The goal of eradication is a FALSE one.

VACCINE "DIPLOMACY" IN THE PHILIPPINES

Weren't insinuations made that the 2014 Disney measles outbreak started with a Philippines connection, even though patient "0" has never been identified? Well, I decided to look into it........

NOTICE THE OHIO CASE OF 2014. MOSTLY AMISH, PATIENT 0 WENT TO PHILIPPINES AND CAME BACK WITH MEASLES. REPORTEDLY, D9. WHILE D9 ONLY SHOWED UP IN PHILIPPINES AFTER MASS VACCINE PROGRAM IN 2007. IT WASN’T INDIGENOUS.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51170884_Interruption_of_the_ci…

CHINA CLAIMS D9 WAS IMPORTED FROM BURMA IN ITS 2013 MEASLES OUTBREAK:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/yoken/67/4/67_300/_pdf

9 DISNEY-LINKED CASES WERE GENOTYPED FOR B3, YET MANY REPORTS CLAIM THIS WAS A PHILIPPINE IMPORT. EARLY GENOTYPE MEASLES MAPS SHOWED B3 WAS INDIGENOUS TO WEST AFRICA, SOMEWHAT CONFIRMED BY THE 2011 MINNESOTA OUTBREAK CAUSED BY B3 AND ORIGINATED IN KENYA. OBVIOUSLY, WITHOUT A CONFIRMED PATIENT 0, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S514/T2.expansion.html

ALSO NOTICE THE 2013 BROOKLYN, N.Y OUTBREAK WITH 58 CONFIRMED CASES. WE CERTAINLY HEARD ABOUT THE 2014 UNVACCINATED AMISH, BUT DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS 100% UNVACCINATED HASIDIC JEWISH ENCLAVE? THANKFULLY, NO ONE DIED. PATIENT 0 PICKED UP GENOTYPE D8 IN LONDON. D8 WAS IMPORTED TO INDIA IN 2007-2009.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a5.htm
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S514/T6.expansion.html
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S514.full

http://www.immunizeusa.org/media/85336/HinmanPPT.pdf
Measles Outbreaks with >20 Cases, United States, 2001-2014*
See chart.

MASS PHIPIPPINES MEASLES VACCINE CAMPAIGN
Mass Philippines vaccine campaign right after 2014 storm. Country already 85% MMR vaccinated. WHY THE HUGE OUTBREAK? Many news reports say it is B3, and WHO shows mostly B3 and very little D9 The Amish man who contracted measles in the Philippines had D9. California had no patient 0. The U.K. had tons of B3 in 2006.

http://www.hpa-bioinformatics.org.uk/Measles/Public/Web_Front/recordsLi…

Children in typhoon-hit Tacloban, Philippines, receive vaccines against measles, polio

Joint news release: WHO, UNICEF

26 NOVEMBER 2013 | TACLOBAN, PHILIPPINES - Children in Tacloban - the city hit hardest by Typhoon Haiyan - were today vaccinated against measles and polio in the first phase of a mass campaign by the Government of the Philippines with support from WHO, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and other partners. They also received Vitamin A supplements to help improve their immunity against infections.

30 000 children targeted in first phase

Over 30 000 children are expected to be reached by the campaign which is taking place at fixed sites in evacuation centres and in communities using mobile health teams.

"It is virtually unprecedented that within two-and-a-half weeks of a disaster of this scale, with this level of devastation and these logistical challenges, that a mass vaccination campaign is already rolling out."

Dr Julie Hall, WHO Representative in the Philippines

The vaccination drive in Tacloban is the first phase of a campaign targeting children aged less than 5 years in all the typhoon-affected areas. Fifteen teams (10 foreign and 5 national) including volunteers from the Department of Health, the Philippines Red Cross and other non-governmental organisations, were in locations across Tacloban giving vaccines today. The first to receive them were children in 20 evacuation centres, such as San Jose Elementary School, where more than 300 families currently live in conditions that can heighten the risk of infectious diseases.

"The children of Tacloban need all the protection they can get right now," says Angela Kearney, UNICEF Coordinator for the Emergency Response in Tacloban. "Disease is a silent predator, but we know how to prevent it and we will do everything that we can."

WHO and UNICEF coordinate vaccine supply and establish cold chain

At the Government’s request, UNICEF purchased over US$ 2 million worth of vaccines to replenish in-country stocks now being used for the campaign. In addition, UNICEF and WHO are helping to re-establish the broken cold chain, which is critical in keeping vaccines at the right temperature.

"WHO and UNICEF staff hand-carried supplies from Manila to Tacloban, coordinated teams to give the vaccines and trained them on how to do it under these difficult circumstances. It is virtually unprecedented that within two-and-a-half weeks of a disaster of this scale, with this level of devastation and these logistical challenges, that a mass vaccination campaign is already rolling out," says Dr Julie Hall, WHO Representative in the Philippines.

During the campaign children being immunized are also screened for malnutrition by measuring their mid-upper arm circumference which will indicate if they are undernourished and require referral for treatment.

For further information, please contact:

Nyka Alexander
Communications Officer
WHO, Manila
Telephone: +63 906 493 5097
E-mail: alexandern@wpro.who.int

Gregory Härtl
Coordinator, News and Social Media
WHO, Geneva
Telephone: +41 79 203 6715
E-mail: hartlg@who.int

http://www.hpa-bioinformatics.org.uk/Measles/Public/Web_Front/news.php

What is the current situation?
According to the World Health Organization Adobe PDF fileExternal Web Site Icon, 57,564 suspected cases of measles, including 21,403 confirmed cases and 110 measles deaths, were reported in the Philippines from January 1 through December 20, 2014. Additionally, during 2014, 25 US travelers who returned from the Philippines have become sick with measles. Most of these cases were among unvaccinated people. The World Health Organization and the Philippines Department of Health are working to control the outbreak, including conducting vaccination campaigns.

PHILIPPINES / MEASLES 2013-2014 TIMELINE

"Washington uses typhoon aid to push for Philippine military bases
By Joseph Santolan
27 November 2013
At a press conference with visiting US congressional delegates on Monday, Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said the US military deployment in the country after Typhoon Haiyan revealed the need to conclude basing arrangements for US forces in the Philippines.
Del Rosario said the massive US military deployment underlined the need for the “framework agreement that we are working on with the United States for increased rotational presence.” He claimed that “humanitarian assistance and disaster relief” would be “a very major aspect of the agreement.”
US congressmen Chris Smith, Trent Franks and Al Green were visiting the Philippines, ostensibly to coordinate US relief efforts. They each spoke at the press conference on the need for a deal to allow US military bases in the country.
Smith, who headed the delegation and is a senior member of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, baldly stated that “the calamity had a positive effect on the two countries' bilateral relations.” He added that “ongoing negotiations will all be given a positive boost as a direct result of this.”
Franks declared that the basing of US forces was needed because of “great common potential opponents,” a pointed reference to China. His remark undercut the “humanitarian” mask surrounding the reestablishment of American bases in the Philippines.
Del Rosario’s insistence on concluding basing arrangements with Washington is a significant development in the preparation of a permanent US military presence in the country. This has been under negotiation for the past two years.
Washington has been aggressively pushing its pivot to Asia, and Philippine President Benigno Aquino has made Manila play a leading role as a proxy for US interests in the region.
Negotiations over basing arrangements were nearly finalized in September, when Japan’s Kyodo News Service published details of the deal released by a “senior Philippine marine officer.” The deal included the establishment of an advanced command post in Oyster Bay on the island of Palawan, just sixty miles off the disputed waters of the South China Sea. The US was also looking to establish “joint operational bases” in other parts of Palawan, including Ulugan Bay, and the city of Puerto Princesa. The return of US forces to Subic Bay was a further part of the agreement.
The basing deal would enable the US military to station, on a rotational basis, between 4,000 and 4,500 troops in the country.
There is no humanitarian agenda whatsoever in the construction of these bases. They are all proposed to be built on coasts facing China and the South China Sea, and not along the path of typhoons, which approach the Philippines from the southeast.
The basing arrangements were to be officially announced last month, during President Obama's scheduled visit to the country. When Obama cancelled his trip to the Asia Pacific amid the US government shutdown, there was political blowback throughout the region.
Political opposition to Aquino emerged and, under the guise of a corruption scandal, attacked Aquino's failure to balance between Washington and Beijing. The Philippine basing arrangements negotiating team announced that the talks had reached an impasse.
On November 6, two days before Haiyan struck the Philippines, Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin announced that Philippines disagreed with the United States over who would control the proposed bases. No further talks were scheduled.
On November 8, Haiyan slammed into the Philippines’ Eastern Visayas region. It quickly became apparent that the storm had devastated entire areas, with an estimated death toll of 10,000 people announced within 24 hours of landfall. Washington said it would give an initial amount of $100,000. No promises of further aid were made.
For three days, as hundreds of thousands struggled to find food, no more aid was forthcoming from Washington. On November 11, Aquino said bidding was going to open on the construction of basing facilities at Oyster Bay. On the same day, Washington announced that it would deploy nearly 13,000 troops on the USS George Washington aircraft carrier strike group and accompanying amphibious assault vessels, and give $20 million in aid.
Washington seized upon the opportunity afforded it by the catastrophic typhoon. It deployed troops to the region to establish new facts on the ground, justify the basing of forces, and use its aid package to extort a resumption of negotiations.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has now scheduled a visit to Manila in December, which is to be followed by an official state visit by Obama in April 2014. The framework for negotiating and signing the agreement for the basing of US forces is clearly central to the agenda in these trips.
The key figure for negotiating this agreement has now been sent to the Philippines. At the request of the State Department, the US Senate accelerated the approval of Philip Goldberg as the new US ambassador to the Philippines. Kerry swore Goldberg in on November 21 and the ambassador arrived in the Philippines today.
Goldberg worked as US ambassador in Bolivia in 2006-2008, when he was declared persona non grata by President Evo Morales and ordered to leave the country, having been accused of engaging in espionage and working to undermine the government by collusion with separatist organizations.
From 2009 to June 2010, Goldberg served as the US representative responsible for implementing sanctions against North Korea under UN Security Council resolution 1874, a measure introduced by the United States to escalate pressure against Beijing and Pyongyang.
From June 2010 until last week, Goldberg was Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR). Goldberg was thus the head of one of the 16 key offices of the US intelligence network. He was responsible for conveying the State Department’s instructions to the National Security Agency and other spy organizations and for reporting on intelligence to the secretary of state.
Goldberg served as Clinton and Kerry's principal intelligence adviser. The INR website states that this office’s mandate is to ensure “that intelligence activities support foreign policy and national security purposes.”
The new ambassador to the Philippines is a man steeped in the US intelligence apparatus. His selection by Obama, and fast-tracked approval by the Senate, clearly indicates the central place that the Philippines holds in Washington’s imperialist game plan."

"Philip S. Goldberg Ambassador-Designate to the Republic of the Philippines Before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee September 25, 2013”

"In support of the Obama administration’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, we are negotiating a Framework Agreement that would enable an increased rotational presence of U.S. forces to the Philippines, enhance opportunities for joint military

training and exercises, and allow for the prepositioning of equipment and supplies to respond quickly to natural disasters. We also support Philippine efforts to reduce tensions surrounding the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, both through the creation of a Code of Conduct between ASEAN member states and China, and through internationally accepted dispute resolution mechanisms like those provided for under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Ensuring freedom of navigation and unimpeded lawful commerce in the South China Sea remains an important U.S. national interest shared by the Philippines and others in the region. "

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Goldberg.pdf

"Philip S. Goldberg was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines on November 21, 2013. From June 2010, he served served as the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Prior to 2010 he served concurrently as the Coordinator for Implementation of UNSC Resolution 1874 on North Korea.”
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/136919.htm

Ambassador to the Philippines: Who Is Philip Goldberg?
Nov. 3, 2013
In 2006, Goldberg was named an ambassador for the first time, and sent to La Paz, Bolivia, for an intended three-year term that ended after two years with Goldberg’s expulsion as a persona non grata. A series of incidents in 2007 and 2008 indicating that U.S. embassy personnel were attempting to recruit Peace Corps volunteers and visiting American scholars as spies raised tensions. That same year, the mainly white and affluent populace of Bolivia’s eastern provinces, who had opposed the 2006 election of Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, forced a bitter recall vote. Even after Morales won, opposition leader Rubén Costas called Morales a “dictator” and hurled the racial slur “macaco” (monkey) at him. Goldberg, who speaks fluent Spanish, surely understood the offensiveness of the comment. When Goldberg met with Costas anyway, Morales accused the U.S. government—which has been a vocal critic of Morales since before his election—of trying to destabilize his regime and expelled Goldberg in September 2008.

From June 2009 until June 2010, he served as the Coordinator for Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 (Sanctions) on North Korea.

http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/ambassador-to-…

"U.S. wages war against Philippines using its HAARP weather WMD systems"
http://www.tatoott1009.com/2013/11/15/5min-news-u-s-wages-war-against-p…

"On 8 November 2013 at 0440 am a category 5 typhoon, Haiyan (locally named Yolanda), made landfall in the Guiuan municipality, Eastern Samar province, moving steadily north into the province of Northern Cebu, with maximum winds of 235 km/hr and severe gusts of 275 km/hr. The typhoon made subsequent landfalls in Tolosa municipality south of Tacloban City, Leyte province, Daanbantayan and Bantayan Island, Cebu province, and Conception, Iloilo province. The typhoon affected the city of Roxas in Capiz province and the tourism centre of Borocay in Aklan province.At least 18 million people live in the worst affected regions. "

"First reports from Government of the Philippines, UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination Teams (UNDAC) on the ground, and initial eyewitness reports/social media report massive devastation and deaths in areas directly in typhoon path:

All homes/buildings in the path of the storm have been seriously damaged

Areas of Cebu, Roxas and Tacloban devastated; Samar, Leyte, Iloilo, Aklan

and Coron badly hit

- Tacloban City - massive damage, large parts of the city flattened. Storm

surge over 7 metres. Entire coastline communities washed away.

- Palo City - very large number of casualties

- Samar – 80% destruction of buildings (see map of damaged houses in Annex 2).

Power and communications infrastructure have been seriously damaged.

Seaports and airports remain closed. Transport is very difficult and possible

only by helicopter at the moment

Security is of concern

In these areas, medical personnel will have been heavily affected and health facilities have been extensively damaged, including submerged ground floors, damaged and destroyed medical supplies, equipment, records, office equipment and buildings.

The Secretary of Health has formally requested assistance from WHO and partners for the immediate deployment of field medical teams (e.g. trauma), and emergency supplies (e.g. trauma kits, supplies, hospital tents). Requests for further assistance are expected.

Major risks to public health:

Major trauma and injuries are the first health concern following a typhoon. They require surgery and post-operative wound care to prevent infection and disability.

Population displacement, overcrowding, poor shelter, exposure, lack of safe water, sanitation and hygiene facilities, vector breeding and poor nutritional status, lead to

- increased communicable disease transmission and potential for outbreaks of

diseases such acute respiratory infections, MEASLES. diarrhea, typhoid fever

and viral enteric diseases.

- increased exposure to vector-borne diseases such as dengue and

chikungunya or malaria. Flooding may initially flush out mosquito breeding, which can restart when the waters recede. The lag time is usually around 6-8 weeks before the onset of increased disease transmission.

- displacement of animal populations leads to human rabies from the bites of infected cats and dogs.

Flooding is a known risk factor for outbreaks of leptospirosis

Disruption of health services and access to health care result from damaged and/or flooded health infrastructure, loss of medicines and supplies, and injured or dead health staff.

Malnutrition and communicable diseases. In children who are already undernourished or malnourished, prolonged and severe infections are more frequent.”

2.3 Diseases associated with displacement, crowding and flooding

Population displacement caused by flooding can result in overcrowding in resettlement areas, raising the risk of transmission of many communicable diseases. Acute respiratory infection, MEASLES, diphtheria, and pertussis are transmitted from person to person through respiratory droplets generated during coughing and sneezing, and the risks are increased when shelters are overcrowded and inadequately ventilated. The transmission of meningitis, waterborne and vector- borne diseases is also increased in such conditions.”

"Measles

There is a moderate to HIGH RISK of measles outbreak. The Philippines continues to report sporadic cases and outbreaks of measles (such as in 2011). National levels of vaccine coverage are RELATIVELY HIGH, however local levels in some of the affected areas are much lower.

Current recommendations are to conduct flood-response MEASLES IMMUNIZATION with vitamin A supplementation for ALL children 6-59 months old, REGARDLESS of their vaccination status, in ALL Internally Displaced People (IDP) SHELTERS that contain more than 1000 people. "

"Table 1. Routine vaccination coverage at one year of age, 2012, the Philippines:

MEASLES CONTAINING VACCINE 85% coverage

* Official country estimates reported to WHO/UNICEF, 2012” see p. 11

"Malnutrition

This problem is still present in certain areas of the Philippines, particularly for children aged 6-24 months. Under-nutrition is an important underlying factor contributing to childhood mortality, and has also been linked to impaired cognitive development. Anemia in preschool children is considered to be a moderate public health problem. The affected populations will be at increased risk of acute malnutrition if there is a lack of access to appropriate and adequate food, and reduced access to health and nutrition services. This will disproportionately affect vulnerable groups such as young children, pregnant and lactating women and older persons. Children with moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) need urgent food support or they will move into severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and potentially severe infection and death. In 2008, 34% of infants 0-6 months were exclusively breastfed (DHS). Nutritional needs among the flood-affected populations must be addressed urgently. "

"Immediate priorities:

Provision of food, safe drinking water, appropriate sanitation, shelter, and other

essential non-food items including fuel for cooking

Trauma care for the wounded with tetanus prevention

Provision of medicines and medical supplies

Establishment of emergency primary and secondary care for medical, surgical

and obstetric emergencies

Risk communication to the public

Management of dead bodies with retrieval and identification of victims

MEASLES VACCINATION, and polio vaccination in high risk areas

Establishment of an EARLY WARNING SYSTEM for early detection and response to

outbreaks

http://www.who.int/hac/crises/phl/sitreps/philippines_ph_risk_assessmen…

NOTE: OVERALL, PHILIPPINES HAD A HIGH VACCINATION RATE AND A CONSISTENT VERY LOW RATE OF MEASLES CASES UNTIL RIGHT AFTER THE TYPHOON HIT. IT WAS AFTER THE VACCINATION CAMPAIGN THAT A HUGE MEASLES OUTBREAK OCCURRED. THE PHILIPPINES MEASLES GENOTYPE IS BEING CALLED B3 and IS ALSO BEING IDENTIFIED AS THE GENOTYPE FOR 9 DISNEY CASES. HOWEVER, ACCORDING OFFICIAL RESEARCH, B3 IS ENDEMIC TO WEST AFRICA. THERE IS A BIG PUSH BY MSM TO BLAME 2014 U.S. OUTBREAK ON PHILIPPINES AND AMISH AID WORKERS THERE.

VERY IMPORTANT CDC GRAPH
“Measles cases by month of rash onset: Philippines, 2009-2014”
Shows confirmed cases made HUGE JUMP in Dec., Jan., and Feb, AFTER TYPHOON VACCINATION CAMPAIGN.
SCROLL to slide 12

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/ed/ciinc/downloads/2014-05-22/Wallace-measl…

DESCRIPTION OF TYPHOON
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/10/us-philippines-typhoon-idUSBR…

AMISH OUTBREAK:
"But that's wrong. The real story behind the 2014 outbreak isn't on the West Coast. It's in Ohio Amish country, where a missionary returning from the Philippines turned an otherwise unremarkable year for this virus into one of the worst in recent history. "
"At the time, this Amish population was generally against vaccination. This, however, wasn't a matter of religious principle but one of health concerns.

In the 1990s, Miller explained, two Ohio kids allegedly got sick after they took the MMR shot, which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella. Rumors about vaccine safety spread through the Amish community like a virus. "That put a scare in us and we quit," Miller says. This made it incredibly easy for measles — the most contagious virus known to man — to move through this cluster of unvaccinated individuals.”

"When he returned to Ohio, and fell ill, a doctor misdiagnosed him with Dengue fever, so he continued to pass his disease along to friends and neighbors, many of whom had refused the vaccine out of those concerns over adverse effects."

"The outbreak that Fletcher spent months working to contain ultimately infected 382 Amish Ohioans by the time it was declared over in August of last year. Nobody died, but nine wound up in the hospital with more serious symptoms.”

