What everyone gets wrong about anti-vaccine parents

iStock_000015890655Small

We told them this would happen.

We told them that it was only a matter of time before a childhood disease that had nearly been eliminated from the US would come roaring back if they failed to vaccinate their children. And that’s precisely what has happened. Measles has come roaring back, but not simply because a child incubating measles visited Disneyland.

Twenty years ago, if the same child had visited Disneyland, the measles would have stopped with him or her. Everyone else was protected — not because everyone was vaccinated — but because of herd immunity. When a high enough proportion of the population is vaccinated, the disease simply can’t spread because the odds of one unvaccinated person coming in contact with another are very low.

Of course, we told them that. We patiently explained herd immunity, debunked claims of an association between vaccines and autism, demolished accusations of “toxins” in vaccines, but they didn’t listen. Why? Because we thought the problem was that anti-vax parents didn’t understand science. That’s undoubtedly true, but the anti-vax movement is NOT about science and never was.

The anti-vax movement has never been about children, and it hasn’t really been about vaccines. It’s about privileged parents and how they wish to view themselves.

1. Privilege

Nothing screams “privilege” louder than ostentatiously refusing something that those less privileged wish to have.

Each and every anti-vax parent is privileged in having easy and inexpensive access to life saving vaccines. It is the sine qua non of the anti-vax movement. In a world where the underprivileged may trudge miles to the nearest clinic, desperate to save their babies from infectious scourges, nothing communicates the unbelievable wealth, ease and selfishness of modern American life like refusing the very same vaccines.

2. Unreflective defiance of authority

There are countless societal ills that stem from the fact that previous generations were raised to unreflective acceptance of authority. It’s not hard to argue that unflective acceptance of authority, whether that authority is the government or industry, is a bad thing. BUT that doesn’t make the converse true. Unreflective defiance is really no different from unreflective acceptance. Oftentimes, the government, or industry, is right about a particular set of claims.

Experts in a particular topic, such as vaccines, really are experts. They really know things that the lay public does not. Moreover, it is not common to get a tremendous consensus among experts from different fields. Experts in immunology, pediatrics, public health and just about everything else you can think of have weighed in on the side of vaccines. Experts in immunology, pediatrics and public health give vaccines to their OWN children, rendering claims that they are engaged in a conspiracy to hide the dangers of vaccines to be nothing short of ludicrous.

Unfortunately, most anti-vax parents consider defiance of authority to be a source of pride, whether that defiance is objectively beneficial or not.

3. The need to feel “empowered”

This is what is comes down to for most anti-vax parents: it’s a source of self-esteem for them. In their minds, they have “educated” themselves. How do they know they are “educated”? Because they’ve chosen to disregard experts (who appear to them as authority figures) in favor of quacks and charlatans, whom they admire for their own defiance of authority. The combination of self-education and defiance of authority is viewed by anti-vax parents as an empowering form of rugged individualism, marking out their own superiority from those pathetic “sheeple” who aren’t self-educated and who follow authority.

Where does that leave us?

First, it explains why efforts to educate anti-vax parents about the science of immunology has been such a spectacular failure. It is not, and has never been, about the science.

Second, it suggests how we must change our approach. Simply put, we have to hit anti-vax parents where they live: in their unmerited sense of superiority.

How? By pointing out to them, and critiquing, their own motivations.

Anti-vax parents are anxious to see themselves in a positive light. They would almost certainly be horrified to find that others regard them as so incredibly privileged that they can’t even see their own privilege.

We need to highlight the fact that unreflective defiance is just the flip side of unreflective acceptance. There’s nothing praiseworthy about it. Only teenagers think that refusing to do what authority figures recommend marks them as independent. Adults know that doing the exact opposite of what authority figures recommend is a sign of immaturity, not deliberation, and certainly not education.

Finally, we need to emphasize to parents that parenting is not about them and their feelings. It’s about their children and THEIR health and well being. It’s one thing to decline to follow a medical recommendation. Most of us do that all the time. It’s another thing entirely to join groups defined by defiance, buy their products, and preach to others about your superiority in defying medical recommendations. That’s a sign of the need to bolster their own self-esteem, not their “education.”

We have to confront anti-vax parents where they live — in their egos. When refusing to vaccinate your children is widely viewed as selfish, irresponsible, and the hallmark of being UNeducated, anti-vax advocacy will lose its appeal.

 

 

I have had to remove a substantial portion of the comments because the 2000+ comments were crashing the page, and intermittently crashing the entire site.

2,116 Responses to “What everyone gets wrong about anti-vaccine parents”

  1. Culchee
    at #

    Add to the above Bias Confirmation.

  2. DogMa
    at #

    Probably a good point. I hadn’t thought of it from that angle, either, only that these were people that needed a quick course in the science. It does make sense that the privileged (awkward word choice, yes, but it makes the point) think they don’t need the vaccines that the great unwashed do. But just wait until one of their precious offspring GETS measles and GETS encephalitis as a complication. Then the now-useless college fund will be used up in a year on 24/7 nursing care for the now hopelessly brain damaged unvaccinated offspring. But the regrets will last forever.

  3. Angus Dorbie
    at #

    A good article but sadly contaminated by the overused “privilege” insult, a real red flag indicative of a certain political sub-culture.

    • at #

      Privilege is a thing that exists. Everyone has varying degrees of it, and since we are all variously privileged or disadvantaged on lots and lots of axes it’s not really insulting to point out that privilege exists. It’s just a fact.

      Axes of privilege in the US include being white, male, Christian, straight, cisgender, young-to-middle-age, able-bodied, mentally healthy, and upper middle class or higher socioeconomic status. Axes of disadvantage include being a person of color, female, non-Christian, transgender or genderfluid or genderqueer, very young or very old, disabled, mentally ill, and working class or lower socioeconomic status. Privilege is subtle- it’s things like being deferred to more automatically, not being followed in stores, presumed to be telling the truth, given more benefit of the doubt, not interrupted in business meetings, having your story and your viewpoint considered the “neutral” viewpoint. It’s not having to spend your life worried about the police coming after you for no good reason. It’s not having to spend your life worried about sexual assault. It’s having your crazy ideas that harm people validated as “freedom” while other people’s crazy ideas that harm people are rejected. It’s having your acts of violence handwaved as aberrations while others’ acts of violence are taken to smear their group as a whole (example: a Muslim shooting up a military base is called Islamist terrorism, but a Christian bombing an abortion clinic is not called Christian terrorism).

      And yes, in case you’re wondering, I have a whole fuckload of privilege and only a few axes of disadvantage. I’m white, upper middle class, mostly straight, well-educated, able-bodied, have no mental illnesses, cisgender, and right in the winning age range (25-50). I’m female and I’m not Christian, so that can suck sometimes, but overall I’m benefiting a lot from a society that assumes I’m valuable and that my ideas are worth listening to, not because my ideas are necessarily awesome, but because of my demographic characteristics. Assuming that your picture is an accurate one and based on the content of your post, I’m going to say it’s highly likely you have almost no disadvantages at all. You have no idea what it’s like to be not-like-you, you have no idea the subtle privileges you get every single day of your life. Maybe you should listen to people who try to tell you that not everyone lives your life, instead of saying “well I don’t deal with it therefore it’s not real”. The privilege to ignore the suffering of others … that’s a big one you seem to have. People who are disadvantaged don’t get to ignore their disadvantages.

    • Who?
      at #

      How is it insulting to describe someone who lives in the most affluent society in the history of the world, ‘privileged’? You might feel awkward about your privilege, or it might not fit in with a particular persecution motif you identify with, but simply in practical terms it is not inaccurate.

  4. Lyndsy
    at #

    It would be nice if we could remember that there are more than two sides to any conversation. We’d all be a lot better off if we could be understanding enough of the other to move out of our “camps” long enough to find a common ground and move forward on this issue in a conscious way. Berating others is not usually a successful approach to having a conversation. The only people nodding their heads in agreement with you are people that already agreed with you. If we really want to see change then we need to let go of our emotional motivations and move forward with objective compassion and creativity.

    • Who?
      at #

      Well, there can be two sides to a conversation, but as someone recently pointed out, the truth isn’t necessarily in the middle. Vaccines have saved millions of lives. They are A Good Thing. To say anything else is to misunderstand facts.

      Perhaps if compassion is your thing you might like to think about who really needs it.

      How about people who are too young or too sick to be protected by vaccination, and who rely on herd immunity-are they worthy of compassion?

      Those who would be left dead and permanently injured by VPIs currently avoided by vaccines-are they worthy enough for you?

      How about those whose parents care more about their own fears, egos and beliefs based on self serving nonsense on the internet, than their children’s health?

      People in countries that can’t afford vaccination and who lose family members to VPIs every year.

      Surprisingly often people come here to ‘educate’ Dr T and stay as they learn they can criticise without being blocked, and that the information that is out there from reputable sources is far more accurate and responsible than the nonsense coming from any one or all of the dozens or hundreds of anti-vaxxers pouring out their fear and rage.

      You won’t be blocked. If you forget the ‘compassion’ you claim to be pushing, and resort to insult, you’ll be heard. Have a look down the thread if you haven’t done so already and see people trying to engage with Rosanna, MCH and whoever the other anti-vaxxers du jour are, and only bailing out when the ‘yes, but’ gets too much. You’ll see the paranoia of the current anti-vax lot: it is particularly unattractive to my way of thinking, but there seems to be a personality disorder for every taste and budget displayed in the anti comments across the site.

    • Montserrat Blanco
      at #

      I would love to feel the compassion that anti-vaccine parents have for my 4 month old premature baby (vaccinated according to his age), too young to receive the MMR shot.

  5. Steel_Wind
    at #

    Respectfully, they don’t get herd immunity — because anti-vaxxers are bad at math and make illogical decisions. Their decisions are based on subjective “feelings”, emotion and selfishness.

    This is about mothers who cannot do math. Yes, mothers — not fathers.

    So lets get to it: the embarrassing and profoundly disturbing part of all of this. The large majority of anti-vaxxers are women. This problem is to be laid directly at their feet.

    That’s because when it comes to child care – women carry the keys to THAT magic kingdom. If men were the majority of anti-vaxxers, this wouldn’t be remotely as bad. For the most part, it’s women take the kids to the doctor’s office and sign them up for school and deal with these issues in North America. If men were 80% of the anti-vaxxers, there would have been a HELLUVA lot more kids vaccinated because women would have done it anyway and seen to the healthcare of those kids.

    That’s the way our society works, rightly or wrongly. So when mothers don’t buy in, as a society, we’re **screwed**.

    This is about Mothers who can’t do math, but are very adept at “self-education” and “empowerment”.

    It is infuriating and my patience for this insanity is entirely at an end.

    It is time for sweeping and coercive legislation, with mandatory vaccination administered through the school system without ANY warnings. No opting out for ANY reason. That kid gets the needle no matter what. Because we are not asking sweetheart — this time, we’re telling. And “no” isn’t on the menu.

    The End.

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      um.. no..

      Big fan of vaccinations, but no. Medical reasons are still reasons.. Most vaccinations are done for the under 6s, and I’d be livid if someone vaccinated my kid without my consent (and without input from her immunologists).

      Other parents should definitely be encouraged to speak up more, but women are definitely not the only ones in the anti-vax hole.

      • Steel_Wind
        at #

        Your dissenting vote on this issue is duly noted — and should be duly ignored. The fact that you’d be livid is no longer my concern.

        I am entirely in support of coercive legislation that will do this no matter how livid that would make you. I no longer care about irrational dissent on this issue.

        • Molly Glenn
          at #

          Some people have legitimate medical conditions that compromise their immune systems and prevent them from being vaccinated. This is why herd immunity is so important. This is why we care that other people are vaccinated because they’re hurting the people who can’t be and not just themselves.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            You know how to tell the difference between an antivaxxer versus someone who has a legitimate medical contraindication?

            The first one runs around telling everyone else how bad vaccines are. The second one says, “I talked to my doctor and I can’t have this shot, so please, other people get it!”

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Not necessarily. You can acknowledge that vaccines are generally life-saving but still hold legitimate concerns about the timing and especially numbers which are foisted on a child during a time when their brain is much more vulnerable to toxic insult than that of an adult. You can also hold concerns which ARE supported by peer-reviewed research that autism is an autoimmune condition, which, if true, means you cannot rule out anything designed to act or trigger the child’s immune system. We need to have a sensible discussion about this. Unfortunately all we get are articles like the one above.

            The only thing driving the lack of uptake in vaccines or the demand for alternative schedules is the fact that “science” has still not come up with an adequate explanation or any action at all to halt the rise in the incidence of neurodevelopmental and autoimmune conditions. By far the biggest factor in a parent deciding not to vaccinate is an observed reaction to vaccines in a sibling of the unvaccinated or close relative or family friend. Not a crackpot website, or accessing medical sites they don’t understand. Family experience. Time and again I’ve said it—if you want people to have confidence in yoru medical system, find out what the hell has caused the jump to one kid in 45. Because it’s clear that the biggest issue we’re facing is not a pandemic of infectious disease (which is a problem) but the far more immediate concern that between 2-5% of millennials are becoming mentally disabled. And before you say ‘better than death’, a autistic child is more likely to die at an earlier again and suffer, as they age, a battery of physical and mental health problems. Suicide for autistics is also higher. It’s a devastating condition. When you observe a family gon through this—your sister, your cousin, your neighbour—and you see the State doing nothing to determine the cause and put a stop to it, then in your mind doing something, anything, to protect your kid from that future is your primary motivator. So rather than pouring resources and energy into bullying parents in this position, pour the energy into tackling the worst public health crisis we’ve ever faced. Get of your butts, do some experiments, and rule out NOTHING until you are sure you’ve determined the ACTUAL causes of autistic regression.

            Coming first to the issue of sexism—as a feminist I would say this absolutely rife in the debate. Women are frequently portrayed as backward, emotional, or irrational (very very old tropes when describing women in medicine see Women Under the Knife and the medical anthropology of Sheila Kitzinger “Ourselves as Mothers” is a good place to start.) Numerous studies have shown gender bias in medicine where women’s pain or observation about their bodies or their children’s are routinely ignored or accorded less weight than men’s.

            Examination of the memes and cartoons released by the Vaccine Advocate camp frequently portray women, and especially mothers, as irrational and ignorant. The presented face of “Anti-Vaxxers” in these pro-vax memes is a female one. In text memes, the use of feminine pronouns and reference to “brainwashed mothers” (but not fathers) abound. These cartoons and memes also show very violent images. I recently collected cartoons from the pro-vax camp that showed a woman having a fit when when she was presented with facts from a male doctor (subtext, your female brain overloads when presented with information) and one especially violent image where a doctor — again a man — is stabbing a syringe into a woman’s brain. The level of violence in these images is astounding.

            http://quietmike.org/2015/01/29/punch-anti-vaxxers-face-facts/#prettyPhoto/0/

            In this image we see a graphic depiction of a violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy. If you don’t see anything wrong with this image, then I truly pity you, but maybe you should just not talk to or about women on the internet.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            None of that is scientific evidence. If you want to participate in the discussion you must post peer reviewed scientific studies THAT YOU HAVE READ, not nonsense spoon fed to you by quacks.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            I don’t see any peer reviewed research pointing to the “privilege” argument. The original poster wrote this: “Each and every anti-vax parent is privileged in having easy and inexpensive access to life saving vaccines. It is the sine qua non of the anti-vax movement. In a world where the underprivileged may trudge miles to the nearest clinic, desperate to save their babies from infectious scourges, nothing communicates the unbelievable wealth, ease and selfishness of modern American life like refusing the very same vaccines…” Obviously this seemingly outrageous statement will be backed up with quality peer reviewed social science research. Otherwise it looks awfully like bigoted hate speech to me. Until such time as you point peer reviewed social science research pointing to non-vaccinating parents as acting from a sense of privilege and entitlement then no, I don’t think I need to post any papers at all. However, if you want a run-down of the studies that have been done on Autism and autoimmunity since 1947, you can go here, to this paper published in 2011 by the Journal of Immunotoxicology. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086
            I have read the paper in full. The literature review (the scientist who wrote the paper was a senior scientist in the pharmaceutical industry and published this on her retirement—her career was spotless and she is highly respect, as this journal)— points to an emerging theory that regressive autism is a neuroimmune condition caused by autoimmunity, and that vaccines may play a role, and cannot be ruled out at this stage until we know for SURE what is causing regressive autism.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            If you’ve read the paper in full, quote the relevant passage AND tell us what the preponderance of the literature on that particular issue shows.

            You do understand that a single scientific paper isn’t proof, right?

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Amy, do you know what a literature review is? I just did. If you had actually read my post… I’ll restate it here…

            However, if you want a run-down of the studies that have been done on Autism and autoimmunity since 1947, you can go here, to this paper published in 2011 by the Journal of Immunotoxicology. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi
            I have read the paper in full. The literature review (the scientist who wrote the paper was a senior scientist in the pharmaceutical industry and published this on her retirement—her career was spotless and she is highly respect, as this journal)— points to an emerging theory that regressive autism is a neuroimmune condition caused by autoimmunity, and that vaccines may play a role, and cannot be ruled out at this stage until we know for SURE what is causing regressive autism.

            When you go and read that literature review, then we can talk. I’ll wait.

            And while I’m waiting, you can find me the peer reviewed social science research that supports the argument the original poster made. 🙂 We wouldn’t want to be hypocrites now, would we?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            I’m not interested in a literature review. I’m interested in a discussion of the relevant scientific papers and the context of the preponderance of the evidence. The crap you’re spewing may convince the gullible (such as yourself apparently), but it isn’t going to convince anyone with actual scientific training.

            Try again.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            I do have scientific training. So let me try again. A literature review is a run down, a study of ALL the available literature on a particular topic. IF you had the scientific training and the medical degree you claim, you would know this.

            Since you haven’t clicked on the link and not read the paper (this is why I rarely post them because you lot never seem to read them) I’ll explain what the review contains.

            The scientist reviewed every single study done into the causes of autism from 1947 onwards, drawing only on reputable medical research databases like pubmed.

            Here’s the abstract:

            Abstract
            Autism, a member of the pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs), has been increasing dramatically since its description by Leo Kanner in 1943. First estimated to occur in 4 to 5 per 10,000 children, the incidence of autism is now 1 per 110 in the United States, and 1 per 64 in the United Kingdom, with similar incidences throughout the world. Searching information from 1943 to the present in PubMed and Ovid Medline databases, this review summarizes results that correlate the timing of changes in incidence with environmental changes. Autism could result from more than one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms. Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment.

            Keywords:: Autism, autism spectrum disorder, pervasive developmental disorder,

            I pulled the entire paper off ATHENS, my university library.

            Now, you’ve just called me names and accused me of spewing crap.

            I’ll ask you again. The original poster made some statements about social science — the reasons why parents refuse vaccines. He stated that the reasons stemmed from a sense of entitlement. He did not back a SINGLE one of those statements up with peer reviewed social science research. Where is it? I’ve met your request for papers.

            Are you going to meet mine. or just accuse me and slur me as ‘gullible’ and ‘spewing crap’? As if name-calling, Dr Tuetur, was substituted for a discussion?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            The abstract is not enough and one paper doesn’t tell us anything. Your scientific training is woefully lacking if you don’t understand that.

            You’ve made an extraordinary claim, that vaccines cause autism, so you need to provide extraordinary evidence. You haven’t done that; you keep regurgitating crap fabricated by quacks.

            Try again.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            What you are doing, Amy, is something called Gaslighting or strawmanning. I do not need to “Try Again.” What is that you think I’m trying to do? By the way, it’s obvious from your response that you don’t have that medical degree you claim.

            You have no way of knowing what my actual position on vaccination is. You dont know whether I’m pro-vaccine, but want more research into autism to allay parents fears, or a middle-of-the-roader, who wants a modified schedule, or an out and out anti-vaxx nutjob who believes the lizard men are upon us because Jesus is coming back in a spaceship to save us from the midichlorians in our blood. But what you are doing is setting up an ever shifting set of requirements for participation in this discussion. it’s fascinating to watch.

            Incidentally, more information on how gaslighting works can be found here:

            http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1995-25157-001

            Again, you’ll have to use that medical degree you apparently have to access the library. Sorry about that. You can also try wikipedia which has a really good article on gaslighting and mental abuse:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

            Let’s look at what you’ve done. You ask me to site a paper I’ve read. I cite one, and ask you to please provide the peer reviewed evidence to support the statements made in the original post. You ignore the fact I’ve asked you for that three times but continue to restate why I haven’t met your requirements, which shift every time I do. You go from site a paper to QUOTE a paper. Then you say “No, not THAT paper, THAT paper doesnt count. Cite another.”

            In fact this is classic gaslighting and very typical of what parents face when they enter discussions like this. Gaslighting, as you know, is a form of mental abuse,. which is also apparent from the tone of the original article which contains no substantive or verifiable evidence at all.

            The vagueness of your attack is also an indication you’re not interested in serious discussion. You’ve called me gullible but have not said which parts of my statements you think are mistaken. You’ve accused me of listening to “quacks” despite the only scientist I quoted being Helen V. Ratajczak who worked in the pharmaceutical industry for decades and is highly respected in her field and widely published in peer-review journals. Perhaps they only become “quacks” when they come up with findings or informed scientific opinion that challenge your world view? The only journal I’ve quoted is one of the top scientific journals.

            Because you’re now clutching at those strawman straws, you revert to type: slurs, which have no place in rational debate or in science. Which you would know, were you a real scientist.

            Try again.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            You have no way of knowing what my actual position on vaccination is. You dont know whether I’m pro-vaccine, but want more research into autism to allay parents fears, or a middle-of-the-roader, who wants a modified schedule, or an out and out anti-vaxx nutjob who believes the lizard men are upon us because Jesus is coming back in a spaceship to save us from the midichlorians in our blood.

            Except the research has been done, and it’s exceedingly clear that vaccines don’t cause autism. Millions of children have been examined, and not one whiff of a connection has been found. But to satisfy people like you, uncountable amounts of money and man-hours that could be going into better therapies, better detection, and better understanding of autism are being endlessly diverted into the same already answered question over and over again. ALL THREE of those positions are anti-vaccine, so it doesn’t matter one whit which, if any, of them you hold. They’re all wrong, and all for the same reasons.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Okay Nick, I’ll bite.

            What causes autism?

            Actually WTF?

            “We need research into the causes of autism so that parents will know exactly what causes autism so they can take up the vaccine schedule in confidence”

            is an ANTI VAX position?”

            *shakes head*

            Sweet baby Medicorian Jesus. The delusions are worse than I thought. I did read you right?

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            And FYI, if scientists are still asking questions on the causes of autism and theorising its an autoimmune condition and theorising that vaccines can sometimes cause autoimmunity…then the questions are very much open. That’s why it’s science. We just have new questions. No real answers, Nick, until you can tell us what causes autism.

          • Wren
            at #

            Which scientists are theorising that vaccines may be causing an autoimmune condition which in turn may be causing autism? You keep saying “scientists” but are you talking about a consensus theory or a few people still looking for a way to tie vaccines to autism?

            We do not need to know what causes X to be able to rule out some potential causes. Are you equally as concerned that electrical fields or gmo foods or new cleaning products or sleeping on one’s back or eating peaches in pregnancy or any of a million other possible causes have not been ruled out as we do not know the cause of autism? Of course not. Your claim that we cannot rule anything out without knowing the cause for certain only applies to vaccines.

          • “NO real answers, Nick, until you can tell us what causes autism.”

            Genetics, sometimes inheritable, sometimes de novo. Oh and CRS. Plus other things. Vaccines aren’t one of them.

            But “until you know the answer, you don’t know the non-answer” is bullshit. I mislaid my keys the other day – the first place I checked is my shelf. Not there. I hadn’t found them yet but I knew they weren’t on my shelf.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a6ff64a557628bde93e329b94bce27f5356c21e363a6b0e7130d15bdb9c4e4a2.jpg

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Not science. Please present actual scientific evidence.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            We don’t need to know exactly what causes autism to rule out vaccines as a potential cause. Which has been done.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Wrong, and so wrong because IF autism (or autisms) are immune conditions you CANNOT rule out things that act on the immune system. Broad brush studies make no account of epigenetics — an emerging field — so really, what you are saying is ‘we just need to accept taht its the autism fairy’ and shut down all scientific enquiry. Unless we have a full understanding of autism as a possible immune condition, you can’t rule out anything that acts on the immune system as a potential cause, and in fact that was the conclusion of the literature review I just posted which looked at all the studies, not just a select few.

            She writes:

            With a wide variety of theoretical causes and known
            comorbidities, autism is very complex. It is imperative to identify biomarkers that are expressed differently in autistic patients. Because many autistic individuals have comorbidities, such as epilepsy or mental retardation, many biomarkers will overlap autism and the other disorders. However, the
            quantitation of the biomarker may be different in the two. Measurement of the biomarkers will provide a means of an objective diagnosis of autism and perhaps aid in definition of the comorbidities as well…

            These data confirm those of Perry et al. (2001).
            Retinoid receptors in the brain are also involved in autism:
            there is a disconnect between G-alpha protein and retinoid
            receptors caused by the pertussis toxin found in the DPT vaccine
            in genetically at-risk children (Megson, 2000).
            A defect of cholesterol biosynthesis was found to cause
            the Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome (SLOS) (Tint et al., 1994).
            SLOS manifests some anatomical abnormalities reminiscent
            of those often seen in autism: hypoplasia of the corpus callosum,
            the cerebellum, and particularly, the vermis (Kelley and
            Hennekam, 2000). In autism, the developing macrocephaly
            contrasts with the microcephaly in SLOS present from birth
            and persisting into later life. Clinical data show that SLOS is
            associated with autism (comorbidity) (Lord et al., 1994), and
            suggest that cholesterol supplementation ameliorates autistic
            subjects’ behavioral symptoms (Tierney et al., 2001).

            The issue is far from closed, but thats because a fact in science is provisional only for as long as there is no new information.

            What you’re saying is “we should stop looking for ynew information.”

            That is inherently anti-science and anti-inquiry.

          • yugaya
            at #

            Epigenetics? Jeeeezus.

            “if scientists are still asking questions on the causes of autism and theorising its an autoimmune condition and theorising that vaccines can sometimes cause autoimmunity…then the questions are very much open. That’s why it’s science. ”

            Actually what you have there is the opposite of science – it’s a logical fallacy:

            “The search for new knowledge never ends, and there is almost no end to the amount of information that one may wish to have in a risk-related decision. Since the premise of the delay argument (“If we wait we will know more about X”) is true on all stages of a decision process, this argument can almost always be used to prevent risk-reducing actions. Therefore, from the viewpoint of risk reduction, the delay fallacy is one of the most dangerous fallacies of risk. ”

            http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue36/hansson.htm

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            I’ve just explained why scientists are not ruling out vaccines. They act on the immune system, and autism may have an autoimmune cause. Vaccine havent been ruled out, and they won’t be ruled out. There will always be discussion on this until the causes of autism are known. If you have a problem with that, then you need to write to every university department researching autoimmunity and tell them “you mustn’t look at vaccines. They’ve been ruled out.” Good luck with that one.

