This is what happens when we don't vaccinate

Discuss

184 Responses to “This is what happens when we don't vaccinate”

  1. SB-129 says:

    Politically i’m somewhere between “libtard” and “bleeding heart”. there should be legal consequences for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children against these diseases. especially as their (in)actions can and do kill others.

  2. doctorpsycho1960 says:

    I’d like to remind people that “common sense” does not actually mean “plain old sense” or “your typical sense”. It means the shared understanding of a group of people.

    IOW, it’s sort of like herd immunity.

    The common sense of all doctors and biologists is that children should be vaccinated. Period, paragraph, turn the page.

    • snarkymarcy says:

      Don’t forget to bring it to a full close with HITLER HITLER HITLER.

      Sorry, Godwin was predicted. I had to fulfill the prophecy.

  3. SB-129 says:

    also why is science-rejection becoming mainstream?

  4. gwit says:

    I always liked this definition of common sense:

    Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

    -Albert Einstein

  5. JonStewartMill says:

    Posting antivaccine diatribes is functionally equivalent to yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. These people belong in jail.

  6. BaylorRugby says:

    Let me preface this by saying that I have had my children vaccinated (so don’t jump all over me). To be fair, the children that are below the vaccination age usually have to share living space with the infected in order to themselves become infected. So deciding not to have your children vaccinated should not really affect others (as long as we are being fair and honest). Please do not come back with the argument that they could catch it at daycare/school because it is very rare that a child is allowed to attend a daycare/school without proper vaccinations. I am sure that if you dug deeper into this case you will find that the subsequent infections were within the same family units.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sorry if this has already been pointed out, but unvaccinated kids can easily go to daycare. The parent can either lie, or fill out a religious exemption form. Because of freedom of religion (AKA freedom to be superstitiously stupid, a very foolish thing to enshrine in law) we can not stop unvaccinated kids from taking part in society.

    • JonStewartMill says:

      “So deciding not to have your children vaccinated should not really affect others”

      [Citation needed]

      • BaylorRugby says:

        Sorry, I should have cited “common sense” if you know ANYTHING about the disease. As I previously said, it would be unusual for a child under the age of 14 months (the most vulnerable) to be living with an unvaccinated person unless they were a part of the same family unit. Rubeola is virulent, but it is generally most contagious within the same living quarters.

        You will find unreasonable people on both sides of the issue. Please don’t be one of those people. I am trying to bring some honesty and balance to this issue.

        • JonStewartMill says:

          “Common sense” is another way of saying “Everybody knows x”, which is another way of saying “I haven’t a shred of evidence for what I’m about to say.”

          • BaylorRugby says:

            R-rd my cmmnt, thn rd t gn. Rdng cmprhnsn tks prctc. Th pnt n my rgnl cmmnt s lgcl cnclsn tht shld nt b rld t bsd n hystr. Rd my sbsqnt psts f y nd clrfctn.

          • 10brooks says:

            Taker easy Baylor. I think you came here expecting to get shouted off the thread and now won’t accept any other response.

            It seems to me that most responders have just been trying to engage in a reasonable discussion. I haven’t seen anyone jump down your throat yet.

          • snarkymarcy says:

            Also, the infants were less than 12 months of age in that waiting area. Most infants do not walk by then, and it is highly unlikely that the parents were allowing them to play all over a doctors’ waiting room floor.

            NPR’s This American Life did a piece about the San Diego outbreak, including an interview with one of the parents of the waiting room affected infants.

            This is not hysteria, but fact. Now, if you can see from that high horse you’re up on, let’s test YOUR reading comprehension.

          • BaylorRugby says:

            The 11 subsequent infections cited where mishandled by medical personnel. Proper practice would have been isolating the exposed child, this was not done. Also, it is cited in the study that the subsequent children exposed should have been informed and innoculated within 3 days, this also did not happen. So this is a case of medical personnel bumbling.

            Giddy-UP!

          • Unmutual says:

            Upon further inspection this seems to be case of medical personnel that did NOT follow protocol.

            It also seems to completed invalidate your initial premise, which is that sustained, close contact is necessary to transmit measles. You ready to walk that back yet?

          • snarkymarcy says:

            If you go into any hospital or doctor’s office, there is now typically a sign that says “if you are here to be seen and have cough/flu symptoms, notify the staff and get a mask to wear.” It is not possible to isolate every single ill child in a doctor’s waiting area in a negative pressure isolation room of their own (you suggest isolation, and for droplet precautions, it is masks or negative pressure rooms.) The hospital where I work typically only has a few on each floor. Also, the onus is on the parent (who in this case didn’t vaccinate, so I will use my “common sense” to extrapolate that her special snowflake child didn’t need to wear a silly mask!) to get the mask/notify staff.

            Some doctors offices have “sick” and “well” separated waiting rooms. That will catch the kids who are there for well child visits/physicals. However, if there is a general “sick” area, everyone who is sniffly goes there. If individual rooms were required for every waiting child, none of us would get a chance to see the doctor (or we’d be loitering in the parking lot?)

            That child presented to the doctor’s office the first time with cough, coryza, and conjuntivitis (cough, general cold symptoms and pink eye.) On the second visit, a rash had developed. Kids get viral rashes that are fairly benign. It was not until measles antibody testing was performed that measles was diagnosed. Previously, it looked like a common cold/illness that affects lots of children, especially in February.

            You can blame the failure to notify families who shared the waiting area, but I notice you are not addressing the fact that this blows away your hypothesis based on the foundation of common sense that children too young to be vaccinated would only get this from close living quarters with a family member.

          • Loraan says:

            I work in a hospital as a contractor, but I’m not a medical professional, so take this with a grain of salt, but…

            It’s my understanding that negative pressure rooms are for airborne pathogens only, and contact precautions (masks, gowns, gloves, etc…) are sufficient for droplet-based pathogens. If the issue is bodily fluids, I don’t think a negative pressure room is required, or sufficient, if that makes sense.

          • snarkymarcy says:

            Measles was always droplets, but the public health bulletin from Virginia that came out recommends airborne precautions, as well, specifically a negative pressure room if available Also, then not using said room for 2 hours.

            There wasn’t an expanded rationale, but, if I had to guess, it would be due to noncompliance in getting small sick kids to leave a mask on.

            -snarkymarcy
            My phone won’t log in to boing boing today

          • BaylorRugby says:

            “You can blame the failure to notify families who shared the waiting area, but I notice you are not addressing the fact that this blows away your hypothesis based on the foundation of common sense that children too young to be vaccinated would only get this from close living quarters with a family member.”

            This is a true statement. Howeverm we would still not see an EPIDEMIC if proper protocols are followed by medical staff. I think it is clear that my original post was poorly worded. People will still be affected by communicable diseases no matter what. If a small percentage of parents don’t want to innoculate their chilren for whatever reason and proper protocols are followed in health care facilities we will NOT see an epidemic. Therefore education is the key, not coercion or mandates. The onus is on the physicians to properly educate parents of how important vaccinations really are.

          • snarkymarcy says:

            The onus is on physicians to educate?

            The anti-vaxers blame the doctors and big pharma. They do NOT trust their doctors. They ignore their doctors until Johnny gets sick, then they go ask the doctors to fix it.

            I am anxious to hear your thoughts on increasing the efficacy of patient education, especially in light of the success in educating patients to quit smoking, improve their diets, etc. Extra credit will be given to improving the amount of time the medical staff have to see each patient and reimbursement. I am going to require that you show your work.

          • BaylorRugby says:

            “I am anxious to hear your thoughts on increasing the efficacy of patient education, especially in light of the success in educating patients to quit smoking, improve their diets, etc. Extra credit will be given to improving the amount of time the medical staff have to see each patient and reimbursement. I am going to require that you show your work.”

            I guess you are right. Since we have not had much success, we should just throw our hands in the air and eliminate personal choices for everyone.

            Listen, I AGREE with you all about the problem, I just think that you submit a lazy solution (mandates) that does NOT work. People are independent, rebellious, and often foolhardy. I never said I had the answer or a silver bullet. I was simply leaving all options on the table and advocating for deeper thinking on the issue. I got flamed for it. Pardon me.

          • Owen says:

            “Listen, I AGREE with you all about the problem, I just think that you submit a lazy solution (mandates) that does NOT work.”

            Mandates do work, though. It seems to me that, before the anti-vax movement, they worked for decades. Children were required to get vaccinations before school, and vaccine-preventable diseases were almost non-existent. Now that the mandate has proven weak, vaccination rates are down, and diseases are coming back.

            You have not raised any real objections to the efficacy of mandates; rather you’ve stated that you dislike them on philosophical grounds.

          • BaylorRugby says:

            You are right. I fully support schools that have mandates. The mandates that I was referring to where Federal- that is a fear of mine. Now I am sure that my comments were getting flamed due to poor delivery/tone/explanation of the ideas presented.

          • Unmutual says:

            You are not getting flamed. You are getting called out on the floor for talking out of your ass and stating falsehoods.

            But this is a good overall representation of the dialog between anti-vax woos and the scientific community.

            Science: “Here’s facts, data, etc. to support . . . ”

            Woos: “LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAALALALA PERSONAL FREEDOMS!”

            And then there are the “reasonable” moderates like you, who disingenuously mumble psuedoscience and “common sense” to arrive at pretty much the same conclusion as the woos.

            bklynchris wrote: The question is WHY won’t they do it, and what can be done that they WILL do it? IF this question is not addressed in a meaningful manner the people who won’t vaccinate will become legion (if they are not already).

            It’s no longer an issue of convincing. There is too much agenda-driven anti-science out there right now, and too many people are “educating themselves” using this rubbish. So now stricter mandates are necessary. No state should continue to allow for religious or philosophical exemptions to vaccines if you want your child in public schools. No licensed day care provider should be allowed to take these children.

          • Matt Drew says:

            “It’s no longer an issue of convincing. There is too much agenda-driven anti-science out there right now, and too many people are “educating themselves” using this rubbish. So now stricter mandates are necessary. No state should continue to allow for religious or philosophical exemptions to vaccines if you want your child in public schools. No licensed day care provider should be allowed to take these children.”

            People don’t “want” their kids in public school. In many places, it’s against the law to *not* to have your kids in school unless you are well off and can afford home schooling or private school. So unless you, personally, are willing to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, our society is at an impasse.

            And, being familiar with the anti-vaccination community, I can’t begin to describe how damaging stories like these and comments like these are to the cause of convincing these people to vaccinate. The snotty, superior, “what are you? stupid?” attitude that pro-vaccination people take towards people who refuse to vaccinate just makes them dig in their heels harder.

            Also, lets be up front about the actual risks. Measles is no longer a deadly disease. Look at the report – 118 cases out of 300+ million people, only 40% of which even required medical care, and ZERO of which resulted in complications. I have a rule of thumb on these kinds of situations – is this more dangerous than gravity? In this case, obviously not – and thus is not worth getting all steamed up about.

          • heybebeh88 says:

            “Measles is no longer a deadly disease.”

            Because of vaccines.

          • sabik says:

            “Measles is no longer a deadly disease.”

            Because of vaccines.

            Actually, because of modern medicine in general. According to Wikipedia, mortality is 0.1% in developed countries but 10% in sub-Saharan Africa.

          • Matt Drew says:

            I feel compelled to point out that none of the people who got the measles in this report had been vaccinated, so your logic does not hold. Survival of diseases such as the measles is based on a lot of factors – the ability to stay warm and dry, the ability to avoid new doses of the virus, nutrition, and many other things – all related to health and wealth. To wit:

            @charming.quark #100
            “In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.”

            Yes – down from millions just a few decades ago, in a population three times the size. Measles is only able to kill globally because there are still many people in the world who lack basic sanitation, nutrition, and the means to stay warm and dry – basically, they are poor and live in bad conditions. If you look at the measles statistics in the United States, mortality and complication rates were already declining sharply well before before the vaccine was introduced in 1963. And if you look at measles deaths and complications elsewhere, you can easily see that the common thread is that the victims are poor, undernourished, and live in areas with poor sanitation.

            In short, by attacking these people instead of ignoring them, you’re making the problem worse instead of better. It draws attention to their cause, attracts more hucksters and frauds, and makes them defensive. In the vast, vast majority of cases, they aren’t a significant threat to anyone but themselves.

          • heybebeh88 says:

            “Listen, I AGREE with you all about the problem, I just think that you submit a lazy solution (mandates) that does NOT work.”

            That’s just 100% wrong. Mandates to get people vaccinated have pretty clearly worked to prevent disease. Or do you mean to say that they haven’t…?