"The actual story of the 2014 outbreak complicates the narrative that has developed in the wake of the new outbreak of measles at Disneyland in early 2015: that a growing number of parents, led by Jenny McCarthy, have begun to opt their kids out of vaccinations, letting the disease spread easily.

Federal data shows no drop off in vaccination rates over the past decade
In fact, it's only about two percent of the population that refuses vaccines outright. All 50 states have had school immunization requirements since the early 1980s, though some now allow medical and philosophical exemptions. Even so, there hasn't been a drop off in vaccination rates in the past decade, the National Immunization Survey shows. Coverage for the MMR vaccine stands at 92 percent."

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7929791/measles-outbreak-2014

THIS PROVES THAT VACCINES HAVE LEFT BABIES 0-12 MONTHS VULNERABLE TO MEASLES.

THESE BABIES WERE NATURALLY PROTECTED PRE-VACCINE ERA.
Now they are blaming it on “anti-vaxxers’.
THIS IS WHY THEY CONTINUE TO DAMAGE OUR CHILDREN WITH VACCINES AT EARLIER AND EARLIER AGES. EVEN INJECTING PREGNANT MOTHERS WITH UNNATURALLY MUTATED MEASLES VIRUS. “ATTENUATED" MEANS MUTATED. THAT IS WHY THEY DON’T WORK.
Vaccines have made the very young and the old vulnerable to measles infection, the very ages at which the virus can be the most harmful.
WE TRADED NATURE’S BEST, FOR $4 billion/year and new chronic diseases and suffering in our children.

"At the time these studies were conducted, most mothers had acquired antibodies through natural measles rather than measles vaccine. Thus, they endowed their fetuses with high measles antibody levels (76). Currently, most women of child- bearing age (15 to 35 years of age) have had the measles vaccine and have lower antibody levels than women who had natural measles infection (57). As a result of these lower antibody levels, their infants are born with lower titers of measles antibody, which they lose earlier than the infants of mothers who had natural measles (50, 54)."

"Lowering the Age of MMR Administration

It has been observed that in the United States, compliance with immunization is highest in the first 6 months of life and drops off thereafter (84). Therefore, reducing the age at im- munization for the MMR vaccine may be effective in increas- ing the uptake or immunization rate. The American Academy of Pediatrics already has recommended that the first dose of MMR vaccine be given at 12 to 15 months of age.

Studies in the late 1970s suggested a decreased seroconver- sion rate for vaccinees immunized between 12 and 14 months rather than at 15 months. This was believed to be due to the presence of maternally acquired antibodies, which has been as- sociated with vaccine failure (3, 62, 76). These reports prompted a raising of the recommended age of routine MMR immunization to 15 months. Unfortunately, this change may have contributed to the epidemic of 1989 to 1991 by leaving the group of 12- to 14-month-old children unprotected; in 1990, it contributed 2,551 cases, or

This got cut off #78
CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson admitted to scientific fraud, covering up a link with MMR vaccine given on schedule and an increased risk of autism, especially in African-American boys.
If this is true, one would expect a high autism rate in Mississippi, a state with a FORCED 99% vaccine coverage. Well, THERE IS A HIGH AUTISM RATE IN MISSISSIPPI:

“Mississippi Autism Advisory Committee Report: 2013 Recommendations for the Mississippi Legislature”

"Dear Legislators,

I am pleased to submit the report from the Mississippi Autism Advisory Committee detailing the findings and recommendations of our committee.

The dramatic growth in the number of children affected by autism spectrum disorders (ASD) now constitutes a public health crisis. An estimated 10,174 Mississippi children have autism – an increase in incidence from 1 in 500 to 1 in 88 within the last decade. Statistics from the Mississippi Department of Education show a 563% percent rise in the number of public school children with autism in the past 11 years. Throughout the state of Mississippi, families and systems of care are struggling to meet the needs of individuals with ASD across their life span.

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that impairs a person's ability to communicate and socialize. It is characterized by restricted and repetitive behaviors. It typically appears within the first three years of life and can range from mild to severe. There is no known cause, and no known cure.

It can cost as much as $3.2 million to care for an individual with autism across their lifespan. If the state's children currently living with autism do not overcome their challenges by the time they reach adulthood, it could cost Mississippi taxpayers more than 32 billion dollars over the next 50 years. We know early and intensive therapy can improve outcomes but, even though Autism is a biomedical brain disorder, insurance companies routinely exclude coverage for ASD. Thirty-two states have enacted Autism Insurance Reform laws to ensure necessary treatment is provided. Mississippi is NOT one of those states. Coverage will result in significant long-term cost savings to health care and educational systems.

The number of students with ASD in public schools has increased dramatically. Most teachers do not receive training on ASD prior to entering the school system as many teacher preparation programs contain little to no autism related curriculum. There are also no institutions for higher learning in Mississippi offering a specialty program or degree in the area of Autism. One of the few bright spots in the training of professionals to work with the ASD population is through a collaborative effort of The Mississippi Department of Education and the University of Southern Mississippi.

Our report focuses on two key recommendations. This is not an exhaustive list of remedies but will lay the critical foundation needed to address the autism crisis in Mississippi.

On behalf of individuals with ASD, their families and the professionals who work with them, the Mississippi Autism Advisory Committee stands ready to assist in the implementation of these recommendations. "

http://www.dmh.ms.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2013-MAAC-Report-Final…

What fresh hell is this?

Someone got their Internet privileges back at the asylum.

Ignore him.

LOUD NOISES! Why don't you try not talking for a while, Brick.

Re: prevalence of poverty in the U.S. and the relative affluence of the vaccine hesitant--47% of American children live in low income families. While uninsurance rates have gone down in children in recent years due to health reform, lots of kids still remain without access to medical care, including vaccines. The indifference of the anti-immunization people is truly shameful -- maybe their chiropractors and naturopaths will start doing free clinics.

IIRC, trolling is not generally a reason to have one's Internet usage restricted whilst one is in an inpatient facility.

I'll take the advice to ignore him, though.

OOPS! #78 got cut off.
Here's a repost:

THIS PROVES THAT VACCINES HAVE LEFT BABIES 0-12 MONTHS VULNERABLE TO MEASLES.

THESE BABIES WERE NATURALLY PROTECTED BY MOM'S IMMUNITY PRE-VACCINE ERA.
Now they are blaming it on “anti-vaxxers’.
THIS IS WHY THEY CONTINUE TO DAMAGE OUR CHILDREN WITH VACCINES AT EARLIER AND EARLIER AGES. EVEN INJECTING PREGNANT MOTHERS WITH UNNATURALLY MUTATED MEASLES VIRUS. “ATTENUATED” MEANS MUTATED. THAT IS WHY THEY DON’T WORK.
Vaccines have made the very young and the old vulnerable to measles infection, the very ages at which the virus can be the most harmful.
WE TRADED NATURE’S BEST, FOR $4 billion/year and new chronic diseases and suffering in our children.

“At the time these studies were conducted, most mothers had acquired antibodies through natural measles rather than measles vaccine. Thus, they endowed their fetuses with high measles antibody levels (76). Currently, most women of child- bearing age (15 to 35 years of age) have had the measles vaccine and have lower antibody levels than women who had natural measles infection (57). As a result of these lower antibody levels, their infants are born with lower titers of measles antibody, which they lose earlier than the infants of mothers who had natural measles (50, 54).”

“Lowering the Age of MMR Administration

It has been observed that in the United States, compliance with immunization is highest in the first 6 months of life and drops off thereafter (84). Therefore, reducing the age at immunization for the MMR vaccine may be effective in increasing the uptake or immunization rate. The American Academy of Pediatrics already has recommended that the first dose of MMR vaccine be given at 12 to 15 months of age.

JP @83 -- I am impressed, though, by the presence of paragraph breaks. They're often missing in screeds of this sort.

Trivia question: The signature “R. Mutt” first appeared on what famous work of art?

It's the name under which Marcel Duchamp submitted Fountain to the Society for Independent Artists.

palindrom:

I don't know that that's a credit to Toto, since most of the above verbiage seems to be copypasta.

I've gotten used to the idea that a rank jungle of verbiage means a comment here is not worth reading. Toto is merely continuing that tradition from the loon side.

Addendum to post #79

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."
http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-…

MISSISSIPPI vaccination rate: 99.7%
http://www.msdh.state.ms.us/msdhsite/_static/23,15969,341.html

MISSISSIPPI African - American population: 38%

MISSISSIPPI autism rate: 1 in 88, a 563% percent rise in the number of public school children with autism in the past 11 years.
http://www.dmh.ms.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2013-MAAC-Report-Final…

Note: 1986 rollout of new vaccine schedule coincides with beginning of autism epidemic; hence, a call for the 2004 case study examining increased risk of autism with timing of administration of MMR.

REPRESENTATIVE POSEY OF FLORIDA (House Science, Space, and Technology Committee) is in possession of an estimated 150,000 non-redacted pages of CDC vaccine safety documents sent to him electronically, by WHISTLEBLOWER William Thompson on September 8, 2014. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE WITH THEM. Dr. Thompson still works for the CDC.
OBVIOUSLY, vaccines are not safe and effective.

#CDCWhistleblower Update: US Congressman Posey’s Office In Possession of Up To 100,000 CDC Whistleblower Documents
Posted on September 8, 2014 by ChildHealthSafety
By: Ben Swann Sep 8, 2014
CDCwhistleblower
Congressman Bill Posey’s office has confirmed exclusively toBenswann.com that a “very large number” of documents have been turned over by CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson, who has admitted that the CDC suppressed information about the links between the MMR vaccine and autism in some cases.
According to Congressman Posey’s spokesman, George Cecala, “I can confirm that we have received a very large number of documents and we are going through those documents now. There are a lot of them, so it will take some time.” Cecala could not say exactly how many documents are in possession of the Congressman’s staff though sources tell me that as many as 100,000 documents have been handed over.
Read rest of article here:
Update: Congressman’s Office In Possession of 100,000 CDC Whistleblower Documents? By: Ben Swann Sep 8, 2014

Dr. Hooker’s letter: Alleged scientific misconduct, CDC: VACCINES SAFETY STUDY! (CDC Whistleblower co-author, Dr. William Thompson)
http://media.wix.com/ugd/b3aa2b_da6435ff9a2144d6aa3358fec58550af.pdf

U.S. Media Blackout: Italian Courts Rule Vaccines Cause Autism - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/u-s-media-blackout-italian-courts-rule…

Oldies but Goodies:
PLEASE READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html

Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information June 7-8, 2000 Simpsonwood Retreat Center Norcross, Georgia
http://thinktwice.com/simpwood.pdf

1999 CDC Thimerosal safety report by Dr. Verstraeten (prompted Simpsonwood meeting above)
http://www.ashotoftruth.org/sites/default/files/exhibit_22_-_verstraete…

Yappy little dog remains yappy and little.

maybe their chiropractors and naturopaths will start doing free clinics.

Oh, they do. Here in Ithaca, our free clinic is staffed by a few doctors and nurses and a numerous supply of chiropractors, acupuncturists, aromatherapists, nutritionists, massage therapists, etc. This town is fairly overflowing with woo-sters, so the oversupply means that they have time to volunteer.

Addendum #79

MISSISSIPPI 99.7 % vaccination coverage
http://www.msdh.state.ms.us/msdhsite/_static/23,15969,341.html

MISSISSIPPI 38% African-American population
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_sp…

MISSISSIPPI 1 in 88- AUTISM rate. A 563% %t RISE in the number of public school children with autism in the past 11 years.

Note: Autism rates have increased every year since the roll out of the "new" vaccine schedule in 1986, the year Big Pharma was removed from all vaccine product liability.

Statement on Risk vs Benefit of Vaccinations by David Satcher, M.D., PH.D.
Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon General
U.S. Public Health Service
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Before the House Committee on Government Reform
August 3, 1999

"Vaccine approval also requires the provision of adequate product labeling to allow health care providers to understand the vaccine’s proper use, including its potential benefits and risks, in order to communicate with patients and parents and to safely deliver the vaccine to the public. Vaccines are also subject to lot release testing and protocol review to further ensure their quality.

Although extensive studies are required for licensure, post-marketing research and surveillance are necessary to identify safety issues which may only arise or be detected following vaccination of a much larger population. Rare events may not come to light before licensure, or, if noted, the evidence may not be adequate to prove that such events were due to a vaccine. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a valuable post-marketing tool for just such safety surveillance. I will describe VAERS later in the testimony. In addition, post-marketing studies of a specific vaccine are required by FDA in order to obtain additional safety or other data. Also, after licensure, monitoring of the product and of production activities, including periodic facility inspections, must continue as long as the manufacturer holds a license for the product.

No system is perfect and no medicine or vaccine can ever be guaranteed to be 100 percent free of possible side effects or adverse events, particularly when administered to millions of people. For these reasons, the Department, its constituent agencies (FDA, CDC, NIH, HRSA), the scientific community, and industry strive for continuous improvements in vaccine safety. Speaking for the Department and its agencies, we welcome all constructive input and criticism in this regard."
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990803a.html

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines."
http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-…

# ann #85

Yes! 'Fountain' a mass manufactured porcelain urinal laid on it's back and signed with the pseudonym 'R. Mutt' was named the most influential work in the history of modern art by a panel of expert critics, and deservedly so. http://tinyurl.com/ycmrd27

Unveiled 98 years ago, it continues to befuddle viewers and fight back against the arts world's attempts to tame and contain it. "Duchamp adamantly asserted that he wanted to 'de-deify' the artist.' For which, of course, he was deified for his genius. Art historians say 'the original' Fountain from 1917 is 'lost'. In 1964, Duchamp produced eight "authorized replicas" by signing "R. Mutt" on similar urinals. One of those was sold at auction for $1.7 million in 1999, and is now in the permanent collection of the Tate Modern.

Duchamp was a chess master (literally), and he thought many steps ahead in the art game as well. He knew anyone who would pay massive sums for a urinal just because HE had painted the fake name on the side was missing the point, which just made the point all over again. The only way to checkmate Fountain would be if everyone stopped having an opinion about it. Not gonna happen. Your move.

@ DB #87
Loons are wonderful birds, and should not have their reps sullied by comparisons to anti-vaxers and RI trolls. The etymology comes from 'lunatic,' not the birds. Thus, 'looney' is a more appropriate derogation.

Yappy little dog remains yappy and little.

It also changed "the" to "The" in this latest discharge swell, which wasted about 30 seconds of my time.

Recently, I stumbled into a particularly pernicious bit of anti-vax dog-whislting in a form I'd never seen before:
http://tinyurl.com/m4sajr8

While still blowing the libertarian dog whistle, it wraps the payload in an anti-corporate, anti-Merck argument that is miles ahead of the standard Big Pharma conspiracy screeds, and almost makes a bit of sense — and then slips in the anti-vax message in a purported attack on anti-vaxers, so cleverly veiled you might have to look twice to see how completely contradictory it all is.

This one's addressed to the inner Tea Baggers in nominally 'progressive' readers. I'm not familiar with the blog or author so I have no idea what kind of audience it has. Small, I hope.

ATTN: DENICE. you might want to look at this one if you haven't seen it...

IIRC, trolling is not generally a reason to have one’s Internet usage restricted whilst one is in an inpatient facility.

No, I don't imagine that "trolling" is, given the whole limited access to so much as landlines and people who inventory, sequester, and issue receipts for your personal property parts.

Kind of OT: So apparently the anti-vax movie "Bought" is free to watch until March 6th.

https://www.boughtmovie.net/free-viewing/

"ABOUT THE BOUGHT FILM:
You're about to see how Wall Street has literally "BOUGHT" your and your family's health.

The food, vaccine, drug, insurance and health industry are a multi-BILLION dollar enterprise... focused more on profits than human lives. The BOUGHT documentary takes viewers deep "inside the guts" of this despicable conspiracy...

Featuring exclusive interviews with the world's most acclaimed experts in research, medicine, holistic care and natural health... Bought exposes the hidden (and deadly) story behind it all."

Should make for some interesting blogging material at least...

@Narad:

Many inpatient psych facilities have computers with internet access these days, though yes, one is not allowed to keep a personal laptop, or a pen, or shoelaces. (And the amount of time one may spent on the Internet is limited, given limited computer access.) In short, I know what the f*ck I'm talking about.

It made me laugh a bit, mirthlessly, when I was talking to a former student with whom I have become friendly about the dearth of academic jobs in the humanites. "Well, you know a bunch of lanugages, there's always, like, the CIA, right?" "Son, I'm reasonably certain the CIA would not touch me with a ten foot pole."

My point, which I suppose I could deobfuscate, is that people in such facilities are generally not in a good place, and hey, maybe making jokes about "asylums" is super f*cking funny,.

^ "not super funny."

In short, I know what the f*ck I’m talking about.

As do I. Perhaps the Internet cafe–equipped wards are more exclusive than those I've inventoried.

University-affiliated, maybe.

@ Annie #98. Thanks for the tip-off about Bought. Unless my sampling missed something, it seems that Jeff Hays dumped out of giving Wakefield a platform. This seems odd, since Wakefield's people were big in funding the film. Hays himself issued a press release saying why Wakefield was so important.

I originally assumed that Hays was another unscrupulous opportunist. After all, what would happen if the drugs, food and insurance industry got together and funded a 90 minute film and hoped to get it in movie houses. But this is what Hays has done with his funders, even though they are small rather than big business.

But unless I blinked when Wakefield appeared, it seems like either Hays realized that he would contaminate the project with a research cheat, or possibly his other backers did not want the association. Maybe he learnt from Brian Hooker's mistake.

"Featuring exclusive interviews with the world’s most acclaimed experts in research, medicine, holistic care and natural health"

I'm guessing that "the world's most acclaimed experts" will turn out to be people like Russell Blaylock, Sherri Tenpenny, Joe Mercola, Mike Adams, Tetyana "I have a PhD in Science" Obukhanych etc.

Always amusing to see how "the world's most acclaimed experts" are highly believable when they're a handful of fringe wackos, but thousands of scientists who are both qualified and acclaimed should be ignored, because Moms Without Brains say so.

@Dangerous Bacon

I haven't watched it but from what I understand, at the very minimum Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Kelly Brogan, and Dr. Toni Bark are all featured as "experts" in the film.

@ sadmar:

I've seen similar recently (IIRC @ PRN) but thanks.

@ Annie:

Thanks, that's great: I absolutely refuse to pay any money to view woo-fraught films, broadcasts, lectures or books. These miserable people are rich enough and/ or have exposure enough already without my contribution adding to it.

Whilst we're on the subject of film**, I just viewed/ scanned an interview with AJW ( courtesy of Thinking Moms' Revolution facebook/ GMO Free News) with Mmes Hallal and Spencer.
Although it is EXACTLY what is to be expected, for FIFTY TWO minutes, a few moments stand out-

@ about 26, Andy declares that if there was indeed any fraud surrounding his 1998 study, it was neither on his part nor on that of his colleagues but can be attributed to Mr Deer and BMJ. who "concocted a story".
@ about 33 on- he harps on single vaccines rather than combinations and admits that GMOs may be problematic.

** I know, I know, I could have got into my car, driven 3 miles and seen *Timbuktu* at the Artsy Cinema prior to the Oscars.
But I chose to watch tripe because I want to inform my compatriots. I so good.

if there WERE.
See what listening to these creatures does.

I beat you to it, Denice, That YouTube interview took place two days ago and I viewed it yesterday.

According to Andy, vaccinations are "population control". Has anyone told Andy that the grunge look (unshaven with greasy hair), is not the way to impress anyone with your awesomeness?

Has anyone told Andy that the grunge look (unshaven with greasy hair), is not the way to impress anyone with your awesomeness?

It worked for Curt Cobain. Just sayin'....

@ lilady:

Sure he isn't exactly lovely: who knows- perhaps he's attempting to attract a particular demographic/ age cohort ( white women who are of an age to have been in that faction as teenagers in the 1990s or who wanted to be Kate Moss?) so he may be astute stylistically.

I shouldn't talk: twenty-odd year olds like *my* hair.

Brian #7 that post gave me chills.

Apparently the BBC have amended their policy on science reporting in order to avoid the 'false balance' trap (in response to complaints).
I'm also pleased to find, that as articles about the anti-vax movement are starting to pop up in UK mainstream press as a result of the outbreaks, the tone is universally condemnatory. It seems that the UK press on both sides of the political spectrum aren't having any truck with it. Reasons to be cheerful, part...

Oh, and glad to see that Toto has given it a rest, I've got an ache in my scrolling finger.