            I think I might call the logical fallacy you’ve just demonstrated the “Autism Fairy” Fallacy … hmmm….

            What caused my child’s autism?

            It wasnt vaccines!

            But, what caused my child’s autism?

            We don’t know, maybe the Autism Fairy, but it wasnt vaccines.

            But my kid had this seizure right after the vac—

            Anecdotal! La la la la la I’m not listening to you! It wasnt! For f*cksake STOP ASKING QUESTIONS. It was the autism fairy, dy’hear me!

            Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound to intelligent, literate, often scientiically literate parents who know for an absolute certainty that the autism fairy doesn’t exist. Every effect has a cause. Until you find out what the cause is, you cannot rule out anything we do with a child in infancy or pre-birth.

            I suppose there is a slight probability that the Autism Fairy exists, like there might be a probability that Unicorns or pixies do. But really, isn’t an autoimmune condition more likely—at least theoretically—to be caused by some adverse reaction or imbalance in a child’s immune system? And does it not also follow therefore that anything we do to trigger or stimulate that immune system may play a role?

            How is this a logical fallacy?

            But maybe we should just accept the Autism Fairy is real?

          • yugaya
            at #

            “I’ve just explained why scientists are not ruling out vaccines.”

            Research says…is another fallacy. What scientists save for a handful of quacks are peddling that shit? No one with any credibility left.

            “How is this a logical fallacy?” If you are having problems understanding what constitutes higher order logical fallacies(like you clearly are), I suggest going back and taking some basic argumentation and critical thinking skills classes. That should also help with your verbal diarrhea.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Yet the only papers I’ve quoted —at Amy’s request— are drawn from PubMed from respected peer review journals (in this case the Journal of Immunotoxicology and the Journal of Medical Chemistry). Now this really troubles me, and I’ll explain why.

            To answer the poster above, I don’t know the motivations of these scientists for doing medical research and publishing in a peer review journal. In order to ascertain their motivations for .being scientists or doing research, we’d have to write to each and every one of them and ask them. So clearly, they are not a ‘handful of quacks’. You have no evidence to support that statement. It is in in fact just a slur. As is the accusation of verbal diarrhea (because my answers are comprehensive) and I strongly suspect that if my answers were short, you would accuse me of being ‘over simplistic’. As requested I’ve quoted passages from those journals. It’s isn’t enough. I’ve posted the abstracts. Still not enough. In fact the ‘detail’ I’ve given you is a lot—but you haven’t given me any detail at all.

            Consider what I first said. My hypothesis is that parents are refusing vaccinations because the causes for autism are unknown, and I have suggested that efforts should be better directed at determining the cause to allay fears—so that parents can take up the healthy and safe vaccination programme— in confidence. Nothing short of finding out the environmental causes of autism—be they GMOs, or additives, or vaccines, or the Autism Fairy—will assuage the fears of some parents. I have also stated that the original article is completely spurious and without any foundation. Neither the original poster nor any of you whom I’ve been discussing with all day have offered one single peer reviewed social science study to support the rant above. Now I think I’ve been very accommodating. You’ve given me hoops and I’ve jumped through them, and you don’t really have an answer. The reason why is because few of you, I suspect have any real scientific training and fewer still are actually interested in science. In fact one of you even said “I am not interested in a literature search on this topic.” If you are not at least interested, you shouldn’t even be commentating—respectfully perhaps you should comment on something you’re actually interested in.

            Instead, what we see in this discussion is actually a microcosm of what all parents involved in this sort of discussion face.

            We’ve seen unfair demands for them to back every statement up with an academic reference. When they produce an academic reference, astonishing statements are then made to tell that parent why the reference is ‘no good’ and written by a ‘quack’. Actually you don’t say why. You just make the statement over and over. This is actually the fallacy of assertion.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

            Unable to get around the fact that you do actually have to prove, or at least offer some evidence that “parents refuse because they are entitled etc” you then try and divert the argument by simplifying it in order to make it easier to refute. This is called a Strawman argument:

            “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

            There have been several examples of strawmanning here, but the most glaring one is Amy’s”: “You have stated that vaccines cause autism”.

            I hadn’t. I said that parents were turning down the schedule because of fears over safety and because the causes of autism had not been determined.

            Other forms of gaslighting were also apparent but it would be tedious to go into them.

            It’s also apparent that quite a few of you have no idea what you’re talking about.

            The most telling statement is this:

            “I’m not interested in a literature review. I’m interested in a discussion of the relevant scientific papers and the context of the preponderance of the evidence.”

            Which of course is exactly what a scientific literature review is — a review within a single work examining the entire sweep of studies on a given topic, with a view to formulating a theory or theories based on the preponderance of evidence.

            And then of course there are the personal slurs. “gullible” “quack” “alarmist” “verbal diarrhea” “grow a spine” etc etc. This troubles me most of all. At the root of this is a fundamental lack of respect. A lack of empathy, especially. Not one of you have questioned the tone of the above article, nor have you seen it necessary for the author’s sweeping generalisations to be backed up with data. And this brings me to my last point before I go off and do something more productive with my day:

            Why is that you feel the need, when talking with someone who holds a different opinion on a given topic, to resort to slurs and gaslighting when you could actually have a productive discussion. I have not called any one of you a name. I have not called you gullible, or said you were stupid for ignoring a stack of papers, or dismissing the authors of those papers as “quacks” when they come up with findings you don’t like. I have met every single one of your questions. Why do you feel the need to resort to slurs?

            This speaks to a feature of this debate. Moderate voices are being drowned out in a storm of shouting, sneering. And for the “pro-vax” camp (for want of a better term) that often involves disparaging and abusing their fellow human beings. To the gentleman who told me to grow a spine at that cartoon—offensive to all women—if you don’t see anything wrong with it then I can only shake my head.

            If you want parents with doubts to come over to your way of thinking, perhaps starting with basic humanity and respect might be a better way to do it. Of course, I have no actual studies to back that opinion up, it’s just a hunch. 🙂

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            I’ve seen a lot of drivel from you, but NO SCIENCE.

            You haven’t manage to provide quotes from even a SINGLE scientific paper (abstracts don’t count).
            You haven’t manage to place any of your citations within the preponderance of scientific evidence.

            At this point, you are simply saying the same thing over and over again and I will start deleting your posts and those of anyone else who has posted dozens of pieces of nonsense so far.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Amy, I have quoted at least two journals. Of course abstracts count. Not only did I quote the abstracts, which contain findings, I also posted paragraphs from the papers. Just like you asked. So when you say “you havent posted a single paper” that is in fact an blatent untruth. Gaslighting, often seen in these discussions usually just comes in the form of flat denial. So I am, right now, going to call you out and say you are deliberately lying here. I gave you want you wanted, and now you can’t deal, so now your only option is to deny, gaslight, and slur. In my post above I actually quote directly from the physical journal articles twice. No drivel.

            What you’re demonstrating is something called confirmation bias, or ‘seeing what you want to see’ and also cognitive dissonance, because you hold an entrenched believe that vaccines are safe for all children, when in fact the preponderance of evidence, as you put it, indicates they are safe for some children, but in others may cause autoimmunity. If you don’t believe me, just go to Pubmed and type in “vaccines and autoimmunity” or “autism and autoimmunity” and you’ll see how many hits you get. And what I have said is not nonsense, but you have posted a lot of slurs.

            Are you actually seriously telling me there is no evidence, whatsoever, in peer reviewed journals, (do the searches, it takes two seconds) that

            1. Some ASD might be caused by autoimmunity and
            2. Vaccines cause autoimmunity.

            If you seriously believe that this is nonsense, then don’t write to me. Go and write to the vaccine court and tell them to stop paying out compensation to families whose children have an autoimmune reactions to vaccines. Go and write to the National Association for Clinical Excellence in the UK (the equivalent of the CDC and VERY pro vaccine) and tell them that their recommendation that autistic children be checked for autoimmunity, issued in 2014. is wrong. While you’re at it, you better write to all of those medical journals as well —peer reviewed and respected— and tell them they are publishing papers by “quacks”.

            Since you don’t seem to understand what a scientific literature review is, and don’t seem to understand how scientific research actually works, I don’t think I can help you. And frankly, from the tone of your posts, and your article above, I think you’re twisted up with hatred and contempt. If your bio is true and you are indeed a physician working in obstetrics, that is a very worrying from the perspective of your clinical practice when your patients are women.

            Finally, one of your friends here posted (at long last and after me asking six times) for evidence supporting your assertions in the original post. However, that is not a peer reviewed journal article. I’ll reserve judgement until I have read a social science study in a journal as equally respected as the Journal of Immunotoxicology and the Journal of Medical Chemistry.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            See my anti-vax challenge. Feel free to take it. Until then, stop whining.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            I’m not an anti-vaxxer Amy. Anti-vaxx is just a dehumanising slur that allows you, in your head to ignore, dismiss or abuse parents (usually women). Very very few women are anti-vaccine completely. Asking for a different schedule is not anti-vaccine. By framing it as such, psychologically it allows you to see your intellectual opponents as fully less than human. And I’m not whining. Again, by using dismissive language such as ‘whining’ and ‘grow a spine’ and ‘stop talking drivel’ all you’re doing is hurling personal insult in lieu of a proper discussion. Repeating a slur is no proof (or disproof of anything): it’s just a slur. Nasty name calling. The verbal equivalent of throwing dog-poo at someone you don’t like.

            https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201009/what-is-bigotry

            Can I ask why you feel the need to use dehumanising language against people —parents, scientists, editors — who take a different or more complex view from you?

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I’m not an anti-vaxxer

            Oh, but you are.

            Anti-vaxx is just a dehumanising slur

            Oh no, you don’t get to talk about dehumanization. Not after your response to being told I’m autistic was “When will the rate be high enough for you to act?!”

            By framing it as such, psychologically it allows you to see your intellectual opponents as fully less than human.

            No, it allows us to categorize a dumbfuck argument.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            “Oh but you are”

            See above ‘proof by assertion’ is a fallacy.

            Nick, someone who is anti vaccine believes all vaccines are bad and no one should be vaccinated. EVERYONE else is ‘pro’ vaccine, just to differing degrees. Anti vaccine is a slur.

            Secondly, while I appreciate you are autistic and this is part of your identity, just as I have dyspraxia (the serious kind) and its part of mine, this does not mean that autism is not for very very many people a debilitating medical condition and serious, heartbreaking disability. Just as my own disability, dyspraxia is a serious, debilitating disability I’ve had to live with and adapt to.

            While YOU may be high functioning, vast numbers of children are not. They will never be able to live without constant care and supervision. Services are already at breaking point, at least in the UK. The five fold rise in Autism (and it would appear that it’s still rising) is a major cause for concern, and yes, a public health issue.

            I understand fully the argument that someone with autism must be treated as a person, and not as a ‘condition’, and I support that. But not acting to stop the rise in the broad phenotype of autism is irresponsible. It’s a disability. And it is not being “unempathetic” to admit that it IS a disability.

            And again, “dumbfuck” is a slur. All I have said is that we need to find out what’s causing the rise in autism, that current theory suggests autism — or at least some forms of it, is a form of autoimmunity, and I’ve provided papers to support that — and that because of that, we can’t rule out vaccines unless we know the causes of autism. The reason why we need to do this is because parents don’t want their child developing autism. Regressive autism is not congenital. You acquire it.

            By calling my argument a dumbfuck argument, you are once again using a slur and not actually engaging in discussion.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Amy, I’ve already done as you asked. I’ve posted abstracts, where to find the papers, and relevant paragraphs from those papers. I can post more if you want…but really, you aren’t going to read it and you yourself have said you’re “not interested” in the literature.

            The Scientific Consensus is that some forms of autism may be linked to autoimmunity. Evidence of that consensus can be found doing a simple PubMed search, and also by looking and seeing what the CDC and the NHS say. As with all areas of ongoing research, we find out more every day. Again, the PubMed lit search bears it out.

            Now, will you post three journal articles from respected peer review social science journals of equal standing to the ones I have cited, supporting your claim above in your original article, or do the rules not apply to you?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            If you’ve done it, it should be very easy to put it together in once place on the new thread. I’ll be waiting.

          • yugaya
            at #

            You haven’t posted a single non-hypothetical paper.
            You haven’t cited any highest order scientific census source or systematic review like the ones done by ACIP.

            https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/about-grade.html

            Individual reviews with hypothetical conclusions or quoting reviews of all theories out there – still no proof of anything.

            You claim to have a background in science?

          • yugaya
            at #

            You quoted conclusions from a hypothetical paper. Proof of – nothing.

            “As requested I’ve quoted passages from those journals.” Appeal to authority of the journals too?
            Just because something is published in a reputable journal does not mean that the hypothetical conclusions of the paper are valid.

            Geez, how many more fallacies will you vomit all over this exchange in order to hide the fact that the claim how vaccines cause autism is not valid?

          • Amazed
            at #

            Hey, so nice to see you! I haven’t seen you around for ages. How have you been?

          • yugaya
            at #

            Rough summer, but I’m tough. 😀

            Kids are all right, so all is well.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Glad to hear it! Welcome back!

          • Wren
            at #

            Maybe you need to do a little more learning yourself. A literature review, particularly one covering over 50 years, will always choose to review only some of the research. There will be certain criteria for choosing the papers reviewed.

          • Wren
            at #

            “Nothing short of finding out the environmental causes of autism—be they GMOs, or additives, or vaccines, or the Autism Fairy—will assuage the fears of some parents. ”
            What if there is no environmental cause?
            You are so certain there is one, but what evidence do you have that there is one?
            Believing anti-vax beliefs are based on a fear of autism ignores the long history of anti-vaxers. It is not a new thing. Anti-vaxers have been around as long as vaccination has, and were there before autism was even described.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Nothing short of finding out the environmental causes of autism—be they GMOs, or additives, or vaccines, or the Autism Fairy

            It’s none of these.

            And you can stop your tone trolling. You’re damn right I don’t respect you. Not after you made me and others like me out to be some poor pitiable rejects who shouldn’t even exist. If you want to talk about respect, start with yourself.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Not science. Please provide scientific evidence.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Science cannot rule out vaccines. Even the British NHS qualifies it’s statement with “there is CURRENTLY no evidence…” this statement isn’t actually true, but even with this — and you cant get more pro vax than the NHS, ythey still qualify it.

            Vaccines, in addition to material from viruses, also contain substances that are designed to stimulate the child’s immune system. That means that the stimulation does not come from the viruses alone. In the case of many vaccines, that is either human DNA — found in 23 of the vaccines — and/or Aluminium salts. Al is of course also a neurotoxin. This from a journal of MEdical Chemistry:

            A paper published in the Journal Current Medical Chemistry in 2011 stated that:

            “Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”

            The source for this is Shaw et al 2011 Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2011, 18, 2630-2637 “http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

            Again, another peer-reviewed journal.

            In the case of human DNA in vaccines, even a GCSE biology student can tell you about immune reactions in the human body to foreign human tissue — that’s the reason why organs get rejected. Introduce DNA though, and you have the potential for the body attacking itself (and for that you can read the literature review I posted before).

            With respect to the studies, much depends how they are designed, what research questions are asked, and how the stats are managed. In the Scandavian studies children were switched between unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts on a flimsy pretext, skewing the results. In the case of the 20054 CDC study, results on epigentics (the incidence for black boys after the MMR) appears to have been scrubbed from the data sets (scientific fraud) and in the case of studies done where one group was given a placebo and the other the vaccine, both sets were injected with Al, which was present in the placebo. IN other words, the only tested the virus, not the adjuvants. Again, from Shaw et al.

            “The issue of vaccine safety thus becomes even more pertinent given that, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate clinical studies have been conducted to establish the safety of concomitant administration of two experimentally-established neurotoxins, aluminum and mercury, the latter in the form of ethyl mercury (thimerosal) in infants and children. Since these molecules negatively affect many of the same biochemical processes and enzymes implicated in the etiology of autism, the potential for a synergistic toxic action is plausible [31, 47]. Additionally, for the purpose of evaluating safety and efficacy, vaccine clinical trials often use an aluminium-containing placebo, either containing the same or greater amount of aluminum as the test vaccine [48-51]. Without exception, these trials report a comparable rate of adverse reactions between the placebo and the vaccine group (for example, 63.7% vs 65.3% of systemic events and 1.7% vs 1.8% of serious adverse events respectively [51]).”

            his of course does not mean necessarily that vaccines “cause” autism, but more needs to be done to look at how the immune system reacts with vaccines and what the potential outcomes are. Until such time as we can say “autism is definately not an immune condition” (and I think we can safely say now that at least some forms of it ARE) we can’t rule out vaccines. I’d love to, but we can’t.

            The question really becomes this: do we delay vaccination until we have more information? Or is the greater good served by mass vaccination and hope that not too many children develop autoimmunity?

            The problem of course is that autism (potentially) is not the only form of autoimmunity. Asthma rates have risen exponentially, as have dangerous food allergies which kill hundreds a year.

          • Wren
            at #

            Every scientific conclusion could fairly be written with the word currently in it, because science is open to new evidence changing things. There is also CURRENTLY no evidence that fluffy pink unicorns are dancing on rainbows in my living room.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            You need a better living room, then.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Not science. Still have no scientific evidence, huh?

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Nick, sorry, I’m not going to take Science Blogs over PubMed.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Not science. Please provide actual science.

          • Charybdis
            at #

            Autism is an autoimmune disorder now? When did that happen?

            Sounds like grasping at straws.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            If A causes B, there will be a positive correlation in the data between the two. If there isn’t a correlation at all, it causation is not on the table.

            There is no correlation at all between vaccinations and autism.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Not science. Why can’t you provide any science?

          • swbarnes2
            at #

            Do you have ONE paper showing that parents worried about, say, mercury in vaccines started getting vaccinations when the mercury was removed? Or did they all find some other excuse as to why their precious little snowflake was too pure to be soiled by the same medical procedure that poor kids get?

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            Lovely language there. I’m sorry, this is relevant to the discussion how? I asked for social sciecne papers on actual studies of the reasons why parents refuse vaccines, rather than just bigoted suposition. After all, if you’re asking me to jump through hoops by backing everything I say up with a paper and full academic referencing, then its only fair you should do the same. The original statement included THIS:

            “This is what is comes down to for most anti-vax parents: it’s a source of self-esteem for them. In their minds, they have “educated” themselves. How do they know they are “educated”? Because they’ve chosen to disregard experts (who appear to them as authority figures) in favor of quacks and charlatans, whom they admire for their own defiance of authority. The combination of self-education and defiance of authority is viewed by anti-vax parents as an empowering form of rugged individualism, marking out their own superiority from those pathetic “sheeple” who aren’t self-educated and who follow authority.”

            The OP made this assertion without offering a stitch of evidence beyond his/her own bigotry to back this up. It’s a rant, and a nasty one at that. I’ve asked for the peer reviewed social sciecne reseach.

            If the above is true, rather than MY assertion that parents are not vaccinating out of genuine concerns and unanswered questions about the causes of autism, then where is it?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Not science. Where’s your scientific evidence.

          • yugaya
            at #

            My country has over 99% coverage with our MANDATORY childhood vaccination schedule. The autism rates in my country are 1/5 of those in USA, with the rest of the region scoring even lower than that (these countries also have mandatory childhood vaccination schedules and highest uptakes).

            The reason is simple – the rate at which autism is diagnosed in my region is directly dependent on the fact that a high functioning autistic child will never even get a referral for assessment or be offered any intervention within the health or education system.

          • yugaya
            at #

            Fun fact: Finland has recommended childhood vaccination schedule and over 95% coverage. They’ve also seen an explosion in autism rates recently despite the fact that vaccine coverage has remained unchanged.

          • Wren
            at #

            It’s almost like vaccines don’t cause autism and maybe changing autism definitions changed how many people are diagnosed.

          • Wren
            at #

            So, your abstract does not actually indicate any problem with vaccines. In fact, it claims that inflammation resulting from a viral illness could cause autism, in which case vaccinating against viral illnesses would decrease rates of autism.

            I cannot access the entire paper, but the straight up claim of dramatic increase in autism incidence is at best iffy, as the current definition is far from the original by Kanner and there is now increased surveillance as well. It does make me doubt the remaining claims in the paper.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Your link is broken.

          • yugaya
            at #

            “I don’t see any peer reviewed research pointing to the “privilege” argument.”

            Let me help you with that: https://gendersociety.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/neoliberal-mothering-and-vaccine-refusal/

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            You can acknowledge that vaccines are generally life-saving but still hold legitimate concerns about the timing and especially numbers which are foisted on a child during a time when their brain is much more vulnerable to toxic insult than that of an adult.

            Those concerns can only be legitimate until you have been shown the vast amounts of data that the schedule is safe. At which point you can either relinquish them or descend into woo.

            You can also hold concerns which ARE supported by peer-reviewed research that autism is an autoimmune condition,

            So, let’s see this research.

            The only thing driving the lack of uptake in vaccines or the demand for alternative schedules is the fact that “science” has still not come up with an adequate explanation or any action at all to halt the rise in the incidence of neurodevelopmental and autoimmune conditions.</blockquote?

            I call bullshit.

            By far the biggest factor in a parent deciding not to vaccinate is an observed reaction to vaccines in a sibling of the unvaccinated or close relative or family friend. Not a crackpot website, or accessing medical sites they don’t understand. Family experience.

            Double bullshit.

            find out what the hell has caused the jump to one kid in 45.

            Last I saw, the rate was 1 in 68, same as ever.

            Because it’s clear that the biggest issue we’re facing is not a pandemic of infectious disease (which is a problem) but the far more immediate concern that between 2-5% of millennials are becoming mentally disabled.

            Becoming?

            Suicide for autistics is also higher. It’s a devastating condition.

            And that clearly has nothing to do with people treating us like lepers. Nothing at all…

            Seriously, can’t you just feel the empathy in this post? Nothing like being told that not being the same as you is part of “the worst public health crisis we’ve ever faced”.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            When will the rates climb to a high enough level to act. It’s at 1 in 45 now. Will there be action when its 1 in 30? 1 in 20? 1 in 10? 1 in 5? 1 in 2. And its interesting you should bring up empathy. There is none in the leading article, and none in the post. The climbing autism rates are a public health disaster. Perhaps you should spend more time talking to parents who have to fight for every scrap of meager state care to develop that empathy. Or listen to how many of those carers are contemplating suicide. I could be wrong, and perhaps this discussion will prove me wrong, but I have seen not one scrap of empathy for parents of severely autistic children from writers like the original poster, or you.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            You haven’t presented any scientific evidence for your claims.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I’ll give you one warning, this is not a road you want to go down with me. I am autistic, and don’t take kindly to this brand of condescending, alarmist bullshit.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Why are you even paying any attention to him? Why encourage him? We all know he has no idea what he is talking about.

            We won’t be able to reason him out of a position he didn’t reason himself into.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            A few reasons. Firstly, and chiefly because I have a combative streak that gives me difficulty in resisting an argument. Secondly, since their first post started out with a façade or reasonability, I don’t want to leave it unrefuted lest someone reading it get the idea that they might be on to something. And lastly, the discomfort from my ear infection is making me cranky, and it’s better I take it out on some deserving schmuck that the people around me.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            You could eviscerate him in an argument; he’s just not smart enough to understand that.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I know, but it sure make me feel better.

          • For the same reason I argue with him, maybe? Debunking his nonsense for the lurkers.

          • LJ McDowall
            at #

            “Last I saw, the rate was 1 in 68, same as ever.”

            http://www.livescience.com/52790-autism-spectrum-disorder-prevalence-us-2014.html

            However any jump to this level — and according to the British Medical Journal there has been a five-fold increase— cannot be put down to better diagnoses alone. So even the 1 in 68 is not “the same as ever”.

            “Becoming?”

            Generally the word we used when your child is fine, and then is not fine. Congenital defects are present at birth. These children develop normally. Then something happens (we still don’t know what) and then they are not fine. Becoming. “Are” would imply that the condition is there from birth and there are no evironmental factors involved.

            This, from the NHS website:

            “Some researchers believe that a person born with a genetic vulnerability to ASD only develops the condition if they’re exposed to a specific environmental trigger.”

            and

            “The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown.
            It’s a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors.”

            Bascially, what they mean by an “environmental trigger” is an immune reaction. This is currently teh official advice and infomration given to parents by the National Health Service in the UK. It’s a bit like saying to a parent who asks

            “My child was fine, what caused this?”

            and responding with

            “Er, we don’t know. Maybe the Autism fairy visited?”

            Unsurprisingly “autism fairy” type explanations aren’t working. If medical science will not seek a cause for an effect you can scarcely blame parents for researching it themselves.

            And yes. Becoming.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism and you certainly haven’t presented any.

            Try again.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            So, the 1 in 45 number comes from a report using a different methodology, not an increase in diagnoses. Which is exactly what your link says, btw, but I take it you didn’t read past the first paragraph. Even so, I’m hesitant to give credence to the number, as it’s based on surveying parents and surveys are fickle things. The 1 in 68 number, on the other hand, is based on medical records, which have a lot more weight to them. But please, show me where the BMJ said there was a fivefold jump.

            I’m not interested in your bullshit (or ableism) about how these children were not autistic then suddenly were. Autism is something one is born with, and there is growing evidence that it may be detectable in utero.

            Bascially, what they mean by an “environmental trigger” is an immune reaction.

            Prove it.

          • Charybdis
            at #

            “Becoming?”
            Generally the word we used when your child is fine, and then is not fine. Congenital defects are present at birth. These children develop normally. Then something happens (we still don’t know what) and then they are not fine. Becoming. “Are” would imply that the condition is there from birth and there are no evironmental factors involved.

            This, from the NHS website:

            “Some researchers believe that a person born with a genetic vulnerability to ASD only develops the condition if they’re exposed to a specific environmental trigger.”

            and

            “The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown.
            It’s a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors.”

            Anecdata: My brother, who is 371 days older than me was a bright baby who walked and talked early; somewhere around 9 months according to our parents. Right around the time I was born, he stopped talking and started exhibiting some autistic behaviors. Ergo, by your reasoning, *I* am the cause of his autism, because “he was fine, *something (I was born)* happened, and then he was not fine.

            Well, shit fire and save matches! There it is folks! I am apparently the bringer of autism, the Autism Fairy! I just “proved” it with my anecdata! That, and the *obvious* fact that after I was born, the autism diagnosis rate started to increase (I was born in 1968) and has been more prevalent ever since. Sorry, Nick Sanders, corblimeybot, LibrarianSarah, Mr.C and others; I didn’t mean to *turn* you autistic.**

            Perhaps, the increase of ASD diagnoses has something to do with the fact that as time has passed and more research and subsequent learning about the autism spectrum has occurred, more people are found to fall somewhere on the spectrum. Medical science is not set in stone; as new tests, diagnostic methods and research reveals new information, things change. Best medical practices change over time as new information comes to light.

            **Dry, sarcastic comment

          • Mike Stevens
            at #

            “The level of violence in these images is astounding.”
            Oh for heaven’s sake, grow a spine will you. The cartoon shows a doctor trying to give a woman “facts” by injecting them into her brain, but the needle bounces off and the doctor says “She’s immune”.