            Personal responsibility isn’t a black and white thing. People’s “freedom” to do something very often infringes on someone else’s rights. Someone’s right to not have their kids vaccinated infringes on my right to have well children. So, in my opinion, they really shouldn’t have that right.

            In other words, I don’t give two steaming poops about your personal right to not have your kids vaccinated if they have the slightest chance of getting mine sick with a deadly disease. The freedom to make that choice is a freedom that people don’t deserve, in my opinion.

          • snarkymarcy says:

            No, if you are going to live with us on the island, there are some things we are going require of you to play along with. In this case, the island is public school…you opt out. Okay.

            The vaccine police aren’t coming over to your house.

            If you go back and look, I believe where you got flamed was more for your defensive “you guys are as bad as Jenny McCarthy” and “my superior logic rules” positions.

          • BaylorRugby says:

            Never said “my superior logic rules.” I said, “it is a logical conclusion that should not be ruled out.” I never once used superlatives, and I always left room for error in my judgment by using words like “sometimes, usually, etc.” This is why the debate gets nowhere, because people on both sides of the issue get flamed by hysterical believers. I am on your side, but submitting alternate solutions besides mandates/coercion and I get pounded. In light of this treatment, is it no wonder that people who are anti-vaccination don’t listen to the argument/take the abuse?

          • snarkymarcy says:

            I will fully admit to being a hysterical believer in science.

          • SamSam says:

            You were “flamed” because you made completely incorrect statements, were asked to provide citations, and you replied by telling people you were using “common sense,” “logic,” and muttering about Godwin.

            Now that that’s out of the way, I think we can summarize:

            1) It is extremely easy for measles to be transmitted between children, including children too young to be vaccinated. Such infants do not need to be living with infected siblings in order to have plenty of opportunities to be infected.

            2) It’s no good blaming the latest epidemic on doctors’ failure to coerce families to isolate their children. a) Not all infections happen in waiting rooms, this is a strawman, and b) it would be impossible to actually force the isolation of children without causing major uproars.

            3) Measles was eradicated in the Americas last decade. Which is more likely to be the major cause for its resurgence: a) The well-documented rise in the number of unvaccinated children, or b) a sudden decline in the competence of doctors?

            You say you’re all for vaccination, but the problem is that you also were implying that not vaccinating children would only affect household member, and, later, would only be a problem in hospitals with lax standards. I think we can rule both these hypothesis of yours out.

          • snarkymarcy says:

            As the rate of vaccination drops in the herd, epidemic will follow. Sadly, that is the only education that is going to work.

            I maintain that “proper protocols” for isolation can only do so much. Getting children to wear masks when they are well is difficult. Getting children who are ill and cranky to wear masks is quite a challenge. The child didn’t have any sign that he had more than the simplest explanation: a random cold type virus (later with rash) that was consistent with probably 50% of the patients they saw in the office that day.

          • joeposts says:

            Proper practice would have been isolating the exposed child, this was not done.

            failure to vaccinate = Celebration of freedom!

            failure to isolate = Ewww! Lock that sick kid inside!

          • snarkymarcy says:

            Well, that sick kid is infringing on MY freedom, man.

          • wylkyn says:

            The virus is spread by coughing/sneezing/contact with nasal or throat secretions, and can stay active and contagious in the air or on surfaces for up to two hours. This is according the the World Health Organization’s description of the disease, which is termed as “highly contagious”. You make a claim in your initial post (and make rather haughty references to it later) that seems to be based on nothing but your own “common sense.” Do you have any actual citations for this rather bizarre claim? I can think of any number of situations in which a vaccinated child could pick up the virus from an unvaccinated child, in daycare or whereever, and transmit it to an unvaccinated younger sibling. Heck, an unvaccinated child could simply cough in a supermarket and infect any number of babies. I don’t know why you think your claim that they need to live in the same household is “common sense.” It doesn’t seem to be based on the facts.

          • snarkymarcy says:

            You make a claim in your initial post (and make rather haughty references to it later) that seems to be based on nothing but your own “common sense.” Do you have any actual citations for this rather bizarre claim?

            EXACTLY. This is the same line of thinking that spreads the hysteria that fuels the antivaccination camp. “Don’t ask me for backup when my own common sense tells me…”

          • BaylorRugby says:

            You are right about my misuse of the phrase “common sense.” In my hasty reply I neglected to use the phrase “logical conclusion.”

            Upon further inspection this seems to be case of medical personnel that did NOT follow protocol.

          • nmcvaugh616 says:

            Upon further inspection this seems to be case of medical personnel that did NOT follow protocol.

            That’s okay – wouldn’t want them coercing the infected child into isolation. It should be up the the parents and their common sense. Or logic.

          • BaylorRugby says:

            Gdwn’s Lw s p nxt. Thnk y fr vry clrly ndctng th pnt tht shld stp rdng rpls.

          • nmcvaugh616 says:

            Godwin’s Law is up next. Thank you for very clearly indicating the point that I should stop reading replies.

            I feel that I must reiterate that I am PRO-VACCINATION, but I am anti-coercion.

          • snarkymarcy says:

            No, that is rather you saying, “I’ve been proven wrong, so I’ll just stop reading/replying.”

            Also, those children that were at home quarantined for three weeks for exposure, at least one parent had to take leave from work to stay with them. (Also covered in the NPR piece.)

          • wylkyn says:

            You didn’t address the actual substance of my post at all, which makes me wonder why. You state that your claim is a “logical conclusion”. That phrase is just as meaningless as “common sense” if you don’t bother to share the logical steps that brought you there. We are all curious. How did you come to your logical conclusion that “the children that are below the vaccination age usually have to share living space with the infected in order to themselves become infected”? That doesn’t seem logical to me at all, especially considering the virulence of this disease, and how long it can survive airborne or on surfaces. If you have sources, do cite them please. If not, then why are you so outraged that people challenge you on your assumptions when they don’t seem to jibe with the facts?

          • Owen says:

            Your initial claim (that you have to live with someone in order to catch a highly infectious disease from them) is not true. Infectious diseases spread easily, as long as someone can carry them. Unvaccinated people, people whose vaccinations were not effective, people with immune disorders, and children too young for vaccination can all catch them, spread them, and die from them.

            I don’t think this is a reading comprehension issue.

        • Anonymous says:

          It is not unreasonable to ask you to back up your claims.

          Dr. Sears, in his vaccination book, tells you that if you choose to not vaccinate, that you should NOT tell your friends/neighbors, but hide in the herd of herd immunity. That impacts the people around you.

          Look at the link from the CDC (there was also a This American Life piece on NPR that interviewed the mother of one of the infants who contracted measles from the seven year old in the doctors’ waiting room.) Infants in doctors’ offices generally aren’t rolling around on the floor. Measles is spread via droplets (coughing and sneezing.) It is airborne, and infants without the opportunity for vaccinations and developing immune systems are indeed quite vulnerable to contracting measles from strangers in public places. This is especially true of people who do not vaccinate who say that these diseases are “really no big deal,” and would not be likely to keep their sick children home/away from others.

        • Unmutual says:

          Please explain to me where you got the notion that you have to live with a person infected with measles in order to contract it.

          That is asinine. If that were the case you wouldn’t have measles OUTBREAKS at all, since according to your reasoning, only people who live together would contract the disease, so there would be no way for the virus to spread.

        • nmcvaugh616 says:

          I previously said, it would be unusual for a child under the age of 14 months (the most vulnerable) to be living with an unvaccinated person unless they were a part of the same family unit. Rubeola is virulent, but it is generally most contagious within the same living quarters.

          Except that measles is contagious (airborne) 3 days before symptoms manifest. Which means plenty of opportunities for exposure, unless you isolate your child from all visitors until they’re old enough for the vaccine.

          This is impractical For some reason, infants under 1 year tend to spend significant amounts of time at the hospital, often around the time of birth. For example:

          http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/25/infdis.jir115.abstract

          Background. On 12 February 2008, an infected Swiss traveler visited hospital A in Tucson, Arizona, and initiated a predominantly health care–associated measles outbreak involving 14 cases. We investigated risk factors that might have contributed to health care–associated transmission and assessed outbreak-associated hospital costs.

          Results. Of 14 patients with confirmed cases, 7 (50%) were aged ≥18 years, 4 (29%) were hospitalized, 7 (50%) acquired measles in health care settings, and all (100%) were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status. Of the 11 patients (79%) who had accessed health care services while infectious, 1 (9%) was masked and isolated promptly after rash onset. HCP measles immunity data from 2 hospitals confirmed that 1776 (25%) of 7195 HCP lacked evidence of measles immunity. Among these HCPs, 139 (9%) of 1583 tested seronegative for measles immunoglobulin G, including 1 person who acquired measles. The 2 hospitals spent US$799,136 responding to and containing 7 cases in these facilities.

          Similarly infants have been known to travel with families on airplanes. And the US is moving towards Switzerland, France, the UK, Israel and India in terms of vaccinations:

          http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2011/05/measles_in_iowa.php

          State health officials declared a “public health emergency” Tuesday after a test confirmed a case of measles in an unvaccinated Dallas County baby who apparently picked up the disease in India.

          They said people who might have been exposed included passengers on an Americans Airline flight from Chicago to Des Moines May 11 and people who were at Mercy Medical Center or a Mercy pediatric clinic in downtown Des Moines May 14.

          http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/02/slowclap_woman_brings_measles.php

          Air travelers may have been exposed to measles WASHINGTON (AP) – Public health officials are warning travelers and workers present at four U.S. airports on two recent days that they may have been exposed to measles from a traveler arriving from London.

          The New Mexico Department of Health’s scientific laboratory division didn’t identify the traveler by name but said she was a 27-year-old Santa Fe, woman who had not been immunized against measles.

          http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410426-mmr-plea-by-doctors-as-measles-cases-treble-in-11-weeks.do

          The rise in the number of measles cases over the summer has been particularly pronounced in areas where vaccination rates are traditionally low, such as traveller sites.

          Last year a 13-year-old boy, from a travelling community in the North-West, became the first person to die of measles since 1992.

          But many of the cases are among unvaccinated schoolchildren.

        • Anonymous says:

          Citing “common sense” is akin to saying “if you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid”. It’s a fallacious argument. So do you actually have anything to back up your point of view with, because it seems to me that your view has been pretty well countered by various others here with “common sense” of their own.

    • Anonymous says:

      You offer no data and very likely have none that is relevant or comprehensive enough to be relevant. So either keep your personal anecdotes to yourself or call it what it is – a barely informed if at all opinion from someone with an opinion and either no data or useless data. The end.

    • EH says:

      Please do not come back with the argument that they could catch it at daycare/school because it is very rare that a child is allowed to attend a daycare/school without proper vaccinations

      Isn’t it common for parents in a neighborhood or social circle to group their children together when one child contracts chicken pox in order to intentionally infect them and get the rite of passage over with?

    • DamnitDani says:

      I would imagine even unvaccinated children have friends, and THOSE friends might go to school.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yah, kids never play with each other outside of school or day car.

      My wife worked at a day care center for a while and can attest that they are incredibly awful germ factories. Parents constantly dropped off their sick kids and ran off before they could notice it and return them. Kids had horrible bathroom habits and barely even knew how to clean themselves well after the age they should’ve known how. My wife finally quit when she got so sick from that place that she puked in some bushes on the way home.

    • Anonymous says:

      In my state, you simply sign a waiver that says “My children are not vaccinated due to religious or personal reasons” and they are admitted into public schools. It takes less than ten seconds to check the box and sign the waiver.

    • aurata says:

      So, the unvaccinated young children would be catching it from their unvaccinated older siblings who are in school. You’re mistaken in saying that children must be vaccinated to go to school. The parents essentially just have to sign a waiver. Perhaps that’s not the case everywhere, but some people don’t vaccinate for medical or religious reasons, and education is mandatory, so it’s allowed in many places.

      Vaccination also doesn’t always work (something like 10% of the time). If an older sibling or parent has no immunity despite vaccination, they could pass the virus on. My sister works with autistic children, so when she had her own kids she was very, very careful about updating her shots.

    • Anonymous says:

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm

      The San Diego outbreak affected children who were just waiting in the pediatricians’ office.

      It is not at all rare to have children who are unvaccinated in daycares and schools. Only MS and WV refuse exemptions. All of the other states have exemptions for religious or philosophical objections to vaccinations. All the parent has to do is sign a waiver.

      • teapot says:

        Before you jump down my throat, re-read my comment carefully. Please bring up any factual misrepresentation.