@Deer Brian,
I am puzzled by your continued flap regarding "Andy" Wakefield. I was anti-vaxx long before I had ever heard of him. I have never read his published "peer reviewed" article, and it has had no bearing on the voluminous documents regarding the transgressions of the vaccine industry that I have personally researched. But please, keep beating your straw man while we sit back and laugh. BTW, was your "journalistic" coverage of Wakefield the last time you got any attention?

Toto, thanks for your honesty. Most anti-vaccine activists hide behind the "pro safe vaccine" smokescreen. .
And keep laughing.

University-affiliated, maybe.

The local one shut down its adult inpatient floors (regular and neuro, respectively) years ago. There's apparently still money in pediatric inpatient. I can, however, mamesh say that there's no Internet access at the recipient's digs.

I should also make clear (again, I think) that all of my statements are from the perspective of a visitor rather than a patient. As I guard others' privacy more than my own, I can't really say much more.

unshaven with greasy hair

That's not sebum, it's product. I'd also expect someone cultivating the stubbly look to use a purpose-built razor.

The local one shut down its adult inpatient floors (regular and neuro, respectively) years ago.

The U with which I'm affiliated has quite the medical school, and I end up using the health system here for pretty much everyting, partially because it's definitely in network and I don't have to deal with much paperwork, at least not since the first time I went. I've been to both wings of the ED a couple times in the past couple years, which says something about me, I'm sure.

(In fact, I went to the "regular" ED a year and a half ago or so, when a cyst that'd been on my neck for about six years suddenly turned into an abscess and swelled up 4 or 5 times its size in about a day, was extremely painful, etc. It was Saturday night on Memorial Day weekend by the time I realized I had to go in, so everything else was closed. The doc walked in, with my chart in hand, and asked me "what was wrong with [my] head." "Actually, it's my neck [you son of a b*itch, now zay azoy gut und lance this m*therf*cker, will ya?*]

*I did not actually say this part.

As I guard others’ privacy more than my own, I can’t really say much more.

My own privacy is hardly airtight anymore, I think, given the things I've mentioned here and there and my intials. Nu, like I said, it's not like I'm going to be joining the CIA any time soon anyway.

Oh, for a killfile...

Aha!

Chrome and Firefox users, go here: https://github.com/fizbin/killfile-extension

@pasha Shame on me.for questioning the business acumen of the witch doctors. They're the reason the we're even having this conversation. Show me an anti-immunization kook and I'll show you a naturopath, chiropractor, or other snake oil salesman within one degree of separation. You want a fuckin' conspiracy? The dirty profit motivations to make kids sick? There it is.

The following isn't a dog whistle piece as these three persons all apparently freely cop to being antivaxers, but it's useful in that we get to see admitted antivaxers using the dog whistle code, which makes it a lot harder for others to use it and still pretend they're not really anti-vaccines:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/02/22/anti-vaccine-mothers-discuss-thei…

In fact, I went to the “regular” ED a year and a half ago or so, when a cyst that’d been on my neck for about six years suddenly turned into an abscess and swelled up 4 or 5 times its size in about a day, was extremely painful, etc.

JP, we really don't want to compare tales of epidermoid cysts.

Aha!

Chrome and Firefox users, go here

"As such, some of the code may have suffered from bitrot in the meantime and needs retesting on all supported blogs."

Have you tested it? There is a working, if unfancy, Greasemonkey solution already. This (here, at least) comes down to pattern-matching on Javascript and rendering.

If this offering doesn't have to load and then redraw the page, I'm interested.

And in related news: German newspapers report that a 18 month old boy died in a Berlin hospital due to a measles infection. Berlin has currently a measles outbreak with 574 confirmed cases since October last year, without doubt "helped" by low vaccination rates in certain areas of the city. The boy himself was not vaccinated.

Next time someone says something about a benevolent, natural children's illness, I punch him/her in the face.

@Stranger

Do you have a source for the information that he was not vaccinated?

Google translate:

In a Berlin hospital doctors fought for the boy's life, but in vain: The toddler died of measles. This was announced by Health Senator Mario Czaja said on Monday. Berlin is currently experiencing its largest measles outbreak since 2,001th

The little boy, who died last Wednesday at a measles was not vaccinated against measles. This was announced by Health Senator Mario Czaja (CDU) on Monday. The one and a half year old child was ill on February 12 in the district Reinickendorf, initially it had fever, cough, and later the texture typical rash had been added. The child's condition had deteriorated soon, so it had to be hospitalized on 14 February.

http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/panorama/groesster-masern-ausbruch-seit-…

@Liz, thanks.

After I posted that I did see an article that states he received every vaccine on the schedule except for the MMR.

http://www.thelocal.de/20150223/measles-cancels-classes-at-berlin-school

In other antii-vax news:

Adriana Gamondes produces another of her floridly free-associatve epic posts - compleat with Dia de los Muertos art work- today @ AoA.

This one expresses dislike for our own Dorit Reiss.

And many other things but I don't have the time to dis-entangle the myriad alusions and metaphors.
You know, I did study verbal productions associated with various conditions and states of development.... but I can't discuss that here.

Stranger -- but...but it was natural, donchaknow. Natural is always better.

Does anyone know why there's a difference in the past ten years' measles deaths that CDC reports (2) and the measles deaths the Bureau of Vital Statistics reports (10)? Different reporting protocols?

Per the measles outbreak in Germany: "The outbreak is being traced back to a community of refugees from Serbia as well as Bosnia and Herzogovina, where routine vaccinations were not carried out during the Yugoslavian civil war."

Review of "Bought" by James Cooper who has a Ph.D in chemistry and who describes the movie as “tedious nonsense”, “Full of appalling misinformation”.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bought-movie-full-of-appalling-misinfor…

He names all the talking heads, too. A mort of chiropractors.

@shay

Good question, re: the difference in reported deaths. I'm not sure what the discrepancy is.

And many other things but I don’t have the time to dis-entangle the myriad alusions and metaphors.

She pretty much tanks the whole Twoof-Out! routine with this:

"Death did not make the cut for Reiss within that issue, nor does it in the vaccine debate—unless the deaths can be ascribed to those who resist corporate control, which, within the current US vaccination debate, are negligible since, so far, none have died from measles in ten years while, according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, over 100 deaths have been logged in association with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine."

The "to borrow from Hindu scripture" boner is hilarious, though.

To borrow from Hindu scripture, Dorit Reiss is become corporate neoliberalism and the destroyer of consumer rights.

Given that she kept invoking the Manhattan project:

Speaking of true love, you know who had no problem grasping hold of special relativity? Members of the Manhattan Project. Readers probably should worry their pretty heads over the use of the reference by someone appointed as an authority— not just on science but on ethics in science and the use of force and absolutism in public health.

I wonder if she was invoking J. Robert Oppenheimer. Fascinating read, in any case, in a *ahem* certain way.

invoking referencing J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Karl Popper is "the father of the 'Scientific Method'"?

"Speaking of true love, you know who had no problem grasping hold of special relativity? Members of the Manhattan Project." I'm afraid pop culture doesn't always get things correct, Adriana.

She then promptly demonstrates having never heard of Minkowski:

"Einstein’s original vision for relativity—which spoke to the idea of a space-time continuum and peaceful means of generating power—was derailed to the great regret of Einstein himself."

And, apparently, that she didn't bother to read her source, which urges development of the bomb.

Einstein’s original vision for relativity—which spoke to the idea of a space-time continuum

Lorentz and FitzGerald have a sad.

Lorentz and FitzGerald have a sad.

Einstein wasn't sorry, aether.

@sadmar #93- The newest vaccine conspiracist rhetorical device I've heard is, "we're pro-science because science is about inquiry and we want more inquiry", but of course the rationale for that ongoing inquiry is a bunch of flaky nonsense published in obscure literature, often written by people with academic training in unrelated fields, and being parroted by other people with sketchy credentials - chiropractors, lawyers, chemists, and garden variety know-it-all types.

In the recent Oregon hearings to eliminate nonmedical exemptions, a lawyer named Robert Smee started his remarks in opposition with a quote from Benjamin Rush (himself a bit of a moonbat), which cautioned against "medical tyranny" and other stuff. He was given high praise via dachelbot and other crank outlets, praising Mr Smee's (yes, real name) bravery for speaking truth to power and reminding us of Dr Rush's prophetic words. It was, of course, a common misattribution found online. These people quite literally believe their own bullshit, and don't have the skill or rigor to discern reliable information from nonsense. It was extremely telling.

Related - round two of hearings in Oregon are scheduled for March 9th, to feature the good ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield, which should be a delightful train wreck to watch, as opponents trot out their messianic figure for what will be an inevitable ass whooping.

Annie @#129

After I posted that I did see an article that states he received every vaccine on the schedule except for the MMR.

Is Wakefraud going to paint a little silhouette of a child or maybe a coffin on the front fender of his car to take credit for his kill?

#29 - After I posted that I did see an article that states he received every vaccine on the schedule except for the MMR.

I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-vax spin on this is that the other vaccines affected his immune system and because of this, he couldn't fight off the measles.

Or some similar rubbish.

#142
"The newest vaccine conspiracist rhetorical device I’ve heard is, “we’re pro-science because science is about inquiry and we want more inquiry”"

All pro-vaxxers consider any paper published by the CDC's Frank DeStefano to be pure science, infallible, and above reproach.
http://www.iom.edu/reports/2004/immunization-safety-review-vaccines-and…
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf

AMAZINGLY, this science GOD didn't have the foreknowledge to refuse to do research with the now infamous WHISTLEBLOWER William Thompson! Surely, he would have sensed this man's scientific inadequacy beforehand. Surely, he would have been willing to quit his job, if forced to work with him!

But of course, HE DID NO SUCH THING! Amazingly, his COAUTHOR, Dr. William Thompson, actually admitted to SCIENTIFIC FRAUD, in writing, through his lawyer, regarding this 2004 case study acquitting Merck's MMR vaccine.
http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-…

But of course, our Scientist Superman DeStephano quickly set the record straight:
“I guess, that, that is a possibility,” said DeStefano. “It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities.”
He continues to stutter and sputter through his interview with Sharyl Attiksson: http://sharylattkisson.com/cdc-possibility-that-vaccines-rarely-trigger…

On Sept. 8, 2014, Whistleblower protected Thompson sent an estimated 100,000 pages of CDC vaccine safety DOCUMENTS, through his lawyer, to Congressman Bill Posey, a member of the House Space, Science, and Technology Committee. Congressman Posey had not requested these documents. NO REPORT OR ANALYSIS OF THESE CDC DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC! It has now been almost 6 months. OUR CHILDREN'S SAFETY IS AT STAKE!

PRO-VAXXERS CONSIDER THESE DOCUMENTS TO BE TRUE AND SCIENTIFIC.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
GET ON THE PHONE AND CALL EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE AND DEMAND THAT THESE DOCUMENTS BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC VIA THE COMMITTEE WEBSITE. IT IS ALREADY IN A SEARCHABLE NON-REDACTED DATABASE. THIS IS A NO-BRAINER.

My only conclusion, if this is not done immediately, IS THAT THEY ADMIT THAT VACCINES ARE NOT SAFE.

NO REPORT OR ANALYSIS OF THESE CDC DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC! It has now been almost 6 months. OUR CHILDREN’S SAFETY IS AT STAKE!

So either Congressman Posey is incompetent, or the documents don't exist. Or both, of course.

AND BE SURE TO USE ALL CAPS AND/OR YELL AND USE REALLY LONG SENTENCES AND CITE LOTS OF "NEWLY UNCOVERED RESEARCH" BECAUSE THAT MAKES YOU MORE CREDIBLE AND WELL INFORMED AND TOTALLY NOT SEEM CRAZY OR HAVING A MANIC EPISODE.

This is a public service announcement brought to you by everybody who isn't the government, or the media, or the medical establishment, or big pharma, or, little pharma/CROs, or public health workers, or employers, or educators, or the poor and underprivileged, or the vast majority of parents who protect their kids against preventable disease, or people who don't have kids who casually observe this stuff and think it's bullshit, or infants, or the faith community, or people who work in underdeveloped countries for NGOs, or the immunocompromised, or the elderly, or, basically, not you and your 400 online "friends."

Great, now I'm doing it. Don't feel bad, it's easy to get sucked in.

Nice try, bumbling Bimer.

It is on phone record, via his aid, George Cecala, that Congressman Posey did indeed receive these documents. He said they were not redacted and were in a digital searchable database format.

Thompson's lawyer also has a record of the transfer.

Your response certainly SHOWS YOUR HAND.
Who cares about children's safety, WHEN PROFIT IS AT RISK!

I take it the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor again.

Easy... we might still be on double-secret probation.

@ #130
"This one expresses dislike for our own Dorit Reiss."
Is this the Dorit Reiss of whom you speak?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/dorit-rubinstein-reiss/
Wow. She "Rocks". Perhaps we are related.

Rock, paper, scissors....rock, rock, Who wins?
This is better than TV!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060119/1225216.shtml

See comment 3.

Hey Bonnie, what a haul!
https://books.google.com/books?id=xcQ7AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&d…

File under, "You can't choose your relatives"......

Dorit said this:
"Dr. Humphries’ reading of the Bible is simplistic and problematic, because she assumes that God objects to gradual accumulation of human knowledge and to the use of that knowledge to fulfill the basic commandments of preserving life. Unsurprisingly, those with experience in actually interpreting and applying Jewish law conclude differently, and support the vaccination effort, up to mandating it. The basis for this view is the importance of life and health in Jewish law and the prohibition against placing life or health in unreasonable danger."

Read more: Suzanne Humphries’ bad advice on the Polio vaccine | Dorit Rubinstein Reiss | The Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/suzanne-humphries-bad-advice-on-the-poli…
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

So Dorit, how do you explain this?

"Ultra-Orthodox communities refusing the 50-year-old vaccine were linked to a third of US measles cases last year
BY RENEE GHERT-ZAND December 11, 2013, 12:16 pm
http://www.timesofisrael.com/measles-vaccine-developer-warns-jewish-ant…

A brief switching off of the killfile reveals that Tutu is still raving about "the Yiddish." Here, Johnnycakes. I'm sure Shmarya would love you six ways to Shabbat. Really. You need to start "commenting" there.

So Dorit, how do you respond to this accusation?

"As a taxpayer in California, I want to know if she's posting on the job and using state resources to voice her personal opinions online. If so, she should be fired.

Like other comments, I do have to wonder how she manages to post around-the-clock. According to sources online, she lives in Fremont, at least a 48-minute commute from work each way. If she does indeed have children and a job teaching law at a state-funded University, and still finds the time to post constantly in support of the vaccine industry, something is indeed fishy.

Posted by: BShapiro | December 19, 2013 at 01:16 AM"

@Narad
Let's just say I'm getting in touch with my Northern "Roots".
Rum and Coke, anyone? Old habits die hard.

You do realize, Narad, that between the Middletons, the De Wolfs and the enslaved African offspring that....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBpYgpF1bqQ

So why do you want to hide Dr. William Thompson's true results? The Rock is watching.

Dedicated to all pro- and anti- vaxxers.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1nNdTyDZEs
Mark 14:62

"Intro" to the vaccine safety hearing (Senate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU

Senator Elizabeth Warren dishes on the word "safe'.
I guess the Vaccine General has a bar for every child "shot".
Please note the gentleman to the right of Senator Warren........LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UlXgoQwGk

Of course, Italy, does not live in the Twilight Zone:
http://www.zengardner.com/us-media-blackout-italian-court-rules-vaccine…

@Dorit,
Could you please post evidence that Mr. Netanyahu has had his TRAVEL VACCINES? We certainly wouldn't want him to expose THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO POLIO!

You can't be too safe.

As a taxpayer in California, I want to know if she’s posting on the job and using state resources to voice her personal opinions online. If so, she should be fired.

Silly Toto, university professors aren't paid by the hour, and they are encouraged to use university resources in outreach.

So Dorit, how do you explain this?

Not to speak for Dorit, but my explanation would be that it appears those Orthodox communities' reading of the scripture is also simplistic and problematic.

#163 @justthestats
Are you Dorit? What University? Are you employed by them as well?
What does "in outreach" mean? That sounds like a church activity, not a scientific one.
If that is your best excuse, it certainly seems that B. Shapiro's comments are close to the mark.

#164 @ JGC

What really amazed me was the fact that a developer of the MEASLES VACCINE, Dr. Samuel Katz, COMPLETELY DOWNPLAYED ANY REAL DANGER from the Brooklyn outbreak. His response was proper.
THE FEAR MONGERING SHILLS IN THE U.S. are the problem:

"Notably, 58 of those cases were among Hasidic Jews in the Brooklyn’s Boro Park and Williamsburg neighborhoods. It was the largest outbreak of measles in the US since 1996.

“It’s all so relative,” said Katz, who was honored last week by the CDC. “True, there were 175 cases in the US so far this year, but there are 3-4 million cases a year worldwide. In Western Europe alone there are 25,000 cases per year.”"
Read more: Measles vaccine developer warns Jewish anti-vaxxers | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/measles-vaccine-developer-warns-jewish-ant…
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Not to speak for Dorit, but my explanation would be that it appears those Orthodox communities’ reading of the scripture is also simplistic and problematic.

"79% of cases were in persons aged ≥12 months in three extended families whose members declined use of measles vaccine."*

There are a number of things going on with Brooklyn haredim – deliberate lack of education, poverty, large families,** crowding in homes and yeshivas – and there are overarching cranks such as Shmuel Kamenetzky, but this is fundamentally not a religiously based phenomenon, a few psaks notwithstanding (PDF; see p. 198).

The idiotic practice of carrying on with metzitzah b'peh probably has stronger religious case.

* There was apparently also one miscarriage due to the 2013 outbreak.
** It can be hard to find time to vaccinate when you've got eight kids underfoot.

"* There was apparently also one miscarriage due to the 2013 outbreak."
I saw that, but there was no confirmed evidence stated that measles was the cause. Very sad, even so.
Also, according to pro-choice law, no one died.
That is even more sickening.

@Toto:

Are you Dorit?

Not the last time I checked. If that changes, I'll let you know.

What University?

I thought you said she teaches law.

Are you employed by them as well?

I don't even know who she works for.

What does “in outreach” mean? That sounds like a church activity, not a scientific one.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+university+outreach

Could you please post evidence that Mr. Netanyahu has had his TRAVEL VACCINES? We certainly wouldn’t want him to expose THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO POLIO!

I think the vast majority of the country would consider that an improvement.

I wondered what mental illness looks like....I guess Toto is the poster child, right?

Enough of the mental-illness putdowns; several of my personalities are borderline crazy.

Yeah, I find it deeply ironic that somebody who castigates PGP for making sweeping generalizations constantly makes comments like the one above.

As a taxpayer in California, I want to know if she’s posting on the job and using state resources to voice her personal opinions online. If so, she should be fired.

Silly Toto, university professors aren’t paid by the hour, and they are encouraged to use university resources in outreach.

I imagine that the concept of tenure is also above Tutu's pay grade. It's also not a "taxpayer in California,"* but whatever.

I plan to drive over to the CDC and ask Dr. Thompson myself.

* One of many.

Interestingly, the Polings only live about 30 minutes from my house.

This post should be worth $100 at least!

@Narad

It would be worth much more than $100. Perhaps my former co-worker, Katie Couric, would be interested. Or even Christiane Amanpour. However, I think Dr. Thompson agreed not to talk to the press. Hmmm. Perhaps I could interest them in tracking down MOST WANTED CDC thief, Paul Thorsen. That would fit in nicely with the storyline.

"OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen
Poul Thorsen
From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.
Thorsen worked as a visiting scientist at CDC, Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, before the grant was awarded.
The initial grant was awarded to the Danish Medical Research Council. In approximately 2007, a second grant was awarded to the Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation. Both agencies are governmental agencies in Denmark. The research was done by the Aarhaus University and Odense University Hospital in Denmark.
Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 MILLION of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen.
In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering.
According to bank account records, Thorsen purchased a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, an Audi automobile, and a Honda SUV with funds that he received from the CDC grants.
Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States."
https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp

CDC scientific fraud: an update on Dr. Poul Thorsen who authored fraudulent study 'disproving' vaccine-autism connection and stole millions of dollars

"(NaturalNews) The very legitimacy of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a trustworthy safeguard of public health hangs in the balance as evidence continues to emerge about rampant deception, fraud and even money laundering within the agency. Specifically with regard to vaccines and autism, key players involved in the propaganda campaign to deny this link are now being exposed as liars working on behalf of the vaccine industry.