            If you regard that cartoon as exhibiting “astounding” levels of violence, then you haven’t been following the antivaccine propaganda websites, where the daily fare served up are images of babies being assaulted by dozens of syringes, or babies being carved up with knives and eaten by “provaccine” advocates.

          • Sonja Henie
            at #

            ” You can acknowledge that vaccines are generally life-saving but still
            hold legitimate concerns about the timing and especially numbers which
            are foisted on a child during a time when their brain is much more
            vulnerable to toxic insult than that of an adult.”

            Concerns which have been researched and found to be not a concern.

            In regards to the cartoons, I’ve seen anti-vaxers with guns, threatening to shoot people who disagree with them (obviously, the people are actors, but the message is quite clear), hordes of screaming kids being sent to vaccination by police, and as Mike said, all these cartoons of babies surrounded by a dozen or more needles. It’s true anti-vaxers are very afraid of needles.

            https://m.facebook.com/RtAVM/photos/pb.414643305272351.-2207520000.1464381826./1127958953940779/?type=3
            Do take a look at the guns.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=anti-vaccine+images+with+needles&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE3ueBrPjOAhVn5YMKHS2GCBAQsAQIHQ&biw=1749&bih=831
            Needles and screaming kids.

            There’s lots more where those came from.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Not in disagreement with any of that, just the idea that someone might advocate vaccinating little kids at schools without parent’s knowledge.

        • Who?
          at #

          So how come your patience being at an end is a huge consideration, but KarenJJ’s child’s legitimate medical concerns about her particular child-who I understand is in any event vaccinated-should be ‘duly ignored’?

          And, btw, what is your problem with women? I suppose you’d love to fix how the washing up is done as well but since women take most of that on, you just can’t.

          • SporkParade
            at #

            I assume it is because women are generally assumed to be responsible for family health, including taking children to the doctor. Annoying and retrograde to be certain, but I’ve run into this a lot as a mother, even from our female pediatrician.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          Well, if I’m just being an irrational female then…

          You’ve come late to the conversation. There are 2000 comments below here, part of where I talk of my kid’s medical issues and the lengths we had to go to so that she could be fully vaccinated. She has a rare immune system issue and is under the care of some great immunologists.

          So definitely – vaccinate your kids, kids like mine need it. But medical issues are still legitimate issues and vaccinating at school without my knowledge and without me being able to get her specialists opinion prior is wrong and yes I’d be livid.

          • Steel_Wind
            at #

            Look, what you say is true. The problem is that the trend of this current situation is statistically reaching a critical stage in some communities on the West Coast of the USA. Herd immunity in some geographic areas has been lost. The canary in that goldmine is not sick — it is *dead*.

            If people were acting rationally, then medical opt-outs due to real (not imagined) conditions would be entirely reasonable, sensible and ethical. On this we are both in complete agreement.

            The problem is that LARGE SWATHS OF PEOPLE are NOT acting rationally, and **I infer that tendency will not only continue, it will expand**.

            In So Cal, there is strong evidence that rational exemptions are dead CERTAIN to be abused so that this trend will NOT easily be reversed without meaningful coercion. If we do not take steps, we lose herd immunity and MORE people would be hurt than if we don’t make rational and otherwise necessary exceptions.

            That is very ugly, but *very* necessary, math. I’m prepared to draw that inference, make that calculation, and DO IT. You are not. On this point, we disagree.

            We are caught in a real public health dilemma here where you want to believe that we can reason us out of a problem that a very large number of people did not (correctly) reason themselves into. I do not believe in the power of public education to unconvince the convinced. They are not persuadable.

            The tendency of anti-vaxxers to abuse an “ethical or medical objection” appears to me to be extremely large. So large, that the public health cost of accommodating that potential for abuse is greater than NOT accommodating it.

            That is ugly math; once again, on this point, we disagree.

            If your plan will coercively force immunization with a very high degree of compliance, while providing a medically necessary opt-out that will not be abused, I’m okay with that. Indeed, in a medical health system like Canada’s, that is probably achievable, as patients have comparatively little influence over doctors under Canada’s medicare system.

            But in a consumer driven medical system like America’s where the patient has a comparatively much higher influence in the physician/patient relationship, the opt-outs will be abused, there for the asking for those with the money to do so, and we are right back in the soup.

            In a prisoner’s dilemma, people will be dishonest and act out of self-interest, not altruism.

            Coercion with opt-outs for a fee is not coercion at all. However well intentioned, it will not work in the current milieu.

            In short, if the problem was that it was poor people who were abusing the system we could fix it with opt-outs;however, when it’s affluent people doing so, we can’t.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            So you are against medical exemptions as well.

            Nice to see there are uneducated and selfish nutters on the pro-vax side as well.

            Honestly- there aren’t so many of us requiring medical exemptions that herd immunity would be largely affected. You don’t need 100% for herd immunity to work.

          • yugaya
            at #

            It has nothing to do with how much influence a patient has over their doctor or the medical system. What you are suggesting, the rounding up of children in schools and vaccinating each and every child without any prior warning or intention to honor valid medical exemptions is insane. It was not done like that even in a communist country during a smallpox outbreak – yes, everyone who medically could had to be vaccinated, if you were in a hot zone and refused the vaccine you were not given the vaccine against your will, you were placed in the quarantine to prevent you from potentially infecting others, and if you tried to break out of the quarantine you were shot because you were breaching martial law which was in place during the epidemic. What you are suggesting is unacceptable, not to mention the sexist arguments you used in its defense.

          • AnnaPDE
            at #

            So what exactly do you need all that herd immunity for after the first few years when your kid is not a baby any more and had all their shots? After all, herd immunity is there to protect those who can’t be protected by vaccines: Mostly young babies, those kids who failed to develop immunity, and those with broken immune systems for one reason or another, which includes people who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons. You’ve just stated that your kids aren’t part of any of the latter group.
            Your reasoning is a stinking pile of egocentric bullshit.

    • yugaya
      at #

      “with mandatory vaccination administered through the school system without ANY warnings.”

      I live in a country with mandatory childhood vaccinations, of which part is done in schools if the parent agrees in advance in writing and if the kid is deemed fit on the day of the vaccination, and I am ok with it. I would never support what you are suggesting here though, you are suggesting inhuman one-size-fits-all no warnings approach. What if the child has health problems at the moment that the parent knows of but the kid is unable to verbalise it or it is not apparent to the nurses and doctors doing the pre-vaccination check up, or what if they have a chronic condition that warrants a medical waiver but the school or medical records are not up to date and are missing that information?

    • MLE
      at #

      The CDC itself recommends that I should never receive the pertussis vaccine again after the reaction I had to it the first time, but that’s not good enough for you. You sound just as “educated” on this topic as the anti vax women that you so despise. Maybe drop the charade and admit this is a convenient cover for your general misogyny.

    • rh1985
      at #

      Some people cannot receive vaccinations for medical reasons. The point of herd immunity is to protect those people, not harm them with vaccinations they can’t get for a valid medical reason. Mississippi has only a medical exemption, and hasn’t had a case of measles in over 20 years. Medical reasons-only exemptions work.

      Your proposal is ridiculously overreaching. There should be no non-medical exemptions for public school students, but the consequence should be that they are simply not allowed to attend school. Parent feels that strongly about it? Homeschool the kid, and hold the parent liable if they expose someone and kill them.

    • Or we confront anti-vaxxers where they live: in their egos.

      Let’s start with PSAs about how dangerous anti-vax is – just make it as socially unacceptable as drunk driving.

      • yugaya
        at #

        AAP just released policy statement that says pediatricians are perfectly fine to refuse to treat children of antivaxxers.

        That’s about as socially unacceptable as they can get.

  6. Adam Smith
    at #

    I have to respectfully disagree, and would counter that you’ve just added another bad guess onto the long list of things people get wrong about vaccine critics. It’s also very offensive and condescending to keep putting educated in quotes, like somehow you can educate yourself reading peer-reviewed medical journals, but a parent who is not an MD, but rather a bioengineer or mathematician, lacks the mental capacity to analyze statistical data and draw a sensible conclusion. You don’t really need any medical background to understand herd immunity, if you have the best available numbers it’s a straightforward probability problem. But it’s also a buzzword that is overused by people who don’t actually understand it, and applied in cases where the thresholds for the phenomenon to apply simply haven’t been met.

    There is also ego at work on both sides of the argument. Doctors have egos too, and they are not always justified. I didn’t take advice from my GP about vaccines, because I found him ignorant on the subject (I go into this in a little more detail below). But that doesn’t stop him trying to dispense the advice, and his ego prevents open discourse. There is also the ego of the self-proclaimed “pro-vax” people. You know, the ones who fill their Facebook walls with every pro-vaccine pop news article that comes along, captioned with things like “anti-vax idiots, I hope their kids all die”. These kinds of people are the lemmings, the herd if you will. They don’t research anything. Most of them don’t even realize that their own childhood vaccines have long-since lost efficacy, and that they are just as like to be vectors for things like measles or whooping cough as any unvaccinated child. The CDC reports that vaccination rates in adults in the US are drastically low. Majority of self-described “pro-vax” parents are themselves effectively unvaccinated (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6305a4.htm) James Cherry’s 2012 study of whooping cough concluded that even the current schedule for DTaP leaves many “up-to-date” people at risk, as the benefits of the vaccine are lost more quickly that was originally thought (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1209051) It’s not a small scattering of religious exemption parents bringing back whooping cough and measles, it’s the fact that far fewer of us have resistance from vaccines than previously believed, and development of vaccines is not keeping pace with new strains. These are the peer-reviewed conclusions of an MD in the New England Journal of Medicine, not a “quack or charlatan”. In a nutshell, Dr Cherry is saying way more vaccines are needed in everyone for them to work. And I would argue that this isn’t long-term sustainable in terms of the cost of research or manufacture and delivery.

    You’re also making some very wrong assumptions about where vaccine critics get their information. I’m critical of how vaccines and antibiotics are being prescribed in the US today, and have refused some of them based on my own risk assessment. But I don’t get my ideas or data from the likes of Jenny McCarthy or Andrew Wakefield as Fox News would have you believe. I read most of the relevant articles on PubMed. I also don’t look to my GP for vaccine advice, because he has demonstrated clearly to me that he’s not up-to-date on the situation; he takes a moment to pretend to acknowledge my concerns, and then gives me a pre-rehearsed speech about why vaccines are so great, and how science conquered Polio, etc… you’ve heard it I’m sure. When I asked him about what exactly is being observed with regards to encephalitis-like swelling reported in some infants who have just had the MMR vaccine, and where this research is at… blank stare, dismissive remarks about “how rare that is”. No actual discussion of SMEI ensued, or any information about how it’s believed to be associated with a spontaneous SCN1A mutation. He’d never even heard of this gene. This is the expert I’m supposed to entrust with potentially life-altering decisions? A guy who’s entire knowledge of the subject is “vaccines are great, mmkay?”

    Real critics of vaccines don’t believe they cause widespread autism, understand that the organomercury metabolites of thimerosal have been found to be relatively harmless (as compared with breathing elemental mercury), are not influenced by vague fear-mongering notions like “kids are being injected with too many bad chemicals”. We do however, believe that medical practice in the US is too heavily influenced now by pharmaceutical company lobbying, and that both vaccines and antibiotics are WAY over-prescribed without diligent risk assessment on a case-by-case, patient-by-patient basis, and without concern for the long-term consequences for and cost sustainability of a biochemical arms race against pathogen evolution. Vaccines are not eradicating diseases, Polio is not gone from the planet as many seem to believe, we’re actively suppressing outbreaks in populations that can afford it, in a manner that has ever-increasing costs. Vaccine critics generally also believe that nothing can be injected into a person without some risk, and the risks are there for everyone to read in each vaccine’s fine print. The CDC acknowledges that death is a possible, if very rare, risk of some common vaccinations. Aren’t they a trustworthy resource? Telling people they should just get the vaccine because the risk of dying from side effects is small is a lot like telling someone they should just fly on airplanes because most of them don’t crash. But the fact is, some do crash, and real people die, and the more planes you go on the more likely you are to be one of them. Likewise, people have adverse reactions to all kinds of medications, vaccines included, and that should never be rounded down to zero risk and dismissed, particularly if risk of getting the disease is on the same order of magnitude as the risk of the reaction.

    We all want a healthy population, but not all of us agree that the number of vaccines and antibiotics currently prescribed in the US is responsible. I’ve seen kids get vaccines they don’t really need (like Hep C vaccine to infants whose parents are neither infected nor intravenous drug abusers), and I’ve seen doctors prescribe antibiotics “just in case”, where no proper diagnosis of bacterial pathogen was made. We need to educate ourselves and make informed decisions to keep this in check. Checks and balances are important!

    Thank you to anyone who took the time to read this and consider it with an open mind, and who didn’t just TL;DR it and then go on to post “anti-vax idiots” somewhere further down this page…

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      I agree you don’t need a medical background to understand herd immunity: mathematics will do. You can make a good video game from it. But I’m rather bewildered by your conclusions. The largest estimate of annual deaths from vaccines I have found, even on antivax sites, is 11. Measles ran 450, pre vaccine, and then there are polio, diphtheria, and all the others to add on. So, which is more risky: the vaccine, or letting the measles come back?

      Now, there is another alternative, and you don’t need an M.D. for it; a semester of econ is enough. That’s free riding on your neighbors’ vaccinations: all of the benefits (until enough of them free ride with you!) and none of the risk. Just from an economics perspective, free-riding arrangements are unstable. They’re solved by side-payments or coercion (no public school for you…).

      My experience this month has been that typical antivaxers literally can’t calculate relative risk from observed ratios of vax/unvaxed in the sick cohort and the general population. Someone who can’t do fractions has nothing to contribute to a discussion of anything scientific, including vaccines. And my experience is that antivax web sites that pretend to quantitative literacy are often deceitful—cherry-picking data, fabricating quotations.

    • yugaya
      at #

      ” but a parent who is not an MD, but rather a bioengineer or
      mathematician, lacks the mental capacity to analyze statistical data and draw a sensible conclusion.”

      See, that’s the thing: most antivaxxing parents are neither bioengineers or mathematicians. As far as capacity to interpret data goes here is a nice not-so-flammable example of a parenting issue that is similarly filled with quackityquack: bilingualism.

      As “a parent” I do not lack either the capacity or the professional knowledge to read studies on bilingualism or interpret them. I also have extensive first hand experience both professionally working with bilingual language learners and as a parent raising multilingual children. BUT:

      I did have to get someone I know who has a Phd in neuropsychology / brain imaging to look at some of the studies on bilingualism for me and summarise a professional opinion, so that I could go and first interpret the studies accurately in that respect, and then bitch based on facts and factual interpretations about just how utterly stupid, uneducated and even potentially damaging the majority of advice and tips on raising bilinguals that can be found on mommy-bilingualism blogs and websites is.

      As a parent with good reading comprehension and a bucket full of professional anecdata I would have gotten a highly biased, partial, inadequate interpretation of bilingualism studies at best, and that is what highly educated antivaxxing parents are getting out of reading studies on vaccines unless they are of course experts on vaccines.

    • Montserrat Blanco
      at #

      Any vaccine side effects except redness and soreness on the injection site is statistically higher with the natural disease than with the vaccine. Some people do get encephalitis due to MMR but it is lower than 1 in ten million compared to 1 in 1000 with measles. We do not say vaccines are totally safe and without side effects. We say that they have less side effects than having the disease, that is why they are approved.

      By the way, when you find a vaccine agaisnt hep C, please do tell me. As far as I know only hepatitis B vaccine is available. It is made with just some viral proteins, so the side effects are unfrequent. But it would be great to have a hep C vaccine.

      My son is vaccinated agaisnt hep B. At 4 months old he already has got two doses. No side effects so far apart from a little soreness on the injection site, promptly treated with one dose of paracetamol. I thought that it was best for him to be inmune to a disease that he can get easily and causes cancer and liver failure. Even if he is not expected to have sex anytime soon the vaccine has so little side effects in infants that he already got it.

  7. Nick Sanders
    at #

    Disqus is having even more comment issues. Some comments are not appearing here but are appearing when I go to the Disqus page for this conversation, some are the other way around, and some are not appearing at all.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      It does that a lot.. not sure why that is..

      • Andrew Lazarus
        at #

        [off topic] Probably memcache. If they kept everything completely in sync, their servers would be overwhelmed. Comment shows up after cache is updated. Of course, do a reload to make sure the issue isn’t your browser’s cache.

        • Samantha06
          at #

          OK, thanks for the tip!

    • Young CC Prof
      at #

      That occasionally happens here when comment threads get extremely long. Try refreshing the entire page.

      • Nick Sanders
        at #

        I have, several times.

  8. Sarah Roney Dalton
    at #

    Hit the nail on the head!!! Thank you, I’ll be sharing this wherever I think it might do some good.

  9. AmyRose Acker
    at #

    You’re an idiot

    • MLE
      at #

      So is your face!

    • Who?
      at #

      If only all the anti-vaxxers were as succinct as you, Disqus would be having a better time.

  10. RB
    at #

    I hate to break it to to you doctor, but it isn’t Ego that drives the parent, it’s FEAR.

    • momofone
      at #

      One way to counter fear is to learn. I can understand questioning; of course parents want to be sure they’re doing what’s best for their kids. So if I’m fearful of vaccines, it makes sense for me to learn as much as I can about them–and I am not going to get that from Joe Mercola. I’m going to get it from legitimate experts. Fear does not have to be a permanent deterrent.

    • What do you believe experiences that fear: the toenail? No, it’s the ego. It’s the sense of self. It’s the “I.” Fear is experienced by the individual and, in reaction to that fear, the self generates defense mechanisms. See the list above? Those are the defenses of the ego.

      Fear is natural. You will know fear in your life, as will we all. The thing is, if you’re an egomaniac then you’re going to insist on trying to controlling that fear’s source, never understanding that you’re the thing you fear. You make your fear. It’s not outside of you — it’s you.

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      There’s a difference in parents not vaccinating due to fear and ignorance and anti-vaccination parents that are against vaccines and have done all this “research” on the internet about how bad vaccines are and how they don’t work and we shouldn’t be giving them to our poor children…

      • Who?
        at #

        I bet there’s a fair bit of intersection though.

    • Guest
      at #

      I will freely admit that one of the reasons I vaccinate my children is fear of death or permanent disability from a VPD. Contributing to herd immunity to help protect others’ children is just an extra perk.

      • Sullivan ThePoop
        at #

        Right, tetanus and IPV are for your own personal protection.

      • Young CC Prof
        at #

        Yup! When I had my son vaccinated against measles today, my primary motivation was protecting HIM. Protecting the two younger babies in his daycare who aren’t vaccinated is also important, but I mainly did it for him.

      • Montserrat Blanco
        at #

        Me too. We are SO selfish…

    • The Bofa on the Sofa
      at #

      That’s just a position of privilege. Why are parents afraid of vaccines? Because they can be, because they don’t have to be afraid of diseases. Because of vaccines.

      • Amazed
        at #

        It’s the need to have some drama in their lives, I think. Generally, anti-vaxxers don’t have to worry over things like making the ends meet or dying from a small cut, having ten pregnancies with one kid to show for it and then losing it to the measles, or whatever. Their lives are so bloody privileged and well-organized, with no serious problems, that they’re grasping for drama. And I have to admit that vaccines happily satisfy this demand: scary-looking names of the ingredient, Big Pharma, government enforcing them on those poor children…

        I challenge you to find me someone who works 12 hours a day, isn’t sure that she’d be able to pay the rent this month, lives in fear of the kid sneezing because she cannot take sick days, and is sooo scared of them bad vaccines.

        • Samantha06
          at #

          Or like “Ben” one of the other commentators said yesterday, the ones who question have the “educations, means and time” to do it… talk about arrogant and egotistical… that’s a statement of privilege to be sure..

        • 1moreastronaut
          at #

          My ex. But one of her 3 children is autistic.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Right. I should have clarified. Still. Did she link the changes in her kid (presumably up to weeks after the shot) to autism on her own, or did a well-meaning friend suggested it to her, putting behind all the might of their Google University degree? Perhaps pointing her at Andrew Wakefild “research” waking people up to this supposed link?

  11. Cathy
    at #

    Truly sad article. It is extremely inaccurate and poorly written. There are reasons that many parents chose not to vaccinate and it certainly has nothing to do with EGO!!! http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20992083/glaxosmithkline-pay-3-billion-healthcare-fraud-settlement-u?source=rss

    • That had absolutely nothing to do with vaccines.

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      General Motors has paid out zillions because of a faulty ignition switch, which they not only made, but which they covered up. By your logic, no one should buy an automobile. We should go back to horse-and-buggy; 19th century transportation meets 19th century public health.

  12. Amy Tuteur, MD
    at #

    Demonstrating yet again that anti-vax is about privilege:

    Where are the Black Anti-vaxxers?
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/where-are-black-anti-vaxxers-measles-debate-n301646

  13. Rosanna
    at #

    That was the MOST inaccurate article I have ready about Vaccines to date. My daughter is vaccinated (so please don’t attack me!) but, once she was 2, I went back to school to become a holistic practitioner. I learned a lot about vaccination that I had never known. Things that Dr.s and the media don’t tell us. Since it appears the author here is a Dr, perhaps some light can be shed on the ingredients used in vaccines and statistics that show deaths caused by some vaccinations??? Parents ARE educating themselves – that is why they are choosing not to vaccinate. To insinuate that a parent would put their own child’s health in jeopardy because of EGO, is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Inside vaccinations are monkey kidney cells – yes, from monkeys, and pieces of aborted babies – I couldn’t believe it when I found that out. SO….PRO VAXXERS – who are anti-abortion – are you allowing bits of dead babies to be injected into your child? If I had known that – I wouldn’t have vaxxed. Why don’t they report the ingredients? Why don’t they talk about children who have died after being vaccinated? How many deaths have been reported with this recent outbreak of Measles? I haven’t heard of one – Why don’t these same Doctors who talk so passionately about vaccination talk about the other issues making our children sick? The chemicals, additives and colors put in our children’s food – marketing to children – then we wonder why childhood obesity is on the rise, ADD, ADHD, AUTISM, etc. We all want to protect our kids, but there has to be a safer way – we are not being given all the information and that makes me so sad. Then they call holistic practitioners quacks and charlatans to discredit the truth from really coming out. They are quacks because they uncover information being kept from us? Didn’t one of the co-creators of Gardisil (THhe HPV Vaccine) come out as a whistleblower and state that the vaccine is crap? Interesting how I don’t read any reports on that. The FACTS, not EGO, show that there have been more deaths due to the Measles vaccine in the last 10 years than measles itself – Perhaps the skeptical OB can “educate” all the egotisicals charlatans out there. It’s a scary society that we are living in. I think we should empower ourselves with EDUCATION and our own INFORMED RESEARCH and beware of biased articles, studies and information that only show one side. Any corporation with enough $$$$ can conduct a “study” to determine the results they want reported.

    • The Bofa on the Sofa
      at #

      Thank you for proving the point.

      • Rosanna
        at #

        I would just appreciate being told the whole truth – don’t we as a society deserve that?

        • Wren
          at #

          Perhaps you should start with checking your own claims for truth.

          • Rosanna
            at #

            I have, Wren – do you have some information that you can share? Trust me, all I want is a safe solution for ALL of our children. We all deserve that – and we deserve to work together to find a solution, instead of attacking people and calling them quacks.

          • Wren
            at #

            “Injecting bits of dead babies into children” is hardly truthful.

            Certain vaccines are created in cell lines that originated from fetuses aborted in the 1960s. Two fetuses in total. The cells used are decended from those fetuses. Those cells are most certainly not injected as a part of the vaccine however. They are used as medium for growing the viruses for the vaccine. If actual human cells, from whatever source, were being injected the immune response would be to that foreign tissue, not the virus.

            Not all viruses for vaccines are grown in human cell lines. Others have been grown in cells like monkey kidneys and other types of cell.

            This is a simplified explanation and we likely have commenters here who can give a much fuller picture, as could some googling factual scientific information. The truth is far less inflammatory and far less scary than what you presented as FACT.

          • Rosanna
            at #

            Thanks Wren!

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Wait a minute – I thought you were all educated about vaccines due to your “holistic” learning? So why would what Wren said, which is readily available information, be of any use for you? Why don’t you already know it?

            Or is it that your supposed “education” on vaccines is a bunch of bullshit?

          • Wren
            at #

            You’re welcome.

            I would like to know if that information has changed your stance at all. I am not expecting it to make you pro-vaccine all on its own, but will you continue to make claims about “injecting bits of dead babies into children”? Are you willing to consider your other claims potentially being wrong as well?

          • Andrew Lazarus
            at #

            Help out my memory—isn’t the rubella vaccine from a fetus that was miscarried because of maternal rubella. It’s not like cannibalism here.

          • Sullivan ThePoop
            at #

            Who needs google where there is this? http://vec.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/

          • Dr Kitty
            at #

            The history of cell cultures is very interesting. Particularly the HeLA cell line.

            http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/?page=2

            “Oh Noes- vaccines inject cells from aborted foetuses!”
            Makes it sound like
            a) the foetuses were aborted just to get their cells (no)
            b) we’re talking about lots of foetuses (no)
            c) foetal cells are getting injected into people (no, it’s just a way of growing the viruses needed for vaccination, because viruses have to be grown in living cells)
            d) this is in some way an unsafe manufacturing process (no).

          • momofone
            at #

            But Rosanna, don’t you have some information that you’re choosing not to share? You could help us on the way to finding the solution you so desperately want.

        • Even when the truth is laid out before you in clear facts and figures you won’t listen to it anyway. Your original post is filled with excessive hyperbole and willful ignorance. Dr Tuteur shouldn’t have to tell you what’s in the vaccines because it’s all readily available on the CDC website along with an internets worth of information around each ingredient. You are using willful ignorance to invoke a superiority stance and it fails with a few clicks of the mouse.

          • Rosanna
            at #

            I actually would listen to it. Willful ignorance is when you choose not to see another side to the story. I am actually quite open minded and think there are solutions for everyone, both medical and holistic solutions. Asking questions shows that one is not ignorant. Ignorance is the article listed above. It’s not a trend that has people choosing not to vaccinate their kids. It is legitimate concern and loss of faith in the medical industry. I just wish we as a people would be presented with all the facts. If you don’t realize that we are manipulated constantly by the media and government, then you would be the one who is willfully ignorant. There just has to be a safer way, that’s all.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            We have been presented with the facts, and the facts show that vaccines save lives. What do you mean by a safer way? What we have now is the safest it gets. It certainly beats the alternative: letting your child suffer through the actual diseases, which many anti-vaxxers are ignorantly willing to do, rather than prevent that suffering and possible permanent damage and disability with a vaccine. I had all the childhood diseases and my mother said they were horrible. My siblings all had them too and my mom said she was always scared to death one of us was going to die. I was delirious with fever and have small brain lesions consistent with residual encephalitis. And, like everyone else of my generation who had chicken pox, I now have to worry about shingles. Are you willing to accept the very real risk your child could suffer brain damage from measles because you are concerned about the very remote possibility of a reaction from a vaccine? There are no known holistic measures that can ever be as effective as a vaccine.