        To be fair, the children that are below the vaccination age usually have to share living space with the infected in order to themselves become infected.
        ^This is where a citation is needed. This might not exactly classify as factual misrepresentation, but when you come on here and state that without any supporting evidence, people have the right to be annoyed that yet another person is trying to inject their personal opinion into a matter of science. We kind of like science here at BB (though I have seen some of the editors – Maggie not included – personally apprrove of questionable/unproven alternative medicine), so when you come on here and state something as fact without any supporting scientific evidence people are right to call shenanigans.

        Please do not come back with the argument that they could catch it at daycare/school because it is very rare that a child is allowed to attend a daycare/school without proper vaccinations.
        ^This is where you mirespresent the facts, as demonstrated by Anon #13 who explained to you that vaccinations are in fact mandatory for school children in only two states. 48/50 does not equal “very rare”.

        Think of all the time you could’ve saved by not flappin’ yer trap based solely on opinion.

    • Anonymous says:

      In AZ, as long as you mark down on a school registration form that you have personal or religious reasons for withholding a vaccine, you can attend school. This is the same in other states as well, so that argument is out the window. (PS, I’m a mom that vaccinates on a delayed and spread out schedule)

      • Anonymous says:

        Sorry, why do you delay the vaccination schedule?

        Because you have also conducted clinical trials to establish the cost/benefit analysis of the timing of vaccinations and reached accurate findings to find the point when the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of the vaccination and is therefore maximising the benefit of the vaccination to your child and to the community?

        Or have you pulled a delayed schedule out of the air, with no evidence, and are therefore putting your child and the community at unnecessary risk?

        If the former, please share your research with the medical community, so they may compare it to their own research and correct theirs where necessary.

    • mattH says:

      You should check into the Utah cases last month. 22 students at Olympus High School had to miss about 3 weeks of school after a high school aged student brought measles home with them from Poland. Argue all you will for improved education, but it’s obvious that a decent number of people are expecting herd immunity to save their children from exposure.

    • Wayne Christopher says:

      For information about how vaccination in schools is handled, read this.. For private schools at least there is no requirement and many are very low.
      http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/04/20/with-whooping-cough-epidemic-is-berkeley-immunizing/

      • BaylorRugby says:

        I understand, my wife is an administrator at a private school. I am a product of private school- elementary through university (master). As a parent, you should be aware that there is an exemption for personal/religious beliefs and you should demand to know the percentage of unvaccinated children. If the level is unacceptable, I would not send my children there. I am an advocate of personal responsibility and to me, this means vaccinating my children however, we must allow the freedom for those parents who wish not to innocculate their children. My argument is against coercion.

        • kc0bbq says:

          “You are right about my misuse of the phrase “common sense.” In my hasty reply I neglected to use the phrase “logical conclusion.”

          Don’t declare the use of logic when you aren’t using logic. Logic doesn’t work that way. Your conclusion is not a logically valid one, and if you think it is please provide a proof. Basic symbolic logic should be enough here.

          And remember, logic does not confer truth.

        • wastrel says:

          It’s nice that you have/had the privilege of choosing where to send your kids to school or daycare. For me, it was a private daycare that was proximal, affordable, and accepting new children. My daughter started full-time daycare at 3 months old, and I can assure you I didn’t and can’t have expected know the full vaccination status of all of the kids she was with, their parents, relatives and siblings.

          Your argument rests on several faulty premises which have been pointed out earlier, but more perniciously it’s victim blaming: If they didn’t want their babies to get sick, they should have chosen to send them somewhere else for care. I’m not a fan of coercion either – but this is a public health issue, for the benefit of all, especially the most vulnerable.

          You’ve managed to sidetrack this thread pretty well but I’ll just add that the people who are choosing not to vaccinate are ignorant and selfish, monstrously so.

    • Anonymous says:

      In other words you are the classic free rider on herd immunity

    • Anonymous says:

      Instead of assuming things, why don’t you actually research it? Measles is highly contagious. You don’t have to live with someone to catch it.

    • wookiedingleberry says:

      I’ve got no proof you’ve vaccinated anyone in your family, so I’ll just pay attention to what your point is.
      And jump all over it.
      We have friends who have chosen not to vaccinate and they have many such friends. Now when our boy has a play date with this unvaccinated child, his risk of exposure is increased. Of course, we don’t have play dates with that child any more, but lots of other people do (and birthdays and christmas and other holidays) and then they play with us.

    • Anonymous says:

      The children under the age limit typically receive anti-bodies from their mother that sustain them during the first several months of infancy, after which they receive their own vaccines. Of course, this assumes that the mother has those anti-bodies. Which means that by choosing not to vaccinate your child now, you’re contributing to a future generation of mothers without anti-bodies who will bear children. Your decision not to vaccinate your child has much longer reaching implications than just your child.

    • Anonymous says:

      kids are in school all the time without being vaccinated – all you have to do is check the religious reasons box – which in my town of eugene,or everyone does (hippie is apparently a religion?) – especially after the hysteria and misinformation of late. The only reason I am replying to this is b/c my whole family of 6 got whooping cough recently and it originated from my daughters day care – it was horrible. I was vaccinated and still got it – but not as bad as everyone else. Also it took 4 trips to the doctor before they told us what we had and at that point so who knows how many people were infected. Big fan of vaccines now from experience.

    • mali says:

      Your argument is flawed and incorrect. Its all too easy to sign a form at a school saying you refuse to vaccinate due to religious or other beliefs.

      Also, look at the number of outbreaks in school that allow you to attend without vaccinations. Like private Waldorf schools in California.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Approx $10,000 per measels case? No wonder health care costs are out of control. Where is this money going?

    • Zan says:

      Well the average cost per day in a hospital stay for regular care is about $1125.
      Measles can cause major respiratory problems and is highly contagious so anyone hospitalized with measles has to be put into isolation which increases costs slightly. If they develop pneumonia or encephalitis (which is likely the reason they were hospitalized in the first place), then they may end up in the ICU, which is going to cost at least twice as much. $10,000 for a a week in the hospital is pretty normal.

      • snarkymarcy says:

        Don’t forget lost wages of one parent, if they were working, due to staying home with ill/quarantined child.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Um. Well. The author kinda forgets to explain why a measles outbreak costs ;us; $150,000 at all.

    And the CDC, as usual, forgets that it’s incredibly offensive to dollarize the lives and health of babies.

  9. fiatrn says:

    This thread has been one of the most interesting reads! Just like any good argument, some folk have lost their temper but returned with more calm and rationale discussion. It warms the heart.

    I am an emergency nurse. I meet people far too frequently who have not vaccinated but bring their sick children to the hospital for help. Everyone is brave and strong until their kid has a 103 fever and a cough and blue fingers. Everyone is a badass until their femur is sticking out of their thigh: then suddenly the untrusted evil doctors are ok people.

    I love this quote from Dzyan:

    “Interesting. That is about the same number as die in hospitals because of medical mistakes. When I brake a leg I will go to a hospital.”

    I hope you meant “I will NOT go to a hospital.”

    Because Dzyan, under your asserted logic you should be tough enough to live without medical care. If you die from your broken leg, isn’t it a shame that you were too weak to live without coming to the ER? See how your bogus argument is so much bs? As soon as YOU need help, there you go running to the hospital…

    You seem honest and interested, but your understanding of vaccination, viruses, germ theory, and immunity is almost completely incorrect. I suggest you read some basic science about HIV infection and T cell function, and consider especially how little general health well being changes infection rate. Then look at a plot of HIV infection rate as compared to income (as a measure of general health) and you won’t see what your theorizing would suggest. You are wrong on almost every scientific point you make. So please, please please read up and re-educate your self – you seem smart enough to learn and to read.

    We could have a great debate about the ‘number as die in hospitals because of medical mistakes.’ Mistakes do happen. People do die. But the actual causation/correlation is not so simple. I will grant you that hospitals are not perfect, people working there are not perfect, and all are subject to possibly life ending errors. But you’re still going to show up when you break your leg, aren’t you?

    Vaccination is a public safety issue. You can and should be coerced into vaccination. You can be coerced not to drive drunk, not to shoot a machine gun at a crowd, and not to poison the neighborhood well.

    What is wrong with required vaccination?

    Jonathan
    the Fiat RN

  10. OldBrownSquirrel says:

    Farewell, Oprah! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! I have a three-month-old who is up-to-date on vaccinations but nonetheless is obliged for the next nine months to rely on the currently dubious herd immunity for measles, though the rest of the family is immunized. Won’t somebody think of the children? No, seriously! Motherfuckers.

  11. djfatsostupid says:

    Baylor, here is your initial statement that got you into trouble:

    ‘To be fair, the children that are below the vaccination age usually have to share living space with the infected in order to themselves become infected. So deciding not to have your children vaccinated should not really affect others (as long as we are being fair and honest).’

    It’s true, you use the word “usually” in the first statement. Then you go on to draw the conclusion that not being vaccinated “should” not affect others.

    To use the fist/chin analogy above, and given point in space usually does not contain someone’s chin, so swinging my fist should not affect anyone else’s chin. That does not make me any less culpable if I am swinging my fist and happen to connect with someone’s chin – even if I was closing my eyes and didn’t know the chin was there.

    When we talk about the lives of children, “usually” is usually not good enough. If you don’t vaccinate your child, then probably no one else’s child will die as a result – we can all agree with that. But there has to be a line somewhere that we agree that actions pose an unacceptable risk to other people, and the unacceptable risk is actually pretty low. Common sense and logic cannot estimate the risk, that takes statistics. So arguing that choosing not to vaccinate will “usually” not affect anyone else, without specifying what usually means and backing that up doesn’t add anything to the discussion. This is especially true when almost everyone arguing against you is more concerned with the cumulative effect of a large number of people choosing not to vaccinate, rather than the effect of any individual choosing not to vaccinate.

    You have still never provided a citation for any of your information about transmission rates, while those who argue against you have cited NPR and WHO.

    You may never have said your logic was “superior” but you did accuse those who honestly disagreed with your position of having poor reading comprehension. It doesn’t get much more superior than that.

    Finally, your comment is the second comment on the thread. The post and the first comment do not advocate mandatory vaccination, they advocate vaccination. Your argument “against coercion” and “for education” was presented in responses to a piece that is intended to educate people about the problems with not vaccinating. Who are you arguing against?

  12. Dzyan says:

    anon @ 133 I think this all boils down to a lack of critical thinking skills.

    Lets not make it personal please. Gandhi has said a nice things about new ideas.

    anon @ 141 wrote: 1 The organism is always found in an infected person.

    There you already go wrong. The only way to positively identify a virus is by means of a electron microscope, or by DNA or RNA analysis to proof that it is unique.

    Both are not possible in a living person or animal for that matter. I said it is possible in tissue. Tissue is cut loose from the body. The cells in tissue can’t chemically communicate any more with the body. See the work of Bonnie Bassler for that matter. May she get the Nobel prize. But that makes it a correlation at best. I know that it looks so simple to work by Koch’s postulate. But it fact it has never been done. Koch’s postulate was NOT about viruses but bacteria. You never heard me saying that I criticise the way small pocks were handled.

    “That does not mean only 5-15% become immune.” Hand me a mechanism were the adaptive immune system is learning without fever, please.

    Thimerosal was in the latest vaccine for pig flue in Europe. And Thimerosal was massively used on children When you google for Thimersoal you will only find interesting data.
    Also for anon @ 138

    Viruses do not only lack means of self replication, they also have no metabolism. In fact and that should be interesting for people on this forum they are only carrying information in the form of RNA (1 or 2 strands) or DNA (1 or 2 strands). Please think about that. They carry information. Why? Who or what is there to inform?

    Thank you for your information. I will do the suggested reading. As a scientist and health practitioner I know how freaking little we know. Specially about viruses.

    Warm greetings,

    Dzyan

    • shogei says:

      Once again, on a point by point:

      “The only way to positively identify a virus is by means of a electron microscope, or by DNA or RNA analysis to proof that it is unique”

      Not completely true as some viruses have antigen markers that can be detected. Even those viruses that can only be detected by DNA or RNA analysis can be picked up in a well equipped hospital laboratory using PCR.

      “Both are not possible in a living person or animal for that matter”

      Again, not exactly true. While it is true that you cannot take an entire person and shove them into a machine for analysis, you can take viral swabs and samples and analyze those. Whether that sample can still “chemically communicate” with the body is irrelevant and meaningless.

      “But it fact it has never been done. Koch’s postulate was NOT about viruses but bacteria. You never heard me saying that I criticise the way small pocks were handled.”

      First of all, small pox is caused by the Variola virus, not a bacteria. It makes me wonder what your credentials as a health professional are that you don’t know such a widely available and critical fact.