One such liar is Dr. Poul Thorsen, a Danish scientist who was indicted for stealing millions of dollars from the CDC and using it to cover up vaccine dangers. Thorsen, as you may recall, was heavily involved in producing a stream of fraudulent studies that supposedly "disproved" the now-evident link between vaccines and autism. The CDC has also continually cited Thorsen's studies as "evidence" that vaccines are safe, declaring the debate to be over in light of their findings.

But, one by one, these and various other studies, including a prominent one published in the journal Pediatrics, are being called into question due to fraud and author conflicts of interest. And to make matters worse, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to even follow through with its indictment of Thorsen, who continues to produce phony studies from his cozy position at Sygehus Lillebaelt Hospital in Kolding, Denmark."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046644_MMR_vaccine_autism_scientific_fraud.h…

"You can also contact the White House at 202-456-1414 and request for President Obama to instruct Secretary Kerry and Attorney General Holder to bring Thorsen to the U.S. and prosecute him, and you can call Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, at 202-225-3906 and ask for a hearing to be conducted on Thorsen as soon as possible. Further nstructions for doing this can be found in the last paragraph of the following piece by Age of Autism:
AgeofAutism.com. "

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046644_MMR_vaccine_autism_scientific_fraud.h…

Great article. Sorry if this has already been addressed in the comments, but I wanted to ask about Dr. Bob's statement that "Over $3 billion have been paid out to victims of vaccine reactions." Where does that number come from? What agency is paying it and for what? I'm assuming it's all misleading bullshit but I hear anti-vaxers use this argument all of the time. Could someone explain it to me so I can call someone on their BS the next time they bring it up? Thank you!

@LBPKO #176

It took me about one minute to find this link. It speaks for itself.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf

This would be a great tool for anyone planning a trip to Denmark...
http://www2.grassvalley.com/prod-spot/2015/06-GVStratus-EDIUS/index.html

It took me about one minute to find this link. It speaks for itself.

Yes. But if you think it supports your beliefs, you don't understand what it says.

Although the actual amount in question is just under 3 billion dollars and not over it. As it happens.

The actual numbers work out to just under 3 Billion dollars over 28 years - with about 1/4 of the claims for DPT, which is a vaccine that hasn't been used in this country for over 20 years now (or longer).

The number of claims compared to the number of vaccines given (now over 2 Billion doses) shows that vaccines are so safe and effective, that every single product should have a track record that is so safe.

Compare that to automobiles - where insurance companies pay out, on average, 120 Billion dollars per year due to accidents.

Do the math, we're talking about a couple of Trillion dollars paid up due to automobile accidents compared to under 3 Billion dollars for vaccine reactions.....

But my point was more that what that page says when speaking for itself is:

Prior to vaccination for it, pertussis regularly killed more than twice as many people in a single year than were compensated in total for any kind of injury from all vaccines combined between 1988 and 2015.

@ann - that is true, as is the case for a number of the diseases on that list as well.....

Right. What Lawrence said.

(The "But my point was..." post was addressed to Toto not Lawrence, IOW.)

Yep. I just chose pertussis at random.

With a crazy like him around, it can be hard to tell.....

Chris Christie and Rand Paul's pandering to antivaccinationists: Is the Republican Party becoming the antivaccine party?

oracknows — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:58 +0000

Chris Christie and Rand Paul's pandering to antivaccinationists: Is the Republican Party becoming the antivaccine party?

"I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice as well. So that’s a balance the government has to decide.”

-- NJ Governor Chris Christie, February 2, 2015

"The state doesn't own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom."

-- Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), February 2, 2015

Longtime readers know that I lived in central New Jersey for eight and a half years before taking an opportunity to return to my hometown just under seven years ago. Having spent the better part of a decade there, I think I understand New Jersey, at last the northern and central parts of the state. It's a strange state with a lot of corruption and mismanagement. (For instance, I was there when Jim McGreevey was governor, and I even met him before he became governor, back when he was still mayor of the Woodbridge Township and then later when he was governor.) Indeed, while I lived there I had a hard time deciding if Chicago politics was more corrupt than New Jersey politics or vice-versa. I ended up deciding that it was pretty much a wash.

Be that as it may, I can sort of understand why New Jersey elected Governor Chris Christie. He's big—literally. He's boisterous. He's blunt and plain-talking (for a politician), and he gives the impression of not taking any guff from anyone while being relatively moderate politically. All of these are very much part of how Jersey natives appeared to view themselves. (Personally, I don't like him much because I view him as a loudmouthed bully, but I don't live in New Jersey anymore.) As of yesterday Gov. Christie's also a poster child for the political peril of pandering to the antivaccine movement. In fact, I view him as Exhibit A supporting a growing belief that I've been developing that the Republican Party has become the antivaccine party. Wait, maybe that's a little too strong, but certainly it has become the party supporting antivaccine viewpoints more strongly than the Democrats.

Behold how this controversy began. There Christie was, in England on a trade visit, doing the things politicians do to try to bolster their foreign policy credentials in preparation for running for President, and he had to go and put his foot in it with respect to vaccines during a visit to a medical research facility. First, as background, you should know that the night before, Sunday night, President Obama had issued an unequivocal call to parents to have their children vaccinated:

"I understand that there are families that in some cases are concerned about the effect of vaccinations. The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We've looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not," the president explained.

And:

"You should get your kids vaccinated. It's good for them, but we should be able to get back to the point where measles effectively is not existing in this country."

So far, so good. You can't expect a much more unequivocal statement of support for vaccination than that from a politician.

So Monday morning it just so happened that Governor Christie was touring MedImmune's research facility in Cambridge. MedImmune just so happens to manufacture a nasal influenza vaccine, FluMist. It's not clear what moved the subject to vaccines, but during the visit, Christie basically took the opportunity that presented itself to pander to antivaccinationists. It was so bad that even the far-right (oh, heck, let's just call it what it is, namely wingnut) website Breitbart.com described it thusly:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s outreach to the anti-vaccination crowd is one of the strangest things anyone has done during the 2016 shadow primary season. In the midst of a significant outbreak of preventable, communicable diseases among children, Christie decided to throw anti-vaxxers a bone, making President Obama look enormously sensible by comparison.

So what did Christie say that annoyed even Breitbart.com's correspondent? This:

“All I can say is that we vaccinate ours. I think it’s much more important as a parent than as a public official, and that’s what we do,” he told reporters during his trip through London on Monday. He went on to say that’s “part of making sure we protect their health and public health.”

“I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice as well. So that’s a balance the government has to decide,” Christie added.

Asked whether he was advocating leaving parents the option to not vaccinate their kids, Christie said “I didn’t say I’m leaving people the option,” but that “it depends what the vaccine is, what the disease type is and all the rest.”

Oh, dear. Whether Christie realized it or not when he said these words, which must have seemed to him at the time to be an eminently reasonable attempt to describe balancing personal freedom versus public health, he was, as Breitbart.com put it, "throwing antivaxxers a bone." Of course, he was also doing this at the worst possible time. Think about it. Here we are in the middle of a measles outbreak that's cracked 100 cases, an outbreak in which the majority of cases were not vaccinated, indeed an outbreak that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if there weren't pockets of unvaccinated children in southern California near Disneyland, and Gov. Christie's blathering about vaccine "choice." His sense of timing is impeccable in its wrongness.

He also revealed himself to have an uncanny ability to demonstrate in a couple of sentences that he doesn't understand issues of public health with respect to vaccines. After all, parents already do have "vaccine choice." There is no such thing as "forced vaccination" in this country, no matter how much the antivaccine movement likes to try to characterize it this way. Rather, what we have in this country are school vaccine mandates. It's very simple, so simple that even Gov. Christie should be able to understand it. No parent is forced to vaccinate her child for anything, but if the parent makes that choice the child will not be allowed to enroll in school or day care. It's an eminently reasonable compact: You don't have to vaccinate, but you don't have the right to let your child endanger others. It's a system that has served us well for many years. It's less coercive than actual forced vaccination, which inevitably produces a really nasty backlash, but it still functions well to maintain high levels of vaccination in most cases.

That is, until the rise of various non-medical exemptions.

If you've studied vaccination policies, you know that every state allows medical exemptions. That is how it should be. However, there are non-medical exemptions as well. For instance, every state other than West Virginia and Mississippi allows religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates. Yes, I know it's odd that West Virginia and Mississippi would be leading the nation in rational vaccine policy, but there you have it. Of course, few religions have a problem with vaccination; certainly with only rare exceptions is vaccination against a religion. So religious exemptions tend to be uncommon (although antivaccinationists are not above teaching parents how to lie about their religion in order to obtain religious exemptions).

That's why antivaccinationists are becoming increasingly fond of personal belief exemptions or, as they are also sometimes called, philosophical exemptions. Currently 20 states permit these exemptions. Basically, these exemptions are granted based on parents' personal beliefs against vaccines, be they personal, moral or other beliefs. In essence, all a parent has to do is to say she doesn't believe in vaccinating, and the exemption is granted. True, different states have different requirements, but in all too many states such exemptions are far too easy to obtain. Indeed, that's why California recently passed a bill to make it harder to obtain personal belief exemptions by requiring parents requesting them to have a health care professional sign the form certifying that he's counseled them about the risks of skipping vaccination, although Governor Jerry Brown basically neutered the law through a signing statement. In any case, in at least 20 states, parents can obtain exemptions to vaccine mandates, with varying degrees of difficulty in doing so, simply by saying that they "don't believe" in vaccinating or have some sort of moral or personal objection to vaccination. It is these personal belief objections that have led to pockets of low vaccine uptake and subsequent outbreaks, such as the ones in California and, alas, my own home state.

So right in one interview, Gov. Christie showed that he doesn't have a clue about vaccine mandates, but worse, that he's willing to pander to those holding antivaccine beliefs.

Of course, if you've been following the story, you know that Gov. Christie started feeling the heat over his ill-advised remarks almost instantly. Twitter erupted in righteous fury mocking Christie's remarks. In particular, his willingness to quarantine a nurse who might have been exposed to Ebola without medical justification was contrasted unfavorably with his love of "choice" and "freedom" with respect to vaccines. So great was the backlash that Christie's office scrambled to "clarify":

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie walked back comments he made here Monday morning calling for "balance" on the measles vaccine debate to allow for parental choice, asserting that "there is no question kids should be vaccinated."

"The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," Christie's office said in a statement. "At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate."

And:

Christie, however, said, “There has to be a balance and it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest.” He added, “Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others.”

This is, of course, a clarification that doesn't clarify, empty words that say almost nothing, other than that kids should be vaccinated against measles. "Balance"? What does that mean? Does Christie think himself more capable of balancing risks and benefits in determining what vaccines should be recommended than the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics? Does he think himself more qualified to determine which diseases are a sufficient public health threat to warrant a mass vaccination campaign than medical authorities? How would he judge which diseases are sufficiently threatening? What criteria would he use? Based on what science?

Unfortunately, Gov. Christie wasn't the only one laying down the antivaccine pandering. In fact, compared to Rand Paul, Christie is virtually the voice of reason. See what I mean:

Paul, in comments on conservative talk-radio show host Laura Ingraham's show Monday, said he's "not anti-vaccine at all."

"But particularly, most of them ought to be voluntary," he added. Paul cited incidents where you have "somebody not wanting to take the smallpox vaccine, and it ruins it for everybody else."

"I think there are times in which there can be some rules, but for the most part it ought to be voluntary," Paul went on. "While I think it's a good idea to take the vaccine, I think that's a personal decision for individuals to take."

He also said he was "annoyed" that his kids were supposed to receive the Hepatitis B vaccine as newborns, and that he had doctors space out the 10 vaccines they wanted to give his infant children over time.

And in a later interview with CNBC, Paul suggested he had seen the negative effects of vaccines that those in the anti-vax movement cite in their opposition. None, however, are widely supported by the scientific community, and Paul's office did not respond to a request for comment for details.

"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul said. "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input."

Rand Paul is another sad excuse for a physician. Remember how I described antivaccine "dog whistle" terminology that "Dr. Bob" Sears was so adept at using? Rand Paul is doing exactly the same thing here. He's using the same appeal to "freedom" as Dr. Bob, and that "annoyance" he expressed at the neonatal dose of hepatitis B vaccine reveals an ignorance that he could easily have remedied with a little reading; you know, that thing we doctors do when we encounter a medical issue with which we are not familiar. Dr. Paul is, after all, an ophthalmologist, and ophthalmologists do not routinely administer vaccinations, much less childhood vaccinations. Indeed, he has even less reason to be familiar with childhood vaccines than the ever-vile Dr. Jack Wolfson who, being a cardiologist, would be expected to offer at least the pneumococcal vaccine to his heart failure patients. As I mentioned before, administering the hepatitis B vaccine at birth is a very reasonable strategy for preventing hepatitis B, and that moralistic trope about its being a sexually transmitted disease is not a reason not to vaccinate newborns.

And Rand Paul also seems unaware that we do not have forced vaccination and that parents do have in put. If they didn't have the choice, with easy personal belief exemptions allowing parents in 20 states not even to have to choose between public school and vaccines, it's unlikely that outbreaks would be a problem.

I once described how antivaccinationism is very much at home with libertarianism, to the point where many libertarians express a view recently espoused by Dr. Jack Wolfson that it is not their responsibility to vaccinate, that they have no obligation to society, so much so that they reacted rather violently when one of their own, Ron Bailey of Reason.com, advocated coercive vaccine mandates. Rand Paul is simply dog whistling from that very playbook. Indeed, check out this interview given later in the day:

You don't have to watch all nine minutes; that is, unless you want to. Just watch the first 2:20 minutes of the video, which is all about vaccines. Notice how he starts out clearly sarcastic, replying early on, ""I guess being for freedom would be really unusual." No, Dr. Paul, being "for freedom" is not unusual, but spouting antivaccine nonsense about vaccines causing permanent neurological injury is unconscionable. Personally, I think Paul's most telling remark comes near the end of the vaccine segment, when, clearly irritated by the reporter's insistence on pursuing questions about vaccine choice, Rand Paul replies with petulant annoyance, "The state doesn't own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom." Yes, it's the antivaccine dog whistle about "freedom," but it's more than that. See what Rand Paul let slip? It's an attitude that is all too common, namely that the parents own the children and 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, to do with as they will.

As for the rest of the interview, it's the same old antivaccine dog whistles on steroids. There's the antivaccine trope against the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine as being not indicated because it's a sexually transmitted disease, even though hepatitis B is transmitted by more than just sex. The trope is an obvious ploy to outrage parents by telling them that they're being "forced" to have a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease as though they were immoral. We also learn that Paul delayed vaccines for his children, thus leaving them vulnerable to childhood diseases longer than they needed to be, just like many vaccine averse. Indeed, I'd be very interested in knowing what vaccine the Pauls gave their children and at what ages. He even repeats his claim that vaccines cause neurologic injury, even though, as a physician, he should know damned well that this question has been studied time and time and time again, with the overwhelming scientific consensus being that vaccines do not cause autism, neurodevelopmental disorders, or "profound mental disorders." And through it all, to Paul vaccine "choice" is all about "freedom."

Oh, and his selective reading of the history of smallpox vaccination as being "voluntary" throughout most of our history is telling as well. He neglects to note that, as History of Vaccines notes, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the state has the power to make vaccines mandatory.

Is it any surprise that Rand Paul is a prominent member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), the organization of "brave maverick physicians" that has a history of promoting the lie that shaken baby syndrome is a misdiagnosis for "vaccine injury" and extreme libertarian views, such as the view that Medicare is unconstitutional?

In any case, as a result of Christie's and Paul's statements, this story has even hit the national news. For example:

Antivaccinationism is often presented and criticized as a belief that arises primarily among crunchy, affluent liberals. Even The Daily Show makes that mistake. In fact, existing evidence suggests that the prevalence of antivaccine views are very similar on the left and the right, or, as I like to say, antivaccine views transcend politics.

However, the roughly equal prevalence of antivaccine views on the left and right do not mean that both parties are equally good (or bad) when it comes to vaccines. Over the last several years, I've noticed that antivaccine views, supported under the rubric of "freedom," have grown in prominence more in Tea Party and conservative circles. Antivaccine views are very much intertwined with the "health freedom" movement, which tends to be primarily (but certainly not exclusively) a product of right wing circles, given its emphasis on freedom from government regulation and mandates with respect to health. Indeed, it is no coincidence that my one experience watching Steve Novella debate antivaccine physician Julian Whitaker occurred at FreedomFest in 2012, a yearly conservative/libertarian confab that happened to be going on in Las Vegas as TAM that year. Also that same year, the Texas Republican Party had strong "health freedom" and "vaccine choice" planks in its party platform, planks that were still there in 2014.

I don't think that Gov. Christie is antivaccine (although I'm not so sure about Rand Paul). What I do know is that the conflation of "choice" with vaccination has led to a powerful incentive for politicians, particularly Republican politicians, to pander to antivaccine views. Nor is pandering to the antivaccine movement a new thing for Christie. In 2009 he met with Louise Kuo Habakus (whom we've met before) and the NJ Coalition for Vaccine Choice, a very much antivaccine coalition whose member organization list reads like a who's who of the national antivaccine movement and includes Life Health Choices, an antivaccine organization founded by Habakus. Indeed, Habakus herself is coauthor with antivaccine lawyer Mary Holland of a book entitled Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children. Indeed, so prominent an antivaccine loon is Habakus (at least in New Jersey, if not nationally), that she has her very own entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. To these people, Christie followed up his visit with a letter, quoted thusly:

“I have met with families affected by autism from across the state and have been struck by their incredible grace and courage,” Christie wrote in the letter. “Many of these families have expressed their concern over New Jersey’s highest-in-the nation vaccine mandates. I stand with them now, and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children.”

Indeed, Republicans and Independents are more prone to oppose vaccine mandates:

Republicans and independents are more likely than Democrats to advocate against required vaccinations.

Thirty-four percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents told pollsters that parents should be able to decide about vaccinations, versus just 22 percent of Democrats who said the same.

And, within the past five years or so, Republicans have become LESS likely to say vaccinations should be required, while Democrats are now MORE likely to advocate for the mandatory shots.

In 2009, 71 percent of both Democrats and Republicans said vaccinations should be required. By last August, that number decreased to 65 percent for Republicans, but it's increased to 76 percent for Democrats.

Not only do antivaccine views fit in nicely with libertarian and Tea Party political beliefs, but such views have become so conflated with "freedom of choice" that it's become worth it to Republican politicians to espouse these views, or at least to give a nod to them in order to curry favor. It's not universal, of course. Another Republican physician running for office who is known for saying stupid things about other issues actually has come out strongly supporting vaccine mandates. Yes, believe it or not, Ben Carson did just that. Still, he seems to voicing a less common view within the base of the Republican Party.

I noted back in 2008 that both Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain had, to one degree or another, pandered to the antivaccine movement. Now, in 2015, what we see here appears to be a rising tide of support for "vaccine choice" among Republicans, with a concomitant decrease in support for vaccine mandates, while among Democrats, it would seem that the opposite is happening. Yes, the Democrats have Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, and he is indeed an antivaccine loon, but you don't see major Democratic candidates pandering to antivaccine views the way Rand Paul did and Chris Christie recently did, nor do you see major liberal confabs staging debates with antivaxers, as happened at FreedomFest.

Maybe the Republican Party really is becoming the party of the antivaccine movement. If that's true, it is very bad news indeed.

ADDENDUM: This morning the New York Times published a story entitled Measles Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field. While noting that it isn't a clean left-right break and that there are pro-vaccine Republicans (such as Scott Walker), the NYT also notes:

But for Republicans like Mr. Paul who appeal to the kind of libertarian conservatives who are influential in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which hold the first two contests in the battle for the nomination, there is an appeal in framing the issue as one of individual liberty.

Asked about immunizations again later on Monday, Mr. Paul was even more insistent, saying it was a question of “freedom.” He grew irritated with a CNBC host who pressed him and snapped: “The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

oracknows Mon, 02/02/2015 - 19:00

Categories

Policy

Methinks it will play out much as it did on the very small scale in Connecticut in the mid-terms.

briandeer.com/solved/tara-cook-littman.htm

There aren't many family issues over which the electorate has so clearly spoken through their actions.

What is it about Presidentian wannabes traveling to Brittian and saying stupid stuff (see Bobby Jindal and "no go zones").

Pandering for votes transcends party affiliation but Republicans, in particular, have a large anti-science constituency. I see incremental improvement on that front but the pace of change can be painfully slow.

What's with Chris Christie? He knows his every move and his statements are being monitored by the mainstream media, especially since his missteps about the nurse's "quarantine" who had returned from Africa after caring for Ebola virus patients. IMO, he's just killed his chances to mount a serious campaign to be nominated as the Republican Party Presidential candidate.