        • Jason Roder
          at #

          The whole truth? That your anti-vaccine movement is built on a tissue of lies? That your founding father, Andrew Wakefield, was lying about MMR so as to promote an alternative, rather than actually caring about the kids he supposedly wanted to help? How about the truth that he lost his license due to his malfeasance? Maybe the truth that you anti-vaxxers are a public health hazard?

          Tell me, which part of the “truth” are we missing?

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      Really? Did you learn how vaccines work to protect public health? Please explain how.

      If you can’t explain how vaccines work, then you don’t know much about them, do you?

      • Rosanna
        at #

        You are the Dr…..you can tell us how vaccines work – clearly you are avoiding the questions I have asked in the response. Why don’t you answer them for us?

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          at #

          Want to stop an anti-vax parent in her tracks? Here’s how:

          http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/02/want-to-stop-an-anti-vaccine-parent-in-her-tracks-heres-how.html

          • Rosanna
            at #

            By sending another biased article written by yourself? That has no scientific proof attached to it? Tell us what are in the vaccines – tell us whether or not people have died as a result – I am not claiming to be the expert on vaccination – you are the Doctor, so – educate us – what are the ingredients in the vaccines? Interesting how you are still avoiding questions. I would LOVE to be proved incorrect. I wish I never learned what I learned – so please educate the charlatan.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            You are claiming to have learnt a lot of interesting and new things about vaccines but you don’t want to share these insights?

          • Isaac_Laquedem
            at #

            Perhaps you can answer three questions:
            1. How many Americans died every year of measles before a vaccine was introduced, when no one was vaccinated against measles?
            2. How many Americans die every year of measles, now that most Americans are vaccinated against measles?
            3. Is the reason that the death rate from measles has gone down by 99.5% (a) because people are vaccinated, or (b) despite people being vaccinated?
            If after considering the answers to those three questions you still don’t think that vaccination saves lives, then try answering the same three questions for smallpox.

          • Thomas
            at #

            To answer most of your questions above
            Vaccines are not responsible for the reduction in mortality rates in measles
            Vitamin A and vitamin C is.. They discovered this before the vaccine was licensed in the 60’s and the mortality rates where almost reduced by 100% by the mid 50’s
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11869601

          • Molly Glenn
            at #

            Thomas, two sentences into the Main Results section of the article you linked to, it says that there was no significant reduction in the vitamin A group. You have debunked your own claim.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            He’s frequently been no good at reading his own sources.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Obviously you didn’t read the while thing and just skipped to what you wanted to see , there was a 82% reduction with two doses of vitamin A in children under 2 years of age (this is where the argument is emphasized.. CHILDREN dying)

            Of you want more on the subject here is a nother one
            http://www.measlesrubellainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Vitamin-A-and-Measles.pdf

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Adequate vitamin A intake greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk of blindness or death in people infected with measles. (Vitamin A deficiency in US children has been extraordinarily rare ever since the FDA fortified the food supply, but it is still common in some parts of the world.)

            So. Nutrition can improve measles outcomes, but improving outcomes is not nearly as good as eliminating the disease in the first place.

            Good supportive care can reduce Ebola deaths up to 75%, would you like to catch Ebola?

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            And all the dying kids over 2? I guess they, well their parents, just have to suck it up and deal with it, right?

          • Thomas
            at #

            You mean all zero of them in the last ten years?
            You wanna call the 110 kids patents who died from the vaccine in that same time period and tell them their decision to POSSIBLY prevent a disease that is relatively harmless? Or maybe live with the guilt knowing the decision was not an educated decision?
            If you live in high risk areas like I said before, the risk vs reward might be worth it but there is just to much shady shit going in with this between Merck whistle blowers and vaccinated petiole getting other vaccinated people infected
            That for me regardless of how “safe and effective” they claim they are the small amount of adverse affects (their words not mine) are not worth the risk to me.. Is all I’m saying

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            What you are saying is bullshit.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Self reporting is not confirmation. Further, how many millions of vaccinations were given?

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            How many of those deaths were car accidents, or due to a medical condition that showed up months or years later, with the child perfectly healthy in the meanwhile?

          • Who?
            at #

            Yes much better to kill off a couple of hundred a year, and leave a couple of hundred more permanently injured.

            I guess you’d call that bad luck, though, wouldn’t you, and absolve yourself of responsibility anyway.

            Just another overgrown toddler.

          • Molly Glenn
            at #

            Thomas, you’re right that I did not waste my time reading the entire article to desperately try to come up with a different conclusion from the author’s based on their data. The scientists who conduct a study are presumably much more qualified than I to determine what their data ultimately means than the non-scientist who reads their study, When you are trying to debunk the prevailing scientific belief, you must you must find a source that actually AGREES with you – the one you provided agrees with me.
            Anti-vaxxers are essentially the climate deniers of the disease world. The scientific community has an overwhelming consensus on the issue, but people like you want to ignore it.
            Apparently you don’t understand how political influence works – it provides kickbacks to private industries like the oil industry, and it prevents regulations that would restrain them, but it doesn’t actually turn government agencies into subsidiaries of private companies. Next you’ll be saying that the Post Office belongs to UPS or FedEx. The CDC’s job is to stop, prevent, and eliminate disease. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that vaccines do that for many diseases, so the CDC promotes them.
            Additionally, vaccines are NOT PROFITABLE. They are often given out for free or barely more than the amount that it takes to develop and produce them. Pharmaceutical companies would much rather produce drugs that manage chronic conditions or keep you just barely from dying because they know you’ll keep taking them. Economically, they don’t want to produce a thing that with one or two dosages prevents you from getting sick in the first place.
            Learn some critical thinking.

          • Thomas
            at #

            I never said I’m anti vaccine btw.. I’m saying the risk vs the reward as it stands right now is not favorable for vaccines
            Merck is going through some serious law suits that can likely ruin their credibility
            Fully vaccinated are not only catching the measles they are also shown to pass it on to other FULLY VACCINATED people
            High rates of vaccinated people in most outbreaks suggest the vaccines are not nearly as effective as they claim (especially with pertussis, not sure if you saw the post I did comparing vaccination rates to morbidity rates since 1980 but it proves that regardless of vaccination rates the morbidity rates continue to climb and measles was 30 times more when we where above 95% vaccination rates.. But it’s there)
            The general health of our population compared to other countries with a much smaller vaccination prograsm (less shots) is out of hand, we have really poor life expectancy… You would think all those vaccines would improve health but it’s actually the opposite in comparison to the rest of the developed world..
            The CDC and fda actually admitted in 2013 that the pertussis outbreaks that where happening are due to failing vaccines…
            More people are dying from the vaccines (in America) than the accrual disease

            If you live in high tourist areas or travel then sure, get vaccinated cause the risk is higher (97% of all measles in America is imported)

            But for me and my surrounding the risk is slim to none of getting sick so the risk (how ever small you believe it might be) of having any of those adverse effects (and I’ll even stick to the ones they list on the insert to avoid the inevitable argument about what it can and can’t cause)
            Death, measles (yes you can get measles from the vaccine) deafness, blindness, brain swelling, seizures, permanent brain damage, encephalitis, pneumonia, sterility),… I’ll stop there, that’s enough reason really
            If my son wants to travel when he gets older or decided he wants the vaccine he can make that decision when it becomes necessary (the risk of those adverse effects supposedly go down with age) or if they can come up with some better more trustworthy circumstances, I might reconsider but until then….

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            The risks and rewards are only “not worth it” because you have continually overstated the risks while dismissing the rewards. Such as with your claim that there are high rates of fully vaccinated people catching the measles in this, or any other, outbreak.

          • Wren
            at #

            Actually, as long as most people do vaccinate, enough to keep the spread of VPD under control, no foreign travel is planned and access to good healthcare is available in case of catching the disease anyway, for an individual the risks of not vaccinating are very low. It is possible that it is lower than the risks of vaccination. However, as more and more people make that decision the risks of not vaccinating increase.

          • Jason Roder
            at #

            If you aren’t an expert on vaccination, then why should anyone listen to you prattle on about it? If you don’t know how vaccines work, then why should anyone take your word about whether they are dangerous or not?

          • Molly Glenn
            at #

            Rosanna, you want data? Here is data: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/ You will see many links to the data throughout their website. You cannot claim that the CDC has an economic agenda, so hopefully you will actually respect their data.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Keep in mind the CDC said in 1958 that you do not get cancer from cigarettes…
            They are very funded by the very people who produced the crap they are pushing as “safe”…

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Source?

          • Thomas
            at #

            http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm

            Only confirms that they said it but also breaks down how they twisted the statistics to fit their agenda .. Cause technically the way they worded it it’s a valid claim.. And what would make you think they aren’t doing the same with vaccines.. We already know Merck is in trouble for falsifying test results to secure the contact to manufacture the vaccines,..

          • Wren
            at #

            Are you actually using an editorial from 1999 as your evidence?

          • Thomas
            at #

            The World Health Report 1999, chapter 5 and Statistical Annex and CDC data (http://www.cdc.gov/scientific.htm).
            Is clearly listed as the source for the data..

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            How an individual not associated with the CDC interprets data put out by the CDC, does not actually reflect on the CDC.

            Edit: Also: 404 Page Not Found

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            What the hell does an *editorial* from 1999 have to do with the CDC in 1958?

          • Molly Glenn
            at #

            Thomas, given that the CDC only expanded from study of Malaria to covering STDs also in 1957 and had not yet expanded to cover TB or vaccinations in 1958, your statement is suspect. What is your source? The CDC is funded by the government, so your economic motivation claims are bunk.

          • Thomas
            at #

            “Funded by the government” and who do you think funds the people in that government? It couldn’t be the big corporations right? The koch brothers for instance are spending a BILLION dollars on the up coming elections.. You think they do that without expecting anything in return? You can’t be that naive

          • Molly Glenn
            at #

            Additionally, you seem to not understand the difference between funding a campaign and funding the government. Government employees and activity are funded by our tax dollars, fees, and fines. Donations by people like the Koch brothers go to campaigns, which goes to the candidate – win or lose. The campaign money is used primarily to fund advertising and the people who make that advertising happen and shape the image of the candidate. It doesn’t build our roads, fund our scientific studies, pay for the FDA inspector’s salary, or the single mother’s food assistance. The oil magnate Koch brothers are not paying for the EPA with the billions they spend on elections. Similarly, you seem to not understand the difference between the legislature and government agencies. Buying a candidate’s way into Congress isn’t the same as buying an agency. If you “own” a congressman, he will attempt to make laws in your favor or block laws that work against you. He’s not the scientist doing the studies. He may attempt to eliminate the EPA or de-fund the CDC, but he doesn’t dictate their findings. That is why public studies are more reliable than industry funded studies.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Yeah I guess you believe that those campaign funding scenarios doesn’t come with favors expected from whom ever the funding is for? You’re basically buying your way into politicians who have the same agenda hoping that they will gain power so you have leverage… And findings can be twisted to appear one way or another depending on the outcome your looking for.. That’s the beauty with statistics
            For example my highschool had a blood drive one year and they said the drive was useless because 50% of the blood donated was HIV positive (that sounds horrible right?)
            But further investigation revealed that only 4 people actually gave blood so only 2 donations contained HIV (and they where siblings) so technically the 50% was a true statement but the reality paints a totally different picture

            The statement CDC made that said cigarettes don’t cause cancer is technically true as well (using similar principles as my high school example) in the fine print it says cigarettes is a contributor, NOT a cause in cancer..
            Contribution money gets you those kind of results, just like a lawyer can get you off even if you’re guilty just in the way the case is worded

          • Thomas
            at #

            To say there is no money in vaccine?
            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/vaccine-management/price-list/

            The vaccine schedule calls for between 24 and 56 vaccines depending on the state (and that’s just for children before they start school) add in boosters and travel required shots, the flu shots etc.. We have 350 MILLION PEOPLE IN AMERICA.. That’s not exactly “no money in vaccines”

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Look at the balance sheets. Making vaccines is expensive, and most of them are sold at fairly low cost.

            Trust me. The drug companies would rather be selling a brand-name daily treatment for a chronic disease, one which is a pill rather than a sterile injectible.

          • Thomas
            at #

            http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm

            Not only verifies they said it, he also explains why they where able to claim cigarettes do not cause cancer.. It they way the CDC worded their claim it’s actually true.. But we all know that cigarettes do in fact cause cancer
            This just shows you how they manipulated the date and twisted the statistics around to justify their agenda, why would you assume it would be any different when it comes to vaccines?

        • Nathan Walter
          at #

          “I went back to school to become a holistic practitioner. I learned a lot about vaccination that I had never known.”

          If you went to school and learned a lot about vaccinations, you should know how they work enough to enlighten the masses when asked about it.

          Talk about avoiding questions…

    • StarieNite
      at #

      In 2013 400 people died worldwide every day from Measles.

      • Thomas
        at #

        “Worldwide” is misleading.. Look deeper and you’ll find that is almost all in under developed and third world countries… Measles can be harmless if you have proper nutrition (the big player in this is vitamin A and high doses of vitamin C.. It’s actually proven that those two vitamins dropped the mortality rate almost 100% in the early 50’s which if you look you will also find that it’s about 10 years BEFORE vaccines where licensed)

        • Andrew Lazarus
          at #

          That still left 400-450 deaths per year. Indeed Vitamin A (not clear about C) is associated with better measles outcomes: just, not as good as the vaccine, which drove deaths down to zero.

          It’s also not harmless, unless you want to discount deafness, blindness, and, yes, the occasional death. Antivax arithmetic bewilders me: 10 (tops) vaccine deaths is a disaster, 450 wild measles deaths is a sign of harmlessnesss.

          • Thomas
            at #

            2014 VEARS data, which covers reports processed as of Dec. 14, 2014. VAERS data shows (as of Feb. 3, 2015):

            1,244 cases of people reported hospitalized
            416 cases of people reporting a disability
            122 reported deaths
            388 reported life-threatening cases

            Measles btw.. A hand full of hospitalizations for dehydration and NO OTHER ISSUE during that same time period (or any time since the 50’s) you are more likely to die from the common cold..

            You obviously have not looked into this and going by what the CDC tells you… Thence they also said sugar is good for you and cigarettes will not give you cancer (look that shit up). Consider for a minute the shit storm that would incur if they didn’t sick with their story after all these years, they are going to do everything in their power to convince you that you need to get vaccinated..
            America had the most vaccines required than any country in the world and we have the unhealthiest children in recent history right now.. The countries with less vaccines have a much higher life expectancy and much better health over all (we are Nr 34 on that list if healthy countries)

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            People with measles pneumonia often wind up getting ventilated. Over 100 people died of it between 1989 and 1991, and thousands were hospitalized.

          • Andrew Lazarus
            at #

            There were most assuredly not 122 reported deaths from the MMR in 2014. You can search VAERS yourself (here). That’s for all vaccines. And its juxtaposition in time, not necessarily causal. You can find an explanation of why that number is probably inflated at Politifact, which looks to be where you got the number in the first place.

            So the total vaccine deaths from all vaccines is about 1/4 pre-vaccine deaths from measles. And that’s before we add in polio (thousands of deaths) and flu.

            The usual antivax number is 108 measles vaccine deaths, but that is in ten years, or since the inception of VAERS over 25 years ago. Why would we want to trade 11 annual MMR deaths (although the 2014 total, from my search, was only 2)?

            I’d like a source that we have more than 450 deaths each year from the common cold. Or is it the usual antivax narcissism: people who die from measles are filthy, impure, weak immune system, McDonalds eaters? There really isn’t any evidence for that. Your good health is not from your Awesome Lifestyle™ and Badass Immune System™: it’s because all your neighbors vaccinated.

            Did you notice that all those countries with better health also have government-run or government-subsidized health care? Our statistics are comparably to theirs, if you exclude American poor people, whose health, pre-Obama, we largely ignored.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Well of you follow the conversation you will see that I did say vears data according to the CDC is between 10 and 30% “real” cases.. That still leaves about 10 deaths last year (falls in line welt your estimated 11a year)
            And the rest of the issues still add up to more than the actual disease’s complications annually (in America).. Those hospitalizations from measles are generally from dehydration, not a big deal.. I tried to find some solid evidence on deaf and blind that are caused by measles and I can’t find much so I’m going to assume it’s not really a issue (or there would be more available information or things online)
            The brain swelling and pneumonia are also very rare in developed countries…

          • Andrew Lazarus
            at #

            There was a deaf-from-measles boy in my grammar school. Hundreds of such cases every year, because ear infections are a common complication. The hospitalization rate for measles in advanced countries is about 10%, taken over recent outbreaks, as is a death rate of 1:3000 to 1:1000 reported cases.

            The Lizard People at the CDC say

            From 1985 through 1992, diarrhea was reported in 8% of measles cases, making this the most commonly reported complication of measles. Otitis media was reported in 7% of cases and occurs almost exclusively in children. Pneumonia (in 6% of reported cases) may be viral or superimposed bacterial, and is the most common cause of death.

            Acute encephalitis occurs in approximately 0.1% of reported cases. Onset generally occurs 6 days after rash onset (range 1–15 days) and is characterized by fever, headache, vomiting, stiff neck, meningeal irritation, drowsiness, convulsions, and coma. Cerebrospinal fluid shows pleocytosis and elevated protein. The case-fatality rate is approximately 15%. Some form of residual neurologic damage occurs in as many as 25% of cases. Seizures (with or without fever) are reported in 0.6%–0.7% of cases.

            I never understand antivax arithmetic. 3 (or 11) MMR deaths per year is a disaster, and 450 wild measles deaths per year is the sign of a mild, benign, routine disease.

          • Thomas
            at #

            OK so basically you just provided the evidence that says diarrhea is the main “complication”. As I stated earlier ” most hospitalizations are from dehydration (probably from the diarrhea) AND diahrrea ”
            You know of ONE person who was deaf from measles in grammar school (I’m going to assume your in the 40-50 age group judging by the picture next to your name) that means roughly 30-40 years ago and you only know of ONE deaf.. “From ear infections, because they are common with measles”.. You know where else ” ear infections ” are “common”? ALMOST ALL INFANTS because the ear canals and the angle they are in infants do not drain properly (you know how I know this? I personally had l huge problems with ear infections as a child and I was told this is very common (my 8 month old son has had 4 (2 of which was double ear infections) of them already) this is less likely in older kids to adults because the angle of said ear canal changes when your head grows to accommodate them properly..
            What happened to blindness btw, I didn’t see ANYTHING (pardon the pun) in the CDC jargon you quoted about going blind..
            Pneumonia : (notice how often ” developing world “and ” low income countries ” is used in this piece from Wikipedia

            “In 2008, pneumonia occurred in approximately 156 million children (151 million in the developing world and 5 million in the developed world).[6] In 2010, it resulted in 1.3 million deaths, or 18% of all deaths in those under five years, of which 95% occurred in the developing world.[6][11][77] Countries with the greatest burden of disease include India (43 million), China (21 million) and Pakistan (10 million).[78] It is the leading cause of death among children in low income countries.[6][64] Many of these deaths occur in the newborn period. The World Health Organization estimates that one in three newborn infant deaths is due to pneumonia.[79] Approximately half of these deaths can be prevented, as they are caused by the bacteria for which an effective vaccine is available.[80] In 2011, pneumonia was the most common reason for admission to the hospital after an emergency department visit in the U.S. for infants and children.[81]”
            What you will also find is the lack of measles being a big contributor to pneumonia
            You are more likely to get pneumonia from the flu (like I said in a previous post)
            Your chances of catching (and/or dying from) in America from measles is slim
            That leaves encephalitis..
            0.1% of cases..
            And each and every one of those things you listed are also listed as “side effects” FROM THE VACCINE
            Basically the odds of catching measles and becoming immune for life are smaller than the risk of having any of the issues or death caused by the vaccine (no matter which ones you believe are causde or not caused by vaccines there are a hand full they admit to and have been proven so there are some regardless) especially since it’s not just one shot, you play with these odds every time you get another one (no one has ever had measles twice, with exception for an unclear case of a girl in 1952 who was thought to have it twice in 14 days but it is unclear if it’s the same instance lasting longer than usual or two separate instance PLUS she had some hereditary immune deficiency so it was deemed unclear)
            I’m not sure if you have seen the vaccination rates vs the morbidity rates I’ve posted in this thread but they show that vaccines are not doing what they claim they are doing (pertussis being the stronger case with vaccination rates above 95% almost the entire 33 years listed yet the morbidity has steadily increased by about 1200 a year for 33 CONSECUTIVE years)
            Measles was 30 times higher when we where above 95% vaccination rates and where deemed eradicated when we where at the lowest rates (below 87% I think it was, not just for one year but 5 years running in both cases)

          • Thomas
            at #

            I should point out that I am fully vaccinated and I have had measles myself (and pertussis, mumps, pneumonia, chicken pox and meningitis) so I have personal experience with the disease(s).. I am neither deaf nor blind and most certainly not dead..

          • Wren
            at #

            And there are plenty of people who have driven while drunk more than 6 times without an accident. Your personal experience is rather irrelevant compared to the overall population. Obviously those who have died from VPD will not be here to say that.

            In the developed world, most people have access to health resources to treat complications of these diseases. That means death rates are drastically reduced. It does not mean death cannot still result or that complications do not occur. It does mean higher health care costs, either directly through insurance or indirectly through taxation, for the society as a whole, costs which could be reduced through avoidance of the disease altogether through vaccination.

        • StarieNite
          at #

          400 deaths is 400 deaths. That year it was 400 people that stopped living every day because they got a disease that can be prevented with a vaccine. 400 people dead. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t the US. Measles can kill and we can’t downplay the deaths because it didn’t happen here, yet.

          • Thomas
            at #

            014 VEARS data, which covers reports processed as of Dec. 14, 2014. VAERS data shows (as of Feb. 3, 2015):

            1,244 cases of people reported hospitalized
            416 cases of people reporting a disability
            122 reported deaths
            388 reported life-threatening cases

            Measles btw.. A hand full of hospitalizations for dehydration and NO OTHER ISSUE during that same time period (or any time since the 50’s) you are more likely to die from the common cold..

            You obviously have not looked into this and going by what the CDC tells you… Thence they also said sugar is good for you and cigarettes will not give you cancer (look that shit up). Consider for a minute the shit storm that would incur if they didn’t sick with their story after all these years, they are going to do everything in their power to convince you that you need to get vaccinated..
            America had the most vaccines required than any country in the world and we have the unhealthiest children in recent history right now.. The countries with less vaccines have a much higher life expectancy and much better health over all (we are Nr 34 on that list if healthy countries)

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I’m still waiting for that evidence the CDC said cigarettes don’t give you cancer.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Let’s take whooping cough as an example. In 1979 Sweden withdrew use of the DTP vaccine on the basis that it was not effective and possibly unsafe. The fear, of course, would be that with lower vaccination rates, the death rate would increase. So what happened in this case?

            A 1995 letter from Victoria Romanus at the Swedish Institute of Infectious Disease Control indicated that deaths from whooping cough remained near zero. Sweden’s population was 8,294,000 in 1979 and 8,831,000 by 1995. From 1981 to 1993, eight children were recorded as dying, with the cause of death listed as pertussis. This averaged to be about 0.6 children per year possibly dying from whooping cough. These numbers show that the odds of dying from pertussis in Sweden were about 1 in 13,000,000 even when there was no national vaccination program. [6]

            In another case, DTP vaccination coverage in England dropped from about 78 percent to 30 or 40 percent because of concerns over safety. The assumption was that there would be an increase in deaths due to the decreased coverage. The years from 1976 to 1980 were the ones when vaccination rates were at their lowest. Using official statistics, the number of deaths in those years totaled 35. The deaths from the previous five years (1971 to 1975), while vaccination rates were higher, totaled 55, or about 1.5 times greater than when vaccination rates were lower. [7] This was directly opposite what is generally believed should have happened.

            http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/the-truth-about-measles-the-mainstream-media-is-suppressing/

      • at #

        And there are close to 300 deaths EACH DAY! just in the US from medical malpractice.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117251/

    • Dot Newkirk
      at #

      Death does not have to be the worst outcome from not being vaccinated and getting measles, living the rest of your life with the other problems that can result from having measles like eye problems, lung and heart problems, can be just as bad, especially when you could have avoided it by being vaccinated. I have never heard of vaccines being made from aborted fetuses, viri need living cells in order to replicate. Aborted fetuses are DEAD. By the way, every time you eat a hamburger, steak, bacon or eggs, you are putting foreign protein into your body, so what is so different from injecting them into an arm, butt or leg muscle? What “facts” show that there are more deaths from the MMR vaccine than from the disease? Please cite the source of this information. Some holistic practitioners
      are well read, and informed, but I’d also trust an immunologist before most holistic practitioners.

    • Nathan Walter
      at #

      Speaking of “Any corporation with enough $$$$ can conduct a “study” to determine the results they want reported”… what about a massive industry that would be vastly threatened by a major pharmaceutical companies… say, companies that sell “natural medical products”… you know, the holistic medicine industry?

      When I read links from guys like Dr. Mercola, and the whole time I’m reading him, I see advertisements for his 9,000 various supplement products… I wonder, gee, this guy’s livelihood isn’t threatened by the pharmaceutical industry, now is it? He certainly wouldn’t have a reason to spend money on “research” to boost sales…

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        at #

        Why do supplement companies spend so much money not to just hide bad results or whatever, but to make sure that they are not even subject to FDA oversight?

        Even if we grant that pharma is going to try to do whatever they can to skirt regulatory issues, it’s nothing compared to the scam that big-supplement has pulled, convincing lawmakers that they don’t even need to be watched!

        And now we’ve seen how honest they are.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      Speaking of money, how much did they charge you for that worthless degree?

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      In very rare cases, people can die from vaccines. Even the most fanatic anti-vax sites give about 11/year, which is inflated. But let that go. We had 400-450 deaths every year just from measles, now add on polio, pertussis, diphtheria.

      Why would a parent pick hundreds of deaths versus (alleged) 11 deaths? One reason is ego: the bad outcomes of “natural” illness can’t happen to people who go to “naturopath” practitioners. Another reason is sociopathic selfishness, letting everybody else vaccinate and free-riding on the fact there is no one left to catch most diseases from (tetanus being a prominent exception, since you can get it from a cut). That’s not a very moral approach either.

      • Nathan Walter
        at #

        It’s like the person who fears driving over a bridge because they watched the I-35 collapse in Minneapolis.

        Millions of people drive over some of the thousands of the bridges in the US every day, and 99.9999999999% of them don’t end up in the lake. But the moment they do, all the skeptics question the integrity of the engineers, the builders, the materials… they cite that no bridge is 100% safe and call for everyone to drive 397 miles out of the way to avoid the bridge or to work and live and operate our lives on one side of the bridge, lest we endanger ourselves by crossing the bridge (heaven forbid our car is the one that puts the bridge’s strength in jeopardy).