      Koch’s postulates were about infectious agents, not specific to bacteria or viruses. Also, by your description bacteria cannot be proven as they cannot be observed on the person but only on a sample taken from them.

      “Hand me a mechanism were the adaptive immune system is learning without fever, please.”

      I believe the source I quoted does just that. MMR was approved for use after it was demonstrated, through antibody blood titer, that it did induce the adaptive immune system to learn. The resulting titers and subsequent immunity were not dependent on the presentation of a fever.

      “Please think about that. They carry information. Why? Who or what is there to inform?”

      I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Viruses inject their RNA or DNA into a cell in order to program the cell into making more viruses.

  13. Anonymous says:

    During the 2 years I spent working in slum areas in Kathmandu, Nepal, I saw numerous cases of measles and a fair number of children who died from the disease. Not to vaccinate your children is irresponsible and potentially deadly.The dangers of dying from measles far outweigh the risks of the vaccinations themselves.

  14. emmdeeaych says:

    I think we need to pester Jenny McCarthy until she comes out and says she was deeply, dangerously, wrong.

    like this: http://jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html

  15. jenb says:

    When I was looking into the recent measles cases, almost all of the cases were measles strains that were not included in the US measles vaccines. Perhaps that is why they advised EVERYBODY, not just the unvaccinated, to stay home if they had been in contact with the infected person – figuring that most of the people had no protections. That may also lead to the high cost listed above. It may also skew some of the statistics if in fact they mean that the people who contracted it were not vaccinated against that particular strain vs. vaccinated at all.

    While vaccines has their place, even 100% vaccination in the US would not stop measles outbreaks in the US. as the strains brought in from foreigners can infect most of the US population.

    I have friends who vaccinate and those who don’t. I believe that it is every parent’s right to do what they feel is best since they have to live with the consequences of their decisions. I have a friend who’s child is a vegetable because of the flu vaccine… the Hannah Pooling case shows that vaccines don’t cause autism but can awaken it in children with certain predispositions (which aren’t screened for) and that has some parents wondering if what they did caused it to be awakened in their child… and there are probably others who’s lives have been saved from vaccinating… but in any case, it’s the parents who make the decision and have to live with it. Nobody forces somebody to quit smoking but it has the potential to cause cancer or can kill them and the people around them. I’m neither arguing for or against vaccination, just saying that there are other circumstances that can cause harm to others that people don’t get so heated over.

    An interesting fact is between 90-98% of people who receive the MMR are protected after one dose. A second dose is only given as a precaution in case you fall into that 2-10%. If you don’t want a second dose you can get a blood test to draw titers and see if the immunity is there. If it is, you don’t need a second dose.

    Also, since MMR does have the highest rate of reaction according to the VAERS, it would be great if somebody would manufacture separate M-M-R vaccines. Single vaccines have traditionally have far less reactions reported than combined vaccines. Dr. Sears’ book stated that if just a measles vaccine were available more people may be apt to get that, especially when there is an outbreak. Maybe instead of all the hate going on here we could think of some constructive ways to help… like ask manufacturers to produce these vaccines which may help reassure those who are concerned about the reactions to the MMR and also be used during outbreaks without un-necessarily giving the other MR part and the increased risk of reaction. Just my 2 cents.

  16. Anonymous says:

    We have had this discussion before. The contenders where Louis Pasteur and Claude Bernard. We all know who has won this discussion. Claude Bernard, even Pasteur has admitted that.

    Except of course that Pasteur admitted no such thing, and even if he had, Bernard would still have been wrong on this one. You are basing your evaluation on urban legends.

  17. BaylorRugby says:

    I feel that I must reiterate that I am PRO-VACCINATION, but I am anti-coercion. The commenters here seem about as open minded as Jenny McCarthy (just on the other side of the issue). Before you jump down my throat, re-read my comment carefully. Please bring up any factual misrepresentation. The children most vulnerable to rubeola are those children under the safe-vaccination age (14 months), so that is the demographic that we are worried about becoming collateral damage from the anti-vaccination camp. I am trying to be fair in saying that it would be a rare case that you would find you very young child in close living space with an unvaccinated infected child without your knowing about it first. I expand that thought and speculate that the subsequent infections cited in this study are most likely the younger siblings of the unvaccinated within the same family unit.

    • teapot says:

      ^That was meant in reply to you, Baylor

    • Anonymous says:

      Vaccinations aren’t 100% effective. Ever.

      All kinds of people, not just those under the vaccination age rely on herd immunity. Lowered immune system due to other illness, old people, people for whom the vaccine did not work.

      Not vaccinating reduces herd immunity = increased incidence of disease = increased chance of deaths

      So what is your point?

      There is no excuse. By not vaccinating your children, you endanger them and others. It doesn’t matter where or how under 14month old babies are getting a disease. Not vaccinating kills.

    • Anonymous says:

      BaylorRugby–it’s a valid point, except that ‘living quarters’ is a fairly open term. It’s not really enough to have children who don’t share a bedroom, for example–if you have a baby and live in a crowded inner city apartment building, and the people across the hall don’t vaccinate and bring home measles, your baby is still far too close for comfort. And someone mentioned the outbreak from sitting in the pediatrician’s waiting room! You take your child for a six-month well-baby checkup, and the next thing you know they’re dying of measles.

      Anti-coercion is one thing, and I understand where you’re coming from. But the way vaccinations work is that a large percentage of the population has to have them. It doesn’t do much good in keeping outbreaks from happening if only a few people are immunised; it just keeps those few safe.

    • Anonymous says:

      Measles is a highly contagious disease and people can be infected by the virus simply entering a room up to two hours after it has been previously occupied by a person with measles. So shopping centres, public transport, doctor’s waiting rooms, etc etc are all places where people congregate, including young children. The opportunities for infection for children who are not yet vaccinated are boundless.

    • snarkymarcy says:

      This prompted me to sign up for an account, as I’m not sure how long my anonymous comments will take to get moderated, so I will rehash.

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm

      BaylorRugby, it is not at all unreasonable for us to ask you to back up your claims with something more that “I bet if you look at it, you’d find me to be correct.” The CDC link above indicates that infants contracted measles in the San Diego outbreak in the doctors’ office waiting area. Measles is spread via droplets (coughing and sneezing,) and infants are definitely vulnerable while in public places (think about lots of places with close quarters, and baby is likely to be held around face level.) Also, a lot of folks in the anti-vax camp claim that these illness really aren’t that bad/are actually good for you to develop your immune system, so I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that some of them might not keep their sick kids at home.

      Only two states refuse to allow admission to public schools for non vaccinated children: WV and MS. All of the other states have varying degrees of exemption for religious and philosophical objections as simple as signing a waiver.

    • Anonymous says:

      I would have to disagree that children under 14 months are unlikely to come in contact with unvaccinated infected older children…or adults for that matter. I think that is why people are going after you, because they consider that assertion neither true nor fair.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah, Typhoid Mary was anti-coercion as well. She was very indignant that she, an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid was being coerced into not being a cook. She even changed her name and violated a court order to avoid being “coerced”. I think all the people around her who caught typhoid from her and died would probably fall into the category of “pro-coercion” if they could.

      Your right to swing your fist ends before you hit my nose. In this context, there is no right to make yourself or your children an incubator of deadly diseases.

      Yes, it is entirely moral for society to say “you must take a small risk yourself in order to protect both you and society from a far more likely deadly risk”. Especially when the risk of complications from vaccines is so small and the risk from these diseases is so great.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I work in immunology, specializing in MHC class II interactions and immunodominance. Here’s how a vaccine works.

    An injection of a peptide, protein or whole-unit (aka an attenuated or killed virus) is given in an emulsion of some sort. Dendritic cells phagocytose these antigens, break them down in vesicles through an antigen-processing pathway, and by fusing the vesicles with others that carry MHC molecules, these antigens are loaded onto the MHC (major histocompatibility complex) and displayed on the surface of the dendritic cell (other cells, such as B cells, have been suggested recently to play the role of antigen-presenting-cells).

    Once the antigen has been displayed by an APC, it becomes available to interact with the T-cell receptor of circulating antigen-specific T cells. (Before this happens, T-cells go through somatic hypermutation and recombination of their TCRs to generate antigen-specificity). When a T cell meets its cognate antigen displayed on an MHC, it has several options. Depending on the type of antigen and type of presentation, it can acquire effector functions. It can become a CD8+ cell, the function of which is to kill intracellular pathogens and the cells that have been infected, or it can become a CD4+ cell, of which there are numerous subsets.

    Once this process is complete, subsequent exposure to the same antigen will be very quickly recognized (in a matter of hours, as opposed to days for a primary response), and T cells will be able to give help to B cells, which differentiate into high affinity antibody secreting cells, which can quickly neutralize the pathogen with which the antigen is associated.

    So please. No more of this “we don’t even know if vaccines work” garbage. The molecular and cellular basis is all there. You just need to understand it.

  19. Anonymous says:

    I do practice medicine and have noted increasing encounters with parents who have the strangest and most illogical arguments against vaccination (corporate or communist plot type of ‘silly-gisms’). I try to let them visualize the way it was when I was a child (pre polio vaccines, etc) and how many of my classmates either died from illnesses that today seem so remote and unimaginable or ended up in iron lungs (not to mention whole neighborhood quarantines). Additionally, one only has to pay a brief visit to some older cemeteries to see how entire families were wiped out inside two or three weeks. Such family plots cover cemeteries little older than the 20th century.
    These contagions are not dead. they have not been wiped out. It is only due to vaccination programs and improved surveillance techniques that prevent the re-occurrence of these maladies. We only have to miss a single generation and we shall readily return to the ‘good ‘ole days.!’

  20. Anonymous says:

    Someone with Jenny McCarthy’s email address should send her the report. Even if vaccines are associated in any way with spectrum disorders (they are not), the risk/reward spectrum of aspergers or death clearly favors vaccination. Idiots are killing children with nothing other than their obstinate idiocy in the face of smarter and cheaply available resolutions; possibly a new human low.

  21. Ari B. says:

    Does anybody know how often an adult should get boosters? I’m not sure when my last MMR jab was.

    (I just got a TDaP a few months ago, when my kid was born.)

    • Anonymous says:

      The CDC publishes a guide to adult vaccinations

    • Anonymous says:

      ari – your doc *should* have done a blood test either at your 1st pregnancy visit or at sometime during fertility treatment (if you went that route). mine did at 1st pregnancy visit & determined that my MMR antibodies were very low (i had no idea i needed a booster!)- they gave me a booster withing an hour of delivering my daughter!! they weren’t taking any chances ;) anyway, ask your obgyn or just call your doc & ask for a blood test. in light of recent cases where we live, my husband is getting his blood tested next week & will get booster if necessary. i think it’s every 10 yrs.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Between this post and the article linked below I see a worrisome intersection of trends (and will now have nightmares involving Jenny McCarthy blowing a horn).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13509220

  23. badlogic says:

    As the parent of an autistic, vaccinated child, I have been on both sides of this argument.

    I used to BELIEVE that my son’s autism was caused solely by vaccines, but this perspective has evolved somewhat over time. I think that these children are born with a genetic predisposition, which needs a trigger to develop Autism, ADHD, or any spectrum disorder. This trigger might be a vaccine, a bad fever, a toxic environmental substance, GMOs, or an unknown allergen they suddenly come into contact with. Nobody knows exactly what, but most Autism-specialists agree that a trigger is neccessary, along with genetics.

    The central theme of spectrum disorders is an auto-immune dysfunction, and many doctors are working to establish bio-markers determining whether a child’s immune system can handle the standard vaccine schedule (something like 36 shots by 3 years nowdays?). Hence, the delayed vaccine schedule (giving kid’s immune system time to process each vaccine, rather than possibly overloading them).

    I want my kids vaccinated. My autistic son is. My younger son is on a delayed schedule, since he has shown low homocysteine levels, below average t-cell levels, and is statistically has a increased chance of developing it. We are carefully monitoring his development, and he will eventually have all his vaccines.

    It’s really shitty when you guys, with healthy children (or no children), are telling people they are morons, or should be in jail for not vaccinating. Some of us are doing the best we can to keep our kids safe, AND do what’s best for society. If you had to deal with Autism everyday, I’m sure you would change your tune.

    • jenb says:

      I completely get what you are saying. People with “normal” children have no idea what it’s like to have a child with Autism. My daughter was vaccinated and has ASD. My son does not and has not been vaccinated. We’ve been ADVISED by medical professionals that given there is a genetic predisposition, we wait until the neurological system is greater developed to vaccinate.

      I always find it amusing that every few months they bring up the Dr. Wakefield study but nobody knows of the actual Supreme Court case that PROVED that vaccines can trigger autism in certain children. SInce no child is being screent to see if they have the predisposition, it’s a crap shoot.