Rand Paul? He just might have positioned himself in a better spot, if, in fact, the far-to-the-right fringe groups/Tea Party are the strong voting bloc in the Republican Party Presidential primaries.

There's that common thread of "heath freedom" and "right to chose which vaccines (or no vaccines), are given to their children. They own their children and "so sorry if your kid is unable to receive MMR vaccine". Ethically challenged, lacking in empathy and self-centered parents...all of them.

Haven't they learned from Michele Bachmann's statement about an adolescent who received an HPV vaccine "and became mentally retarded, thereafter"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cru2KsV5UxA

I found this great site for people, regardless of their political affiliation, to educate themselves about the link between autism and vaccines.

www.howdovaccinescauseautism.com/

Orac, I was reading your comments on Dr Burzynski last night, could not comment 'cos at the end of every page I got : "The site is currently under maintenance. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon". Well, comments on this page are not disabled and since you have been very actively critisising Dr B for THE LAST FEW YEARS, I hope, you and some of your fans might want to read this. I enclose my mail and I write under my full name unlike the rest of you. This is my cell number +48 505 505 600 just to make sure, that I will not be accused of being another of Dr B's employee or even Dr B himself.

I'm 52, 3 kids, Gist since 2010, 3 surgeries, tumor 20cm x 10cm fully removed after 18 months on Glivec, complications after op, without Glivec tumor has grown back to the size of 7cm x 4, back on Glivec and stable since 2012.

Am I Dr B patient ? - no, never seen this guy and I will not get paid for what I am writing here
Do I intend to be his patient ? - maybe, when Glivec stops working, but before i will try to gather as much info about Dr B as possible. Luckily I will not have to rely on your comments alone.

Let's start with facts:

1. it took me few minutes on Google to find a Polish girl, Kalusia Dzieniak with a head tumor, who runs a blog since 2012 describing her fight against cancer. http://kalusia82.blogspot.com/
At the end of her treatment and given no hope in local hospitals, she raised a great amount of money and for the last 2 years she is Dr B's patient - alive, stable and happy with the treatment she recieves. There are numerous tv shows about her case and over 1600 people on Facebook, rising funds every year to allow her to carry on with the treatment at Dr B clinic. You guys could not find few cases like this in all those years of your "interest" in Dr Darth Vader's evil manipulations? You spend hours writing about Dr B, how many hours did you spend verifing the "success stories" on his site ? Have you contacted any former patients ? Did you enclose any prove, that the treatment they recieved at Dr B's clinic was wrong - caused death or injury?

Well, you did not show or proved any of this - exept for long, medical / scientific explanations, that are just your point of view.

I believe, that Dr B runs his clinic for over 20 years - your Dr Mengele must have had thousends of patients and not one, who successfully charged him with malpractise - show that person, let's read about this case or else shut up and stop defaming others. I showed a positive, documented example of Dr B ongoing treatment, what have you got to show ?

2. Cost of treatment - 10,000 USD per month for a treatment at Dr B's clinic proves to you that he is a fraud ?? Well, I got a bill for 15000 USD for starters from "politically correct" MD Anderson - they would not accept my molecular tests done in Poland, they have offered to open me up again just to repeat this test.
The needle is not prefered option, as it might cause the cancer to spread.
MD Anderson, after being informed about my medical history and ongoing treatment with Glivec, offered me genetically designed doses of ...Glivec.
Well, Glivec depending on the type of gist, IS treated with various douses and that is just the normall procedure - 1 x 400mg, 2 x 300mg or 2 x 400mg daily.
Would you consider this offer for me from MD Anderson as "fraud" by your standards? And if so, shall we start a blog ? You may enclose my story as a first comment.

There are hundreds, if not thousends of semi-doctors and scientists "providing" cancer cures all over the world. Diets, roots, vitamins and mental healing cures everything - according to people that make money in this business.
It is absolutly right to pin point fraud and warn people in need, but one must stay tolerant, unbiased and open minded. Do not kill hope when you are not 110% sure, because often it is the only thing that some of us have left. Check your story, Check your story and again Check your story.

Regards,

Bad News for Sharyl Attkisson?

Real fans of all this stuff may be interested to know that my new laptop suddenly acted identically to that videod by Sharyl Attkisson as evidence that the government was bugging her.

Out of the blue (although possibly triggered by some unknown sequence of keystrokes) the copy on my screen began deleting itself.

I don't know if anyone checked whether Ms Attkisson was using a Lenovo, or whether she had the new rent-a-software version of Word, as I have. But if the government was deleting her priceless investigative work, I wonder why it would be deleting my novel.

I understand that she has some multi-million lawsuit going, so maybe my novel will do better than I expected.

I wished I'd videod the phenomenon (on a month-old machine), but I was so alarmed at seeing my writing vanishing that, after helplessly tapping various keys, and mousing around, I shut the lid.

Readers may recall that McGreevey was forced to resign the governorship when it was revealed that he was a closeted gay man who had appointed his boyfriend to a state job despite lack of qualifications. Which prompted the greatest Onion headline, ever:

Gay Man Tearfully Admits to Being Governor of New Jersey

Also, Charlie Pierce (Esquire.com, politics) has a "five-minute rule" regarding Ron and Rand Paul: They may make sense for five minutes, but at 5:01 they'll say something completely off the wall and you'll realize that they're basically a lunatic.

Christie has been influenced by Louise Kuo Habakus (American Loon #163 http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/03/163-louise-kuo-habakus.html). She is a hater of science and modern technology as part of her woo group Fearless Parents. Bonus to any reader who can find something they don't fear.

Here, for example of Christie with this American Loon and friends from perhaps 2009.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/chris-christie-expressed-concern-about-vacci…

I think you read far too much into President Obama's statement. While it certainly encourages parents to immunize their children, it says nothing about what government policy should be towards vaccines. Did he speak out against the personal belief exemption or religious exemptions? Did he discuss the pediatric vaccine schedule and whether it should be followed or whether he believed in a certain latitude in timing?

Sorry democrats, 2 people do not a political party make. You're confusing the fact that republicans have a wide range of values within their party with dissidence. It's only because of the strictly enforced "my way or the highway" dogma of the democrat party that you see it this way.

Hmmm, have there recently been prominent Democrats advocating for "vaccine choice" for parents and saying vaccines cause brain damage, as Rand Paul strongly implies when he repeats his story about having seen children suffer neurologic injury after vaccines? BTW, that's not a new story for Paul. He's been saying it for years.

Hobbes,

I am reminded of when Will Rogers said

I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat.

I've seen no evidence that the Democrats have a strictly enforced “my way or the highway” dogma. If you've got evidence of that, please share.

@Yvette: Yes, I remember about Louise Kuo Habakus. Thanks for that link; I've added a blurb to the post mentioning Christie's having pandered to at least one explicitly antivaccine crank group in New Jersey during his original bid to run for governor.

"Yes, I know it’s odd that West Virginia and Mississippi would be leading the nation in rational vaccine policy, but there you have it."

I think you would appreciate the irony of this:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_aut_num_of_chi_wit_aut_percap-auti…

You know you've stepped off the deep end (however temporarily) when even a Breitbart.com writer is more sensible than you.

“The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

A rather revealing statement. Sen. Paul views children as chattel. We've been hearing similar statements from autism woo pushers as well as anti-vax types. And it's still so far wrong that I don't know how Sen. Paul will find right even with a map.

For all these small government Republicans, I'd like to see the cost to each state, county, and city. It would also be interesting to determine the cost to businesses, including but not limited to Disneyland. (And this is for a small outbreak of around 100 people.)

And wouldn't you know, Rand Paul is featured in a large photo @ AoA today ( -btw- he's not named after Ayn) with a smaller photo below of that stealthy vaccinator, Barack.

More hilariously, it appears that AoA/ TMR/ et al now have additional television personalities and journalists to despise and abuse whilst championing Attkisson.**- it's not just Anderson anymore.

Some reactions I've heard are that the mainstream is bought and sold thus strengthening alt media ( in their downward spiral down the drainpipe of unreality). As I've said many times, these advocacies are 'group therapy gone wrong'.

Interestingly, anti-vaxxers have been trying to get themselves on mainstream media for the past several years through twitter campaigns, PR announcements, writing ( crappy, fantasist) books and now, they finally will be receiving the attention they deserve but not in a way they like.

** as I mentioned previously,when my own computer behaved bizarrely in November my first thought wasn't " North Korea!" but, "I need a new computer"

As we've seen over the years, anti-vax views are neither right nor left ( and woo-meisters tailor their anti-vax talking points accordingly- see PRN and NaturaL News esp) BUT I wonder if politicians like the aforementioned might be pushing the faithful towards one end of the spectrum.

re Habakus:
she has been making a splash on alt media running "fearless Parent Radio" and website since MacNeil dropped out.

Randal Paul is not pandering, he is actually that crazy. He panders when he pretends not to be a complete libertarian, ie, no one has any right to tell him to do anything.

As for herbal pills...

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/new-york-attorney-general-targ…

Yes, I am sure all the west side mommies causing this crisis are radical republicans. That's what white upper-middle class women are known for in CA.

In fairness to the President, this is the entire statement, made after a voter came up to talk to him about vaccines:

We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Nobody knows exactly why. There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers, but (pointing to his right) this person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. Part of the reason I think it’s very important to research it is those vaccines are also preventing huge numbers of deaths among children and preventing debilitating illnesses like Polio. And so we can’t afford to junk our vaccine system. We’ve got to figure out why is it that this is happening so that we are starting to see a more normal, what was a normal, rate of autism. Because if we keep on seeing increases at the rate we’re seeing we’re never going to have enough money to provide all the special needs, special education funding that’s going to be necessary.”

DATE: April 21, 2008
LOCATION: Blue Bell, PA

@ TK:

Great.
In fact, one of the idi... I mean *alternative medicine advocates* I survey characterises NY, NJ and CA as the most corrupt and simultaneously most anti-alt med states- they have too many laws that impinge upon his freedom.

Before I depart:
both of these fellows rhapsodise in unencumbered fashion about freedom and choice but IIRC, neither is a particularly strong advocate of *choice* involving abortion and issues concerning women's reproductive health.

Charlie Pierce just posted a great column on Rand Paul ("Senator Aqua Buddha") over on Esquire/politics, highlighting his antivax lunacy.

Pierce can be one of America's finest, and funniest, political writers. That's what a background in sportswriting gets you.

Looks like the anti-vaccine bashing of Ben Carson bashing is already starting!

From Mothering:

"...do you know that he has part in a group creating a colon cancer vaccine?"

"Yes, Ben Carson is working on a colon cancer vaccine. How did anyone miss that?"

Annie @27 -- OMG that's hilarious!

They're eating their young!

I will never understand the boogeyman of "The government should force parents to vaccinate!" I would think reality and common sense would dictate the need to vaccinate.

Shay @23 -

How is it "in fairness to the President" to bring up a quote from almost 7 years ago and imply that it was part of what he said most recently?

The President appeared to be firmly in the vaccination camp, all the while agreeing to spend coin to research the supposed increase in autism. Randal wants to stop public health needed vaccines.

Paul's comments are hilarious when set against his avowed anti-abortion stand. Kids belong to their parents, unless the parents don't want them, then they belong to the state.

LH -- because our esteemed box of blinky lights specifically mentioned the 2008 incident which -- if you only are aware of the sound-bite -- makes it look as though he was "pandering" to the antivaccine movement while running for his first term.

In context, the quote comes off as not quite so anti-vaxx friendly..

I also note that I blogged about the whole quote in detail in 2008 and linked to my discussion in this post. Click the links, people, before you criticize. They're there for a reason. :-)

I haven't combed the numbers (polls) but from my conversations I can say the anit-vaccine loonacy crosses the complete political spectrum from far left progressives to far-right religious zealots. My sister is one of the latter.

I have a new weapon in my anti-lunacy bag of tricks:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/01/growing_up_unvaccinat…

See the top comment on the left.. Powerful.

There are really 2 different issues with 4 different policy positions.
Pro or anti-vaccine
Pro or anti- government mandated vaccines

I consider myself pro-vaccine. I have all my vaccinations up to date, I always get the quaternary flu vaccine, my kids are up to date on their vaccines and we even enrolled our children in a phase III trial for a new vaccine.

I also consider myself anti-government mandated vaccination. I can understand government vaccine mandates for places like public schools where kids will be crammed together as long as public schooling is not compulsory.

I think that Orac is lumping these two different issues together under 1 topic. I don't think that is fair or accurate.

I turned off a national news channel(CNN?) last night while treadmilling, because they were promo-ing "Pediatricians Go Head To Head Over Vaccines". Couldn't stand the thought of another round of "both sides".

But I wasn't fast enough shutting off the radio at midday when Rush Limbaugh was launching into a screed about how Demoncrats* are intentionally targeting Republican presidential candidates with vaccine questions in order to create a new version of the War On Women.

You see, there's no debate! It's a dead issue! Measles was eradicated in the U.S. until Obama relaxed immigration laws and allowed lots of Mexican with rashes over our borders!!

I've just got to be faster hitting the off button.

*intentional misspelling.

I’ve just got to be faster hitting the off button.

You always have the Elvis option.
http://www.elvisinfonet.com/elvisgoulet.html

@JeffM

The Slate article is very good. The anecdote from a reformed anti-vaxxer is helpful for sharing with those n the fence.

Interesting bit of news, thoujgh not exactly welcome around here

Two adults and two children have fallen ill in four separate cases, according to Toronto Public Health.

---

The message is that measles is circulating in Toronto,” said Dr. Lisa Berger, associate medical officer of health with Toronto Public Health. “There has been spread somewhere.”

Berger said that in three of the four cases, the individuals had not been vaccinated against the disease. In the fourth case, the person received only one dose of the double-dose vaccination, she said.

None are from the same family and there is no source case, said Berger. ”

I was impressed with Rand Paul's comment "The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.”

How easy is it to transfer ownership?

@16 Eric Lund

“The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

I too am appalled that someone who claims allegiance to libertarian principles would say such a thing. Too often I think the 'health freedom' argument for parents control over their children is pitted as freedom vs collectivism, with any govt or CPS control being viewed as 'collectivism'.

I think that is completely wrong. Vaccination and ensuring proper medical care for children IS an individual rights issue. The individual rights of the child to proper healthcare and the opportunity to reach adulthood. Parents need to realize that THAT is what they should be seeking to uphold, their own children's rights. Not stripping them away in the name of 'health freedom'.

Again, the idea that a stalward of the libertarian party doesn't understand that is incomprehensible...

"Parents own the children." I've long suspected libertarianism isn't about the desire for freedom for all, it's about freedom for those who have "earned" it. This certainly goes a long way to support my suspicions.

DW:

both of these fellows rhapsodise in unencumbered fashion about freedom and choice but IIRC, neither is a particularly strong advocate of *choice* involving abortion and issues concerning women’s reproductive health.

Typical ladybrain logic fail. Libertarian support for property rights means the right of a man do what he wishes with his property, not that his property has rights. Therefore no contradiction in Rand Paul's stance on freedumb and choice.

J.K. Rideau

How easy is it to transfer ownership?

According to Micheal Shermer the infallible "mind of the market" will sort that out.

Little Green Footballs has been a very relevant site to the "debate" recently, for example: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44285_Vox_Misrepresents_Obamas_… and http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44280_Death_and_The_Anti-Vaxxer
As to Baby Doc Paul and whether parents own their children, we never thought we owned our children, but held them in trust for the adults they have grown to be. I am not a great admirer of Kahlil Gibran*, but his saying that "They come through you but not from you" resonates with me.
Regarding the Hepatitis B -- STD trope, as someone who treated HIV patients in the mid-80s, it sounds depressingly familiar - "It's the queers and junkies, it's their problem, who cares anyway?" Yet Hep B not only comes through other routes, but it can infect through so many more than HIV far more effectively that refusing the vaccine to your children will come back to bite you, or more accurately, your children, in the ass.
*"People read Gibran when they want to get laid." - Lenny Bruce

Gray Falcon

I’ve long suspected libertarianism isn’t about the desire for freedom for all, it’s about freedom for those who have “earned” it.

Your rights end where my privilege begins.

All fringe crazies meet around the back. I am a libertarian and I'm shocked that Rand Paul claims to have heard of ( not seen or witnessed)many cases where children have had grave mental injuries from vaccines. How very irresponsible to make that claim and not provide any data to back it up. I'm all for voluntary vaccination however; I believe and as stated in the article, the state has a compelling interest in denying those who chose not to vaccinate attendance at public schools without a medical exemption being the only exception.

I see that AoA is in full-on fetal-position babbling-to-itself mode, with John Stone not just still trying to sell the notion that there have really been only single-digit measles cases, but declaring that "there is a feeling in the air rather like the last days of the Warsaw Pact and the Fall of the Berlin Wall."

@ Militant Agnostic:

Right, choice is only for the chosen.

If the un-chosen would like to choose their own course in life they can't. I know that often includes what I mention but I wonder if marriage choice for gay men and lesbians i

Republicans have been the prime movers on the vast majority of antivaccine state legislation introduced in the last several years. To be fair, a few physicians who are also Republican legislators have sponsored bills to limit nonmedical exemptions, but taken as a whole, this stuff gets more support on the right hand side of the aisle, at the state level, in any case.

Take for example this (http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2015/01/06/concerns-r…) interesting new legislator, who took a bill before her committee to allow the department of health (*clutch pearls!*) to set school immunization requirements.

Her contribution to the process? She deleted all of that stuff, added in a new requirement for chickenpox, and created a philosophical exemption for everything. Unfrickinbelieveable.

Oooops!
if marriage choice for gay men and lesbians is acceptable.
AFAIK Paul may support it but most others don't.

Slate: The case for lawsuits. Sources include Arthur Caplan of NYU and Dorit Reiss. Check it out.

For further evidence of politicizing of the vaccine "debate" , check out today's editorial in the Wall St. Journal criticizing "Christie's Vaccine Stumble".

The editorial slams Christie's "meandering meditation on parental rights", praises Obama's pro-vaccine message (acknowledging that must have been physically painful) and notes that "The real public health problem isn't a lack of parental choice but a lack of common sense about vaccines, and politicians should do more to promote the latter."

This is all very nice, but I strongly suspect the Journal is landing on Christie with both feet because the Journal's editorial board views him as a dangerously "liberal" Republican candidate who must be neutralized before he threatens the nomination of a nice, sensible conservative candidate (interestingly, the editorial says nothing about Rand Paul's meandering meditations).

This is the same Wall St. Journal that routinely sneers at the idea of climate change, so their newfound allegiance to common sense and scientific consensus is a bit suspect.

DB, as you mention, I do find it interesting that the WSJ stomps on Christie for his mistake, but says nothing about Rand Paul, whose antivaccine spew was clearly way worse than Christie's, which was far more a stumble based on ignorance and the perilous conflation of "vaccine choice" with freedom. Moreover, Paul has been letting loose antivaccine bons mots for at least five years, if not a lot longer.

I rather suspect that's the same reason Breitbart.com comes down hard on Christie but doesn't seem to mention Rand Paul.

Oh, wait. Maybe not. Check out this video:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/03/rand-paul-flashback-mandatory…

At least my party still has the hot women......that's all I got on this one.

I would presume that everyone already knows that Senator Paul, like Congressman Paul, opposes government mandates. Thus Senator Paul's comments come as no particular surprise.

Senator Paul is also an inexperienced politician and (hopefully) not considered as a serious presidential candidate except by a small but vocal group of enthusiasts.

Governor Christie's rather mild comments, on the other hand, get more play because he is a more experienced politician and a more serious contender for the presidency. The comments are also more vague, giving people lots of room to argue about what he really means.

DB@52: The Wall Street Journal is ostensibly the mouthpiece of the investor class. If measles (or pertussis, mumps, diphtheria, etc.) outbreaks become common, the government would likely (and justifiably) have to impose some serious travel restrictions. That would be bad for business. Much better if vaccination rates are higher, so that those who can't get the vaccine (and those for whom the vaccine fails) can hide in the herd.

As for the Pauls: In the last two presidential primaries Ron had a devoted and vocal but small following. Rand might do slightly better, but unless the field is thoroughly fragmented (which the Republican money people are hoping to avoid) I don't see how he wins the nomination. Note also that Rand's senate seat is up for re-election in 2016, and Kentucky (unlike some states) does not allow a candidate to appear on both the president/vice president line and another office. So I'd look for Rand to exit the presidential race in late 2015 or early 2016. I'd be surprised if he continues past the New Hampshire primary.