        People will always question vaccines, even if we have ridiculously favorable statistics for them.

    • Archer
      at #

      I bet you’d fall off your seat if I told you that you could die in a car accident.
      A large amount of people who wear socks have also been found to be autistic, therefore socks can cause autism. Seriously, what is wrong with you. Definitely make a note in your Health Mom diary to go and get educated.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      You know what I find so hilarious about the “chemicals and toxins” argument? When I was a very young kid and margarine made it’s debut, it came in bags with a food coloring “button.” You would pop the button and squeeze the bag around until the food coloring mixed in to make it look like the color of butter.. talk about chemicals! haha! It will be interesting to see how the “all natural, organic” generation fares in old age in comparison to their “toxin-ingesting” counterparts. I bet they will all have the same health issues their own parents faced.

      • Nick Sanders
        at #

        Interesting story behind that: the margarine manufacturers had the capability to color the margarine at the factory, but the dairy industry was afraid of the competition from nice, pretty yellow margarine, so they lobbied Congress to make doing so illegal.

        • Samantha06
          at #

          Oh that’s funny! I didn’t know that! I just remember my favorite thing was to pop the button and mix it around!

    • SydneyChip
      at #

      Oh dear what an uninformed rant.

    • Steel_Wind
      at #

      A “holistic practitioner”, telling a M.D. about how inaccurate her article was?

      That describes the science-level of anti-vaxxers, summarized in the first three sentences. Emotion, “alternative medicine” and pseudo-science clouding judgement and getting in the way of medical science and the laws of probability.

      This is about herd immunity and the laws of probability.

      The fact that many lefty women are bad at math and distrust authority is not a shocker.

      • yugaya
        at #

        And this is how she argued her point that the article is inaccurate:

        -because my child was vaccinated until the age of 2

        -because I have a quack degree that allows me to go around pretending I know what I am talking about when I talk about things from the field of formal medical science

        -there is a media cover-up conspiracy regarding vaccine safety

        -will the dr. please stand up and list the ingedients in vaccines and “statistics that show deaths caused by some vaccinations” that I have bookmarked off the internetz?

        -“dumbest thing I ever heard” argument

        -sth about monkeys, dead foetuses and however that is in her mind relevant to artificial colouring and rise of obesity in children

        – holistic practitioners are the same as real doctors

        -mentioning of THE FACTS, as in facts like probably citing VAERS as the source of deaths that have been documented as attributable to vaccines

        -some random generaélised fearmongering in the shape of “it is a scary society out there”

        -some more random fearmongering in the shape of “trust no one with an actual medical degree”

        She like, totes debunked it. Did I miss anything?

      • Nick Sanders
        at #

        You were doing so well until the “lefty women” crack. Why bring politics and sexism into a discussion about medicine?

        • Cyndi Simpson
          at #

          Thank you, Nick! I would go beyond “sexism” all the way to “misogyny” in Steel Wind’s case.

          • Who?
            at #

            Oh I think you’ll find SW is disrespectful of all sorts of people-anyone who disagrees with his politics for a start, then women.

            Every year I age it becomes more clear that there are many very disrespectful people in the world-women are just an everyday opportunity for them.

    • yugaya
      at #

      “Then they call holistic practitioners quacks and charlatans”

      Gee I wonder why that is? Maybe because when your comment of a holistic practitioner is read straight after this blog written by an MD you are the one who sounds incoherent, uneducated and stuck knee-deep in conspiracy theories?

  14. Sally
    at #

    My whole family is vaccinated with that being said, you are dead wrong. The choices they make are made with the knowledge they have gleaned everywhere. I have a cousin who has never been vaccinated, whom is being raised by her great grandma. Doctors told us NOT TO VACCINATE due to the fact the use live viruses in the vaccins and people, like great grandma here, who have little to no immune system are at a higher risk of catching ONCE the child was immunized. That means that live virus that was injected into said child just became a possible killer to grandma. You say anti vaxers are the reason for the outbreaks, it is just aspossible to have come a vaccinated who was carring the live virus who then in turn infected someone with the compromised immune system. By the way, I too work in the health field and my area of expertise are elderly, disabled, and those who have a compromised immune system.
    Lets remember when AIDS and HIV first came to light. They have that compromised immune system, there wasn’t one thing they didn’t catch and it was not due to being expised to a non vaccinated person
    Your article only proves yoyr narrow mindedness with atupid comments that arent tru. I personally know many non vaccinators. One reason was the government has lied one to many times to be trusted with thier child well being. Two a vaccinated should not be at risk of anything if the vaccines worked like they have been telling us. Three when confronted with a question of government back peddles and WILL SAY ANYTHING TO COVER IT’S OWN ASS! Howmany times have we heard that something is healthy or safe only to have them retrack it as well as statements concerning it. I personalky find that people who have high education are the ones who put on airs of superioty and believe just because they have said degree that the rest are stupid. I need to stop, I could go all day on this. This just makes me so angry.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      Thanks for demonstrating the truth of my piece.

      • Tommy
        at #

        Great article. I think there’s another factor. There’s a fair amount of distrust of drug companies and their profits by anti-vax folks—founded or otherwise. Paranoia and conspiracy theories go a long way. What about the argument that the scientists were paid by big pharma? There are many articles claiming fraud.
        Thank you.
        Tom

        • Nick Sanders
          at #

          Those companies would make a hell of a lot more money selling medicine to treat the illnesses than they do off of vaccines.

          • Tommy
            at #

            Great point.

        • A liberal estimate of pharma company profits from vaccines is about $24 billion. Before we start talking greed please recognize that this is about 2.5-3% of their total profit alone. If profit was all they were after they would shift priorities over to Viagra or other lifestyle drugs that people will pay through the nose to get.

        • Andrew Lazarus
          at #

          I see that the NY Attorney General has just alleged massive fraud in the Alternative Medicine supplement business. Whatever value these supplements might have, what gets sold is sugar pills without even the claimed ingredient.

          • Who?
            at #

            Interesting, this is getting some traction in Australia too. There is a lot of discussion about how what is says on the bottle may not be what is in the bottle.

            And many companies happily sell both, which shocks the alternative guys quite a bit. Never understood how they do all their research and don’t know that.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Dietary supplements really are a scandal.

            If this happened with a food or drug, deliberate counterfeiting, mislabeling, and tainting on that scale, it would be front-page news for days. The entire country would be howling for the manufacturer’s head, laws rammed through Congress to bring an end to it. But for herbal supplements, apparently we’re OK with “caveat emptor.”

        • Sullivan ThePoop
          at #

          If you are afraid of profits by people selling treatments, why oh why would you trust Dr. Mercola or any of the other antivaxx doctors that have online stores. Or who is paying for all the antivaccine information?

          • Who?
            at #

            I would have said ‘treatments’ not treatments, but otherwise 100% agree.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      Being an anti-vaxxer and not being vaccinated because of a compromised immune system or other legitimate medical issue are two completely different things.

    • Life Tip
      at #

      I love putting on airs of superioty. It’s the best.

    • Dot Newkirk
      at #

      Not all vaccines have “live” viri in them. Many are “killed” or “attenuated”. Your comment, with all of the spelling mistakes, misinformation and conspiracy theory overtones shows that YOU are not as “educated” as you think you are. You obviously can use a computer so do a bit more self education at sites like the CDC and medical information sites like Web MD instead of “Bubbas nose medicine” and Faux News..

  15. Skaldie
    at #

    Great article and you hit the truth which unfortunately is something most of those who chose to put their children at risk will still not accept about their thoughtless “informed ignorance”.

  16. MM
    at #

    How sad, to perpetuate stereotypes when there’s a real, nuanced situation at hand. I and many parents have chosen not to vaccinate our children, and for none of the reasons you list. When thoughtfulness is derided as ignorant privilege, we are all in trouble.

    • momofone
      at #

      When ignorant privilege masquerades as thoughtfulness, we are all in trouble.

    • Mom2Many
      at #

      Oh my goodness, reading all of these comments are painfully exhausting. At what point do you accept that your desire to be mollycoddled through this “nuanced” situation comes at a price not just to your child but also to mine?
      My special needs foster child needed a blood transfusion recently, and consequently may not receive any of his childhood vaccinations until 6 months pass. I am TERRIFIED that he will catch something since he is unable to have the added level of protection that vaccinations will bring him. Your “thoughtfulness” IS ignorant privilege…My child has NO say, while you play with his health. I just can’t anymore….

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        at #

        Amazingly, this is not the first to come in and proclaim to have a great, nuanced justification. And when asked about it, it turned out to be….oh, look at the pretty butterfly!

        • Samantha06
          at #

          Yes, that. Or, like that one guy asked me to “explain my position, then he’d answer my question.” He was asked over and over, and it was always pretty butterflies everywhere..

          • Who?
            at #

            Given the state of that guy’s brain I wouldn’t be so sure they were pretty.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Haha! You’re probably right..

    • JJ
      at #

      I used to not vaccinate either until I realized that I have a sociology degree and that essentially the entire medical scientific community disagreed with me! (I was also letting anxiety get the better of me).

      Reading the internet was not the same as 1000s of highly educated specialists collaborating on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. I can’t imagine even reading the internet to build my house to code!

    • Monnie
      at #

      Personally, I think you are an idiot for not vaxing your kids. I think this article is very on point, and hopefully your own children don’t suffer because of your lack of poor judgment

    • Isaac_Laquedem
      at #

      Bear in mind that if everyone in (say) California were equally thoughtful, and declined vaccination for themselves and their families, over time the measles rate in California would increase to roughly 500,000 cases/year, and roughly 40 deaths/year from measles. Not a great risk — unless one of those is your child. What makes the sort of thoughtfulness you describe work is actually merely the privilege of living among neighbors who are vaccinated.

    • Jason Roder
      at #

      Nuance, my gluteus. There’s nothing “nuanced” about “whaargarbl the Illumnierty are aut to get us”, or buying into Wakefield’s reprehensible lie about autism, or deciding that since others have gone to the trouble to get vaccinated, you don’t need to, or “but vaccines don’t work” (protip: they’re probably the single most successful medical treatment in human history), or whatever other absurd excuse you might have.

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      Some say the earth is round, some say it is flat. Let’s go for a nuanced “it’s wavy”.

    • Cyndi Simpson
      at #

      So, what are your “thoughtful” reasons, MM? Do share. We’re all ears, here.

    • at #

      What reasons have you chosen for not vaccinating your children?

  17. virginia
    at #

    I am very pro-vaccine and my whole family is vaccinated but I think this article is pretty harsh and unhelpful. Rather than attribute all the worst character traits to those who don’t vaccinate, I think more reasonable explanations exist for their concern. Addressing those would be more constructive. For starters, why have so many Americans grown distrustful of the accepted authorities on everything from healthcare to education? It’s not an insignificant portion of the population so, it’s just illogical to write them all off as crazy. Could it be that the public gets conflicting reports from “experts” on nearly everything, all the time? There is ample evidence of a lack of integrity and objectivity in many of the government oversight organizations that are supposed to protect us. I’m not gonna spend hours doing a research paper here but there are plenty of historical examples of the FDA either failing to do it’s due diligence or caving to corporate interests and allowing harmful ingredients into the food and drug supply. I think our energy is better spent in looking for ways to improve the public trust with these agencies rather than demonizing non-vax parents.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      I don’t need a research paper, but at least a few of these “plenty” examples would be nice.

      • virginia
        at #

        Well, Nick, I read the paper daily (Usually the WSJ or Washington Post) and over the years have read a number of stories about conflict of interest and unsafe approval practices at the FDA. Unfortunately, my middle aged memory doesn’t allow me to recall details with encyclopedic precision. Thank goodness for google, which for the internet comments section is all the effort I’m willing to muster. Here’s one article I found (though a little old now) that chronicles some of the more high profile examples. http://fee.org/freeman/detail/abolishing-the-fda

        And some others:

        http://www.businessinsider.com/zohydro-pay-to-play-scandal-2014-3

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-emails-show-alleged-pay-to-play-between-drug-companies-fda/

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/08/fda-scientists-complain-obama-corruption/

        • Andrew Lazarus
          at #

          My favorite example is the fine and civil suit against GM for its bad ignition switches. You don’t see anti-car people going in horses-and-buggies, do you? Whether one or another pharma company cheats or just screws up, that can happen. But antivaxers have a counterrevolutionary idea that Purity and Cleanliness protect from measles and polio, at least from bad outcomes. This is rubbish.

        • SporkParade
          at #

          Okay, you don’t trust the FDA. But there is extremely little variation in the vaccine schedule between countries. Are you suggesting that every first-world country on the planet (not to mention global health organizations) is part of a massive conspiracy to overstate the benefits and downplay the risks of vaccines?

          • Wren
            at #

            I find it much more likely that Virginia has never stopped to consider any country but the US in regards to this topic.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Often people who say that also claim other countries don’t vaccinate nearly as much as we do. Occasionally they choose examples that are right, usually they choose examples that are either flat wrong or a few decades out of date.

    • Cyndi Simpson
      at #

      In other words, you think that folks who are anti-vax for no good reason whatsoever need to be coddled and begged to “trust.” Here’s the thing: we live in a very complex world with lots of information flowing out there. It behooves all of us to be as informed as possible, to use logic, to examine facts and identify reliable sources. Have there been some spectacular failures of trust in the world of public health? Of course there have, including the Tuskegee syphilis ‘experiment’ and the dreadful forced sterilizations that many states engaged in with the ‘science’ of eugenics as their basis. The victims in these cases were members of severely oppressed classes – it was our systemic racism that drove these hideous events. Do corporations unduly influence our political world, to the point of owning it? Yes, I believe that is so. I’m one of those Occupy Wall Street kind of people when it comes to money in politics and the inequality of wealth. Do I loathe Big Pharma? Yes, largely, I do. Yet, none of that has anything to do with the science around vaccines. This isn’t about “trust” and the need to grow it. It’s about people who choose willfully to ignore the nuances of our complex world, who have a flat-earth mentality that no amount of facts, discussion, explanation or patience can affect. Whose minds are not open to any information that does not agree with their pre-determined conclusion. I think the author here really may have a handle on what is driving this: ego and privilege. It is not possible to “build trust” with folks who are determined not to have it. Full disclosure here: I have an MS in Public Health and worked in state and local health departments for years in the arena of prevention. When I was running a 10-county (very rural counties) HIV/AIDS program in the midwest in the early 90s – I kept encountering, regarding the transmission of HIV, the same kind of vein-popping anger and willful ignorance as in the anti-vax folks. What I found underneath that anger, fear that could not be relieved by any information and mistrust of “government” etc, was homophobia. It’s those horrible “others” that were the problem. Those horrible sinful “others.” And people were hatefully furious about it and terrified. Over the ensuing years, as people realized that if mosquitoes could carry HIV (something I was routinely accused of “hiding”), the patterns of infection and transmission would look completely different, and so on – most of that craziness went away. And in this same time period, we’ve had great strides in protecting the rights and civil liberties of LGBTQ people. That has had its effect, too. In this case, the horrible “others” are the pharmaceutical industry, ‘government,’ etc. Not the oppressed and the powerless. This makes me think that the craziness is NOT going to to away on this issue – it’s privilege vs privilege here. Not sure your well-intentioned platitudes about building trust hit the mark. Why put that burden solely on the pro-vax side to begin with? Where is MY responsibility to build reasonable trust through self-education?

  18. Rich T. Anderson
    at #

    I agree, ego is the problem. But I think you’re missing a bit here.

    It’s a feeling of superiority, but it’s not about rebellion per se. These folks really seriously believe they are doing what’s best for their children. The problem is they also seriously believe their children are special.

    They honestly think their children are pure.

    Let that sink in. More and more that’s what I’m hearing and seeing. They say, “My child isn’t a breeding ground for bacteria.” “I keep my kids clean.” & “My son is pure.”

    Purity. It makes me shiver. Whenever a group starts defining themselves as more pure than the rest of us, well, it’s time to worry.

    Showing those who refuse vaccinations for their children science that their being defiant without reason, I believe, will be as ineffective as trying to teach them science. They don’t care about being rebels, they don’t care if people think their stupid. They think their child is the Übermensch who cannot be harmed because they aren’t unclean like you are.

    Even if they aren’t that far gone, they are so far gone that no amount of logic can reach them. They are intractable, just like NRA zombies or those that believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. They will not be swayed.

    • Guest
      at #

      Oops. There’s an extra “science” in the middle of the first sentence in the 6th paragraph.

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        at #

        As a registered user, you have the ability to edit.

        • Rich T. Anderson
          at #

          I did. Then I deleted my correction comment. The edit took, but the deletion did not.

  19. Thomas
    at #

    The vaccination rates have stayed relatively the same for the last 15 (and they actually went UP after the “anti vaxxer movement” started, they where below 90% for about 5 years prior) the anti vaxxer movement supposedly started in 98 with the Wakefield report about measles .. If you look at the vaccination rate for the 33 years listed in this chart from WHO you will see that it’s been relatively the same with exception for those years prior to 2000 (when measles was deemed eradicated btw, the vaccination rate was it’s lowest, keep that I’m mind.. And in the early 80’s when the vaccination rate was above 95% for 5 years we had THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF MEASLES as we do now.. Did you get that? The higher the vaccination rate the MORE measles we had)
    But back to my original point.. The claim that less people are vaccinating is NOT supported in the numbers of actual vaccinations
    Measles vaccination rates
    http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tscoveragemcv.html

    Vs morbidity rate for same time period
    http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tsincidencemeasles.html

    And if you look at pertussis vaccinating the case is actually worse for you and your theory about less people vaccinating
    In fact we have had a vaccination rate ABOVE the mythical “herd immunity” (92%] for almost 33 years (it’s been in the 96% on average)
    What’s makes MY case stronger is the morbidity rate of pertussis has been steady increasing for 33 CONSECUTIVE years by roughly 1200 cases.. So not only are you wrong when you say “less” people are vaccinating this data suggests that the vaccine does NOT work as they claim..
    Pertussis vaccination rates
    http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tscoveragedtp3.html

    Vs morbidity rate for same time period
    http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tsincidencepertussis.html

    • Guest
      at #

      I assume you are familiar with the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and their beliefs regarding pirates and global warming?

    • Wren
      at #

      The anti-vac movement began long before Wakefield. Wakefield was actually developing his own vaccine.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      That looks at the total vaccination rates across the entire country, and ignores that the outbreaks are all happening in places where the local rate is far lower.

      • guest
        at #

        how do you explain Disneyland in California then? People come from all over to go there, you can’t attach a ‘local rate’ to a place like that.

        • Nick Sanders
          at #

          You absolutely can. How many of the children who got measles at Disneyland weren’t vaccinated?

          • Thomas
            at #

            That’s pretty much the ONLY instance where there where in fact more unvaccinated than vaccinated.. Almost any other outbreak the vaccinated are as high as 100% of the sick.. Ever heardheard of “measles Mary”? She is patient zero in the new York outbreak in 2011 SHE WAS FULLY VACCINATED and she even passed it on to another 4 FULLY VACCINATED people… The pertussis outbreaks in California recently 92% where vaccinated

            http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/pertussis-vaccine-failure-is-not-just-modern-but-historical-vaccine-has-never-been-effective/

            http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time

            1985, Texas, USA: According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.” They concluded: “We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.”[8]
            1985, Montana, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures,” an outbreak of 137 cases of measles occurred in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.”[9]
            1988, Colorado, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, “early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity … due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded: “…measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations.”[10]
            1989, Quebec, Canada: According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was “largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage,” but following an extensive review the researchers concluded “Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.[11]
            1991-1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccine before their first birthday. [12]
            1992, Cape Town, South Africa: According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, “[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised.” Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak.[13

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I can cherry pick too:
            http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/varicella_report_2010_euvacnet.pdf
            “Of the total cases with a known vaccination status,
            115,716 (99.5%) were unvaccinated and 630 (0.5%)
            had received at least one dose.”

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I mean, hell, your own second link points out that such a thing was the FIRST TIME EVER.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Yeah because no one had thought to look into this before because it was assumed to be impossible… Imagine how many other cases there may be of someone had looked into it… I personally was fully vaccinated as a childchild, I had ALL the childhood diseases.. Mumps, measles, chicken pox, pertussis and even meningitis.. So did my little brother (and half of the kids I went to school with) vaccines do not work as advertised period.. They do not make ANYONE immune, you might become resistant to, bit not immune
            The industry doesn’t do ANY long term studies or testing, half of the side effects listed are followed by the words “is unknown at this time”.. What other thing meant for human consumption gets approved with words like that listed in the risks and dangers section?
            Where is the studies showing over all health between vaccinated vs unvaccinated dime by the vaccine manufacturers? Kiggs did one and it suggests unvaccinated children are far more healthy than vaccinated with less ” general “health issues, fewer learning disabilities, ADD, asthma, diabetes, allergies common colds etc etc are almost non existent in the unvaccinated compared to vaccinated
            The vaccine manufacturers just keep saying ” one more shot should cover it ” then when it doesn’t they just say it again and again with the argument “the viruses mutated” or “it didn’t work as well as we had hoped”.. That doesn’t sound very scientific to me… If you wanna vaccinate your children that up to you but the argument ” for the greater good “and the ” risk is worth the reward ” are all based on the assumption that the vaccine are more effective than they are.. Bit now that you need constant boosters and more shots because the shit is wearing off sooner than expected the “good” gets less and less rewarding and the “risk” goes up with every shot…
            If you just get the measles your I’ll for a few days and your immune for life..

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Half of your class had meningitis? That’s terrible! How many of them died?

            Oh, right, none, because you’re making it up.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Where is this alleged study?

            And tell that to all the children who have died of the measles, or gone deaf, or blind, or are now mentally retarded because of encephalitis, or thought they had gotten better only to die a few years later to SSPE.

          • Thomas
            at #

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11869601
            Two doses of oil and water based vitamin A were associated with a 82% reduction in the risk of mortality in children under the age of 2 years (RR=0.18; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.61) and a 67% reduction in the risk of pneumonia specific mortality (RR=0.33; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.92)

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            You know what works even better? Not catching the measles in the first place.

            More importantly, that’s not the study I asked for. You claimed “Kiggs did one and it suggests unvaccinated children are far more healthy than vaccinated with less ” general “health issues, fewer learning disabilities, ADD, asthma, diabetes, allergies common colds etc etc are almost non existent in the unvaccinated compared to vaccinated”.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Oh, sorry..
            http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new-study-vaccinated-children-have-2-to-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/

            This has the links to it and a few others

            Not for nothing but 102 cases (last I looked at the Disney outbreak) is coincided an outbreak of historic proportions but in 2000 when measles was “eradicated” we had 82 cases.. That’s 20 less than this “epic outbreak”.. And 102 out of 350 MILLION people is hardly epidemic (and Disney during Christmas peak is the perfect incubator, how many cases of the flu or common colds where cought? This kill more people annually than measles in America but no one is taking about those)

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            82 cases in a year, versus 100 in a month. Remember the outbreak keeps hitting new states, cities and counties. If we continue to get 100 per month, that’s 1,200, which is a bit more than 82.

            Of course, outbreaks don’t grow linearly. They grow exponentially until they hit a limiting factor, such as improved vaccination coverage or effective quarantine measures. (Or, they grow exponentially until a large percentage of the susceptible population gets it and die down naturally.)

            Some days, I hate math.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            And the vast, vast majority of those 102 cases were unvaccinated. So, what’s your point?

            Edit: Also, 102 cases in a few days versus what I’m guessing was the number for an entire year.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            “The data was collected from parents with vaccine-free children via an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info and Andreas Bachmair, a German classical homeopathic practitioner.”

            Quality data right there.

          • Thomas
            at #

            OK and explain to me why it matters who asks a select group of people the same “yes and no” questions and tallies up the answers? No one is diagnosing anything or making any medical suggestions is a simple yes and no questionnaire.. If you have more of one answer than another then you have a result, it’s not rocket science
            There is no other way to conduct that type of study really.. So it makes no difference who asked the questions.. And if the vaccine manufacturer was so sure of their product why haven’t they conducted such a study? I would assume that should actually be part of the fda approval process actually but it’s not for vaccines..

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Because self-report is incredibly unreliable, even when done by actual doctors. A homeopath? Please. And there is certainly another way to do it: actually have someone competent examine the kids.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Internet questionnaire means massive selection bias.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Especially given the site name.

          • Siri
            at #

            I like the euphemistic ‘vaccine-free’, and propose that from now on we talk about children being ‘hearing-free’, ‘sight-free’ and…errmmm…’life-free’.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Also, that 102 number is for a single outbreak that happened in a matter of *days*, the 82 cases were for an entire *year*.

          • Thomas
            at #

            You’re almost proving my original argument by yourself with that statement.. Remember the vaccination rates? In 2000 it was LOWER (I forget the exact number but it was between 83 and 87%) it’s listed as 92% now (above 91% since 2000) and using Disney is a cheap shot in the first place because under normal circumstances we have been between 50-100 cases a year .. Disney is a special circumstance, and 97% of all measles in America is imported to begin withwith

            Anyway I have better things to do than argue details with you.. All I did was provide a non autism related angle to the argument with plenty of information suggesting the risk vs reward is at the very least not nearly as good as they like you to believe
            What you do with your life and children (if you even have any) is totally up to you
            The only reason I even participated in this conversation is because I don’t think autism is the primary reason people don’t vaccinate anymore and frankly because of the autism claims the whole situation gets discredited in my opinion and there is so much more to this than that..
            You seem to have all the answers you need to justify your beliefs but there are some out there that are not sure that could use a fresh perspective that doesn’t include mercola or any other biased sources… Vaccination rate vs morbidity rates as reported by WHO is raw data without any bias or opinion based information that for some reason has been over looked in any discussion I’ve seen

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I see you still don’t understand that you are only looking at the total national rates and not the local ones.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I replied to this once already, but Disqus seems to have eaten it. You still don’t get that you are only looking at the total, nationwide rates, rather than the local ones.

            https://www.facebook.com/RtAVM/photos/pb.414643305272351.-2207520000.1423287090./839922689411075/

            Edit: whoops, miscopied the URL the first time

          • Thomas
            at #

            I replied to that as well. The population in California for instance is large enough that what ever they do our don’t do well be reflected in the national total so regardless of the few percent they change locally if it where a significant amount it would change the national total because of the volume of people who live in those places…
            And I also pointed out that there was a bigger correlation between the outbreaks and Filipino people.. Why Filipino? Because of you look into it 49% of the measles in America is traced back to someone who traveled to or from the Philippines.. They have the biggest problem with measles per capitacapita (something like 50k cases last year)
            My point is, where we have the biggest concentration of Filipinos in the US also happens to be the exact regions with the most measles.. Presumably because more people travel to and from the Philippines in those areas this there o is a greater risk to catch the measles in those areas..
            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Filipino_Americans

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            “The population in California for instance is large enough that what ever they do our don’t do well be reflected in the national total”

            If the whole state did, sure. County by county variance, which is what’s actually happening, no.