      In addition, there have be NO studies on how many vaccines are safe, how many should be combined into one, etc. None, no studies. When I was a child I got 10 vaccines now it’s up to 36 but yet this has never been studied. But nobody asks that question.

      I believe that most vaccines are safe for most children, but if your child is not in that group, you should not be made to feel like a bad parent for doing what is best for your own flesh and blood.

      • Anonymous says:

        People also don’t get what it’s like losing a child to measles. I certainly don’t know either, but after almost losing a younger sibling to pertussis, it’s hard to imagine I’d prefer that to him living with autism. The rest is a question of the relative chances, which parents have a right to try but are certainly not the most qualified to judge.

  24. Unmutual says:

    This is the height of bourgeois selfishness in my opinion. Since vaccines carry a known risk (that does NOT include autism, by the way) many people are electing to not vaccinate their kids, so they can have their cake and eat it too: the child will be protected from disease by the herd immunity, while their special little snowflakes will not have to actually assume any risk themselves.

    Except once you pass a certain threshold, herd immunity breaks down, and you start to get outbreaks. Especially heartbreaking is when little infants are infected THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR PARENTS, because some OTHER DIPSHIT decided not to vaccinate.

  25. MichaelWalsh says:

    @JonStewartMill, #1: You have misquoted Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

    He wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

    Note the word: falsely.

  26. Dzyan says:

    First of all I don’t want to offend anybody. Second point is that anger is even worse for your immune system as fear. So please do not get angry. Not for my sake but for yourself.
    Now lets do some science. Viruses are very interesting things. For example some of them can fly straight true a plate of quartz. Another thing is they are never identified in a living being. Yes we can find them in tissue. And there is a correlation with some diseases. Not a causality! There is no proof of a causality, how strange you may find this. If you think you have found causality then please mail me because there is a big money price to win. We will split.
    Before we go into vaccination lets see how vaccination is supposed to work. Lets go a bit deeper into the immune system. This consists of three layers of defence. The main defence is your skin. And this means also the cells in your lungs and the cells that form your intestines. What you do not get into your body can’t harm you, to put it simple. Then there is the second line and that is the information that you get from your parents. It is what you are born with. The last line is the adaptive part. The learning part of your immune system. This last line of defence learn as soon as you get a fever. I wonder how often you where told after a vaccination to watch your kid getting fever. But that the trigger. Without the fever nothing is really vaccinated. You will not be immune. Nothing was learned by your body. But is suppose that this was told to you when your child got the vaccination, was it?
    So why do we vaccinate? As a matter of fact it beats me. But bring me the scientific proof that it works and my kids will be vaccinated. If not you better bring a gun because nobody is going to put a needle in my kids. Nobody is going to pass the first line of defence. Why not? Simply because the vaccine does not only contain a dead virus, there is no such thing as a dead virus, but anyhow. What it does contain are chemicals to conserve the vaccine. Many of them are not even allowed to be traded in Europe. They are made of Mercury. Have you ever seen what Mercury can do to a living cell? It’s a recommendation for lovers of horror movies. And have you ever tried to detox from Mercury? Formaldehyde is another component of many vaccinations. That is the stuff in the laboratory bottles where the dead animals are kept in because it is so creaking toxic that even after 2.5 billion year no living thing has found a way to survive in it. That is what a good conservation agent should do of course. But not in my kids.
    Nowadays a lot of vaccines contain nanotech. To “provoke the immune system” as they say. But that was the whole point of the “dead virus” in it, isn’t it?
    We have had this discussion before. The contenders where Louis Pasteur and Claude Bernard. We all know who has won this discussion. Claude Bernard, even Pasteur has admitted that. What did this Claude Bernard say? It is not the germ, it is the territory.
    Now lets look at the spread of all these diseases for which we are supposed to vaccinate everybody. Could it be that the territory is not as healthy as it could be? Could it be that there is stress involved. Anger, fear. That our food doesn’t contain the building blocks any more that are so vital for us. Less vitamins and minerals. Could it be that our parents have had several antibiotic treatments and that there gut is not healthy, that the microbes that live there (we have found 1150 different ones at the moment) are not in a healthy equilibrium. And the child gets his or hers from the mother.
    So with Bernard is say: It’s the body stupid, not the germ. So I repeat myself. Don’t get angry, don’t be scared. Do the science. Get rid of stress, eat healthy things, that means do not stick anything in your mouth that your great grandmother did not immediately recognize as food. Perhaps a life without al the consumption stuff is a bit boring but it keeps you and your children healthy.
    Warm greetings,

    Dzyan

    • zeppomarks says:

      If you do not mind me asking, how would you proceed if one of your unvaccinated children became sick with the measles? Would you quarantine them and yourself? Would you seek medical treatment?
      I assume you have thought about it.

      • Dzyan says:

        No problem. I have had measles myself so I am immune to it. As I have had all the other children diseases. I am from before the vaccine hype.

        Your question is interesting though. Because we would of course not go to a doctor. We would take care for the child. As I was taken care of by my parents. Who did not get ill of course because the also had had measles ;)

        I can remember the day I got measles as if it were yesterday. The day before, a Sunday, we were in Amsterdam. When I got out of bed the next morning I went downstairs. When my mother saw me she said “you are not going to school tomorrow. Look in the mirror.”Just then I saw that I had red stains all over my face. I didn’t feel sick. And not going to school was big fun.

        Hope this answers your question. Don’t think it will satisfy you.

        Greetings,

        Dzyan

    • ShawShaw says:

      The polio vaccine was developed in the mid-50′s. If you look at the diet of the average American in the 50′s it was arguably one of the worst we’ve had in this country’s history. All kinds of horribly processed foods like margarine, and bleached enriched flours were very commonplace on the kitchen table. White bread was considered food for the sophisticated. We smoked like chimneys and were full of cold war-era paranoia and fear. And yet… while we were consuming all of that garbage masquerading as food, while we were painting everything with lead and breathing air filled with soot and tar, while we were living in constant fear of communists and being nuked at any moment… the vaccine worked. Nobody in this country gets polio anymore. Funny how that works.

      • Dzyan says:

        In the 50′s you were investing in clean water and sewers as well. As far as know Polio is endemic and one of the 1150 bacteria in your gut.

    • Anonymous says:

      Wow… Where to start

      “There is no proof of a causality”
      Proving whether a virus is infectious means that a virus has to meet Koch’s postulates
      1 The organism is always found in an infected person.
      2 The organism can be isolated from the diseased individual and grown pure in culture.
      3.The pure culture will initiate and reproduce the disease when introduced into a susceptible host
      4.The organism can be isolated from the newly infected individual

      You can look up National Library of Medicine articles dating from 1958 showing Polio virus being proved the infectious agent of the Polio disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1830405/?pageindex=1
      Search around there or in the Journal of Infectious Disease and you’ll find plenty of hard science showing that viruses are known to cause disease.

      “Without the fever nothing is really vaccinated”
      Parents are told to watch their child for fever because some children have an intense reaction to vaccines that cause high fevers. They are not checking that the vaccination “took”. According to the CDC, 5-15% of MMR vaccine recipients develop a noticeable fever: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm . That does not mean only 5-15% become immune.

      You list “chemicals to conserve the vaccine” such as Mercury and Formaldehyde. Mercury was once used in US vaccines, but is no longer. Even when it was used, it was in small amounts, but the science could not prove it harmless so it was removed. Formaldehyde is in tiny trace amounts left over from the killing of the viruses, which brings us to your next point.

      “there is no such thing as a dead virus”
      This is a misunderstanding of the nature of viruses. Viruses have no means of self-replication so are not considered really alive, therefore they cannot be really dead either. They can be denatured and disrupted by chemicals that render them non-infectious. This is what is meant by “killing” a virus.

      “Nowadays a lot of vaccines contain nanotech. To “provoke the immune system” as they say.”
      Yes. To put it as simply as possible, injecting a person with a vaccine requires enough killed virus that the immune system sits up and takes notice. It is possible, through chemistry and nanotechnology, to attract the attention of the immune system and provoke it into action using a smaller amount of virus. It also reduces the percentage of people who don’t become immune from a typical virus dosage and might eventually eliminate the need for multiple boosters for some vaccines. I again refer you to the National Library of Medicine for further reading.

      “It is not the germ, it is the territory”
      Pasteur did say at death that “the milieu is everything.” Pasteur was a brilliant man but not a prophet. The truth lies somewhere between Pasteur and Bernard. A healthy body is much more resistant to disease than one subjected to poor diet and living habits, however it is not immune. Healthy people through the ages died in large numbers due to diphtheria, measles, plague, cholera, polio and other infectious diseases. Today’s fat, unhealthy Americans have almost forgotten these epidemics.

    • ikegently says:

      This is perhaps the best example of why reason, logic, and science will do no good in convincing some people…. Thank you for an enlightening peak into the mindset of those who do not vaccinate.

      Now, how would we convince Dzyan to vaccinate? If science and epidemiology do not work, what will?

      • Dzyan says:

        Now, how would we convince Dzyan to vaccinate? If science and epidemiology do not work, what will?

        Please show me the science.

        Greetings,

        Dzyan

        • ShawShaw says:

          Dyzan: Googling “how vaccines work” will give you a lot of information. Here’s a good start on what the science behind it is: http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/vaccine.htm

          You had measles as a child and didn’t suffer much from it. You were lucky that you didn’t have any of the common complications that range from pneumonia to blindness. In Nigeria in 2005, the moment people stopped vaccinating due to religious reasons and didn’t change anything else about their lifestyle, children started dying: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=53506

          Measles is a serious disease. While it might not have hurt you much, you were contageous for days before those spots showed up on your face. You probably gave it to a lot of people at school or in your community. Several of those people were probably not as lucky as you were.

          • Dzyan says:

            Measles is a serious disease. While it might not have hurt you much, you were contageous for days before those spots showed up on your face. You probably gave it to a lot of people at school or in your community. Several of those people were probably not as lucky as you were.

            Why are you saying this? Should I feel guilty in hindsight? I myself can not remember that anybody got ill. And I lived in a small community. It was a normal disease in those days. And yes even a cold is a disease that can develop into pneumonia. But “can” is not the same as “will”, you will agree to that. So I wasn’t lucky. This was normal. As with Water pocks, the mumbs and all that other diseases you get as a child. Thats why they are called childrens diseases.

            And yes when you are older these diseases can have serious consequences. When you are weak too. But that’s no reason to put mercury in babys. Nor formaldehyde or nanotech for that matter.

            Have you had measles yourself? How was your experience?

            Warm greetings,

            Dzyan

          • ShawShaw says:

            Dyzan, I am sorry if I appeared to by trying to make you feel guilty. That was not my intention at all. I was trying add some perspective. While it may not have been a serious sickness for you, measels has taken the lives of many children. Not weak children you never met in some place you’ve never seen, but people like your classmates and neighbors. 450 children a day is no small number.

          • Anonymous says:

            Please don’t spread misinformation about the components of vaccines.
            1. Thimerosal (the source of mercury) is no longer used in childhood vaccines. And for the last time it has never ever been shown to have caused damage to anyone anywhere.
            2. Formaldehyde is already present in every person as a by-product of normal metabolic processes
            3. By Nanotech? I assume you mean Recombinant/Genetically modified vaccines and ascribe to the fear-mongering about them. Recombinant vaccines pose a smaller risk as they allow the production of vaccines that do not contain live or inactivated (chemically treated) virus.

        • Anonymous says:

          I have no idea what you have been reading Dzyan, but you are way off. Here is a reference for polio http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/6.full from Ian Lipkin. Here is a link to the article in the economist discussing the anti-government stance as a cause of resurgence of polio in Africa http://www.economist.com/node/2786168. I think your problem is the source for your “science and epidemiology”. Viruses do not fly through quartz; you do not need a fever to have a good immunization response.

        • teapot says:

          You have been fooled by bunk. Your children will suffer as a result. I will not going into the details because I have better things to do with my time but even I know that the arguments you make in regard to vaccines come straight from the anti-vax conspiracy morons. Yes I will call them morons because they cannot be reasoned with. Evidence means nothing to these people.

          Claiming you are a scientist and a medical practitioner does nothing to support your case. I am a heart surgeon… want a double-bypass for $10,000? I insist on payment upfront and you’ll just have to sign this waiver.