It's a good thing posts here are moderated. Ron Paul supporters troll the internet for criticism of their guru and unleash a torrent of vitriol when they find (or think they find) some on a news story, blog, or so on.

Rand Paul today released a photo of himself getting a booster shot for Hep A on Capital Hill. The blowback from his recent comments was getting to him.

“It just annoys me that I’m being characterized as someone who’s against vaccines,” Mr. Paul said as he settled into a chair in an examination room in the Capitol physician’s office.

“There’s 400 headlines now that say ‘Paul says vaccines cause mental disorders,'” he added. “That’s not what I said. I said I’ve heard of people who’ve had vaccines and they see a temporal association and they believe that.”

Except that IS what he said. He's splitting hairs now that his buddies on the Hill are not backing him up.

Panacea, Orac does not "moderate" comments. IIRC, new commenters with new IP addresses are put in moderation, until Orac has the chance to remove them out of moderation. Only very filthy phrases might not be posted...simple no-no words used to emphasize an opinion...will eventually leave moderation and will be posted.

Speaking of libertarian health regulations:

For much of the past 36 or so hours, we’ve heard from a number of Republicans that risking the occasional measles outbreak is simply the price of liberty. While Rand Paul and Chris Christie were busy championing the sacred right to expose others to disease, it fell to freshman Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) to take up the next great cause in the fight for freedom from regulatory overreach. We speak, of course, of the right of restaurants not to require their employees to wash their hands after using the restroom.

Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the Bipartisan Policy Center on Monday, Tillis related a story from his tenure in the North Carolina legislature to help explain his overarching philosophy on the finer points of hand-washing.

“I was having this discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,” Tillis said. “Let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment, literature, whatever else. There’s this level of regulations that maybe they’re on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you.”

When Tillis’ interlocutor noticed a Starbucks employee coming out of the restroom and inquired whether Tillis would apply his anti-regulation stance to employee hygiene, Tillis affirmed that he would.

“I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says, ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after they use the restroom,’” he said. “The market will take care of that.”

Great read. Personally, I believe they've become the anti-science party and that GOP should now stand for Gobs of Paranoia. Looks like both Christie and Paul are backtracking. Nice to see the RN involved in the anti-science ebola quarantine weigh in on Christe's actions on this topic.

if marriage choice for gay men and lesbians is acceptable. AFAIK Paul may support it but most others don’t.

This is where they play the States Rights card so they can be both for it and effectively against it.

Slightly off topic: there is a new facebook page encouraging everyone who is pro-vaccines to donate money to UNICEFs vaccination effort, in the name of prominent pro-diseasers (Vaccines from Anti-Vaxxers). Might I suggest Chris Christie, Rand Paul, MAM or the so-called "Dr" Jack Wolfson as suitable recipients. The "Dr" will be receiving a card thanking him for 400 tetanus vaccines to protect mothers and children, and a message stating how I feel about him in a few days. I found it to be a far more satisfying way to let out my anger at these people than repeatedly punching a wall.

On topic: I think that parents should absolutely be able to choose not to vaccinate their kids. However, this choice, like any, has consequences. If they make that choice, they should not be allowed to send their kids to public schools, take them to public parks or use public transportation. If you choose not to participate in public heath measures, you also choose not to participate in any public service where you can infect those who for legitimate medical reasons can't vaccinate. And of course, if an (intentionally) unvaccinated child starts an outbreak, the parents should be held liable for all costs to society and the individual.

Mephistopheles:

He opposes government mandates *on well-to-do adult men*. He thinks it's fine to tell a rape victim she has to bear the criminal's child, but once the woman has made it through pregnancy (at her own expense, of course), he has no objection to letting the child die of whooping cough.

Let's not forget Hillary on vaccines too, demanding an investigation into vaccines and autism while speak to anti-vax crowds.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/03/hillary-in-2015-vaccines-work/

Apparently you didn't read my post very closely. Actually, I rather suspect you didn't read it at all, other than perhaps the title. In this post, I actually did make it a point to refer to how all three major candidates in 2008, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton showed a little too much credulity when it came to the vaccine-autism link. I even linked to blog posts I wrote about each incident back when they happened in 2008.

Seriously. Read the damned post next time.

It is rather interesting how some ostensible libertarians can be so opposed to women's rights. The actual Libertarian Party platform has a very strong plank supporting women's right to choose, Faux libertarians have a distressing tendency to be all about freedom until it comes to certain intrusion into private health and sexual matters. On the other hand, to be fair to Paul, he has been generally good opposing foreign military entanglements and the rise of the surveillance state.

Time to get your credit cards out and give to charity on Paul's and Christie's behalf. You can buy a donation of vaccines through UNICEF and have a gift card sent to the anti-vaxxer of your choice (with a personal message for extra sneering joy), thanking them for the donation you've made as a gift to them. http://www.unicef.org/inspiredgifts/index_51968.html

“I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says, ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after they use the restroom,’” he said. “The market will take care of that.”

Excellent, then he won't mind those who eschew vaccines and their unvaccinated spawn will be required to wear signs stating such.

Hey, let the market take care of that right?

Vicki,

I disagree with his position on abortion, but that's not how Senator Paul would phrase it. His phrasing is at http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3.

Videos show that Mr Christie was more subdued today - he didn't speak to reporters in London.

Orac @67

It is rather interesting how some ostensible libertarians can be so opposed to women’s rights.

I thought I explained it quite clearly at #43

Seriously, this is what you get when you combine the misogyny of abrahamic religion with the sociopathic philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Hey Minions! I worked all day on an anaylsis of the GOP politics around the vax comments, with discussions of the primary/caucus schedule, campaign financing, vax and exemption rates in each of the early states, data from a study in Pediatrics about the difference between anti-vaxers and non-vaxers, more GOP pols who've made comments during the day, Hilary's take, and Ron Paul's outlook as a 'serious candidate'.

Yes, it's almost Oracian in length, but not quite. Please take a look.
https://sadmar.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/gop/

Last time this came up I looked into the question of who "owns" the children and concluded that rooted in British common law the state claims to have the strongest claim on "ownership". By convention, and lacking more suitable candidates, the parents are, by default, given charge of the children until it is shown that they are unwilling or unable to raise them as good citizens.

This is why there are no property rights claims when the state removes children from derelict or abusive parents.

Orac, I see your Christie and Paul and raise you a Walker and a Carson. I love your work, but I don't see how this supports your notion that the GOP is somehow well on its way to becoming "the antivaccine party". The fact that Christie had to walk-back some of his comments because of the heat aimed in his direction would seem to also not support the idea that this original comments found fertile ground with the party base.

The fact that Christie had to walk-back some of his comments because of the heat aimed in his direction would seem to also not support the idea that this original comments found fertile ground with the party base.

The conclusion doesn't really follow from the premise, but that may have something to do with "the party base" not being imbued with any particular meaning.

@Art:

Last time this came up I looked into the question of who “owns” the children and concluded that rooted in British common law the state claims to have the strongest claim on “ownership”.

Parens patriae has come a long way, baby.

I may not agree with their politics, but props to Rubio and Jindal for apparently getting it right the first time:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rubio-jindal-latest-weigh…

Ahh, the AAP chimes in on Christie and Rand with about as spineless a statement as possible (http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/American-Ac…) ;

"A measles outbreak has grown to more than 100 people in 14 states. As public officials discuss the outbreak and the immunizations that could have prevented it, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges each of them to research the issue first, using credible, science-based sources of information. It is incumbent on public officials to speak from the facts when shaping public perception and policy. This is crucial when it comes to our children's health and safety".....

"We encourage public officials to employ sound science in communicating about such an important topic. Our children's health is at stake."

C'mon--is the AAP that terrified of offending anyone that can't specifically address the anti-vaccinationism expressed by Christie and Paul? Then again, this is another manifestation of the same AAPathy that, to date, has weakened the AAP to the point of not speaking out against FAAPs Robert Sears and Jay Gordon.

Art, #74: the concept in English law (not sure about Scottish) also involves the "inherent jurisdiction" of the high court, which is what is ultimately invoked when parents are acting against the interests of their children.

The 1989 Children's Act is also very clear on parental responsibilities towards their children. In my old line (child and adolescent mental health) we kept an eye on repeated failures to attend appointments as a possible sign of neglect which we would need to contact our local children's services about (family protection in US-ia, I think).

FWIW, some big name Republicans have made statements in favor of vaccines. From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky offered an intensely personal opinion Tuesday about the necessity of childhood vaccinations: "As a victim of polio myself, I'm a big fan of vaccinations."

House Speaker John Boehner of Butler County came out pro-vaccination Tuesday: "I don't know that we need another law, but I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated."

Cartoon of the day:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/cartoons/2015/02/beeler0204.html

Re. Orac @ 60: Sen. Thom Tillis, moving the party "forward" from anti-vaccination to anti-sanitation. Who needs clean drinking water standards either? Bring back the chamber pot too!

We were having a time of it over on Daily Kos on Tuesday, reading about Tillis and more about Christie and Paul, and feeling stuck somewhere between shock and nausea, alleviated only with the aid of mild scatological humor.

The three of them even got nicknames:

Cholera Christie, Typhoid Tillis, and Polio Paul.

And someone came up with a package design for a Tillis-endorsed brand of latex gloves, that one should wear while shaking hands with Republican politicians.

All of which commentary doesn't sum to policy proposals, but there have been many of those over there as well.

IMHO if this got politically polarized it would be a good thing. Republicans would get trounced in next year's election, and then hopefully the party would get its act together about science. That would make it easier to pass legislation.

As for voluntary/mandatory, I'm for mandatory and free, with medical exemptions only. Make it a requirement for anyone applying for a driver's license or state photo ID, and if they're a parent, they have to show that their kids are vaccinated as well.

It's bad enough to have little vectors running around in school, but they do also take the bus and go to movies and malls, etc., where they can infect more people. So I say No to that: get your shots or live in a closed community like the Amish.

As for Paul's item about parents "owning" their kids, on any ordinary news day that would be shocking and horrifying enough, but Tuesday it merely came across as dumb-headed and crass.

@MOB #81
FWIW, the Cincinnati Enquirer is trying to spin mushy fake walk-back as 'pro-vaccination.'

"I’m a big fan of vaccinations." So is Chris Christie. So is Mike #36. Note the subject of the sentence. Well, at least Mitch is a 'fan'.

Boehner, not so much. " I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated.” is about as weak and distance as prose gets.

Cincinnati, as some may not be aware, is only de jure in Ohio, de facto it's the largest city in Kentucky, which is probably why the Enquirer is carrying water for McConnell, and failing to parse for it's readers Boehner's shout out in support of he-who-shall-not-be-named, better known to us as Rand Paul: "“I don’t know that we need another law." That 'other law' we don't need is restriction or elimination of PBEs, or any other measure that would actually involve "government" big or small to intervene in even the teensy-tinest way with the collapse of herd immunity due to 'personal freedom'.

That's the line, "I like vaccinations! (but if you don't want your kid to get one, that's up to you)."

Politically, exemptions are the issue, period. Cruz did actually come out a bit 'pro-vax' in a policy sense by saying other states should adopt Texas's standard, which is 'religious and medical exemptions only' – pretty easy to do in Texas. Rubio really put himself out there: "medical exemptions only".

HRC didn't say anything about exemptions, but compare her comment to McConnell and Boehner, "”The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest” She actually endorsed the science, called the anti-vaxers flat-earth idiots, one-upped the anti-vaxers on the 'Mom' card, referenced herd immunity ('all our kids') and implied policy be using the plural subject "us" and the active verb "protect".

The way you figure out what someone means by an ambiguous-seeming statement is by figuring out all the other expressions that might have been used to express whatever, and seeing what the expression at hand is NOT.

E.g among the things "I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated.” is NOT is "Listen people, there's a public health crisis. If your kids aren't vaccinated for measles, take them in for the MMR now."

How does anyone sane NOT say that now? Only one reason. They're afraid of the voting/finacial power of "”I guess being for freedom would be really unusual.”

Hillary Clinton on Twitter 2/2/15:

The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest

@Gray Squirrel #83
In Lancaster County anyway, the Amish shop at WalMart. There are bunch of special spaces in the parking lot reserved for buggy's. (The don't do the indoor mall, though. Too hochmut.) I'm totally for 'medical only' myself, and vax is the kind of thing where most the Amish anyway might come around. (It's not core to a simple plain life "not of the world".)

But we all know if it's medical only, there'll be a First Amendment challenge from somebody. I say: "Bring it on!" But I'm not running for President in Iowa or New Hampshire, the later BTW being the only state in the Union w/o a mandatory seat-belt law..... FREEDOMMM!!!

(They should change the motto from "Live free or die" to "Live free and die")

OBVIOUSLY AoA is quite pleased with Christie and Paul: today they feature articles by Heckenlively and Handley.
Although TMR wasn't up when I looked, its facebook page was and it featured a link to Handley's " Angry Father's Guide to the Measles Vaccine".

But we all know if it’s medical only, there’ll be a First Amendment challenge from somebody.

So far, we haven't seen any such challenges in Mississippi or West Virginia, the two states that currently allow only medical exemptions.

@DB #82
I don't know how you interpret the cartoon, but fwiw...
It's not saying "Science has won and proved anti-vaxers are as wrong as flat-earthers."
It's a political cartoon saying that the anti-vax 'movement' has sailed off it's own dining room table and is now as politically relevant as flat-earthism. It's saying anti-vax ain't gonna be around much longer. I think it's probably right, but we'll see. It all depends on far and how long the current outbreak goes, sad to say...

The frustrating thing about having Christie et al wade into this is that they have blurred the line between "should vaccination be compulsory" and "should vaccination be a condition for school entry." Those are two very different things. State laws mostly address the latter as they relate to children.

As for the First Amendment and the "because, freedom" argument, this is pretty well settled in the law. Nonmedical exemptions exist because of politics.

Antivaxers frequently misrepresent school vaccine mandates as being compulsory or "forced" vaccination in order to co-opt the "freedom" and "the government can't force anyone to inject chemicalz into my body" message. This is a feature, not a bug, as I'm sure Rand Paul knows. I doubt Christie knew and that's why he so blindly blundered into this issue. To him it probably seemed like a reasonable approach to make "both sides" happy.

@ sadmar:

Whatever happens, I think that the anti-vax movement WILL be around - although it may have hopefully less influence on young parents in the future- and it may be moved off further into the darker, festering depths of the cybersphere.
many, many diehard believers have invested their lives in it and some entrepreneurs - as well as parents- have made money off of it and have achieved a measure of fame- they get support and applause for their madness.

If you read the regulars at AoA/ TMR and dedicated facebook pages, you'll find that the movement has become their social life and often, their claim to fame. They identify themselves through it and they have a perpetual axe to grind against the mainstream.

How would people like them ever get on television otherwise?' These outlets then embed the video and followers later congratulate the Truth Teller on facebook.
Quite a few get book deals to narrate their tales of woe or showcase their 'investigative journalism' Would any of them write a book WITHOUT these covens of bad science pulling for them or without a cohort / fellow traveller who owns a publishing company?

And they get to style themselves as Brave Maverick Parents in mimicry of the Brave Maverick Doctor- ex-doctor , really- so many mini- Andys and Andreas attempting to ride upon his tattered coattails..
And last but not least, Andy is only 50-something, he can be around for decades.

I'd post this link to Orac's pitiful, cowardly blog titled "Antivaccine cranks try to create Vaccine Injury Awareness Month. Everyone either yawns or laughs."
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/10/01/antivaccine-cranks-try-to-…
but he's closed that heinous blog, akin to Holocaust and climate change denialism, from further comment.

Here's a new, brief article I wanted to share with all the vaccine injury denialists here:
http://www.gutmicrobiotaforhealth.com/gut-microbiota-infant-vaccine-pro…

So if the Republicans need another voice saying we need to get rid of any kind of public health requirement of any kind I present:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thom-tillis-on-whether-employees-need-to-wa…

I'm still waiting for the embarrassment my state elected him to the Senate to overtake the relief I feel that we don't have him mucking around directly with my state anymore.

What is the next thing that restricts our freedom to infect others that will be made OK to do by legislative act?

Well, the Wall St. Journal has belatedly turned on Rand Paul in a new editorial headlined "The Weird Vaccine Panic". Paul is lambasted for "broadcasting misinformation" and "libertarian dormitory passions". He was also criticized specifically for trying to connect "mental disorders" with vaccines, in what the Journal said was "a dog whistle )perhaps unintentional) to autism fears".

The editorial also took note of Obama's sidling around vaccine fears in 2008, along with Hillary Clinton who "responded to a questionnaire from an autism activism group with a commitment to 'make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines'". And the Journal declared that the "privileged communities of the liberal elite" in southern California are centers for vaccine refusal.

It's sort of entertaining to see the political fur flying - as long as these folks get it right in the end.

So far, we haven’t seen any such challenges in Mississippi or West Virginia, the two states that currently allow only medical exemptions.

No, Patti Finn did her usual crash-and-burn routine in Workman v. Mingo County Board of Education.

On the subject of Mississippi, though, this is timely.

^ It should perhaps also be noted that Mississippi is unusual, in that the reason there's no religious exemption is that in 1979, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held them to be unconstitutional on an equal protection basis (Brown v. Stone).

sadmar,

The way you figure out what someone means by an ambiguous-seeming statement is by figuring out all the other expressions that might have been used to express whatever, and seeing what the expression at hand is NOT.
E.g among the things “I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated.” is NOT is “Listen people, there’s a public health crisis. If your kids aren’t vaccinated for measles, take them in for the MMR now.”

While that can be a useful technique, there are a few limitations and cautions. For instance:

- you don't always know the context of the statement, which can make a difference. The words used depend on the question that was asked.

- you don't know that the article includes the full statement. The article may leave out the boring bits, or may be restricted for length. Just as an entire 1 hour speech may be cut to 4 5-second sound bites on television news, a longer quote may be cut down to what the reporter (or editor) considers the essential point.

- it can be used in parsing those you agree with as well as those you disagree with. For example, only given former secretary Clinton's statement above, can you realistically infer her views on religious or philosophical exemptions? How about President Obama's views?

As to Boehner's statement that "I don’t know that we need another law", I suppose that would all depend on the context. He's a Congressman from Ohio - perhaps he doesn't think a federal law is appropriate (due to, say, Constitutional issues) and he thinks that the Ohio statue (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3313.671) is adequate. I really couldn't say.

As to "Cincinnati, as some may not be aware, is only de jure in Ohio, de facto it’s the largest city in Kentucky, which is probably why the Enquirer is carrying water for McConnell,...", the article does say that "The Enquirer surveyed the governors of Ohio and Kentucky plus members of the local congressional delegations on their views about vaccinations." Thus if you found and read the article (as opposed to my snippets), you'd also see responses from other Ohio and Kentucky politicians. McConnell (KY), Rand Paul (KY), and Boehner (West Chester Township, OH) would be considered members of the local congressional delegations.

DW: "Ethically challenged, lacking in empathy and self-centered parents…all of them."

Except for parenthood, that could also describe any Republican candidate. Like the anti-vax movement, the GOP has become a haven for unpleasant people.

@ PGP:

But I didn't say that.
Must have been my evil twin - well, one of them. I have several...
( Not that I'm not evil)

"Which prompted the greatest Onion headline, ever"

Second greatest? "New President Feels Nation’s Pain, Breasts."

I really feel like we're in a place where parental rights over 'ownership' of their children are in direct conflict with critical public health concerns - and that's the individual right of each child to herd immunity, IMO. There should be no religious or philosophical vaccine exemptions for school. Medical only.

Rand Paul's ties to the AAPS highlighted in today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/politics/rand-paul-linked-to-assoc…

Perhaps the silver lining in all of this is that the anti-vaccine movement will get the negative publicity they so richly deserve and will be finally relegated to the same level as holocaust or moon landing deniers. It's a horrible price to pay, though.

“The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

Makes you wonder if his parents made him pay for his freedom.

Charlie Pierce has yet another excellent column on this today:

So this is what I'm thinking. The Republicans will use this as a wedge to split the Democratic party along the Nervous Parent fault-line that is rivening it. This fault line may well crack open between classes, as the wealthier left seems more inclined toward using Internet quackery to protect their little snowflake babies.

Don't know if anything will come of it, slightly off topic(but not);
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2015/02/anti_vaccination_d…

And...Jake Crosby weighs in on his Epoch Times blog, which gave me the opportunity to link to his posts on the CDC Whistleblower. Jake removed all the comments on the Whistleblower one month ago, yet he continued to post comments at me.