          • Thomas
            at #

            And here is your timeline
            http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Do you have one that’s not from a crank website?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            And the author’s qualifications are???? Oh, that would be “lay person” right? A commentator asked her for citations to prove her claims, but alas, she had none….

          • Thomas
            at #

            http://www.kiggs-studie.de/english/survey.html

            You’re saying these people are not qualified? It’s where the German government gets their advice from… The homeopath dude just put their study results into something the general public can understand

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Kiggs did not do the study. The answers were compared to a Kiggs study.

            “The independent study is self-funded and is not sponsored by a large “credible” non-profit or government health organization with political and financial conflicts of interest.”

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I tried to post a pair of comments earlier, but they seem to have vanished into the internet. The first was, do you have one that isn’t from a crank site.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Every heart of vaccine “shedding”.. That means that the vaccine itself can actually spread measles up to 21 days after its given.. Yes that means the vaccine itself can actually give you and others the measles… (It’s even listed in the vaccine insert as a possible side effect along with death, pneumonia, and everything they say is bad with measles IS LISTED AS A SIDE EFFECT from the vaccine)You will never look at vaccinated children the same!- Shedding Viruses: http://youtu.be/VKSeiAs_A4w

            Pay close attention to the part with the insert from the vaccine.. He reads it out loud for you
            Disneyland Measles Outbreak Caused By Vaccine?: http://youtu.be/eTE26ENzQr8

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I’ve heard of it being debunked.

            Also, those side effects of the vaccine are because it’s made with measles. The difference is that the chances of them happening from measles is 0.1% to 10%, depending on the specific complication. With the vaccine it’s 0.0333…% to so low that it can’t even be determined if it was actually the vaccine that caused it.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Can you explain why we should listen to you instead of the overwhelming number of immunologist, pediatricians and public health officials around the world?

            It takes an extraordinary amount of hubris to imagine you know more than they do. That’s the ego I’m talking about in this piece.

      • Thomas
        at #

        It still doesn’t show any drops in vaccination rates.. Even if there are clusters of these mass groups of people who are not vaccinating it would still show a drop in the total percentage (most of those places are highly populated so it would make a significant impact on the total regardless)

        • Cyndi Simpson
          at #

          Thomas, where did you get your degree in epidemiology? Just wondering……

          • Thomas
            at #

            Didn’t know you need a degree in epidemiology to observe trends between two things that are supposedly connected, if one goes up and the other doesn’t or one goes down and the other goes up you have a result that shouldn’t be happening.. That’s math and logic.. In not trying to diagnose anyone or fix the problem I’m just identifying there is a problem..

            You can look for yourself
            The vaccination rates have stayed relatively the same for the last 15yrs and they actually went UP, they where below 90% for about 5 years prior to the anti vaxxer movement that supposedly started in 98 with the Wakefield report about measles .. If you look at the vaccination rate for the 33 years listed in this chart from WHO you will see that it’s been relatively the same with exception for those years prior to 2000 (when measles was deemed eradicated btw, the vaccination rate was it’s lowest, keep that I’m mind.. And in the early 80’s when the vaccination rate was above 95% for 5 years we had THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF MEASLES as we do now.. Did you get that? The higher the vaccination rate the MORE measles we had)
            But back to my original point.. The claim that less people are vaccinating is NOT supported in the numbers of actual vaccinations
            Measles vaccination rates
            http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tscoveragemcv.html

            Vs morbidity rate for same time period
            http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tsincidencemeasles.html

            And if you look at pertussis vaccinating the case is actually worse for you and your theory about less people vaccinating
            In fact we have had a vaccination rate ABOVE the mythical “herd immunity” (92%] for almost 33 years (it’s been in the 96% on average)
            What’s makes MY case stronger is the morbidity rate of pertussis has been steady increasing for 33 CONSECUTIVE years by roughly 1200 cases.. So not only are you wrong when you say “less” people are vaccinating this data suggests that the vaccine does NOT work as they claim..
            Pertussis vaccination rates
            http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tscoveragedtp3.html

            Vs morbidity rate for same time period
            http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tsincidencepertussis.html

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Do you mean like this trend?

            I suppose that now you think breastfeeding causes autism.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Well not really, I would need to know what other factors there are (like medications mother was on or is on)
            I happen to believe there is a connection to anti depressants and anxiety meds prescribed to the female population today more so than the vaccine causing autism but that’s not what I’ve been arguing in this thread at all.. I think autism claims are no longer the primary reason people don’t vaccinate either…

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            You really said that breastfeeding might cause autism, on the basis of that trend line? Thanks for proving Dr. Amy’s point!

          • Thomas
            at #

            When you compare vaccine vs what they are supposedly protecting you from I.e morbidity rates is simple and straight forward.. No degree necessary as I said

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            You compare it in a simple and straightforward way, and that’s why you get it wrong every time.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            You are misreading that measles vaccination graph. Notice how the trend is “broken” in between 1989 and 1992? That’s because the second dose was introduced in 1990, and it took a few years to get a second dose to many children.

            Yes, pertussis is on the rise. That’s because the acellular vaccine doesn’t work as well as the old one. Personally, I think the solution is to offer the old vaccine again, since it was only taken off the market due to antivaxxer lies.

          • Thomas
            at #

            The information is readily available if you look for it btw

            “The CDC  admits the data shows “pertussis is greater in vaccinated persons.” Yet they continue to recommend the vaccines because “current evidence suggests pertussis vaccines continue to prevent disease caused by both pertactin-positive and pertactin-negative pertussis strains since other components of the vaccines provide protection.”
            http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/failed-whooping-cough-vaccine-still-being-used-in-the-united-states-outbreaks-blamed-on-unvaccinated/

            A New England Journal of Medicine letter was published on February 7, 2013, noting the first appearance in the United States of pertussis strains that are missing pertactin. More recently a paper evaluating the prevalence of these pertactin-deficient strains in the United States was published in Clinical Vaccine Immunology.

            Pertactin is one of several components of all pertussis vaccines. It is a protein that helps pertussis bacteria attach to the lining of the airways. There is a new study that found the likelihood of having reported pertussis caused by pertactin-deficient pertussis compared to pertactin-producing pertussis is greater in vaccinated persons. However, current evidence suggests pertussis vaccines continue to prevent disease caused by both pertactin-positive and pertactin-negative pertussis strains since other components of the vaccines provide protection.

            CDC is currently conducting studies in the United States to determine whether pertactin deficiency is one of the factors contributing to the increase in the number of reported pertussis cases. CDC will continue to closely monitor the situation and evaluate all available scientific evidence before drawing any conclusions. (Source: FDA.gov.)

      • Thomas
        at #

        Not to mention when the vaccination rate was at its highest in the first part of the 80′ WE HAD 12 TO 18 THOUSAND cases.. That’s THREE TIMES more than the “record” year of 600 last year when we where at 92%
        And we all agree that the measles was deemed “eradicated” by the CDC in 2000.. Yet the 5 years preceding that we where THE LOWEST in those same 33 years..

        • Thomas
          at #

          While everyone is all hung up on the risks of vaccinating (regardless of how severe you agree they might be) the fact is they are hardly doing what they say they are doing and there is no trend that suggests less people are vaccinatingvaccinating
          Measles is not half as scary as they make it out to be, the “thousands of deaths worldwide” that they keep pushing is really “thousands if deaths in THIRD WORLD countries” cause there is a song correlation to mortality rates and malnutrition (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10944494 there are more in depth studies on this but I’m trying to get ready for work but this one does mention it as well)
          Measles is 3 to 5 days of fever and rash, diahrrea and dehydration is the most common for contributing to anything “terrible” in those days.. Then you are done and immune for life.. Deafness, blindness and pneumonia can all be associated with ANY VIRAL OR BACTERIAL infection from the common cold to a sinus infection so those are general complications that rarely happen
          Bottom line is the vaccines are not 100% safe (iort they wouldn’t make you sign a waivier giving up your right to suesue) they are nowhere near as “effective” add they claim and the disease is nothing like they suggest (in the developed world anyway) so why would anyone get vaccinated (vaccines have killed 108 in the past ten years and measles zero btw)
          The risk vs the reward for me anyway is not favorable for the vaccines

          • Samantha06
            at #

            “Measles is not half as scary as they make it out to be…Measles is 3 to 5 days of fever and rash, diahrrea and dehydration is the most common for contributing to anything “terrible” in those days. Then you are done and immune for life.. Deafness, blindness and pneumonia can all be associated with ANY VIRAL OR BACTERIAL infection from the common cold to a sinus infection so those are general complications that rarely happen.”

            You forgot to mention that pesky encephalitis and brain damage… tell that to the parents of those children. If it’s YOUR child who ends up with it… well, I’m sure you’ll find something else to blame that on.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            And don’t forget SSPE. You think you’ve fully recovered only to develop a degenerative and fatal neurological problem several years down the road.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes, you are right! I hadn’t heard of it, until another commentator posted about it… that is so horrible. That alone would convince me to vaccinate!

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Same here. Scary, scary stuff.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            You know, the whole “it doesn’t kill you so it isn’t that bad” is a bunch of bullshit.

            OK, so let’s say it’s only a few days of a nasty rash, fever and diarrhea. You know what’s even better than that? Maybe a day or so of “redness at the injection site.”

            And no, you don’t get to bring up “serious complications” of the vaccine, because, while they are possible, they are less likely to occur than serious complications of the measles, which are so conveniently ignored.

            What kind of monster would subject their child to a week of rash, fever and diarrhea, assuming that is all there is, when there is a perfectly good vaccine that prevents ALL OF THAT!!!!???? What total assholes.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Exactly! Or the huge possibility of brain damage and disability! Assholes is right..

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            No, we are ignoring the potential for serious side effects. I don’t care, let’s ignore that and let’s just consider the typical presentation.

            How, still, can anyone justify subjecting their kids to that shit?

            I’ve said the same thing about the chicken pox. I don’t give a flying fuck whether anyone dies from it. It sucks. And it is for the most part easily avoidable with a simple vaccination. How is it even close? Only a total fucking monster of an a-hole would choose that for their kids. I don’t give a shit about “oh it can be mild.” Even a mild case of the chicken pox is far worse than the most common side effect of the vaccine (which isn’t even more likely than not to occur). Most kids have absolutely no response at all to the vaccine, not even redness or swelling. And yet, 1 week or more of chicken pox is better than that?

            How much of a monster do you have to be to think it?
            Then again, I just read this morning about some total asshole parents who faked a kidnapping of their 6 year old, complete with threatening him with a gun and rape, to try to teach him to be scared of strangers. That kid needs to be scared of his parents.

            I have a 6 yo. I can’t even fathom subjecting him to such torture. Thinking about him having to go through that makes me cry right here. How awful! Such fucking a-holes people can be.

            I need to go home and meet my son when he gets off the bus and give him a hug.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            See you are the difference between a non-selfish, loving, responsible, aware parent and the idiots who have their heads up their asses… I heard about that 6 year old, it just made me sick. I just don’t have any patience with anti-vaxxers. I honestly believe they have to have some degree of sociopathic personality traits to be so stupid. I also think they are narcissistic for the most part too. It’s hard for people like us to even fathom that these parents would be willing to subject their kids to unnecessary pain and suffering. It infuriates me to no end too. Give your son a huge hug and know that he is a lucky boy to have a dad like you 🙂

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            It’s hard for people like us to even fathom that these parents would be
            willing to subject their kids to unnecessary pain and suffering.

            This is the thing. We just had a round of the “stomach flu” (as my folks used to call it) through the house. First our 6 yo, and then the 4 yo a couple days later. It was just a 12 hour thing, and they all got over it fine.

            Even then, I don’t know how many times I told each of them how I wished there was something I could do to make it better. Even though it was nothing serious, and I knew it would be gone in 12 hours, it STILL made me sad to see them feeling so sick.

            Who can watch their kids feeling miserable and not feel bad for them?

            Give your son a huge hug and know that he is a lucky boy to have a dad like you 🙂

            We just got done reading The Lorax. We have to get his brother from daycare, and then he wants to read And To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street (in case you haven’t guessed, we are on a Dr Seuss kick these days)

          • Samantha06
            at #

            “Even then, I don’t know how many times I told each of them how I wished there was something I could do to make it better.”

            It makes me wonder how the anti-vax parents react to their kids when they get a VPD or anything else. Do they pat the kid on the head and say, “Oh you’ll get over it….here, have some organic bat-shit juice” or something like that? It wouldn’t surprise me..

            “Who can watch their kids feeling miserable and not feel bad for them?”

            That’s the thing, how can these parents even, for one SECOND, think it’s “OK” for their kids to suffer? But when I heard the “Wolfman of Arizona” (my nickname for him!), admit, without batting an eye, he wouldn’t care if his unvaxxed kid caused someone else’s death, my first thought was, narcissistic sociopath who wouldn’t care about his own child either.

            I think putting it into perspective and realizing that these folks have more than a few screws loose helps me realize how glad I am not to think that way! And thank God there are more of us than them!

            I’m not up on all the latest kid’s books, but I have always loved Dr. Seuss.. he is just timeless.. I know you enjoy story time with them as much as they do! I think that’s something kids always remember fondly when they get older too 🙂

          • Elaine
            at #

            The theory is that natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced. They want to make sure their kid is immune for life, rather than being immune from a vaccine, having it wear off later in life, and getting a really nasty case of the disease then. It makes a certain amount of sense, until you remember that adults get vaccinated too! Me, I’d rather just give my kid a booster vaccine if it came to that–even if it happens when they’re an adult, I know that when my kids are adults I’ll still try to make sure they stay up to date on this stuff. The ACIP recommendations change all the time. I’m sure they’ll eventually start talking about adult chickenpox and MMR boosters.

            I am not really clear on why anti-vaxers treat the whole “Immunity wears off” thing as such an argument against vaccines. That’s not an argument against vaccines, it’s an argument for boosters. Maybe more people are getting shingles because there’s less naturally circulating chicken pox in the population. So what? Now we have a shingles vaccine. Fixed that for ya.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            “Natural immunity” misses the whole fucking point – you want to NOT get sick in the first place!!!

            What’s the first step in getting “natural immunity”? Getting the disease.

            Moreover, it’s not like getting the disease guarantees lifelong immunity anyway.

            You are right – just get the vaccine.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Those things are also common as “adverse effects” FROM THE VACCINE btw… I personally have had measles.. It’s not that bad
            If you live in a developed country the chances of those are slim at best.. You figure out of the 50-100 cases on average we have had in the last 20 years (I know last year was a bigger than usual year but I’m arguing the possible odds of getting brain damage and encephalitis) how many cases in America ended up with ANY of those? I haven’t heard of ANY.. How about blind and deaf? (Also listed in the risk and danger section on the “vaccine insert” as a side effect) can’t say I’ve heard any of those either.. I know of one person, who was a neighbor of a friend who had measles complications FORTY YEARS AGO.. But that’s it. Bottom line is the fears they are using to get people to vaccinate are things that where caused by the measles in the early 1900’s .. Medicine and environment (hygiene, clean water, healthy foods and healthcare etc) have come a long way since and the measles today is no more dangerous than the flu or a cold (I think the flu is actually far worse)
            Compare that to the amount of deaths and serious adverse effects, vaers gets 30k reported cases a year and the CDC says up to 30% of that is “real” so let’s use 900 cases.. That’s more serious adverse affects (not including deaths) ANNUALLY than measles had in the entire 20 years I used in the example above…

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Common, from the vaccine? Not by a long shot.

            Common, from infection? Yes, and your anecdotal evidence does not overturn the statistics:
            http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Sorry to break it to you, but your entire comment is simply information you’ve gleaned from disreputable internet sources. Bottom line is, vaccines save lives. Encephalitis is a real risk. And I should know, I have brain lesions consistent with residual encephalitis from having the measles. Measles no dangerous than the flu or a cold?? Well, that statement right there proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
            And thank you, Nick Sanders for posting that link..
            ..

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Looks like the real person to thank is Guesteleh. They are really going above and beyond here.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I know there was a post with a great link you posted right before my above comment but I can’t find it now! Disqus is overwhelmed again….

          • Guesteleh
            at #

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1022280/

            During 1988 through 1990, California experienced its worst measles
            epidemic in more than a decade, with 16,400 reported cases, 3,390
            hospital admissions, and 75 deaths. More than half of the patients were
            younger than 5 years; the highest incidence was among infants younger
            than 12 months. The epidemic centered in low-income Hispanic communities
            in southern and central California. The major cause of the epidemic was
            low immunization levels among preschool-aged children and young adults.
            Rates of complications, admission to hospital, and death were
            surprisingly high. Outbreak control efforts met with indeterminate
            success. Problems with these efforts included insufficient funding early
            in the epidemic and disappointing public response to community-based
            immunization campaigns. The cost of medical care and outbreak control
            for the epidemic is conservatively estimated at $30.9 million. Unless
            the level of immunization in preschool-aged children is increased, this
            type of epidemic will probably recur.

          • Guesteleh
            at #

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551272_5

            In 1989, another major resurgence of measles occurred with more than
            55,000 cases reported between 1989 and 1991, an average of more than
            18,000 cases a year compared with approximately 3000 cases annually
            earlier in the 1980s (Fig. 1).[25-27]
            The resurgence was particularly severe accounting for more than 11,000
            hospitalizations and 123 deaths. The cases were predominantly
            unvaccinated preschoolers but, particularly early in the outbreak, there
            were many college students affected who had received one dose of
            vaccine previously

            Because >95% of children entering school had received a dose of
            measles vaccine, preventing the school-aged outbreaks required a second
            dose of vaccine. Waning immunity with increasing time since vaccination
            was not a significant cause of vaccine failure.[28] Instead, the major problem was primary vaccine failure-the failure to respond to the first dose.

          • Guest
            at #

            I was in high school during this outbreak. Two of the kids affected were my teacher’s children. My mother dragged me (kicking and screaming – I was a dramatic teen) to the doctor got a booster (my THIRD MMR) because she was so scared I’d get it. Says a lot for the generation that saw death from VPDs. Both my parents remember standing in long lines to get their polio vax as well, and how relieved their parents were when the vax became available.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            My father stood in one of those lines to get the measles vaccine. He’d managed to get through a few years of school so without ever catching it, then the vaccine became available, and his very protective mother dragged him to the first clinic in the area.

          • Cyndi Simpson
            at #

            Well, there’s the kicker: “I personally have had measles and it’s not that bad.” There’s your “science” right there – your own personal, precious and HIGHLY MEANINGFUL experience. Thank you for truly, truly proving the point of this article.

          • Guestelehs
            at #

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1022280/

            During 1988 through 1990, California experienced its worst measles epidemic in more than a decade, with 16,400 reported cases, 3,390 hospital admissions, and 75 deaths. More than half of the patients were younger than 5 years; the highest incidence was among infants younger than 12 months. The epidemic centered in low-income Hispanic communities in southern and central California. The major cause of the epidemic was low immunization levels among preschool-aged children and young adults. Rates of complications, admission to hospital, and death were surprisingly high. Outbreak control efforts met with indeterminate success. Problems with these efforts included insufficient funding early in the epidemic and disappointing public response to community-based immunization campaigns. The cost of medical care and outbreak control for the epidemic is conservatively estimated at $30.9 million. Unless the level of immunization in preschool-aged children is increased, this type of epidemic will probably recur.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Yeah I know, I mentioned in my earlier post that during the time when we had the HIGHEST VACCINATION RATES (the timeframe you are pointing out in this comment) was the highest we ever had on record around 98%… That’s right, during the HIGHEST VACCINATION RATE we had THE MOST MEASLES… what was your point? We need to vaccinate because it causes more measles? Just checking
            http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tscoveragemcv.html

            Look at the vaccination rate

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            “The major cause of the epidemic was low immunization levels among preschool-aged children and young adults.”

            Read.

          • Cyndi Simpson
            at #

            It’s hopeless. Thomas doesn’t understand what he’s reading. Next he’ll be suggesting we quarantine the Philippines. And all Filipinos wherever they may reside, worldwide.

          • Guesteleh
            at #

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551272_5

            In 1989, another major resurgence of measles occurred with more than 55,000 cases reported between 1989 and 1991, an average of more than 18,000 cases a year compared with approximately 3000 cases annually earlier in the 1980s (Fig. 1).[25-27] The resurgence was particularly severe accounting for more than 11,000 hospitalizations and 123 deaths. The cases were predominantly unvaccinated preschoolers but, particularly early in the outbreak, there were many college students affected who had received one dose of vaccine previously (Fig. 6).


            Because >95% of children entering school had received a dose of measles vaccine, preventing the school-aged outbreaks required a second dose of vaccine. Waning immunity with increasing time since vaccination was not a significant cause of vaccine failure.[28] Instead, the major problem was primary vaccine failure-the failure to respond to the first dose.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Name one thing that is 100% safe. Go on, I’ll wait.

          • Thomas
            at #

            Never claimed anything is 100% safe, I only claimed that the risk vs the reward is not favorable for vaccines … If I lived in the Philippines or somewhere else that it’s a huge problem then maybe the risks are with the reward or if you live in a big tourist trap or travel a lot then it may be worth it as well but that doesn’t mean that it’s worth it for every situation

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Do you even know the relative risks?

      • Thomas
        at #

        You know what correlates even more than the pockets of low vaccination rates in those places? The concentration or Filipino communities (almost EXACTLY as a matter of fact)… What does the Filipino have to do with measles you ask.. 49% of ALL measles in America is traced back to someone who traveled to or came from the Philippines (they happen to have the worst measles outbreaks in the world per capita btw AND their vaccination rate is pretty high if I remember correctly as well)
        But back to my point, this could be a coincidence but the concentration of Filipinos in the same exact areas where the measles are prominent is something that should be looked into I think since they could be more susceptible perhaps but they probably have more people traveling to and from the Philippines (is where I’m getting at anyway) so the risk of getting measles there are far greater (regardless of vaccination rate) than anywhere else in America
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Filipino_Americans

        • Andrew Lazarus
          at #

          The largest outbreak of measles for 2013-14 was in Amish who got it from some Amish missionaries to the Philippines. But the second largest outbreak was an Orthodox Jewish sect, where someone brought it back as a souvenir from London.

  20. sdsures
    at #

    I have the sniffles today. My flu jab must not have worked. (Har-har.) SEE???? VACCINES DUN WERK!

    • Samantha06
      at #

      I guess mine didn’t either.. I had my vaccine and got a cold 2 months later… definitely a correlation!

  21. onnesty
    at #

    I have an idea… stop putting mercury (and other carcinogens) in the mix and I’ll probably be much more supportive.

    • Wren
      at #

      Please do at least a tiny amount of googling on whether mercury is actually in infant vaccinations. Then you could maybe, possibly, try to find out from valid scientific sources where else children get mercury.

      • onnesty
        at #

        Infants shouldn’t even be given vaccines – period.

        • Wren
          at #

          I totally disagree. Infants shouldn’t die of whooping cough-period. A shot to prevent that? Yep, pretty much all infants (leaving room for medical exemption) should get that.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Well, I’m not impressed that you disagree. That’s not shocking at all. What is shocking is that you’re so willing to pump live virus and various toxic chemicals into a child when their immune system isn’t even fully functioning yet.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Tell us about their immune system. Come on, you seem to know so much. How does their immune system work? In what respect is their immune system “not even fully functioning yet”?

            Explain it to me.

          • onnesty
            at #

            OK, yeah I’ll do that when you find me evidence that there aren’t any harsh chemicals or live virus in barrage of children’s vaccines they’re ‘required’ to take. Smug much?

          • Wren
            at #

            You made the claim. You provide the evidence.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Hey Wren, I know, do “a tiny amount of googling” and you’ll find tons of information about mercury, etc. in vaccines. (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Yeah, I’ll grant one thing – wren’s comment was rhetorical, because she knows damn well which vaccines contain mercury and which don’t. You obviously don’t, but hey…

          • Wren
            at #

            I’ve done my google “research” and can back up the factual claims I make. You could try to do the same, and then an actual debate is at least possible. Or you can just keep throwing out absurd claims anyone with actual knowledge instantly recognises as false and evidence you generally aren’t worth engaging.
            Personally, I’ve got a bit of spare time, for the next 5 minutes or so, so I figured why not?

          • Siri
            at #

            5 minutes of googling reveals the astonishing fact that Onnesty’s mum is Azura Queen of Slugs from the planet Og. So I think you should really cut him a bit of slack. Do YOU have alien aristocracy in your lineage?

          • sdsures
            at #

            Do you like eating apples? They have formaldehyde. Better stop eating apples then.

          • annoyed
            at #

            FROM WHAT SOURCE? Anyone can start a blog and say whatever they want. Why don’t you provide a link to a credible peer reviewed study instead of what you heard on antivax.org

          • MILK&Whiskey
            at #

            Onnesty, as you google, do try to consider the source. My daughter’s friend just “proved” to their Kindergarten class that unicorns are real. When I was researching vaccines (because, as a parent, it’s what you do) I found that the voices and arguments in favor of vaccines were from reputable, specifically educated people, and the voices and websites against consisted of a group using questionable information to back up bad arguments and endlessly citing each other and throwing out statements like “we all know herd immunity is a myth” without anything to back up knowing something that goes against all current reason. In the end, because it’s a lot of science to wade through for an art major, I had to decide whether to trust pretty much every doctor and scientist alive (and some dead), or a few loud parents who could be scared of the wrong things. I figured, if something went wrong with my kids, I’d feel better saying “I trusted science” than “I trusted the internet.” But then, I play fast and loose with mercury…I sometimes eat tuna.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Are you trying to claim MLP is lying to me? Because those are fighting words.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Some vaccines are live attenuated viruses, yes. That’s a silly red-herring. I don’t know what a “harsh chemical” is, or at least what you mean by it. Then again, I am a chemist, so I actually KNOW what the chemicals really are and what they do.

            Now, can you please explain how the immune system works and in what respect their immune system is “not fully functioning”? I’m not an immunologist, so maybe you can help me out.

          • Wren
            at #

            Well, I’m pretty sure they all contain some of that harsh H2O. That chemical causes many deaths every year.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            And they inject that straight into your bloodstream!

          • Epoch1
            at #

            How about you provide proof that there aree harsh chemicals, live viruses and dangerous components to vaccines.

            Real, qualified and validated proof… not just your tin-foil hat explanations.

          • Wren
            at #

            a) Live viruses? Which vaccines on the routine pediatric schedule in the US include live viruses?
            b) Pump? A tiny injection hardly equals a “pump”.
            c) Toxic chemicals? We have already established you believe chemicals long since removed are still in vaccines, and the removal of mercury was not due to any established harm anyway. Which toxic chemicals are the problem now?
            d) Not yet fully functioning immune system? When and how does it become “fully functioning”?
            Having watched my baby sister suffer and end up hospitalised for pertussis, yep, I was more than happy to vaccinate my babies.

          • Siri
            at #

            Not half as shocking as the fact that you a) married a spatula and b) worship elderberries.

          • Epoch1
            at #

            Were you vaccinated as a child?