          Dzyan, if you want scientific, in-depth (and surprisingly amusing) answers to the bunkum points you raised you would do well to check out Quackcast by Dr. Mark Crislip. Here is a list of links to episodes which deal with vaccines:

          Lets Kill The Children or A Defense of Vaccines Why vaccines, to quote Mr. Pooh, “Are a Good Thing.” 2/22/09
          http://www.pusware.com/quackcast/quackcast30.mp3

          Flu vaccine efficacy. Plus 18 taradiddles.
          http://www.pusware.com/quackcast/quackcast35.mp3

          Nine questions, none answers. An ND suggests there are 9 questions that pro-vaccine proponents can’t answer. Ha. My 12 year old can find the answers.
          http://www.pusware.com/quackcast/quackcast44.mp3

          The Vaccine Council of Vaccinations doesn’t want you and yours to get vaccinated. The data? Pulled out of their, er, well, lets call it thin air. Yeah. Thin Air. 2/13/11
          http://www.pusware.com/quackcast/quackcast59.mp3

          A link to the full list of episodes:
          http://moremark.squarespace.com/quackcast-list-mp3/

          Off topic (and sincere) – I appreciate that English is not your native language (I can only speak 1 language other than English, and I do so poorly) but for future reference: you used the word “true” where you mean “through”. “Through” is a bit of a difficult word to remember how to spell so it is sometimes shortened to “thru”. “true” means ‘factually correct’ and is the opposite of “false”.

          ikegently: Now, how would we convince Dzyan to vaccinate? If science and epidemiology do not work, what will?
          I believe Darwin’s theory of natural selection is already at work solving the problem.

  27. charming.quark says:

    Dyzan @ #112: Dyzan, you are making a specious argument. Deaths from medical mistakes are due to human error. Measles deaths are due to disease that is vaccine-preventable. Simply because the number of deaths is comparable does not make these two situations equal, which is what you seem to be implying.

    Dude, if you had a vaccine that would protect me from death by medical mistake, I’d take it right now.

    • Dzyan says:

      You a right about the difference. Point taken.

      But you are wrong about the vaccine. Why can measles come back now with those high vaccinated number of people? What is the source? How does it transport itself true a population with such high grade of vaccination? Why does the vaccine have to be repeated because I have had them naturally and am still immune. Why does the immune system forget the info of the vaccine and not from the naturally healed people?

      What is the use of protection by vaccination if you can’t trust on it?

      Warm greetings,

      Dzyan

      • sabik says:

        “What is the use of protection by vaccination if you can’t trust on it?”

        A vaccine doesn’t have to be 100% to be useful. There’s a threshold: as long as each patient passes the disease to (on average) less than one further person, the disease will fizzle out.

        Without any measures, a measles patient can pass it on to 12-18 people.

        Isolation and quarantine can reduce that number, but not enough, especially since (a) the symptoms only appear 2-4 days after it starts being infectious, and (b) most of the symptoms are pretty generic.

        If people around the patient are vaccinated, even with a less-than-100% vaccine, that also reduces the number who will catch it.

        So, combine all the measures you can — vaccination, isolation and quarantine, whatever else helps — and get the average under that critical “one further person”. That’s the key.

        Of course, this all talks about averages; very simplified. For instance, the vaccination rate in a neighbourhood or a particular social group may be quite different to the national average. The patient may meet unusually many or unusually few people in those critical few days. In the broad picture, though, averages give a pretty reasonable first approximation.

      • Anonymous says:

        “Why can measles come back now with those high vaccinated number of people?”

        Because vaccination rates are going down. Do you even read other people’s responses?

        I think this all boils down to a lack of critical thinking skills.

      • Owen says:

        “Why can measles come back now with those high vaccinated number of people? What is the source? How does it transport itself true a population with such high grade of vaccination?”

        Most of the infected people (89%) were not vaccinated. Unvaccinated people can catch it and spread it to other unvaccinated people. Also, since vaccination is not 100% effective, a few vaccinated people can also catch and spread it. It’s likely that someone caught the disease overseas and brought it back; that’s the source for many such outbreaks.

        “Why does the vaccine have to be repeated because I have had them naturally and am still immune. Why does the immune system forget the info of the vaccine and not from the naturally healed people?”

        The actual disease produces a stronger immune response because it’s actively trying to kill you. That gives you immunity for a longer time, unless you die. You were lucky.

        “What is the use of protection by vaccination if you can’t trust on it?”

        You can trust it. Children in the developed world used to die all the time because of diseases like measles and polio. Now they don’t. If hygiene or diet were responsible for this decrease, then we’d see differing patters of reinfection in different parts of the country, based on hygiene and diet. Instead, we see sporadic but increasing outbreaks which disproportionately affect unvaccinated people.

  28. Anonymous says:

    I had a woman tell me, honestly believing it herself, that no one had EVER died from measles. I corrected her, and she didn’t believe me. It would be a good thing to educate people about exactly what measles is capable of, since apparently these anti-vaxxers are pretty ignorant of reality.

  29. Anonymous says:

    I recently went on holiday and came home with a lovely souvenir: typhoid fever. I was vaccinated before I went, and was one of the unlucky ones who didn’t get total immunity.

    Before I started showing symptoms, I was cooking food for friends and family, handling my 3-month-old nephew with neither immunity not possibility of immunity, visiting my elderly parents, and sharing food and drink with friends. That’s right, it’s JUST THAT SIMPLE to infect somebody who has limited immunity.

    And you know what? Getting vaccinated probably gave me just enough immunity to save my life. Instead of getting to the point where I was having violent bowel movements, 40C fever, and losing nearly 40kgs from water weight (and everything else that follows that), it slowed the process of the disease enough for me to get to a physician who knew what was going on.

  30. Anonymous says:

    BaylorRugby, it is not unusual for children under 14 months to be in daycare. And vaccinations don’t just protect infants — they also protect older children with autoimmune disorders or other problems that keep them from getting vaccinated. In addition, vaccinations aren’t 100% reliable — you can get a vaccination and still contract the disease. Vaccinations work in a herd environment — the majority of people get the vaccine, and a large enough percentage of those vaccinations are successful, which keeps the disease from gaining traction in the community. When people stop vaccinating, the herd protection is lost, and the disease starts spreading through the community. That’s why you get disease clusters. So it is very important for each person to vaccinate his or her children, because when one chooses to live in society, one accepts that part of that role is protecting one’s fellow human beings.

  31. Shay Guy says:

    148 comments? I can only say that I’m fascinated. (Right on the arm.)

  32. Anonymous says:

    Anti-vaccinators are parasites. Those of us who take the minimal risks associated with vaccination can keep the incidence of disease low enough for them to pretend they can get along without it.

  33. clith says:

    “it would be a rare case that you would find you very young child in close living space with an unvaccinated infected child without your knowing about it first”

    If a parent sends an un-vaccinated child to school (by signing waivers), do all other parents of children at that school get notified that there is an un-vaccinated child in the school? I don’t think so.

    Signing a waiver is insufficient. Children whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate can be home schooled. Or perhaps special “unvaccinated schools” could be set up for them. They should certainly not be putting other children in harm’s way.

    • snarkymarcy says:

      Agreed. You send your children to public schools in, say Texas, for example, where I know someone who only had to sign a paper to get her unvaccinated kids in school, and you have no idea. Private schools might furnish that data, but public schools will not, citing privacy concerns, most likely, as that would be considered “health information.”

  34. Unmutual says:

    My argument is against coercion.

    What exactly is your “argument” against coercion?

    So far, all you’ve stated is that you are not in favor of it. Can you support this, or is this just ideology? The burden should be on everyone else, to think of things like request the statistics of the percent of vaccinated kids at the school they are looking at, and then if there are too many unvaccinated kids, I dunno, move to another town or something?

  35. CH says:

    My earliest memory is from when I as a 2yo was hospitalized for pneumonia that I had gotten after measles.

    Non-vaccinating parents seem to often downplay childhood diseases as non-serious. Perhaps because there really aren’t that many cases of it anymore, I don’t know… but measles can be very serious!

    • TombKing says:

      I think it is because outside of chickenpox the parents today did not grow up losing friends to measles, polio, etc. Hopefully I will avoid shingles.

      As I have an uncle in a wheelchair from polio I am a little more aware of what good vaccinations have done. It was not all that long ago that kids died on a regular basis for what are now easily preventable causes and it looks like it only takes one generation for us to have to learn it all over again as a species.

      • Sekino says:

        That’s a very good point.

        When there is something as brutally immediate and indiscriminate as polio raging out there, people just want to be protected. More abstract (or downright imaginary) fears take a back seat. So I think it’s fair to believe there is a dangerous false sense of security going on with regards to disease. We tend to figure that if we get sick or fuck up, someone can fix it…

        I think that’s the main reason we managed to eradicate smallpox. Smallpox was a suitably scary foe: It was swift, hideously disfiguring, smelly, deadly and highly contagious. The whole world could rally around the fact that it was terrifying and should be killed with fire ASAP. I find it sad to think that it may take another horrible, virulent monster of a disease for people to agree for 10 minutes and eliminate it from the face of the Earth. Looks like measles isn’t scary enough.

  36. Anonymous says:

    As a vaguely entertaining tangent – a 1951 film encouraging vaccination in children.

    The title: ‘Surprise Attack!’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A8DeexyGgg

  37. Anonymous says:

    I do not have any children because my insides are a rocky place, but, if you have an unvaccinated child, couldn’t that child reasonably catch it anyplace? The grocery store, the playground? People are talking about schools in this thread, but this is a virus and can’t viruses live short term on stuff like door handles or diaper changing stations or shopping carts?
    I am not being snarky, I am genuinely curious. Any doctors in the house?

  38. djfatsostupid says:

    I actually think there is a good case for putting some of the anti-vaccine crowd in jail. Putting people in jail for disagreeing with you is very, very bad, but the original studies linking MMR with autism were not a disagreement but a case of fraud. Andrew Wakefield deliberately falsified results to prove his conclusion. The study was funded by a law firm that wanted to use it to start a massive class-action suit and Wakefield himself held a patent for a rival vaccine. Wakefield lied and put people’s lives at risk for profit. The damage he has done won’t be calculable for a good time now.

    Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is a good thing if there is a fire, a crime if there if done maliciously (or for personal gain), and a tragedy waiting to happen if done because of a delusion. At this point I think the majority of the anti-vaccine crowd are true believers – tragic – but it was fundamentally fueled by criminals.

  39. bklynchris says:

    WHY WHY WHY do we always have this same damned conversation? Anti-vaccinators BAD, vaccinators GOOD.

    Vaccination is obviously very important. Obviously, there is a percentage of the population (and growing larger every day) who WILL NOT do it.

    The question is WHY won’t they do it, and what can be done that they WILL do it? IF this question is not addressed in a meaningful manner the people who won’t vaccinate will become legion (if they are not already).

    And everybody knows, “you/your child/somebody else’s child could die” argument is obviously not working. And saying “jail them” makes you sound like a dick. Nobody likes being told what to do, most of all by a nameless, faceless authority let alone a blog commenter.

    There is a tidal wave of distrust toward western medicine and big pharma, and quite frankly they brought it on themselves.

    • BaylorRugby says:

      Perfect response. Educating those who are against vaccination is key. Coercion is the problem. The scientific community would rather implement mandates than education the masses.

      • Anonymous says:

        You can’t educate the willfully ignorant.

      • Courtney says:

        When a parent says, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they FEEL that vaccines cause autism, I’m pretty sure education is not the problem.

        • Jamie Sue says:

          I have an autistic son. I vaccinated. First I got to feel the guilt of having given my son a life long disability. Then I got to feel relief from actual research and the exposure of Wakefield. Eventually, I got to be told what a terrible mother I was for following up on his immunizations and not feeding him a gluten free diet he won’t eat. So I got to feel guilty again. Then I learned about what measles can do to a kid’s brain. I decided I was doomed either way.

          It’s a no win for parents, really. No matter what you do.

          The truth is there are a slew of kids like mine out there and a corresponding slew of desperate parents who want to make their kids better. I personally like my kid just the way his is. Autism and all. I would be nice to know if it could have been prevented, but it doesn’t matter now. I just need more effective tools for making his life easier. Those tools don’t come cheap or easy, and that’s where I’d like to see more action.

          It would be nice if science would get on the stick and come up with an answer. But, that’s going to be a long time in the making.

          I think… taking into account everything I’ve read… That it’s a combination of environment, susceptibility, and genetics. Kind of like epilepsy. You can have a naturally low seizure threshold and if nothing ever triggers it you’ll never know. But, if like me, you have one high fever in the middle of June and you trigger the disorder then you’ll quickly learn all about it. In which case, we’ll never get a clear cut “how to avoid giving your child Autism” pamphlet. The truth is that a lot of genetic markers that would have been weeded out by Darwinism are still in the gene pool, interacting with each other and their environment. They’ll pop up in batches from time to time. I doubt, considering my poor health as a child and my epilepsy, that in a primitive society without access to modern medicine, that I would have lived long enough to reproduce.