Jake's last comment directed at me was posted 8 days ago and he admitted that his mentor for his "Culminating Experience" (MPH-Epidemioogy thesis), was former medical doctor Mark Geier, who (somehow) got him access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink database.

Screen shots...the only way to preserve comments that Jake sends down the old memory hole:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/blog/obama-contradicts-vaccines/

To excuse Dr. Randel Paul's opinions on medicine just because he is an eye doctor. It is way too forgiving. He went through many of the same general classes required of every doctor, he would have been taught all of the same basic principles of medicine and science that is taught every medical student. While I often spoke poorly of the medical profession in my career, chided them memorization over application, even I can not imagine that anyone gets to put a "M.D." after there name without being exposed to enough information to know better. No, don't blame his education, don't blame his specialization. You insult a lot of good honest doctors.

FYI, There is no love lost between Mitch and Dr. Paul, Mitch is an over school establishment republican, a wheeler-dealer, a person with huge ties to the establishment. Dr. Paul is an upstart, whom beat Mitch's anointed candidate in the primary. There was no love lost in the primary battle, Dr. Paul spoke of Mitch as the enemy. After the victory, pleasant fwords and a facade were placed over wounds and scars, do not expect that they do not fester beneath the surface.

@ lilady:

Gawd, I just read that!
Jake seems to have difficulty interpretting what people say ( e.g. Barack Obama) despite the fact that it was relatively simple and in English .I'm not sure if he has some sort of language-based disability ( or NVLD) or if it's merely a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality.

He doesn't put simple facts together as most people would but then he creates mountains out of molehills and intricately elaborates upon relationships that don't exist outside of his fevered imagination.
In short, lots wrong there.

I notice that PRN put up one of his old, crappy AoA posts about Dr Offit saying f@cking and sh!t.or suchlike.
If I met Jake in person I'd probably say f@cking and sh!t as well.

BUT I'd glad to come across this after reading someone's recollections about victims of terrorism- I need a laugh.

No spoken or receptive language disability, Denice. Just a nasty, over indulged "kid" who only thinks he's qualified to work as an epidemiologist; he's not.

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Offit, Summer 2013. He's a warm, compassionate charming man who is dedicated to the children entrusted to his care and he's been subjected to Jake's lies and pathological stalking behaviors.

I'm delighted to be your "evil twin".

Can anyone point me to the scientific evidence for herd immunity?

Can anyone direct me to the scientific evidence for herd immunity?

Thank you.

Can anyone direct me to the scientific evidence for herd immunity?

Sure.

One way to see how this is going to fall out is to keep an eye on 'mainstream' non-fanatical granola crunchers...
@ Denice #92
That's what I mean in my hyperbolic way in #89, AV isn't going away as a culture, I just think it's on its way off the table as a significant political influence. And while I'm sure about the former (it will live on in some form) I'm nowhere as sure about the later, but that's how I read the signs du jour

As far as book deals and TV and profitable ventures go — Disneyland changes everything. Again, it's so sad/stupid it had to come to this, all the poor kids actually getting sick. My hypotheses for the near future:

AV Entrepreneurs. There will continue to be $$ to be made by selling re-inforcement to this community, just less of it. The 'base" won't shrink, but the secondary/tertiary spheres will and mainstream publishers who would have put out an anti-vax book two years ago won't touch them now, leaving them to specialty presses.

Television/Media: Clearly the new AV role here is whipping boy/ villain. Which will just make them more mavericky in their own shrinking bubble. But it's absolutely slaughtering them as a meaningful social force.

'Natural' Entrepeneurs/activists: Wedges may well appear in previous alliances. In the cherry-picked media quotes from appalling unaffected AV parents, I've noticed two slightly different philosophies: 1) the very specific 'MMR causes autism' standard line, 2) the more generic 'naturalistic fallacy" rejecting corporate commodities, embracing Gaia myths & organic everything This position has previously accommodated a 'vax MUST be toxis POV' though the exact mechanism and product of toxicity is left open and can be fluid. What any number of commenters (a growing minority it seems) in this subculture are showing is that anti-vax isn't necessary to this world view and can easily be discarded. One of the anti-(anti-vax) 'trolls' on mothering.com has a sig "I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. And I'm pro-vaccine." C.f. also Tara Cook-Littman, the pro-vax, anti-GMO Connecticut Dem mentioned by BD #1 who got pole-axed by the GOP in 2014 for having been duped into giving an interview to the producers of Bought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mxYu7CL1Xg

Anti-vax isn't core to the organic/natural mythos — and neither are organic 'cures". The mythos basically comes down to a fairly generic belief that less processing is 'healthier' in some vague way. Typical granola-crunchers just try to reduce 'unnecessary' industrial diddling in a more-or-less pragmatic mode — e.g. they still drink tap water, etc. So this 'lifestyle choice' can go forward perfect well if MMR and flu shots move into the category of "no reasonable pragmatic natural alternative" along with hundreds of other elements of quotidian existence in industrialized society.

So I'd keep my eye on the less wiggy 'natural food' promoters — not necessarily Mikey — to see if any of them are easing up on doing any cross-promotion with the AV crowd — as I have a feeling it will be in their economic interest to do so.

@ Meph #99
All excellent qualifiers! Yeah, those are the kinds of things you have to do if you're using that method (a basic technique of 'semiotics') in a serious scholarly paper. They're part of the necessary 'controls' if you will, of establishing a solid argument. I was just firing off a quick lil polemic: sort of 'well, it could be this' rather than any kind of sold 'proof'.

And I thought I had at least implied that re: HRC by noting that unlike Rubio and Cruz, she didn't state an exemption policy, only inferred one by very different language choices than McConnell and Boehner used. Still, if there was a liberal's illustrated dictionary there'd be a pic of BIll and Hil next to the entry for "slippery".

I'd also add re: McConnell and Boehner. As Majority Leader and Speaker they'e going to be concerned with keeping some appearance of unity amongst the various caucuses in their party, and model 'let's stay on the same page' strategies. Both of the quotes (can't speak to the full statements) offer the opportunities in private discussions with different members to say either 'I came out as pro-vax' OR 'I didn't endorse restricting exemptions'.

@ MarkN #55
"At least my party still has the hot women……"

Citation needed. :-)

There are numerous tv shows about her case and over 1600 people on Facebook

OK, that combination has totally convinced me!

Oh dear. Dan Olmsted has posted a link on AoA to an interview he's done with "Vox". I imagine he thinks he comes over quite well, but actually comes over as a frothing loon, with all his points debunked - mostly with references, some to our esteemed host.

The phrase "done up like a kipper" springs to mind.

You sad, sad fool, Olmsted.

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/4/7972335/dan-olmsted-anti-vaxxers

@ MarkN #55 and sadmar#119
Your sexism is noted.

MartinB @122 -- I'm acutely aware that accusations of hypersensitivity and humorlessness are the go-to tactic for sexist bullies attempting to defend the indefensible, but MarkN and sadmar's little exchange struck me as being entirely in jest, and actually pretty funny.

@palindrom
Sure - when talking about a political party, discussing the "hotness" of women is just funny and nothing else.
Yes, it was somewhat funny, yes, it was in jest, no, it is not a big problem, and neither is the world going to end nor will MarkN and sadmar be held in contempt forever because of these remarks, but yes, the remarks were sexist all the same.

@ sadmar:

I think the book deals may continue but only because they originate from Skyhorse, which is owned by a fellow traveler,, Tony Lyons, who has written a few tomes from his perspective as a ( woo-drenched) autism parent- he published his ex's book as well- that's devotion to a cause for you!

But truly, I think that recent events have helped push anti-vax towards the darkest depths of cyberspace- Ickes' and Bolen's territory as it were. Actually, this might assist alt media loons who have been telling the faithful that the mainstream is utterly corrupt; *bought* by the corporatocracy and governmental fascisti.

I listened to PRN"s head honcho rant yesterday and I detected a hint of desperation amidst his pressured, malaprop-ridden speech ( see PRN/ the Gary Null Show/ yesterday) and dear Mikey appeared to be grasping at the same straws but more feverishly than is usual ( see Natural News, recently). It may make it harder for them to reach a general audience- which is after all, their aim, supplanting the mainstream in an orgy of paradigm shift: their fantasy system come true.

-btw- I thought the 'hot women' jibe was funny.

The mention of Tony Lyons is inclined to set me off. This is a guy - very much like Wakefield - who has abandoned any kind of professional standards in order to hawk his wares to the vulnerable. He sees the desperate parents of often seriously challenged kids as a marketing opportunity.

Forget his pumping of Wakefield's fraud which, had he perpetrated it in the UK, would have bankrupted his company with uninsurable libel bills.

But look at his publication of a book advising parents how to vaccinate their children, written by people who are not doctors and have no relevant expertise. In my view, a truly sickening scam on the public that could never pay for itself without the captive vulnerable group to be preyed on at the usual quack conferences.

Then look at his publication of a book by the ludicrous malignant crank David Lewis, whose writing is so poor and whose mental condition so questionable that any competent publisher would have thrown his manuscript into the trash after reading the first page.

This is the David Lewis who says that my journalism is of such a high professional standard that I must be corrupt. Really. I kid you not. Unusually, you can see Mr Lyons's author saying so himself. I have him listed on my website as the funniest crank I've ever encountered:

http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-true.htm

I’m totally for ‘medical only’ myself, and vax is the kind of thing where most the Amish anyway might come around. (It’s not core to a simple plain life “not of the world”.)

They don't need to come around, however: the idea that the Amish do not vaccinate is a myth. The majority of Amish parents do vaccinate their children, and among the minority who do not the most common reasons cited for failure to vaccinate are the same anti-vaccine fueled fears that non-Amish anti-vax parents embrace in the absence of supporting evidence. (see PMID:21708796)

@ Brian Deer:

There is so much lunacy surrounding Lyons that if he didn't exist, sceptics would have to invent him to serve as a sterling example of the literary enablement of bad science.

I once spent an hour or two surveying his wares ( @ Skyhorse's website)- new releases especially - altho' there are a few meaningful items- there is a miasma of alt med/ anti-vax/ autism garbage in numbers hitherto unseen in the western world. He gave Gary Null his own imprint. He has already printed loads of AoA contributors' bilge as well as Andy's, sponsors book events with them and assists TMR by printing their madness involving parental advice gone wrong, histrionic tales of woe and the creation bizarrely restricted cuisine for kids with ASDs. Lyons even has published autism-themed fiction -
oh wait, all of these books are fiction, aren't they?

He wrote ( IIRC) two books about autism himself. The entire list of crap lit hawked at AoA was made possible by him.
Lewis fits right in.

I think that recent events have helped push anti-vax towards the darkest depths of cyberspace

Unfortunately people have short memories. I am very much afraid that going through outbreaks periodically is the only way to convince people that VPD's are, in fact, dangerous and children need to be protected from them.

For a moment I had skyhorse confused with "Slaying the Sky Dragon", which is a book that attempts to disprove the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The book is, of course, a hilarious compendium of crackpot science.

Sounds like its near-namesake is also not exactly an authoritative source on matters scientific.

Martin #124 - yes, thank you, all of that.

I sure hope Martin never winds up reading Clickhole.

Brian Deer, Tony Lyons publishes (almost) all of the anti-vaccine books written by the AoA crank journalists and commenters. He did, after all, refuse to publish one book:

"Skyhorse has got several excellent books. Not mine however. They won't even reply when I send them the manuscript for my book (which is freely downloadable at maryWmaxwell.com). Title: "A Balm in Gilead: Curing Autism and Awakening the Physicians."

When I was a Good Girl, years ago, four of my books got published by university presses. Now that I am a Bad Girl (i.e., I say who dunnit), I may as well be a leper.

Speaking of leprosy, it was caused, in modern times, by the smallpox vaccine. Don't take my word for it; many eminent docs said so. And then that was end-of-career for them, of course.

Posted by: mary w maxwell | January 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM"

@ lilady:

It never fails to amaze about how these people catastrophise every single life event that befalls them as they imagine that having an autistic child- rather than the perfect one that exists only in their imagination- is an earth-shattering tragedy which they OBVIOUSLY will rise above In g0dlike fashion to countless readers' applause.

Lyons isn't just their enabler- and that of the loony medical critics as well- he is a fellow traveller- he's one of them- and as much a drama queen.

I think that my friends** whose lives have been transformed by terrorism decades ago sound much more upbeat than this lot of soppy cry babies.

** not the ones form Northern Ireland

@ Lilady: I'd quite like the five minutes back that it took me to download Mary Maxwell's opus but, despite everything, I think she would not make the threshhold for Mr Lyon's tastes because she is not a malignant crank.

Did I say anywhere that BMJ got a threatening letter from some run-out-stock lawyer for David Lewis (the dental equipment hygiene guy) threatening to sue them if they didn't accede to all kinds of weird demands.

Of course, they got told to f--- off, but it was truly hilarious. I ought to post it sometime. It was full of stuff like "you will post on x website denouncing Brian Deer" and so on and so forth.
Pages and pages of gibberish.

not the ONE FROM...

@Lilady, there is a grain of truth in the smallpox vaccine and leprosy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC422848/

I mean grain, in that there is some evidence that given a small pox vaccine to a person with leprosy can cause problems, but I expect not as much as a leper that actually catches smallpox.

Of course, they got told to f— off, but it was truly hilarious. I ought to post it sometime. It was full of stuff like “you will post on x website denouncing Brian Deer” and so on and so forth.
Pages and pages of gibberish.

And you're holding this back from us why?

@ Denice #125

In my remark about book deals, I was thinking about:
Dr. Jay, whose Autism and ADD books are published by Wiley
Dr. Bob, whose Vaccine book is published by Little Brown
and of course
Jenny McCarthy, whose autism books are published by Penguin

A quick Amazon search reveals a number of 'beat autism with health food' books from major presses.

@Lilady, there is a grain of truth in the smallpox vaccine and leprosy.

Maxwell's basic source dates to a bit before 1973, though.

@Colonel Tom - actually, excema is also a contra-indicator for the smallpox vaccine as well.

@Lawrence I am surprise, contra-indications for the small pox vaccine is surely not something being currently taught?

However, and it shames me that I have this link saved, is a case where excema was a factor in a "secondary" exposure. The reason why I have this link, is the poor girl properly expressed her concerns to a Dr., but her concerns were not given the weight they should have been.

I must warn that this is a rather, graphic, case summary.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5925a2.htm

I got the same vaccine, and everyone was warned to minimize contact. I have no idea if disciplinary actions were taken, after he completed his deployment. For all I know, he never came home.

I also like the notes on this case, one might use the "upon hearing hoofbeats expect horses not zebras", but the notes are rather "clinically icy" in their presentation that the other indications for the STD he tested for were just not there. .

Not that I am antiVax, debate about the smallpox vac and its military use is a more subtle issue.

Of course, they got told to f— off, but it was truly hilarious. I ought to post it sometime. It was full of stuff like “you will post on x website denouncing Brian Deer” and so on and so forth.

I believe the standard legal version of the response to that is "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."

Narad, thanks for the 100 + year old references from whaleDOTto.
C'mon Brian Deer; we're waiting for your post about David Lewis...Wakefield's good buddy who sent you the scoring sheets for the bowel specimens from Wakefield's study subjects.

Colonel Tom: I had the smallpox vaccine (NYC Department of Health Dryvax smallpox vaccine) during the run up to the bogus WMDs scare, promulgated by Bush I...post 9-11. I was qualified to receive Dryvax because I had smallpox vaccines in early childhood and prior to a trip to Europe, 1972. I also did not have an history of eczema.

Incidentally, as either sadmar or Denice predicted, now that anti-vax views have intersected with politics, Rachel Maddow is indeed covering the matter, and quite well. She's charmingly somewhat baffled by the whole thing: "Wait, this is a thing? Why on earth is this a thing? Why on earth are mainstream politicians touching this thing with a ten foot pole?"

If there's one thing I can do whilst almost catatonically depressed, it's watch Rachel Maddow. Well, that and drink gifted homemade mead, apparently. Dangerous stuff, that.

Funny thing, as a kid, I had measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and poliomyelitis, all before they were vaccine-preventable. but I still wound up with an autism spectrum condition, and I can't even blame it on vaccines.

@ JP:

Well, I hope she can influence some left-leaning people.
She has social power in certain quarters I would guess as well as being quite gifted as a barkeep instructor.
Am I not right?

@Colonel Tom:
While Rand Paul almost certainly learned at least the basics of infectious diseases, immunology, and vaccines in med school, it doesn't mean he didn't start forgetting the day after the final. With a lot of medical knowledge, it's a matter of use it or lose it. Of course, he may also have been poorly taught. I still remember many things I was taught and never worked with because some of my instructors made them interesting and taught with clarity.
When I was still a working PA, I did presurgical testing. One time I saw an abnormality on an ECG and called the surgeon to tell him that the case would have to be postponed for further workup. When I started to detail the findings to him, he said "You forget, I'm an orthopedic surgeon. I don't know about that kind of thing."

leprosy, it was caused, in modern times, by the smallpox vaccine

Time travel is a dangerous thing when misused.

@Denice:

I can only hope so. I've been monitoring FB for any sort of anti-vax statements by my more crunchy liberal friends back on the Left Coast, and they've been basically silent - good news or bad, that, I'm not sure. In any case, if anti-vax views do start to become aligned with right-wingers, it might at least drive some liberal fence-sitters in the opposite direction. (My friends here in Ann Arbor town have been joining me in pro-vax sentiment; they are, though, of the more nerdy, wonky liberal variety. One of them is studying medical history, and runs the excellent Nursing Clio blog.

I do always enjoy Maddow's "Cocktail Moment" segments, and have been tempted to attempt several of the recipes, though the closest I typically come to mixing drinks is putting ice in my bourbon, and that on rare occasions.

Old Rockin' Dave, I went through about half of those classes with the med students, bio medical engineer, and I just have trouble believing that you could forget so many basics. How diseases spread, how can you forget that. Now you forget what exactly what areas of the heart are affected by which bifascicular blocks, but you surely remember what the bundle of his is. I hope. My allergist understood his own condition when his cardiac pacemaker cells began to go wonky, and he was older than dirt.

Rekha Basu, Des Moines Register columnist is on Rachel Maddow, talking about how Paul's and Christie's vaccine comment's are dog-whistling both the Iowa Tea Baggers (no big government) and Christian Conservatives (Parents Rights) that form the two wings of the GOP caucus vote in the state and have few issues in common — even though, as Maddow says, "there's no national constituency for playing with that kind of fire, playing with vaccine conspiracies." Also, both Maddow and Basu say the pols know setting themselves up to get criticized by the media, lets them complain about being bashed by liberal media, which also plays really well in Iowa to both factions.

Maddow's take is ultimately that these are not blunders — even though the national press considers them so — but planned strategic moves to gain ground in Iowa that will be abandoned and forgotten once the campaign moves to larger states and a national audience.

Meanwhile Christie and Paul are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Putting it forward, taking it back, putting it forward, taking it back. Christie might have had a chance to get away... but he doesn't want to! Today it came out he's like the only governor that doesn't participate in Hallmark's vaccine reminder card to new moms program...

Here's a 2009 photo of Chris Christie smiling posing with a group of 6 anti-vaxers, with only one identified on screen: Louise Habakus. And then the screen shows the campaign letter Christie put out referring to — well, Rachel says "anti-vaccine groups" with a pull quote "I stand with them now, and will stand with them as their governor." But I see Orac has the text in the OP; "families affected by autism [who] have expressed concern over New Jersey’s highest-in-the nation vaccine mandates." Evil, evil mandates.

I Googled "Chris Christie Louise Habakus" and see this story went viral at the beginning of the week... Stuff movin' faster than I can follow...

@ lilady. I fear the danger of succumbing to the entertainment quality of some of these people. Malignant cranks may have all manner of personal issues they are expressing - in some cases, I believe, organic - but they are easy to play for laughs.

A more serious issue arises when you come across people like Wakefield, Lewis and even Celia Farber (who descends from time to time from the astral plane to critique molecular biology).

They believe they are entitled to accuse any number of people of the most horrendous, foul crimes against humanity, with the most vicious, unsubstantiated abuse. Then, if the accused turn round, defend themselves and and say: "You lying f--- scumbag", people such as Wakefield, Lewis (the most malignant of the cranks that I have ever encountered) and Farber, they sue, or threaten to.

Between them, they've run, I'd say, about ten or more lawsuits: none of which have done anything useful, but have consumed huge amounts of money and given them a few years to use these for public relations purposes (to quote a judge), presumably to raise more money.