          • sdsures
            at #

            You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Annoyed
            at #

            First of all, if the CDC was the only source of pro-vaccine data, your mistrust might give you pause. But, the ENTiRE world’s health organizations and every research university on the planet have come to the same conclusions. The one study that linked vaccine to autism was proven to be completely faked, on purpose at that and you don’t trust the CDC? Your mistrust should be in the anti-vaxx movement spreading the lies they do. There is not a single post you have made that does not contain an egregious and refutable error. Your fear of vaccines is based on fear alone. There is absolutely no factual basis for it. None. Zero. Cite a single peer study from a single from a single credible source to back up your claims about vaccines. *crickets chirping*

        • Montserrat Blanco
          at #

          And we should listen to someone that has no idea what vaccines are made of…

          • Siri
            at #

            That’s not why you should listen to him. You should listen to him because he has three ears and a troupe of performing caterpillars.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Are the caterpillars vaccinated?

        • Amazed
          at #

          Then don’t give your infant vaccines. Then, you can exercize your freedom to choose: the kid, the trunk, off to the jungle you go, and stay away from the locals who don’t deserve something like your diseases in their lives. Or, sealed away in your house with your brood so you and your diseases cannot harm the society you intend to leech off, exposing people to diseases, death, and disabilities. No one is obliged to suffer you, your refusal to contribute, your greed in the taking, your arrogance and most of all, your danger, period.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Man, this ‘anti-choice’ movement is rabid. I had no idea.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            How can one make a rational choice based on delusional fantasy?

            Sorry, you want kids to suffer because of fiction? That’s not a real choice.

          • Siri
            at #

            Some people will never hear the truth. I keep telling them that since you fell into the porridge pot as a child you have the special power of oats, but they refuse to listen.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Yeah. I’m pretty sure most of us here are rabidly against anyone’s choice to steal from our purses and against anyone’s choice to steal from our health.

            Must be because we vaccinate against rabies each time a stray dog bits us. No doubt, you’d rather die of rabies infecting other people on your way to the other side, rather than taking the ebil vaccine.

          • onnesty
            at #

            If I was bitten by a rabid dog. Yes, I would get the shots. Thanks for asking.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Thank YOU for demonstrating the self-serving lie permeating the heart of the anti-vaxx movement. It’s all ebil mercury and poisoning one’s ummune system. Those enlightened people cannot be fooled by evil doctors and Big Bad Medicine. But when the shit hits the fan, they trot over to the doctor bleating “Save, doc! Big Bad Medicine, help!” As evidenced by the loving mommies who don’t vaccinate their kids against measles because medicine is ebil but when their superior knowledge and warm mama milk fail to stimulate the Great Immune System into fighting this tiresome little thing off, they rush to the doctor, infecting everyone around who can be infected.

            All hail the Enlightened People!

          • onnesty
            at #

            You’re sick dude. Makes no sense. That’s like Starbucks saying “You either buy the CD in front of the register, or we’re not going to sell you any coffee.”

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            More like, “We aren’t going to sell you coffee without a cup.” Picking and choosing which medical care you believe in is about as illogical as asking your barista to serve coffee into your cupped hands.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Yes we are – when the choice is stupid. Your freedom to choose ends at other people’s expense.

          • onnesty
            at #

            “at other people’s expense” Yeah, I’ll never understand that as it relates to vaccinations. Hmm.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            It’s called herd immunity.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            “at other people’s expense” Yeah, I’ll never understand that as it relates to vaccinations. Hmm.

            YOUR inability to understand herd immunity is not a failure of vaccines, it’s just a reflection of your ignorance.

            But then again, so is everything else you say.

          • momofone
            at #

            I’ll help you out with an example: a woman has an infant daughter who is exposed to pertussis by a cousin (prior to availability of vaccine). Baby dies. Woman has another child the next year, a boy. He is exposed by a cousin, and dies. So yeah, at other people’s expense. The difference is that now “other people” can vaccinate, and the babies can be protected even if they’re too young to be vaccinated themselves.

          • onnesty
            at #

            OK, I’m with you in your particular story… but that (as you pointed out) is not the scenario we exist in. When someone tells me “anti-vaxxers are putting us all at risk” in 2015, your illustration is irrelevant.

          • momofone
            at #

            In what way? Unvaccinated person transmits disease to another unvaccinated person. It certainly sounds like the scenario in which some of us exist. (For the record, I didn’t point out that we don’t; my point is that we absolutely do when people who can be vaccinated aren’t.)

          • onnesty
            at #

            You qualify your story with “prior to availability of vaccine”. But I’m talking about right now… 2015. I’ll repeat the scenario for you…

            If I chose not to be vaccinated, how does that hurt YOU who has been vaccinated?

            Or similarly… How would my kids (assuming they weren’t vaccinated) put your (vaccinated) kids at risk?

          • momofone
            at #

            I have been (fully) vaccinated. But what about people who can’t be/aren’t old enough? THAT’s how you hurt other people.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            If you don’t know the answer to that question, you don’t know how vaccines work. And if you don’t know how vaccines works, you aren’t knowledgeable enough to make judgments on their safety or efficacy.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Are you really an MD? I just have to ask.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            So you don’t know how they work. That’s not a surprise. Anti-vax is based on ignorance and you are demonstrating that.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Oh Amy, that was demonstrated early this morning. I especially like the whole,

            “Their immune systems aren’t fully functioning yet.”
            “Oh, so tell me how their immune system works?”
            “Did I ever mention that the CDC is lying?”

          • onnesty
            at #

            Wait… did you just gloss over my question? Are you really a Medical Doctor?

          • Jim Johnson
            at #

            Why would anyone who fraudulently puts an MD after their name respond to your question with a no?

          • onnesty
            at #

            True.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            If you can’t even research a basic question like that and find the correct answer, how can we take your “research” on vaccines seriously?

          • momofone
            at #

            Not everyone can be vaccinated, and some people have other medical/physical issues that place them at risk even if they have been fully vaccinated.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            It reminds of the part that starts at about 42 seconds in this video

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGgaI-BcI4

          • JJ
            at #

            My newborn will be at risk.

          • AllieFoyle
            at #

            It puts all infants at risk until they are old enough to receive the vaccine and develop immunity. It also puts older children and adults who are immunocompromised because of illness or medication at risk. Imagine you or your loved one enduring cancer treatment or serious chronic illness and then having to also worry about catching a preventable communicable disease.

            Further, some people do not become immune after they are vaccinated. More than 95% of people are immune to measles after vaccination, but for those who aren’t, a 95% immunity rate means that the disease doesn’t have a chance to spread in the community, so they stay protected too.

          • Tikatu
            at #

            Okay. Anti-vaxxing started in 1989 according to a poster above. So, girl child born in ’89 is now 26. Still unvacccinated. (Protected by herd immunity!) She’s pregnant. Someone’s unvaccinated child gives her rubella (aka German measles-which is prevented through that much-maligned MMR vaccine). Baby is born mentally disabled. That good enough?

            Your kids can’t put my vaccinated kids at risk unless they develop which destroys their immune systems. However, we’re getting to the point where unvaccinated kids can (and do) infect other unvaccinated kids–to devastating effect. The herd immunity can’t be counted on anymore.

            And before you say such cases as I’ve described above are rare, well, so are the complications from vaccines.

          • Wren
            at #

            A few clues:

            1) Are vaccines 100% effective for every person who is vaccinated?
            2) Can everybody be vaccinated?

            You might also wish to consider that diseases which are unable to spread are also unable to mutate much.

          • Wren
            at #

            That explains so much.

          • yugaya
            at #

            Yeah but they will never understand why.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Well, I’m waiting. Seriously….
            If I chose not to be vaccinated, how does that hurt YOU who has been vaccinated?

            Or put more broadly. How would my kids (assuming they weren’t vaccinated) put your (vaccinated) kids at risk?

            I really want to know. Not just toying with you.

          • yugaya
            at #

            My wee kiddo was two weeks old when she started using public transport in October and spending up to four hours on school premises every day Monday to Friday.

            Thanks for nothing had you chosen not to be vaccinated or not to vaccinate your kids.

          • Jason Roder
            at #

            Solipsism is a failure of a philosophy.

          • Who?
            at #

            You say that like it’s a bad thing?

          • momofone
            at #

            Exactly. Don’t vaccinate. Just leave the herd, because I’m sure you don’t want to be saddled with the immunity that comes from the herd’s evil immunizations.

        • anh
          at #

          “Infants shouldn’t even contract vaccine preventable diseases–period”
          there, I fixed it for you

          • onnesty
            at #

            Thanks. That’s helpful.

        • Siri
          at #

          Brown sugar causes moral collapse in the elderly.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Awesome. I’ll tell my grandmother. Thanks.

      • onnesty
        at #

        I’m not sure how you can say this will so much confidence when the ‘science’ on this topic is far from settled.

        • Wren
          at #

          Far from settled? How many thousands of studies do you require? How much more research funds and time should be poured into this rather than cures and vaccines for diseases not yet preventable by vaccines?

          • onnesty
            at #

            “How much more research funds and time should be poured into this” – A bunch! And it should never stop. If you’re going to “REQUIRE” me to inject my kids, I want there to be no doubts that they are 100% safe. And that is certainly NOT the case now.

          • Wren
            at #

            Nothing is 100% safe.
            It’s about comparative risks. Seatbelts can, in extremely rare cases, cause more damage than they prevent. Vaccines can, in extremely rare cases, cause serious adverse reactions. However, a car accident without a seatbelt is far more likely to lead to serious injury or death than one with it. A vaccine preventable disease is far more likely to lead to serious adverse effects or death than the vaccine.

          • onnesty
            at #

            True what you say about risk. But I believe the rates of of adverse reactions from immunizations are grossly understated. The CDC is a government controlled organization. Therefore, they can and will understate any and all statistics that do not line up with their objectives. This has been shown repeatedly true over the years, and is no less true (in my opinion) in this particular case.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            ut I believe the rates of of adverse reactions from immunizations are grossly understated.

            So just make things up, and all of a sudden, poof! It’s real!

          • onnesty
            at #

            It is real. I said “I believe” the rates are overstated. That is a real statement.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Yes, it’s all your fantasy.

            But it is good that you admit that you have absolutely no real basis for anything, and it is based on something you have made up.

          • onnesty
            at #

            I’m observant. I read. I watch what happens around me. I analyze what I’m being told. I listen to the experiences and knowledge of others. My viewpoint is not made in a vacuum, as you suggest. Just because I oppose your viewpoint doesn’t mean it’s “made up.”

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Sorry.

            “…it is based on something completely made up.”

            There, it doesn’t require that you made it up, it could have been someone else and you just accept it.

            You don’t know the first fucking gnat about the CDC. So yes, it is pretty much made in a vacuum.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Do you believe everything you hear? I mean, I would assume you listen to the news and occasionally go “Yeah, I don’t think that’s true”. Don’t you? Or do you just accept everything that is said? I’m really curious. For real.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Depends on what is said and who says it. Moreover, it depends if I have actual knowledge regarding it.

            However, when it is something said by a reputable source in an area where I have no expertise, my response is to shrug and say, meh, they likely know more about it than I do. And if it is something that concerns me, I will ask people who I know who know something about it. So if I had any concerns about the CDC vaccination recommendations, I would talk to our pediatrician for starters, and if I needed more, I could contact an immunologist. Heck, if I really had a concern, I would contact someone on the committee that makes the recommendations (email is so great) and ask them directly.

            What I don’t do is assume they are lying and think I know more about it, nor do I make decisions based on the presumption that they must be lying or conspiring.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Yeah, you are much more trusting than me. I will admit. I think the CDC is about as reliable as the FDA.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            As I said, you don’t know the first fucking thing about the CDC nor the FDA, for that matter, so whether you “trust” them or not is pretty much irrelevant to anything. It doesn’t matter who YOU trust because you are an ignorant doofus.

            Now, that in itself doesn’t make the CDC nor FDA trustworthy, but it certainly doesn’t have any bearing on whether they are untrustworthy.

            BTW: go back and look at your comments here about your objections to vaccines. Notice that it has changed in pretty much every single comment. Recall that the initial claim about about harsh chemicals and live viruses, which you know nothing about, and then you went to the immune system, which you know nothing about, and then you are on to conspiracies, which again, you know nothing about.

            A little self-reflection might be in order here.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            So, pretty reliable?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            ..and the post office.

          • Epoch1
            at #

            Real for sure… totally stupid and misinformed… but real.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            That he believes it is real, but what he believes is fantasy.

          • Wren
            at #

            “That is a real statement.”

            I cannot even begin to figure out what this means in this context. I mean, yes, onnesty made this statement, but what is making a statement of belief meant to prove?

            I believe my cats can cure cancer. That is a real statement.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            onnesty,

            Thanks so much for dropping in to demonstrate what I mean about ego. It’s difficult to imagine a larger ego than someone who claims to know more about adverse vaccine reactions than the Federal government.

            How do you? You read it on a website created by quacks and you think that marks you as defiant of government authority and smarter than the rest of us, when it really demonstrates your appalling ignorance and gullibility.

            Oh, and thank you ever so much for caring about us so ardently that you want to educate us about what you think you “know.” Please, save yourself the trouble. You are yet another of those privileged, defiant, “empowered” fools who bolster their egos with anti-vax nonsense. We already have more than enough of those.

          • onnesty
            at #

            Amy, not to be disrespectful. I have nothing against you. And I’m not completely “ANTI-VAX” as you might suppose. But I also don’t agree that the Federal Government has the people’s best interest in mind – in the slightest. And they have repeatedly earned my mistrust – the hard way. And THAT of course is the real heart of the problem. It’s almost to the point now where regardless of what is said by the FDA, CDC, FBI, EPA, NSA, etc, the opposite is actually probably closer to the truth.

            So if you were to tell me the Federal Government started demanding/suggesting mandatory vaccines across the board, my assumption would be that it’s a result of some sort of financial corruption and back-door deal from pharmaceutical companies and/or their lobbyists. Would I have proof? No, of course not. But this type of thing has happened many times before, and it will continue well into the future. If it quacks like a duck…

            You can (and likely will) call me ignorant because I hold to a healthy caution in these matters. But I won’t be convinced until the evidence comes from unbiased/independent sources that are not government funded. It’s just that simple.

          • Wren
            at #

            So you don’t trust the U.S. government. To take this stance against vaccines that mistrust has to extend to most governments in the world. There is a lot of world outside the U.S.

          • onnesty
            at #

            I can’t really speak to other governments or people groups. Show me one that is immune to corruption.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Show me one anti-vax celebrity that is immune to corruption? Yet you choose to believe them. Why?

          • onnesty
            at #

            No, I don’t believe anti-vax celebrities. I’ve actually never knowingly met/seen one. I’m not sure what you’re saying.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Where do you get your information on vaccines? You don’t do original research on vaccines, right? So you trust others to provide you with information. Why them and how do you know they’re not corrupt?

          • Wren
            at #

            You don’t have to believe any are immune to corruption. However, for your mistrust to make any sense, you do have to believe they are all corrupted by some shadowy group that wants to harm us all through vaccines. You must also believe that no opponents to incumbent governments have ever discovered this corruption, even though they must have participated if ever they got into power. In addition, thousands of scientists and millions of doctors have either been a party to this conspiracy of corruption or too ignorant to notice it despite their education in the field.

            You will not accept funding from the pharmaceutical companies, governments or anyone else with a vested interest in vaccines. Who the heck else would pay for these studies?

          • onnesty
            at #

            By the way. My kids are vaccinated. I held my nose and did it. And they are fine. But I do know of a couple personally who took their child in for vaccinations. Upon getting the shot(s), baby cried uncontrollably for about 12 hours and then died in their arms. Anomaly? Perhaps. But I also know of several people who’s children were diagnosed with autism within days of getting injections. CDC says “there’s no connection”. I just don’t believe them. That’s all. I just don’t believe them.

          • SEC
            at #

            You said: “But I do know of a couple personally who took their child in for vaccinations. Upon getting the shot(s), baby cried uncontrollably for about 12 hours and then died in their arms”

            Really? Since you know them personally, can you give me their names? City and date? This would be news. Can you point me to a news article?

          • sdsures
            at #

            No chance the COD was something else? (I’m not actually asking onnesty because I know he’ll claim it was the vaccines even if it turns out it wasn’t.)

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Nick – the problem is, facts don’t matter. He’s already said that. He knows very well what the facts are, he just doesn’t believes them, and creates his own.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Even so, I refuse to let their denial make the facts just go away. No matter what, I will not let anyone ignore the clear as day evidence that there is no link. Especially since I am on the Autism Spectrum, and I am absolutely sick of people screaming about how you shouldn’t get vaccines because you might end up like me. Does being autistic suck? Yes. Is it better than dying painfully as a child? Hell fucking yes, there’s no comparison. Even if the alleged link existed, vaccination would be the way to go. Since it doesn’t, there is no excuse whatsoever.

          • Cyndi Simpson
            at #

            Ah, yes – the “MY OWN PERSONAL PRECIOUS EXPERIENCE AND THAT OF MY VERY SPECIAL FRIENDS” argument. Ego. Ego. Ego. Privilege. And you “just don’t believe them.” Because….you just don’t.

          • Jason Roder
            at #

            In demanding absolute certainty, you ask for a thing that does not and can not exist.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      What mercury? And what carcinogens?

    • Montserrat Blanco
      at #

      Stop changing the goalposts! Infant vaccines do not have mercury in them! You said they do and they do not. Stop lying or at least admit you life and you have no idea what you are talking about!

    • Information please!
      at #

      Agree. Full disclosure on what is in the vaccines would be appreciated. Not something I should have to try and decipher myself. If they are truly safe, then we should be told what’s in them – EXACTLY what’s in them. not like ‘natural flavours’ like you see on ingredient lists, but actual ingredients. The push to vaccinate should be accompanied with facts and data not – they’re safe so do it or you’re an arrogant moron.

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        at #

        Be careful with matches around that strawman.

        • Information please
          at #

          Personal insults are not an argument for or against something. Show data revealing what is in each vaccine and provide that to parents at their doctor’s offices. Wouldn’t take much to do that and then people can make informed decisions about what goes into their bodies and their children’s bodies.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Do you have the medical training to actually read the ingredient list, and know what’s worth caring about and what isn’t? Does the average parent?

          • sdsures
            at #

            Medical dictionaries online may be able to simplify explanations for parents.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            True, but how many have the time and patience to check them while in a doctor’s office while the doctor is waiting and their kid is getting antsy?

          • guest
            at #

            The doctor could send them home with the information at their previous appointment, then the parents can check into it. Remember that not all parents will request this information – it’s the ones who want to know what’s in the vaccine, so they are already invested in learning more.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            If the doctor has to send them home with it, why can’t they just look it up for themselves in the first place? It’s already been pointed out that it’s available online.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Do it when the kids are asleep the week before.

          • guest
            at #

            I don’t believe I need medical training to read words and understand them. I am an intelligent person, if there is something I do not understand then I can look it up.

          • momofone
            at #

            Words with no context are meaningless. Your ability to read is one thing; an ability to put what you read into context and understand THAT is another thing entirely.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Ok, here’s a test for you. Without using google, which of these chemicals should you be worried about if you see them:
            Cyanocobalamin
            Ergocalciferol
            Pyridoxal

            Ammonium sulfate
            Promanullin

            Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide

            L-Histidine
            Coniine

          • guest
            at #

            ok. Well, I get the point you’re trying to make and I’m sure I will guess wrong. I am going to actually assume the medical community feels they are all safe. But I will play and I pick Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and Cyanocobalamin as the ones to me that sound worrisome.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Actually, I did put two really nasty things on the list. You were polite and reasonable, so I wouldn’t stoop as low as “Haha, gotcha they’re all safe!” All I’ll say, for the moment, so as not to spoil it for other people who wish to take a crack at it, is that you didn’t guess correctly.

          • guest
            at #

            🙂 Thank you for not blasting me for getting it wrong. The concern was there, some of the comments and personal attacks around here are pretty nasty.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide is certainly not it (am I the only one who reads the ingredients list on shampoo/conditioner in the shower?)

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Now you’ve got me thinking about a vaccine against dandruff.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            I have met the guy who developed the zinc formulation of Head and Shoulders at P&G.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Cool. They seem to have changed the formula of Head and Shoulders in the last few years. Which is a shame, the old one for oily hair, which I can’t find anymore, was the only thing that I had ever found that could keep me from getting scalp zits.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Saying that you’ve created a strawman is not a personal insult. It’s an accusation that you have made a strawman argument.

            The FIRST LINK on a google search for “vaccine ingredients” which automatically filled in was to this page

            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

            which has a pdf file of all the ingredients lists.

            Now, as Nick says, whether you have the knowledge to be able to understand the big words there is a different question, but it is not an issue of it not being disclosed.

            ETA: btw, a note to all the cranks, this is how you support an argument without saying “look it up yourself.”

          • guest
            at #

            Thank you for posting the link – I appreciate you taking the time to post that.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            It took me literally 5 seconds to find it!!!!!!!!

            As I said, I type “vaccine in”, Google autofilled the rest, and it was the top link!!!!

            It’s THAT EASY to find the information.

            What does that tell us about, e.g. the commenter above who is whining about how we need “full disclosure”? For me, it tells us that the problem is not a lack of disclosure, and it is that people are so desperate to find a problem that they have to create the flimsiest strawman.

            If you want to know vaccine ingredients, it’s trivial to find it out. If you don’t know that, it tells me you aren’t really interested in the ingredients, and it’s about something else.

      • moto_librarian
        at #

        Yeah, I guess those package inserts that I see posted all the time aren’t ingredients lists…

    • Rich T. Anderson
      at #

      No mercury in vaccines these days. They’ve been gone a long while.

      Ta da! Now you can go vaccinate your kids. Thanks.

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        at #

        Sorry, Rich, you’d think. However, read through the rest of the comments and watch the goalposts move, with total amnesia about where it started.

        Oh, it’s the mercury!!!! (there is none)
        But babies’ immune systems can’t handle it!! (tell us how their immune system works)
        The CDC can’t be trusted!!!! (fantasy…)

        • Rich T. Anderson
          at #

          Yeah, I know. See my stand alone comment.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Yeah, but I am referring to the argument that THIS single poster just this morning. Not in general (although it applies) but to this specific example. That’s how fast the goalposts move.

          • Rich T. Anderson
            at #

            Ahhh. Indeed.

          • Rich T. Anderson
            at #

            Also, “There’s Wocket in my Pocket” is a favorite.

  22. Rick Santorum
    at #

    What’s funny is that all of these people would try to be first in line if there were a vaccine against aging, or cancer, or something that would prevent you from ever getting the flu or a cold.

  23. Fox Mulder
    at #

    I
    believe that the government is behind the anti-vaxxer movement. It has
    been proven by many reputable scientist that we need to lower the worlds
    population by at least 10% in the next three generations to maintain
    the planet. Vaccinations are preventing that from happening. The best
    way to get this accomplished is to get a large segment of the population
    to quit taking them and get sick and die. The over classes meanwhile
    continue taking the vaccines and the “better” bloodlines shall continue.

    • annoyed
      at #

      Which government? To believe your conspiracy theory, you’d have to have hundreds of governments, allies and enemies, universities, public health agencies worldwide and all the hundreds of thousands of people who work for them in on it. That would be the largest and frankly most impossible conspiracy ever. You sure think big.

      • Jason Roder
        at #

        Did you miss the name? “Fox Mulder” here posted that as a joke.

  24. Feli
    at #

    Oh, and this article is supposed to make want to vax??? Very weak job 🙂

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      This article isn’t trying to make little ol’ you wanna vax. What it is is a rallying cry. It’s the same sort of well reasoned and well argued piece that was influential in helping America see that even though drunk drivers didn’t wanna quit driving drunk that they should be required to do so and held accountable when they didn’t.

      • Wren
        at #

        Are some people really incapable of understanding the point of this article is not to convince anti-vaxers to vaccinate? It would explain why those same people don’t vaccinate I guess. Poor reading comprehension at best.

    • annoyed
      at #

      Loving your children should make you want to vaccinate them. Even if you don’t give a flying leap about kids with cancer etc. who can’t give vaccinations, your love for your own children should lead you to look at credible evidence by public health agencies world wide, hundreds of peer reviewed studies from universities with nothing to gain from vaccines and the six million children who have lived since childhood vaccines have lived. I hope you never, ever have to learn the hard way.

  25. linda
    at #

    Yes how fortunate for them, isn’t it. Until the court case is settled we don’t really know how it works and either does anyone else as the data was falsified.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      What?

  26. Really?
    at #

    Who’s ego, Merck’s?? Kind of interesting that this outbreak comes right after they suffer a very low 4th quarter end to the last year and disappointing financial forecast for 2015, but now see a sudden spike in vaccinations. A vaccine which, by the way, Merck is currently being investigated for falsifying trial data. Oh, and “low” for them is $366 million worth of vaccines sales in the last quarter of 2014 alone.

    • Montserrat Blanco
      at #

      Actually all the vaccines manufactured by Merck represent less than 9% of their income, and less than Singulair alone (you can look it up online on their investors brochure for 2013). I hope that according to that you are not taking Singulair, nor blood pressure drugs (as Cozaar is also a big thing for them), not to speak of antibiotics and of course chemotherapy nor anti-cancer antibodies.

      Of course you would never deny your children something that can spare them a deathly disease in order to do not give money to that evil corporation while taking something like chemotherapy that might only increase your life by a few months.

    • Who?
      at #

      Really working that conspiracy theory there…

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      Numbers are a bit low, time to start killing people. That’s always good for sales, right?

  27. Lindaxox
    at #

    I think this article is 100% wrong, I see ego and superiority by the writer. She is right and unless you agree with her you can’t be. There is enough science and evidence to sound alarms and these parents are worried as they should be. We don’t get all the info, drug companies are fined millions through the courts for exactly that reason. Vaccines are a billion $ business and will be defended by all means possible. We were lied to about the immunity from the vaccines, ppl vaccinated can get measles and they can spread it. We had other outbreaks before. People who travel to the 4 countries where measles is still very active, what do we do about them? Lock them up upon return. This outbreak is being cleverly used to set the righteous against those who have not had their children vaccinated for many reasons including rejection drugs for transplants, bad allergies, sickness, and numerous others and yes including concerns. If the state has the right to tell you what you must put into your child’s body then freedom is over. I am not totally against vaccines, the idea is good but what’s on the market today is not as safe as it could and should be.

    • Mermy
      at #

      The writer has a lot of ego issues of her own, and absolutely assumes her superiority over the rest of us – on this issue, in particular. However, she is educated as a doctor, and has read far more about this than most parents could – whether pro or anti vaccination. Just because her ego is huge doesn’t mean she is wrong. It also doesn’t mean she is right. I see no issue with letting parents slow it all down a bit, and get all their questions answered. Especially if a child under three is not going to be in daycare, there seems to be little harm in slowing down the schedule. Please don’t assume that everyone who doesn’t want their child to get vaccinations for over 20 different diseases/conditions in the first months of their child’s life is a pompous jackass. Doctors’ offices need to work on not assuming that full vaccination on an aggressive schedule is the only way to go, and if you disagree, you must not care about anyone else’s child. They hand you a piece of paper with bullet points, and call it “informed consent”. Seriously? If complications only happen with .10% of vaccinations given to children in their first three months, is that much consolation if it is your child that has the serious complication? If experiences with doctors and government intrusion have been frightening or pedantic, then don’t drive the parents further away from taking your advice by being even more patronizing or steamrolling them into something. Do you want them to not bring their child to a doctor at all? They do have that right. And they have the right to educate their own children at home (in most states? or all of them?), and keep them hermits. Is that what we want? Children hidden from the medical system out of fear or a sense of righteous indignation are at far more risk of being abused in one way or another. Isolation breeds paranoia and feeds controlling egos.