          I just decided not to have any more children. Since that was the only surefire way of avoiding the situation in the future.

          As far as vaccines: Make your own choice and understand that your choice affects others whether you want it to or not. Weigh that against your conscious and do what’s best for you and your kid. The end.

          I do, agree with other commenters who say that our growing societal distrust of big Pharma is not helping the situation on either side of the debate. Pure science outside of profit margins is getting harder and harder to find.

          • bklynchris says:

            Jamie Sue,

            You are not alone here. I have one child on the spectrum and one with epilepsy. AND, I agree with you 1000%. Most especially the your last paragraph. Hang in there…with me : )

    • Eleri Hamilton says:

      Why don’t they? Because they’ve been mislead by some seriously bad junk science. They believe that all vaccines are shots of toxic waste being shoved into our children by the score before they are 2, all as a way for pharmaceutical companies to make millions. They’ve been taught that ‘herd immunity’ is a myth. They don’t believe vaccines actually work. They believe that not vaccinating their child puts no one else at risk. One of the main anti-vax people even rejects basic germ theory. They demand that vaccines be tested until they are ‘proven’ 100% safe before they’ll even consider having their child vaccinated.

      And *nothing* gets them to change their minds. Any pro-vax science is written off as a shill of ‘Big-Pharma’. Seriously, these are like the parenting equal of the moon-landing hoax people. Nothing gets through their tin foil hats.

      Which is really *frustrating*, because I see it every day in some of my professional peers, and in many, many cases, they are really wonderful, reasonable people who do have the health interests of women and children in mind. Yes, there *are* times when it is right and good to question the amount of medical tech being applied with wide brush… but not this one. Vaccines save lives, not vaccinating kills people.

      • bklynchris says:

        So then, if that is your argument we should just give up? Isn’t this the point of Maggie’s post? To inform us of the ever increasing numbers of unvaccinated and subsequent rise in disease prevalence? Obviously the policies and the health education with their underlying research that we currently have are not working.

        If we want this to change we better start thinking very differently about how we approach it. Anon’s response to me actually brought up a very real aspect of health education and vaccine compliance, the prevalence of the result of NOT vaccinating. Now vaccination has been linked ‘in the minds’ of the non/anti-vaccinators with autism. This is a condition that has been increasing in prevalence at a faster rate than the infectious diseases prevented by the vaccines. That is what they see, not leg braces and iron lungs. That connection in their minds MUST be broken, and the CDC study didn’t do the job for them. I always respond to that vac-autism link argument with the very real truth that although the number of children being vaccinated has decreased, it has not managed to decrease the cases of autism. The reasoning has to be VERY pragmatic for them.

        And Anon, western medicine has gotten quite lazy as of late, and class action lawyers very busy (as proof the former has gotten lazy).

        Also, when people who are not doing what they should be doing are called morons, murderers, tin foil hat wearers, etc they will only dig their heels in deeper out of spite, and some of them even go balls deep and become teabaggers. So don’t go creating any more monsters.

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually, you are right about one thing. Western medicine did “bring it on themselves” by being too successful. Until the last generation or two, people were terrified of disease. Far more so than we are of crime, or terrorism. Serious diseases could strike anyone, anywhere. People understood the dangers of polio and measles because everyone knew someone crippled or killed by them. You couldn’t go to any school without seeing children in leg braces, crippled for life after “recovering” from polio. When vaccines became available, people embraced them. Now, Western medicine is confronted with the problem that short-sighted morons with no sense of history are no longer afraid of the diseases, because they haven’t personally seen them in action.

      This is a staple of science fiction. People doing something tedious or mildly unpleasant, generation after generation, to ward of a great threat that (since it is being warded off) is not visible. Then the younger generation “throws off the shackles of tradition” and stops doing whatever was warding off the great threat. At which point, the great threat re-appears and kills everybody (well, except the hero).

  40. Christhegirl says:

    I’m not at all trying to flame here, and I appreciate BaylorRugby’s attempt to keep an even tone in this discussion. I am interested, however, in the notion of “coercion.”

    Laws and regulations are fundamentally coercive. Many laws are in the interest of public health. I’m fairly sure, for example, that I can’t take my sewage and dump it in the nearby stream, even though my one household doesn’t produce all that much waste, and perhaps something in the ecosystem could even break it down before it could do much harm. Yet I and my neighbors were compelled by law to hook our homes to the town sewer and to decommission our existing septic systems at some personal expense.

    I was coerced by this law into doing something I may not have wanted to. And yet it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, given the potential consequences of leaving matters up to individual decision. Is coercion necessarily bad, then? Is it bad in some instances, but not in others? When there’s reasonable evidence of the benefits of a policy, under what circumstances should it, or should it not, become compulsory?

    I’m genuinely curious. I think we have an automatic reaction to the loaded word “coercion,” but is it always a bad thing? If not, what makes the difference in the case of vaccination?

  41. Anonymous says:

    Let me sum up:

    Vaccinate your kids, you morons.

  42. KatPlays says:

    How about if we stop wasting time with the instillation of falsified fear and instead use our energies to focus on how to take really good care of our children if they get one of these diseases?

    The FACT is: vax’d kids get and spread diseases too.
    Difference is: they are getting diseases WITH metals and chemicals added and sometimes the diseases they get and spread are different than the natural ones acquired.

    I’d rather be fearful of:
    -the artificial immunization process of vax (what THAT does to the body and how it inhibits the strengthening of our body’s immune system)
    -the chems and metals in the vax
    -the number of vax children receive – sometimes all at once
    -antibiotics,
    -and the 163+ pollutants babies are exposed to in utero.
    It affects the functioning of our bodies, including the organs and systems used to clean out the pollutants.

    Now, when all that from vax and other pollutants lands in our bloodstream (yes, after IV) and accumulates in our bones, brains, and lungs, etc, this is a problem. ESPECIALLY for our 10 pound, 19 inch+ developing, little, sweet babies whose bodies are working hard and beautifully every moment to build their intricate immune systems and neurological networks.

    Once you decide to vax, folks, instead of researching the history of disease & vax and its associated controversies as well as how to take good care in the prevention and treatment of disease and illness naturally, you are putting your child at risk (and others) for a lifetime of milder to more serious chronic conditions. Use THAT fear to motivate you TODAY to get the knowledge from people you can TRUST (believe me, there are some super people out there – kind, experienced, educated, ethical professionals with all sorts of backgrounds, including ones who switched from allopathic to alternative or a combination of the two. Seek them out). Surround yourself with people who KNOW how the body works w/o the overuse and misuse of pharmaceutical product and take it from there. Ignore the others who give you grief for going down this healthy path – you will always find resistance to the truth.

    And for goodness sakes, know the risk of pharmaceuticals when pregnant, please, and if necessary start your journey to health right there.

    If we all cut down on pharmaceutical use, our world will get MUCH much healthier, starting with your very own precious children. It is all common sense.

  43. nmcvaugh616 says:

    Short Baylor:

    Requiring vaccination is wrong because it’s coercive. The only way to get measles is from family members. And other cases don’t count because the carriers should have been coerced into being vaccinated.

    Shorter Baylor:

    Concern troll is concerned.

  44. maryofkentucky says:

    Though I would generally appreciate the open mindedness of BaylorRugby’s Devil’s advocate stance, I think the wisest responses are from the strickly pro-vaccination side. Children who are under 14 months are very likely to be around children of other ages and possibly unvaccinated children. I guess if you are wealthy enough to have at home day care, then your child under 14 months will most likely not come in contact with other children, but for most parents, day care is necessary.

    I guess the trend of not vaccinating children isn’t crazy high, but I would image the parents supporting it are misguided, and shouldn’t be treated like criminals. Just need to be informed more.

    Also, fuck private schools. No one should have a better education than another just because they can pay for it. Education should be a human right, just like health care.

  45. John Mark Ockerbloom says:

    “My argument is against coercion.”

    Infection itself is coercion. A virus typically forces its way into your system (or your child’s system), and does you harm, without your consent. (And precautions don’t change this reality, especially since they’re not always affected.)

    So it really comes down to whether you prefer people being infected against their will or inoculated against their will. In the case of dangerous infectious diseases that have a relatively safe vaccine, I tend to prefer the latter over the former.

  46. RyonRyon says:

    funny you should mention it, I JUST SKIPPED BOTH MY KIDS GETTING JABBED TODAY HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! oh come ye flames. And when you’re a young worried parent, unsure of what’s best, distrustful of gubbernnment and big pharma and media, and just trying to do the best for your precious lil one, it CAN appear avoiding vaccination is the best choice. There’s plenty of literature to lead you that way, both in print and on the net, so don’t hate on the people who believe what they read, that won’t change a thing. But you know what, after MORE readding, we DID decide to go for the vaccinnations after, it was a few months late but its all in there, in the end. and todays’? Meh in another few weeks.
    boingers, don’t be hatin. sway em with your offbeat groovy love man.

  47. KatPlays says:

    So sorry, should have added GMO’s to that list o’mine. And, added healthier eating and use of products along with stopping participation in the over and misuse of pharmaceutical intervention. Ty.

  48. olrac says:

    As someone with only a small amount of basic comprehension of the issue at hand, I wonder if folks on either side of the argument would mind illuminating for me.
    As I see it, at its most fundamental (kindergarten) level, here is the issue:
    -There exist diseases against which one may be vaccinated.
    -Vaccinations are a barrier against one’s body becoming infected by disease, but do not kill the disease, nor prevent one from carrying and transmitting it.
    -Very young (infant) children are considered too risky to vaccinate.
    -In nearly all cases, vaccination prevents a person from contracting these diseases (assuming the vaccinations are against those specific strains of disease with which a person comes into contact).
    -In rare cases, vaccination may cause the person to become sick, and in very, very rare cases, that person may die.
    -A small proportion of the population choose not to vaccinate themselves and/or their children, putting those children at risk for contracting potentially life-threatening diseases.
    -These children may transmit such diseases to others that may not have been vaccinated yet, due to age.

    So, given all this… What is the problem? It almost seems to me that the people on one side are using pseudoscience to rebel against the guvment having too much control in their personal lives, whereas the other side is operating under the mentality that all lives need to be preserved, even if they’re too weak to survive diseases on their own.
    When a former cat of mine had kittens, one of them was a runt. Quite weak and small, though I’ve no doubt she’d have made it just fine with a little extra attention. My dog didn’t think so far into the future. When the litter of 4 kittens fed at the mother cat’s teats, my dog would walk over, pick up the runt, and carry her several yards away. I’d chastise the dog and carry the runt back to feed. Eventually, my dog took a more severe approach and killed the runt in order to ensure the other cats were not adversely affected by additional resources going to promote the survival of the runt.
    Last I noticed, we live in a gravely overpopulated world, already seeing signs of natural resource shortage that will become much more dire in the next few decades. Honestly, what is the argument against allowing weaker individuals to die out? Is it not better that they go as infants & toddlers?
    Forgive me if the answers are obvious, but I’m just not seeing them.

    • ShawShaw says:

      If you had a child, and they died of an easily preventable disease because you or someone you know didn’t vaccinate, would your response be, “Oh well. We live in a gravely overpoulated world. My child was a weaker individual who was meant to die out”? I don’t think you would. Overpopulation is a problem best solved not by letting easily prevented diseases run amok, but by educating people(especially women) and helping them control their own fertility and futures.

      Your understanding of vaccines isn’t accurate, either. It doesn’t prevent the body from being infected by the disease. Rather, it conditions the immune system to recognize the virus and “teaches” it how to fight it. Our immune systems have a sort of memory that way. I don’t know the specifics of exactly how it works, but apparently having your immune system “learn” from a weakened or killed version of the virus is good enough for it to be able to fight off subsequent infections of the virus at full strength. It “recognizes” the virus as soon as it enters the body, and fights it off before it can do much damage.

      • olrac says:

        Thanks for your reply.
        And yes, despite your assumptions otherwise, that would be roughly my response. Just as I was crushed that the runt kitten did not make it, at the end of the day one must just say, “Well, it just wasn’t strong enough and although it could’ve made it with a little extra help, it’s no great tragedy that we’ll not have that chance.” It’s certainly better that the life was cut short before it had a chance to truly begin, rather than in the middle of that journey.
        I think you misunderstood what I said about infection, as well. Carrying a virus is not infection. By saying vaccines prevent the body from becoming infected, what I was describing is exactly what you said in more detail.