Well, yes, the double standard these cranks demonstrate is spectacular. They'll compare pro-science advocates of all manner of horrific activities, crimes even. They'll compare them to Hitler and the Nazis. But if anyone calls them out for their misinformation, pseudoscience, and lies, suddenly they clutch their pearls, shocked—shocked, I say!—that anyone would say anything mean about them. Then some of them threaten to sue.

They’ll compare them to Hitler and the Nazis
Case in point:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/anti-vaxxer-radio-host-accuses-jon-s…

Responding to Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s criticism of both the far left and far right wings of the anti-vaxxing movement, an anti-vaccination promoting radio host compared the Jewish comedy host of being a “Nazi” ready to put the anti-vaxxers in “concentration camps.”

They’ll compare them to Hitler and the Nazis.

Gerg, a Canadian, has recently asserted that vaccines are worse than DAESH, or something, and that history will judge Obama harshly.

Speaking to the GOP = leaning anti-vax thesis of the article, I'm pleased to report that the on right and libertarian-leaning discussion website I follow, people are jumping the Rand Paul ship as fast as they can (Christie they never liked much anyway). Vaccines are the hot-topic of the day (as they are elsewhere), and I'd give a rough estimate of 90% of commenters are strongly pro-vaccine; the anti-vaxxers who comment are challenged in strong language.
Can't speak for the politicians, but for the electorate, I do think it's split pretty evenly left and right.

Colonel Tom, you know as well as I do that they can make you study something but they can't make you believe it. Baby Doc's membership in his fringe medical society proves that, not to mention all the other a-hole physicians Orac has alerted us to.
It seems to me that his sole motivation in getting his MD was to become a surgical specialist in order to rake in some bucks, and not have to bother with all those troublesome facts that contradict his favorite fairy tales.
Thankfully, not all surgeons are like that (Hat tip to you, Orac.).

@Old Rockin' Dave, I do have a paranoia of my own that runs into what you just said. Having been a premed, having a cliche of friends that were premed, having been in a graduate program taking some school of medicine classes, having worked with lots of doctors in my early career. I have this concern that the whole medical education system is slanted more towards those individuals that are in it for the money. Not exclusively, but the insanely high cost of the education combined with the tortuous training, it does seem to be biased towards a certain type of very materialistic souls. Not exclusively, but if I had to evaluate the other 12 pre-med chemical engineers I went to school with, I'd say at least 4 of them were money fixated. Especially Chuckles, geez what an ahole he turned out to be.

I have this bad tendency to believe that people do bad things because they don't know better. Time and time again I am disappointed by my bias.

Its funny, my daughter's illness kicked up again, and I was surfing to see if there were over the counter testing for parasites. I did not know that this is a new pet theory of some really wacko people. I found an excellent source of information on round and tape worms, the website sponsored by a doctor with good credentials, her school respectable. Until I got deep into what she was recommending, including that she used an herbal concoction similar to the medicine my grandmother would have brewed. She did leave out the red oak fungus at least, that stuff will take you to places you don't want to go. I might use traditional blends for minor purposes, but if you have round worms I'd really expect a doctor to use pharmaceutical grade medicine. The stuff my grandmother made, I still use it on chickens and dogs.

Well, at least I know why my pediatrician looked at us like we were kooks when the wife asked about worms.

I have been immensely pleased with my cardiologists, I am on my third one. Unfortunately, the first one I had I have outlived, against all odds. He was the walking breathing posture child for cardiac health, fit and active. Damn inoperable cancer in the hippocampus.

Old Rockin' Dave:

Please tell me this has nothing to do with Duvalier.

Vicki, it's just a passing middle finger up to the Drs. Paul, Congressman and Senator, father and son. The rotten apple didn't fall far from the diseased tree.
Colonel Tom, I have had general good luck with my docs, with the sole exception of the urologist who nearly killed me by leaving a bleeder in my abdomen. That turned an expected two day hospital stay into two weeks, half in SICU, most of which I can't remember, and that also left me with a hypovolemic ischemic encephalopathy, mainly manifested with some badly delayed recall for proper nouns and the occasional adverb. Ironically, for someone who made his living as a PA, the recall most affected is for brand names of medications.
I entirely regret not going with my gut on this one - I didn't like him from the beginning, and I have learned that a doc that I don't like as a person is more than likely to be a bad practitioner.

Crap Dave, we're both members of the scrambled brains club. At least in my case, I doubt my surgeon did anything wrong. I was at death's door because I had a real atypical right side heart attack (right corn artery), I was misdiagnosed for six days. By the time they got me on the table I was almost gone. A few little clots got stirred up. Lost the power of speech for years, but during a religious ceremony I discovered I could still sing. I'm almost to the point where I can "sing-talk" to just talk. My use of language appears to have suffered too.

Am I understanding properly, that you went into shock from a bleeder to the point your brain went hypoxic? Crap, how were they monitoring you post-op? That is just, so wrong.

I have spoken here before about the bad obstr that refused to believe us on the conception date, daughter almost died during a late delivery as it was. My beloved, praise to her, had the sense, strength and gift to know a person that won't listen is not who you want to delivery your child.

You also seem to know Senator Paul fairly well, as I keep telling people it isn't a political mistake on their part, he almost certainly believes the crap that he is saying. He believe he has obtained everything on his own, andothers that need are weak.

P.S BTW, people like us were part of my never completed PhD. Everyone talks about artificial intelligence, but we really don't understand how memory works (although we know much more now). One part studying the tragic cases, one part trying to model computer programs to mimic human memory.

The dissonance that overshadows both parties glimmers here. The Left, the intellectuals and scientists and artists; all embody the liberated mind, the free thinkers; and yet they fail to sympathize with parents who, in the light of vaccinations being admittedly often preserved with Mercury, a known neurotoxin, have shied away from exposing their children to questionable medical practices, of which many have been revealed over the decades. In fact individual choice seems to be the watchword of the Left, but not on this topic, clearly.
Meanwhile, the Right, that bastion of Christian thought on Creation, among other questionable notions;and yet, they advocate a 'sink or swim' policy with social services, implying that Darwin was right, Gol'darnit! People should survive or not on their own merits and efforts, ignore government edicts if they choose, and the Government should basically ignore them....sounds like Natural Selection to me!

No, molly cruz, almost no vaccines are preserved with mercury these days.

Also, you are at best oversimplifying on the left/right thing: for one thing, the intelligentsia are not necessarily "embodying the liberated mind." "Individual choice" is too broad to be useful here: it could be carelessly used to describe whether I go to church, and if so which, as well as whether I drive a car while drunk or toss my trash in someone else's backyard.

Molly Cruz, a new coal powered power plant puts out hundreds of pounds of mercury, a gypsum wallboard plant puts out a third of a ton of mercury because it uses byproducts of coal combustion. Forest fires put out huge amounts of mercury, rereleasing material absorbed from years of coal combustion. Mercury is so many places, yet some how mercury that used to be in some vaccines in a form of very limited bio-availability are the few molecules that cause autism.

Molly Cruz, the mercury (lower case m, the upper case is a god or a planet, that's just me being pedantic) in vaccines you are referring to is an organic compound called thimerosal. Yes, it contains mercury, but very little is absorbed, the amount in any single dose of a vaccine is incredibly tiny, and most vaccines that used it were reformulated in the wake of Wakefield. The presence of mercury in it doesn't mean much out of context; cobalt is seriously toxic to humans as well, but it's present in cyanocobalamin, aka Vitamin B12, which you regularly ingest in your food without a second thought.
Meanwhile, I have never heard that there is an inherent or natural right to spread potentially deadly infectious diseases to others. I don't think there was a plot to leave it out of the Constitution, the Atlantic Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or any other document. Even the Bible comes down foursquare on the side of quarantine.

Colonel Tom, I had a "robotic"-assisted prostatectomy. I went back to the OR for the interventional radiologist, then again for an emergency laparotomy. I was a week in SICU, either heavily sedated, lightly comatose, or both. I was another week on a regular floor, most of which is a blur too. I was blunted for months after. Finally realized I often can't recall names I should know well until well after I need them. My brain throws out plausible but wrong answers (Frederick Turner for Frederick Remington, Keith-somebody for Ken Russell, etc.). Recently I meant to reference "regression to the mean" but could only come up with "reversion"; good substitution, but still wrong. I find that if I review everything I know about the person or thing, it will eventually come to me, but it can take any time from minutes to a day or so.
Now as to the Pauls, the two of them, and many another libertarian, are somewhere between obtuse and detestable. I have often said that Ron Paul puts the "Aryan" in "libertarian". I share the opinions of them are expressed well by Prof. Steve Dutch at this link: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/NoLibert.HTM

Old Rockin' Dave, the technique of not trying to remember a name, but remembering an event or circumstance where you used that name. Sometimes it works.
I actually called up a friend doing research with access to a PET scanner. For the shear fun of it, we traced the three areas of my brain that got zapped. I thought it was important at the time.
I find "libertarianism" such a strange mindset. While I actually am a huge fan of self-sufficiency and discipline, I am also a person who had the safety net there for them after his father died at a very young age. Social security and my father's VA benefits are what kept us in beans and corn meal. Back then, summer jobs and selling your life to the military were enough to get you a college career.

Given your ability to devastate the most impervious medical quackery with reason and logic, after all these years, I still am amazed how politics seems to short-circuit that part of your reasoning mind. I see your two Republicans with Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer (or any other D from California) and raise you Dennis Kucinich.

Here's how another Science oriented blogger put it 3 years ago:
http://www.science20.com/cool-links/urban_legend_democrats_are_proscien…

Here’s how another Science oriented blogger put it 3 years ago:
And here's how another Science oriented blogger kicked seven kinds of sh1t out of Berezow and Campbell's tendentious exercise two years ago:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/progressive-mythology/

In the comments, of course. :-)

On the back of an envelope: The water benefits of an efficient toilet

pgleick — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:10:52 +0000

On the back of an envelope: The water benefits of an efficient toilet

Here is the second in what will be a series of posts on how little things like changes in technology we take for granted, or simple behaviors, can have a big impact on water use. The first looked at turning off the water when you brush your teeth: a seemingly trivial thing. It turned out not to be so trivial. (I will, on occasion, also blog about the “not so little” things like fundamental changes in our agricultural systems, dietary choices, and industrial processes.)

The Pacific Institute has done extensive and groundbreaking research over the past 25 years on a wide range of water, climate, energy, and environmental issues. One focus has been on how to use water more efficiently to do the things we want to do – a focus on “efficiency” and “productivity” – not deprivation.

It turns out that our toilets are, typically, the largest single user of water inside our homes and offices. Here is a simple, but significant figure: what kind of savings might result from replacing old toilets with efficient ones?

So, get out the back of your envelope and let’s play some numbers games. Here are some basic data and assumptions for people living in the U.S.:

The average person flushes a toilet five times per day.
If your toilet was installed before 1980, it uses around six (6) gallons per flush (gpf).
If your toilet was installed after 1980 and before 1994, it probably uses at least 3.5 gallons per flush.
If your toilet was installed after 1994, it probably uses around 1.6 gallons per flush (these are called ultra-low flow toilets, or ULFTs).
If you really care about water, you might have purchased a “high-efficiency” toilet (HET) that uses 1.3 gallons per flush or less. [The HET is defined as a fixture that has an effective flush volume of at least 20 percent below the current U.S. national standard of 1.6 gpf.]

Under these assumptions, if you have an old toilet, you flush away around 11,000 gallons of water per year (6 gallons per flush x 5 flushes per day x 365 days per year, to only two significant figures).

What if you replace that old toilet with a modern, high performing HET?

Under these assumptions, you would use under 2,400 gallons of water per year, a savings of around 8,600 gallons per year, or 78%.

Can we extrapolate potential water savings of this efficiency improvement to the whole of the United States? This gets a bit harder. There are 314 million of us – today’s population of the United States. But what is the distribution of the kinds of toilets? We don’t know, precisely. But there are some estimates.

According to the Plumbing Manufacturer’s Institute there are 225 million toilets in the U.S. Of these, around 50 million toilets are low-flow or around 22 percent. In California, where toilet standards have been in place longer, a substantially higher fraction – over 50% -- of current toilets are more efficient models, mostly ULFTs.

If we accept this more conservative estimate (that half of the toilets in the US are inefficient and half are more efficient), and that the proportion of flushes is comparable, then half of us are flushing at around 6 gallons per flush and half at around 1.6 gallons per flush (very few HETs have been installed yet).

That means around 1.7 trillion gallons per year go down the old toilets (314 million people x 50% x 5 flushes a day x 6 gallons per flush x 365 days per year). Another 460 billion gallons per year go down ULFTs (314 million people x 50% x 5 flushes per day x 1.6 gallons per flush x 365 days per year).

Total water going down the toilet (and high-quality potable water, at that)? Nearly 2.2 trillion gallons per year.

What if everyone used a modern, high-performance, HET toilet, using 1.3 gallons per flush? Total water use in toilets would drop to around 740 billion gallons (314 million people x 5 flushes per day x 1.3 gallons per flush x 365 days per year.)

Thus, the water savings from replacing all toilets with HET toilets? More than 1.4 trillion gallons per year.

That’s “trillion.” A thousand billions.

1.4 trillion gallons per year is more than a quarter of the entire annual flow of the Hudson River, or the Colorado River, or (to use the silly but ubiquitous standard measure) would fill more than 2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools.

These are very simple estimates, but even different assumptions will lead to dramatic water savings. These savings are real: This is water you won’t have to pay for, the water utility won’t have to collect, treat, and pump to you, and the wastewater utility won’t have to collect, treat, and throw away. And there are energy savings as well: all of these things require energy to do.

Feel free to play with these assumptions on your own envelope. Calculate what your toilet leaks. Calculate what changing your flushing habits does.

But remember, in addition, there are over 2 billion people worldwide with no adequate toilets or safe sanitation at all. That’s for another post – but appreciate your toilet.

And a special note for those who think their efficient toilet doesn’t work. You bought a bad toilet. There are great informational sites that rate the performance of all the different models: the MaP testing standards, with data on thousands of toilets. Pick one that performs 800 or higher (up to 1000). They are superb. (See the Figure, below. If you filter for any manufacturer, at a rating of 800 or above, you get nearly 1000 choices!) If your “efficient” toilet doesn’t work, it is because you bought a badly designed model. Two years ago, this week, Rand Paul went on a toilet tirade in a Congressional hearing because, apparently, he bought a crappy toilet, which he considered the government’s fault. It was his fault. There is no excuse today for making uninformed decisions: great information is available to everyone on the performance of different toilets or other water-using appliances. [My HET (made in the USA) is the best performing toilet I’ve ever had, and it even stars in the recent movie “Last Call at the Oasis.”]

The sum of even modest individual actions can turn out to be significant.

Peter Gleick

The MaP database of efficient and effective toilets. Pick a rating of 800 or higher. You get nearly 1000 choices!

[Comprehensive information on water use by toilets, current laws, technology advances and more can be found at the Alliance for Water Efficiency: http://allianceforwaterefficiency.org/toilet_fixtures.aspx. ]

pgleick Wed, 03/13/2013 - 04:10

Tags

Categories

Couldn't agree with you more, Peter! If readers want all the information they can 'handle' on toilets, the best choice is to go here: http://www.map-testing.com/
You will find all of the MaP features mentioned in your article PLUS, if you are researcher of even just wondering about certain toilet 'issues', then go here to our "Reports" page and view over 100 reports and commentaries free for download: http://www.map-testing.com/view/reports.html
Also, we should always remember to look for toilets, faucets, and showerheads that carry the U.S. EPA's WaterSense label. These are the products that have been designated as efficient AND good performers!

And, YES, if Rand Paul and his minions don't do the research, then of course it is possible they will end up with a 'dog'. Whether one is looking for an automobile, a refrigerator, a 'green home', or a toilet, doing one's homework is critical.

Bicycling in China, the Twin Cities, and the Senate

lborkowski — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:29:46 +0000

Bicycling in China, the Twin Cities, and the Senate

Bicycling has been in the news a lot this week. E&E News reports that China is trying to get people back onto bicycles in an attempt to address traffic problems. The city of Zhongshan has launched a bike-sharing system with 4,000 bikes; Hangzhou and Shanghai have systems with 50,000 and 19,000 bikes, respectively. Reporter Coco Liu contrasts these figures to the US's largest bike-sharing program: DC's, with 1,100 bikes. (Read my earlier post on Capital Bikeshare here.) Even with such relatively large systems, though, demand can quickly outstrip supply, as when a train full of homeward-bound commuters opens its doors and a sprint for the bike racks begins.

In the US, cycling doesn't get quite so much love.

The Star Tribune reports that an increase in bicycling in the Twin Cities could save lives and medical dollars. Jonathan Patz of University of Wisconsin's Global Health Institute and his co-authors estimated both the health and environmental impacts that would result from Twin Cities residents using bicycles rather than cars for short trips (those of up to five miles) on the 124 best weather days of the year. The savings for the Twin Cities alone would be $57 million in medical costs and nearly 300 deaths prevented. Reporter Josephine Marcotty notes that the area is already experiencing some bike-related health benefits, since cycling has increased by 33% in Minneapolis since 2007, largely thanks to federal grants to build bike trails, lanes, and racks.

Such federal funding for bicycling infrastructure has come under repeated attack from Senate Republicans. The federal Transportation Enhancements program funds bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure, and it amounted to just two percent of highway spending in the past year. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was the third Senator in two months to try to eliminate the funding; his amendment would have diverted all Transportation Enhancement funds into bridge repair. Streetsblog's Tanya Snyder points out two problems with this approach: 1) increased cycling decreases driving, which reduces wear and tear on bridges, and 2) the TE money would be a small drop in the very large bucket of cash that's needed to repair bridges. The amendment failed, and Transportation for America has posted the vote count online, if you want to see how your Senator voted.

And because I know some people have a tendency to assume that people who promote bicycling want to take their cars away, I'll just say (as I have several times before) that there are plenty of times when it makes sense to drive a car, and I'm not advocating for taking that option away from people. What advocates for multi-modal transportation want is an increase in the options -- so that people can decide whether they want to walk, bike, ride transit, or drive at any given time. Ideally, more people will walk or bike - either to their destination or to a transit stop - and the result will be improved health and decreased traffic congestion. The more we can do to make these options attractive, the better off everyone will be.

lborkowski Thu, 11/03/2011 - 15:29

Tags

Transportation Enhancements

Transportation

Anyone who wants to laugh and suffer mind crushing depression should read the comments on this or any story in the Star Tribune about cycling. The venom is just overwhelming. I don't think people should be banned from driving but drivers should pay more of the cost of their driving. Here in Minnesota a lot of money from the general fund goes to roads.

"In the US, cycling doesn't get quite so much love."

That is a serious understatement. Sure, some cyclists are poor cyclists (enforcement of rules is a real problem), but that doesn't quite explain the observed level of vitriol; drivers seem to see cyclists as an existential threat. I guess it's kind of like religion: the existence of an alternative point of view is a threat to the validity of your own. I own a car, and I drive. I just don't need to more than once or twice a week. In the winter, I can let the car sit under the snow. I don't need it to get to work or do most of shopping or other errands. And I've lost 25 pounds since I started riding every day.

Yeah, I've also been alarmed at the vitriol in some of the anti-cycling comments I've read over the years. I suspect some drivers feel that anyone who's riding a bike must be criticizing the drivers' decision to get behind the wheel. Maybe we need a PR campaign with a lot of different people saying "sometimes I drive, sometimes I bike" (or walk, or take the bus, or whatever).

Yes. The private automobile is inherently evil. It is massive waste. Using all forms of energy to push around thousands of pounds of metal and plastics to surround it's occupants weighing one hundred, two hundred, three hundred pounds maybe, spewing noxious fumes into the air, putting at risk all manor of beings composed of flesh and bones. Childish vanities combined with that skillful marketing, driving the lust for the four wheel box. Long live public transportation and the bicycle...

Bicyclists killed by cars are mostly younger than people who die from heart attacks because they didn't exercise, so I wonder about net effects of bicycling on years of life lost. There are many more deaths from bike/car collisions than from collapsing bridges, even here in the Twin Cities, so allocating more money to projects that separate bikes from cars is a good idea.

The US is not setup for bikes to share the roads with vehicles. Go to China and see how things are setup. Go to Amsterdam and see how things are setup. Right now the way the infrastructure is setup in the US if you bike you have suicidal tendencies and are risking your life. Until the infrastructure is changed biking is at your own risk.

It amazes me that there are actually places in the United States which have no transit. How could you go to work if you didn't have a car?