        • Anonymous says:

          Feel free to correct my “assumptions otherwise”, but… I’m guessing you don’t, in point of fact, have children?

          Biology is an *amazing* thing. I can regard your runt kitten’s life [relatively] dispassionately, even other people’s lives. My (two, ZPG) kids? I would, I am pretty certain, jump in front of a train if it would save them. I don’t think I’d do that for their father, my sister, my parents. SAVE THE GENES. I cannot *imagine* being able to say, about a child of mine, “Well, it’s for the best, clearly he wasn’t strong enough to survive.”

          Maybe you can? In that case, you may never be able to understand why other people (the majority, I suspect) can’t.

          (P.S. They’re vaccinated.)

        • ShawShaw says:

          Your main point seems to be that because there’s so many people here already, we might as well let the weak ones die. Diseases we vaccinate against no not only kill weak individuals. A perfectly healthy person with no deficiencies in their immune system can easily catch these diseases and die from them.

          I also take issue with your larger point for a variety of reasons: First of all we don’t let the weak ones die because determining who the weak ones are isn’t easy. Where do you draw the line? If you can’t survive measles as a baby are you weak? If you can’t survive a heart attack? A car wreck? How do you determine who’s worth saving?

          Second of all, those you consider weak of body are still perfectly capable of making great contributions to society and being valuable individuals. I don’t want to live in a society where Stephen Hawking couldn’t speak or would have died long ago because his worth and right to exist were determined by his physical condition.

          • olrac says:

            If a person dies from a disease, then yes, that person is weak. A naturally occurring infection led to that person’s demise, meaning that when faced with nature, that person was unable to survive.
            I think you’re missing the point, though. A person who contracts a disease is not doomed. If he/she or his/her parents so choose, then modern technology may be used at their discretion to keep them healthy. Seems to me a key focus for science would be to develop vaccines that are safe at any age… at birth, even. This way, the crazies who are somehow anti-gov’t involvement regarding personal choice in vaccinations, yet pro-gov’t involvement regarding personal choice in sex/reproductive rights would be free to make their decisions without fear of being blamed for the death of a child’s classmate in daycare, and the pro-vaccination folks would still be free to keep their kids healthy as they see fit, without fear of some anti-gov’t douchebag’s unsuspecting child transmitting death by wet Willie.

          • ShawShaw says:

            “A person who contracts a disease is not doomed. If he/she or his/her parents so choose, then modern technology may be used at their discretion to keep them healthy.”

            Vaccines are the best modern technology we have for fighting diseases. How are they different from any other modern technology you could use at your discretion to stay healthy?

          • SamSam says:

            I’m assuming that your trolling us with your assertion that you’d say it was “no great tragedy” if one of your children were to die of a disease, so I won’t comment on that.

            Your last point, on the other hand, is much easier to respond to: saying that science ought to just develop a better vaccine that can be used at any age is about as helpful a solution to the problem as suggesting that a fairy ought to come down an magically immunize everybody.

            Magic wishful science aside, then, your dismissal of those who are “operating under the mentality that all lives need to be preserved, even if they’re too weak to survive diseases on their own,” is silly. All humans are too weak to survive certain deseases at birth. There’s no two ways about it.

            I’m not sure if you think we’d be developing a race of super-humans by simply not caring that infants aren’t able to fight diseases. In the real world, people do care that infants can’t fight diseases, and one of the best preventions of infant infection is strong herd immunity. Which is what the pro-vaccers are arguing for.

      • olrac says:

        Oh, and is the best solution to overpopulation not to address all possible factors, and not to put all our efforts into the fertility front?

        • ShawShaw says:

          Let me see if I understand your arguement: Overpopulation is bad. It is bad because it causes suffering and will damage the progress of the human race. Therefore, we should go back to the dark ages of medicine and let swaths of people die from the black plague to keep this from happening. Do you see the problem? You still get massive amounts of suffering, and we can’t progress technologically or philosophically when we’re too busy bleeding out of our eyes and fighting tooth and nail just to survive. The humane measures available to control the population are enough. Let’s just stick to those.

          I recommend you read this National Geographic article on the population, by the way:

          http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text

          If you want a summary: the best way to bring down birth rates of an area is to educate them; particularly their women.

          • olrac says:

            “Therefore, we should go back to the dark ages of medicine and let swaths of people die from the black plague to keep this from happening”
            If you don’t mind, can you elaborate as to how, in a society where nearly all people are immunized against diseases, you believe that a few nutjobs failing to vaccinate their children will have more than a negligible effect on life as we know it? More than 300 million people in the US, you know… and you think a few thousand dying from diseases each year really matters?
            I’ve read that issue cover-to-cover, by the way, and it doesn’t support any idea you’ve presented so far.

          • ShawShaw says:

            I seem to have conflated your original arguement for letting the crazies have their kids go unvaccinated without punishment with wanting to let diseases go unprevented altogether because of our burgeoning population. My apologies.

            “You believe that a few nutjobs failing to vaccinate their children will have more than a negligible effect on life as we know it? More than 300 million people in the US, you know… and you think a few thousand dying from diseases each year really matters?”

            Yes. I do. One of those few thousand could be someone very dear to me. Excuse me for caring about people dying for dumb and completely preventable reasons.

            So, when you ready that Nat Geo issue, and you saw the section about why Japan’s population is aging and their birth rate is shrinking, that didn’t make an impression? At all?

          • olrac says:

            So, you would also support legislation that all automobiles be outlawed, due to dangers of pollution and accidents? That all dogs be euthanized, due to dangers of attacks? That all people be prohibited from interpersonal relations, due to possibility of person-on-person violence? Let’s be serious, now…

          • ShawShaw says:

            “So, you would also support legislation that all automobiles be outlawed, due to dangers of pollution and accidents? That all dogs be euthanized, due to dangers of attacks? That all people be prohibited from interpersonal relations, due to possibility of person-on-person violence? Let’s be serious, now…”

            Slippery slope arguements are the worst. You’re smarter than that. The cost benefit of vaccinations is in no way comparable to outlawing cars or killing all dogs. Vaccinating is easy to do, has virtually no risks or drawbacks and improves our quality of life vastly. None of your examples meet all of those criteria. I think you’ll find, in fact, that any example you can come up with that does meet all three of those criteria is perfectly reasonable and probably codified into our laws in some way.

        • sabik says:

          Oh, and is the best solution to overpopulation not to address all possible factors, and not to put all our efforts into the fertility front?

          Some fronts are more humane than others… improved medicine, access to fertility control and empowerment and education of women have reduced fertility rates world-wide and are continuing to do so, while improving the lives of all concerned (longer, healthier, wealthier lives).

          The spread of easily-preventable diseases does nothing for anyone, really.

  49. dragonfrog says:

    Even the article excerpt here points out that 11% of the cases were in vaccinated people (well, it points out that 89% were in unvaccinated people, but still). As pointed out earlier in this very thread, no vaccine is 100% effective, and the measles vaccine in particular is around 90% effective.

    So, let’s distinguish between unvaccinated people, and people who are vulnerable to the disease.

    People who are vulnerable consist of close to 100% of unvaccinated people, plus about 10% of vaccinated people.

    So, by not vaccinating, a person basically decides to give themselves a 90% chance of contracting measles from, and of passing it along to, not only other unvaccinated people, but also 10% of those who are vaccinated.

    I’ve seen the figure that gives a 90% chance of a non-immune person contracting measles from an infectious person with whom they live. That doesn’t mean the chance of contracting it from shorter contact is zero, and you can’t just discount all those other contacts – it would be somewhat less for someone you work or attend school with all day, less again from someone whose table you wait on or who waits on your table in a restaurant, less again from someone you sit near on a bus once, some very small but still non-zero chance from someone who had out a library book before you did…

  50. Anonymous says:

    Two words- whooping cough – go get vaccinated, screw the community reasons – it just SUCKS to get. and it lasts 10 weeks.

  51. bklynchris says:

    AAAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH! Please replace all of the “prevalence”s below with incidence. My bad, my very, very bad. I am getting old.

    If we want this to change we better start thinking very differently about how we approach it. Anon’s response to me actually brought up a very real aspect of health education and vaccine compliance, the prevalence of the result of NOT vaccinating. Now vaccination has been linked ‘in the minds’ of the non/anti-vaccinators with autism. This is a condition that has been increasing in prevalence at a faster rate than the infectious diseases prevented by the vaccines.

  52. davedorr9 says:

    Re: FREEDOM / LIBERTY
    “My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.”
    Yes, I am making an analogy that Unvaccinated Child:can’t-be-vaccinated-infant::your fist:my chin (or my kid’s chin)

    Re: NON-COERCION / Education for anti-vaccination persons
    I agree that education is important, and I’d encourage us to try it with individuals who are antivaccination. However, public debate on the issue must also use elements of ‘social marketing’ – appealing to core values of interested parties because logic does not apply. When we have a belief (vaccination causes illness! vaccination is coercion! antivaccination people are crazy!), part of our reptile/emotile brain discounts logical statements that refute that belief while believing illogical statements that back up that belief. So, we have to consider using statements like: you could be hurting another child – or another dozen children – by not vaccinating your child. And, we as a society have to think about how many children we are willing to see harmed before non-maleficence needs to impinge on liberty. You might have a different view, but part of our social contract as a civilization is that we have to abide by certain agreements.
    And although I don’t think anti-vaccination people are crazy, I think their moral sense is in direct contradiction with both my moral sense and our social contract, even in the US. I don’t think it is enough to wish they would stop punching me in the chin.

  53. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Good Lord, olrac, I though that you were making a Swiftian Modest Proposal. Now that I see that you’re serious, I’ll take your advice and begin the cull.

  54. charming.quark says:

    Dyzan @ #86: Oh my, dear, you ARE posting in the wrong forum.

    BaylorRugby @ #83: You say “I simply oppose a Federal mandate. Mandates in order to participate in public schools or licensed daycares are perfectly reasonable and necessary.” So what level of mandate are you proposing? State-, County-, City-level, or every school and day-care issuing their own mandates?

    Matt Drew @ #87: You say “Measles is no longer a deadly disease.” This statistic is straight from WHO’s measles page: “In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.”

    ShawShaw @ #98: You said it!

    The fact that these arguments are even taking place here is a testament to the efficacy of mandated vaccination programs.

    I would humbly suggest that everyone read Jim McDonald’s “Why We Immunize” post on Making Light, and especially Elizabeth Moon’s quoted essay, as a reminder.
    http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010978.html

    Boy, do people forget.

    • Dzyan says:

      “In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.”

      Interesting. That is about the same number as die in hospitals because of medical mistakes. When I brake a leg I will go to a hospital.

      In the Netherlands the number is 3500 a year. Not because of illness because of medical mistakes. That is a Boeing 747 each month. You can find these numbers in public databases. Look them up for the US or the country you live in. You will see that I am right. Does this prevent you from going to a hospital?

      All living things have the ability to heal themselves. When you cut your finger do you visit a doctor?

      At this moment people that go to hospitals in the Netherlands have a good chance to get ill with a multi resistant Bacteria. Specially on the countryside. Because all the pigs and cattle are on a daily dose of antibiotics. Chicken is 80% contaminated with these bacteria. And so on…..

      Perhaps this is not the right audience. But I work with ill people every day. Its my job and luckily I have had all my diseases tackled on a natural way. My body did the job. So I am immune to them now which makes me able to work.

      Warm greetings,

      Dzyan

  55. Anonymous says:

    The onus is on the physicians to properly educate parents of how important vaccinations really are.

    *throws up hands in despair*

    Oh my god, what do you think we’ve been DOING? But I’m not Oprah, I’m not Jenny. I tell people evidence proves it’s safe, I tell people that all the major pediatric/medical groups in North America and the WORLD agree it’s safe, I answer questions, I provide links, and ultimately, emotional arguments and tears on TV and blaring web pages have more pull than I do. I’m kind of busy *also* trying to educate about not smoking, exercising, eating vegetables, wearing bike helmets & getting Pap smears and, oh yeah, looking after the sick when primary prevention doesn’t work (which, obviously, it doesn’t always. I’m not blaming everyone with heart attacks or cancer or bike crashes for their conditions – *or* those few for whom vaccinations did not prevent disease, but they really are the few and far between.)

    “Anti-coercion” sounds good, but you know, I’m all for coercing people to rein in their murderous tendencies. Or coercing people into proving their ability to drive a motor vehicle. We don’t live in isolation. People (patients) have the right to make stupid choices. But when those start affecting the lives – potentially the *survival* – of those around them, especially kids who haven’t had the chance to make a choice? That’s selfish and wrong.

Leave a Reply