      • Box of Salt
        at #

        Mermy “Especially if a child under three is not going to be in daycare, there seems to be little harm in slowing down the schedule”

        What if they go other places, since they’re not in daycare? Such as . . . Disneyland?

        • Wren
          at #

          That argument always makes me crazy. If your child is never leaving the house, then I suppose delaying until later is fine. However, most toddlers go to parks, indoor play areas, play areas in restaurants, Sunday school, libraries, toddler groups or other places children are gathered together.

      • Nick Sanders
        at #

        Please explain how the schedule is aggressive, and what could be done to improve it. Be sure to include research, or at least data suggesting current research may need revising, to back up this schedule.

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      ” People who travel to the 4 countries where measles is still very active, what do we do about them? Lock them up upon return. ”

      You are joking surely? Why would we lock up people that have visited another country? How would that work better than a vaccination program that has been around for decades? How is that better for personal freedoms?

      • Linda
        at #

        Because even those vaccinated can get and spread measles

        • Montserrat Blanco
          at #

          No, very few people that has been vaccinated can get measles. With 2 doses it is about 1%. If someone vaccinated gets the disease and everybody else is vaccinated, the odds that person can infect somebody else are extremely low. That is why when a vaccine coverage is over 95% there are no outbreaks (as happened in the USA 10 years ago). When someone gets the disease and sick and in their school are only 30% vaccinated children, then you get an outbreak. It is extremely difficult for measles to spread on a well vaccinated community.

          • birthbuddy
            at #

            So Linda, that is a part of how vaccines work.

          • linda
            at #

            Well that theory is about to be determined in the courts

          • birthbuddy
            at #

            And what are you going to do when they confirm that you are wrong?

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Courts are not scientific examinations.

          • linda
            at #

            The NYC theater worker who had both the vac and the booster and still got it and spread it to 4 others

          • Who?
            at #

            Were the others all fully vaccinated?

          • Montserrat Blanco
            at #

            Where the 4 others vaccinated? If you read what I posted, that is exactly the point. I do not say that someone that is vaccinated can not get the disease, I say that on a country whith a vaccine update higher than 95% cases are isolated because the chance that someone infected contacts someone that is not inmune are extremely low. If those 4 people happened to be unvaccinated, yes, that is very possible.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            The problem in the USA is not that total vaccine coverage is too low. If the unvaccinated people were evenly distributed through the country, we would still have herd immunity. The problem is that the unvaccinated are clumped together, so you’ve got schools where vaccination rates are 70% or worse.

      • W
        at #

        One of the really interesting things about these discussions over the last week or so has been the extreme positions put by anti-vax posters. From Ann’s apolcalyptic foretellings, through the spitting ‘all my rights’ rage of various contributors, it is all or nothing.

        And Lindaxox carries on the same proud tradition. ‘We were lied to’, ‘lock them up on return’, ‘all rights are over’.

        I have a lot of sympathy for the busy thoughts and feelings in the heads that dream up those things. So fearful that someone might come and tell them what to do. It’s actually sad.

        Not as sad as the very young and immuno compromised becoming ill due the this fear and ignorance, but sad all the same.

        BTW I’m staying off trolls for a while, they don’t bring out the qualities in myself I’m most proud of. Though sometimes I can’t resist a poke.

    • birthbuddy
      at #

      So, how exactly do vaccines work?

    • Young CC Prof
      at #

      The 4 countries where measles is still very active? You mean like most of Europe? Or are you claiming Europe is one country?

    • Jason M. Fitzmaurice
      at #

      No one lied to us. It has always been known, and never concealed that vaccines are not 100% effective. I still remember the way it was explained to a friend of mine, who was the first of our group to have a kid. His doctor has once been an army medic. “Bullet proof vests aren’t 100% effective either, but there’s a reason I wore mine.”

    • Annoyed
      at #

      Your opposition to vaccinations is based on ideology. The argument in favour of vaccines is based on science and a mountain of evidence. Yet your ideology to stand on a soapbox and plant seeds of doubt about the safety of vaccines IS harming others. Sleep well. The author is not the one acting superior, but you certainly are. The people ignoring peer reviewed science in favour of internet blog movements and memes are ideological to the peril of other human beings. You must consider the source of your information and not weigh it all the same. And the next time you write questioning the safety of vaccines, ask yourself some questions. What if I’m wrong? What if there’s no conspiracy and all that science and the all the public health agencies in the world are right and I’m just wrong? Please read something from a credible source. If there’s no link to peer reviewed science to a real public health organization or university, just don’t believe it. And don’t say stuff like vaccines are not as safe as they could be (read what the REAL situation about mercury). Your arguments are dangerous because you don’t sound like a crackpot and yet what you say is insidiously creeping its way into parents minds and causing them to not vaccinate. Stop and do some real research please.

  28. Nate Jones
    at #

    Fuck them. Let their children die and remove their ignorance from the phenome pool.

    • Montserrat Blanco
      at #

      Yes, the problem is that in the meanwhile they might be able to kill someone like my son, a preterm 4 month old infant vaccinated on schedule but without the possibility of getting the vaccine yet for doing something like entering briefly a shop where they have been one hour ago.

      • Montserrat Blanco
        at #

        Another problem in my country (Spain) is the cost. We have a national health system paid by everybody with taxes. Vaccinations are for free for everybody if they are included on the schedule. Hospital admissions are also for free for the patient. The most expensive MMR vaccine costs 18 euros and the NHS gets a better price, but for comparison sake let’s say 18 euros. A 10 day hospital admission for measles is 6000 euros the cheapest, so we could get 330 doses of the MMR vaccine and inmunize 165 persons with that money. As two doses are about 99% effective we are saving a lot of money. If we inmunize 1650 people the cost would be 60000 euros for inmunization and maybe two admissions getting to 1200 euros, so 72000 euros. If those 1650 people are not inmunized we will have to pay almost a million euros… I pay about 30% of my salary on taxes. I really do not want to waste money on those people.

    • Except it’s not just their children that are dying, Nate. There are many children who can’t be vaccinated either because they’re too young or they have ongoing health problems that make the vaccination unsafe. That’s why herd immunity is so important. The anti-vax parents aren’t just risking the lives of their own children. They’re putting other children at risk as well.

      • Nate Jones
        at #

        Good point. How can we quarantine them? Mandatory face masks if they have no proof of vaccination?

        • Samantha06
          at #

          Some doctors are refusing to accept non-vaxxed patients, and some are segregating non-vaxxed kids into separate waiting rooms and so forth. I haven’t seen any reports of mandatory face masks, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that happens at some point..

    • Jason Roder
      at #

      Nope. First, you don’t punish the kids for their parents’ wrongs. Second, letting them get sick endangers everyone else; diseases spread when allowed to exist like that. Third, I’m pretty sure you meant “gene pool” and not “phenome pool”.

      • Nate Jones
        at #

        The term phenome includes behaviors influenced by environmental factors; I’m including social factors–i.e. cultural myths–as part of the human environment.

  29. Ben
    at #

    I just came across your post, and think it misses the real underlying reasons that some parents have refused vaccines for their children. I think the refusal is very much with their children in mind. Rather than being motivated by privilege, refusal-because-I-can, defiance, or empowerment, I have found that it’s out of fear, and also mistrust of government studies and corporate greed. There are enough documented instances when whistle-blowers (eg, the Merck legal cases re MMR) say that studies were manipulated, and this causes the educated population who have the time and the means of accessing information to question or abandon their confidence and trust. The main question they ask is “who’s actually telling me the truth.” Perhaps you can be a little more generous before you write off serious concerns to ego?!

    • moto_librarian
      at #

      If a parent is on the fence, I will absolutely try to dispel his or her fears. But at the end of the day, evidence is evidence. For a long time, enough people were still getting vaccinated to maintain herd immunity and parents could have the best of both worlds – not vaccinate their own kids while riding off of the protection provided by everyone else. If you are willing to believe conspiracy theories or the words of a disgraced medical professional, there is nothing that I can say to change your mind. I’ve tried being nice, and it does no good when dealing with a true anti-vaxxer. So now I will simply call a spade a spade. You deserve to be called out for being a selfish asshole.

      • matthewkaney
        at #

        This person didn’t say they were an anti-vaxxer, they were merely trying to be empathetic to parents who are. So it’s not really fair that you call them a selfish asshole. The more people respond like this, the angrier and more resistant others are going to become.

        • Poogles
          at #

          I actually read it as a general “you”, not specific to Ben.

        • moto_librarian
          at #

          I was using “you” in a general sense. Sorry if that was unclear.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      That’s the unreflective defiance of authority that I’m talking about. You need to evaluate the overwhelming evidence on the efficacy and safety, not reflexively refuse to believe large institutions.

      • truffle19
        at #

        Unreflective? Reflexively? How can you be certain that the majority of anti-vaxxers did not reflect on the evidence? Is it because you believe that if anyone of right mind did properly reflect on it they would agree with you? That would just be an assumption. I reflected on the topic and I ended up agreeing vaccines are vitally important. But I’m willing to believe others reflected and didn’t.

        • birthbuddy
          at #

          Perhaps they refracted instead?

      • matthewkaney
        at #

        I appreciate your perspective on unreflective defiance… but some of our large institutions then play a role in having created this problem, as they have given people plenty of reason to be suspicious.

    • Lizernst
      at #

      If that were the case, there would be far few unimmunized children – these parents are projecting their unfounded fears and refusing to listen to facts. I have children too – I had concerns about immunizations. I listened to facts, I asked many sources, I researched it and everything pointed me back to immunizing. It takes a certain, self-important psychosis to ignore the dreadful repercussions of more than a handful of people refusing to immunize their kids. For most of these parents, hysteria, self-willed ignorance and a need to look like better parents than they actually are rule the day. These are the people who don’t understand real responsibility, to their own children and to society.

      • Who?
        at #

        This a hundred times.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      There have been hundreds of studies around the world. How would one manufacturer manage to manipulate them all?

    • truffle19
      at #

      Agree 100%. Get ready for a storm of disagreement.

    • Isaac_Laquedem
      at #

      Try some actual information from the CDC: in 1962, before measles vaccine was introduced, more than 90% of Americans were infected with measles by age 15 – roughly 4 million people a year. (The number of reported cases was lower, about 540,000/year or 313 per 100,000, because the disease was so common that lots of people didn’t report.) From 1956 to 1960, about 450 Americans died from measles every year – about 1 of every 3800 deaths was from measles. Another 150,000/year had respiratory complications and 4000/year developed encephalitis from measles; 48,000 Americans/year were hospitalized because of measles.
      Twenty years after the first measles vaccine was licensed, the reported rate had dropped from 313/100,000 to 1.3/100,000 — a drop of 99.6%, an inconvenient fact that the pro-measles people don’t seem to be aware of.

      http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long

      • birthbuddy
        at #

        Where is Linda?
        How do you explain this?

        • Montserrat Blanco
          at #

          They stop replying when they do not like the questions asked…

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Actually, I think it is totally about ego. And it’s about control and privilege. This is my take on it:

      You say a few documented instances of whistle-blowing
      “causes the educated population who have the time and the means of accessing information to question or abandon their confidence and trust.”

      Perhaps you don’t realize it, but to me, that is an extremely pompous and egotistical statement. It sounds like you are inferring that the less educated, or those who make minimum wage (less means) at a job they work 12 hours a day, (less time) but trust their doctors to provide them with accurate information regarding their children’s health are not as able to “question.” Or is that only reserved for the wealthier, better educated folks? Or are they just part of the “masses” that blindly follow mainstream medicine, unlike the educated who are perhaps just a little bit better equipped (privileged) to research these “issues”? Do you see my point? That’s what I am reading between the lines.

      “The main question they ask is “who’s actually telling me the truth.”

      Mistrust of mainstream medicine. You take your child to your pediatrician and trust them to provide expert care, so why would you think they would not tell you the truth? I’m not saying you shouldn’t have questions. Of course you should question. You can always get a second opinion if you aren’t comfortable with what one physician says. But the core issue is why would you take your child to a doctor, then mistrust them based on quackery and misinformation gleaned from the internet, what “someone” said or one bad incident? Especially when you have an educated, knowledgeable physician who is looking out for your child’s best interests? Perhaps you didn’t hear what you wanted to hear (ego) and have found “other sources of information” and now “know more.”

      It’s also a moral issue. It’s very easy to determine a person’s moral stance based on how they feel about exposing more vulnerable people to disease.

      Just a few things to ponder:
      I heard on the news tonight that there is only a 90% vaccination rate in the states with the most measles cases. And, in another state, a daycare was shut down due to measles. 14 NEWBORNS have been exposed, all too young to receive the vaccine. Hopefully none of those babies are high risk, as in born prematurely, or have other high-risk issues, because if they contract measles, they might not survive.

      Some other info:
      The RSV vaccine is administered to premature babies in the hospital. I gave it all the time when I worked in the step down NICU. Without that vaccine, many babies would die.
      RSV is a very serious disease. It’s like a cold in an adult, but in a child it can kill. If you’ve watched a child struggle to breathe, blue lips, little chest caving in with each labored breath, and a terrified parent, you might understand the importance of vaccines. Sometimes you have to see things to really understand their significance.

      If you are interested in learning accurate, trustworthy information on vaccines, there are lots of great scientists and chemists on this blog who can answer questions about the chemistry of vaccines, ingredients, and the studies to support their use.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        I want to add that I had measles myself as a child and my mother said it scared her to death. I had an extremely high fever and was delirious. Interestingly, a brain MRI I had in my 30s to rule out MS showed small lesions consistent with residual encephalitis. I also had chicken pox, so it could have been from that too, or measles. Also, since I had the chicken pox, I am at risk for shingles as an adult, which can be extremely painful and debilitating. I will definitely be getting the vaccine asap, as well as the pneumonia vaccine.

        • linda
          at #

          My neighbour got the shingle vac last year and then got shingles

          • birthbuddy
            at #

            So, how do vaccines work?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I’ll take that under advisement…. NOT!

    • Lindaxox
      at #

      Right on, thanks

    • TomInCali
      at #

      >The main question they ask is “who’s actually telling me the truth.”

      So they have difficulty choosing between their own doctor and the vast majority of the medical and public health community, or the handful of allegations of manipulation they found on some web site? I think attributing their actions to ego is a whole lot more generous than the other explanation that more immediately comes to mind.

    • Annoyed
      at #

      You had me until the last line. I think the author is right that a lot of parents are making this decision because they don’t trust the man and it’s about their own ego. But, I agree some parents really believe they are doing harm to their children. I don’t know how to make people believe facts over internet memes. Nothing seem to be working other than shaming them at this point. How else do you make someone who refuses to see evidence and chooses instead memes from Reddit or conspiracy blogposts?

  30. matthewkaney
    at #

    The problem with your logic is that vaccination rates were LOWER 20 years ago

    • at #

      People weren’t traveling the world as much 20 years ago. Communicable diseases become more of a concern when more people bring more of it around the world.

      • matthewkaney
        at #

        Well, two things… if it was because of international travel, then there’s not a lot we can really do about that. She is blaming it on domestic anti-vaxxers. Secondly, do you have any data to support the statement that people weren’t travelling the world as much 20 years ago?

        Here is the data for the vaccination rates:
        http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.IMM.MEAS/countries?page=4

        • at #

          “if it was because of international travel, then there’s not a lot we can really do about that.”

          Sure there is. Vaccinate.

          “do you have any data to support the statement that people weren’t travelling the world as much 20 years ago?”

          Sure.

          http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/pages/2012-12-06-01.aspx
          http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/airlineindustry.html

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            Thank you. I’m still a proponent of freedom, and I believe that even though it has a cost, it is one worth enduring. But I appreciate your logical, reasoned response and that you provided facts to support it.

          • at #

            That’s fine, but I take exception to the implication that there are people here (myself included) who aren’t “proponent[s] of freedom.” It’s an easy characterization, like believing in sunny days, that positions other people – those who are in favor of vaccination, to whom I assume you’re referring – as tyrannical and autocratic. Hardly logical or reasoned.

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            If you’re talking about forced vaccination, then that is a violation of people’s control over their own bodies and their childrens’. I’m not saying you’re a tyrant in that case, that would be quite a stretch, but I would say that you don’t support people’s freedom of choice in this matter.

          • at #

            Your freedom stops where others’ freedoms are interfered with. We require automobile drivers to have car insurance. We require parents to provide the necessary nutritional care to their children. But that does not allow people to make the characterization that those who support regulations along these lines are somehow against freedom.

            In any event, your original statement was being a “proponent of freedom” without qualification, which people can reasonably construe as intended in the general sense, which implies that the rest of us were indeed opponents of freedom in the general sense. This characterization, if intended, is absurd on its face and needed to be countered.

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            You have a different view of freedom than I do. All of those things absolutely allow me to characterize those who support such regulations as against freedom. When you speak of freedom, you may be referring to a society that allows certain freedoms. When I speak of freedom, I am referring to it in an absolute sense, aside from committing violent and property crimes, which are a direct violation of someone else’s freedom and therefore have to be regulated to ensure freedom.

          • Who?
            at #

            I love how property is given the same respect as the human being.

            Shows where the values really lie.

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            I didn’t give it the SAME respect, but they are actions with a DIRECT victim.

          • momofone
            at #

            So if my child gets measles and dies because someone didn’t vaccinate their children, there’s no direct victim? Or am I not understanding?

          • at #

            Perhaps, but this is not a society based on what you term as freedom in an absolute sense, but one that recognizes the necessity of a balance between individual freedom and social responsibility (beyond the basic responsibilities of not committing violence and stealing things), and frankly, the latter society is the one I prefer to live in.

            Actually, I imagine that you perceive the tension between freedom and responsibility, but your perception of where the line exists is far different than my perception. In my view, not vaccinating is tantamount to threatening the lives of others around you. This has to be unacceptable, and cannot be offset by claiming freedom.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            First they take away your freedom to make small children sick and let babies die and the next thing you know, they’re implanting computer chips in your body and controlling your mind in order to implement their plan for world government.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            You know what really puts a damper on freedom? Dying.

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            It certainly does. But “freedom isn’t free.” The cost, however, is not the lives of young soldiers we send in to defend corporate interests, the true cost is the consequences of allowing people to make their own decisions even when they’re wrong.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Consequences like measles outbreaks, you mean?

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            That is exactly what I mean

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Then the cost is too high.

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            Before you argue that it is a violation of OTHER people’s freedom to not vaccinate. That would be similar to the Nancy Reagan school of thought and the logic that has driven the war on drugs.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            You’re an adult? Ugh, fine whatever, if you don’t want a vaccine, no one will force you. Just stay the hell away from the rest of us if you do get sick.

            But kids? Nope, sorry, I’m not accepting any excuses. If there isn’t a medical problem preventing them from receiving vaccines, they need to get them, parental wishes be damned. Parents do not own their kids, and they do not get to abridge their child’s right to life because they are an idiot.

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            I’m vaccinated and not an anti-vaxxer. That being said, parents own their kids a hell of a lot more than government owns their kids.

          • Who?
            at #

            Actually, people don’t ‘own’ their kids at all, just to put it out there.

            Where do you come down on parents who refuse medical treatment for their children? Is that their right, up to and including the death of the child? Courts in the US say no-what do you say?

          • matthewkaney
            at #

            I really don’t want to get into this argument all night because it goes far beyond the subject here. Suffice to say that it seems to me that all the deaths caused by people making stupid choices or all the deaths resulting from other people making stupid choices COMBINED do not equal the deaths caused by government. The deaths of children in Iraq ALONE far exceed any number of deaths that would have occurred from a government which was limited in its scope to national *defense*. You can argue all day long about the benefits of the nanny state, I stand firmly behind the idea of freedom and its consequences.

            To answer your question specifically…. I think that parents should have the right to refuse medical treatment. I think that children have the right, if they are physically able, to defy their parents and accept the medical treatment. Is this kind of notion of society dangerous to some? Absolutely. But again, not nearly as dangerous as what we have wound up with. If you want to save children, insist that our government begin dismantling its nuclear arsenal.

          • Who?
            at #

            You’re talking about living in a jungle where you can shoot someone for trying to steal grandma’s china and simulltaneously leave your two year old-who can’t communicate well enough to advocate for himself-to die of whatever treatable illness. Where the weak rely on the advocacy and patronage of the strong. So free-if you happen to be you.

            Horrifying and pathetic at the same time. If that’s freedom, keep it.

          • Wren
            at #

            You can’t rely on facts though. That’s probably false information released by the vast international conspiracy run by the US government and the CDC.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Which is why there are no laws against child endangerment, neglect, or beating the shit out of them, right?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            It’s not “government” who owns the kids, it’s society. Folks like ME are the ones who speak on behalf of those kids who are being neglected and put to risk.

            There are enough folks like me to make it so that we can use the force of government to do that, but I tire of these accusations of the faceless “government.” That government is ME. And you, and everyone.

            WE are ones looking out for the children. Not “the government.”

            You know the old saying, “it takes a village”? WE are the village.

    • Derp
      at #

      Are you an ignoramus? The vaccination rate in 1980 was 97 percent according to your website. You just proved that the decrease in vaccination in the US has a good chance of being the cause of the increase in new outbreaks. There was a short 4 year dip and that could have a little to do with hippies and baby boomers too…Try to think critically not emotionally like you are doing now.

      • matthewkaney
        at #

        I am thinking critically you jerk. I’m not even an anti-vaxxer but I do believe in freedom even if that has consequences. You know what the problem is with this whole discussion? It’s self righteous indignation. It’s people insulting other people because they think of themselves as intellectually superior.

        Anyway, that aside, the rates have varied by years. I was merely referring to the time frame which she was talking about. I prefer to have discussions with people like Roehl below who are capable of such discussions without being condescending. *I* am not the one being emotional, you are.

        • Poogles
          at #

          People tend to get emotional when many small children get very very sick and it could have been prevented.

        • at #

          If your freedom only kills you, I don’t give a flying fuck. If your “freedom” kills someone else’s infant, then yeah, you don’t get to be free to do that anymore. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, remember?

          • Who?
            at #

            Unless he thinks you intend to steal or break his stuff, apparently, in which case your nose is fair game. Since the only limitation on rights-according to this poster, below-is violence and property.

            Oh and he’s relaxed about parents letting their kids, even those who are too young to speak for themselves, die of treatable illness if that is the parents’ wish.

            Freedom must be so lovely, don’t you think?

          • at #

            As I’ve said to others, freedom to starve is no freedom at all. His version of freedom, keep it far away from me!

          • Who?
            at #

            Me too it’s like a nightmare.

  31. ngonie
    at #

    Free choice, human rights, soon it will be a chip to be implanted in Ya kids… the world has fears of epidemics.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      Take your nonsensical slippery slopes elsewhere.

      As far as human rights, and epidemics. I think not dying of a preventable disease is a pretty important right. One that no parent has any business taking away from their child.

  32. at #

    Anyone else running out of bingo cards?

  33. yugaya
    at #

    I’ve landed myself with the little kiddo in the central national infectious diseases hospital last night due to a viral infection complications and the fact that all other children’s wards in town were over booked ( we’ll be residing there for a couple of days and I’ve just skipped home for a bit to feed the other kiddies and do the dishes and make sure the fishes are still alive when we get back).

    The first thing everyone checked in her medical records? Kiddo’s vaccination status. Limiting the amount of bad guys out there that have unrestricted access to our children is what reasonable adults ought to consider/feel/think/believe is safer.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Hope your little one gets better soon!

      • yugaya
        at #

        She is better already, just a more severe case of dehydration.

        • Amazed
          at #

          Good to know it! Keeping my fingers crossed for a fast recovery (and a kid that’s as good as gold for a few days, at least. That’s for your sake, of course. So, keeping fingers crossed for both of you!)

          • yugaya
            at #

            We are getting out tomorrow, cleared on all other more serious things that present with similar symptoms. I’m brushing up on my sleeping on the floor and in a chair skills.

    • charlotte
      at #

      Thank you for being a parent!

      • yugaya
        at #

        Oh no, I suck at that big time – otherwise I would have figured out a way to keep wee kiddo hydrated enough “naturally”, and my bigger kids would be “like our ancestors did it thousands of years ago” hunting their lunch while I am away.

  34. Bernard Dijkstra
    at #

    You go ahead and inject your baby with monkey cells, formaldehyde,
    mercury, and chicken fetus. Anyone who is a pro-vaxxer is ignorant,
    stupid, and has not bothered to do any research. It is funny how people
    want less government but are okay with the government injecting their
    kids with up to 40 vaccines before kindergarten. 1 in 50 kids has autism
    now. Pretty soon the gov will have their way and the entire population
    will be retarded zombies.

    • demodocus' spouse
      at #

      Bless your heart. My husband and I must be retarded zombies. Clearly shows by how many times we got onto graduate school honor rolls.

      • Bernard Dijkstra
        at #

        School is about learning stuff by heart with no questioning whether it’s true or false. You were honoured for your efforts, not for your intelligence.

        • Young CC Prof
          at #

          People with autism are good at going to school and learning stuff with no questioning? Do you actually know anyone with autism?

        • demodocus' spouse
          at #

          Actually, I find memorization very difficult, and questioning authority very easy. In our honors program as undergrads, our first class was “Introduction to Critical Inquiry”, team taught by an English and a philosophy prof. Our schools both under and grad *encouraged* critical thinking. But thanks for assuming.

          • I Love Science
            at #

            The problem is that critical thinking is not taught in schools any longer. It is my firm belief if critical thinking skills were taught in high school (or sooner) we wouldn’t have any “anti-vaccers” or evolution deniers. Being able to think rationally and scientifically would end the problem, stat.

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          at #

          In other words, you don’t have an advanced education so you make yourself feel better about that deficiency by pretending it doesn’t matter.

        • charlotte
          at #

          So, so wrong. I didn’t learn what to think but how to think. As a professor I demand the same thing from my students. Only someone with no experience with higher ed thinks they know everything.

        • Patrick
          at #

          And yet you accept the anti-vaxx propaganda without questioning whether it’s true or false. So what does that say about your intelligence?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            But that’s different. He didn’t learn that in school.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Heck yes – the internet is wayyy more reliable than school…

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            And you don’t have to think critically, you just accept everything you read on the internet, so long as it is from a non-official site.

            That’s so much more acceptable than just accepting whatever you are taught in school.

        • Yelda Miedema
          at #

          Keep digging buddy. You’re almost at the bottom of the ignorance pit!

          • Jason Roder
            at #

            Sadly, there is no bottom to the ignorance pit, as ignoranuses like Bernard here demonstrate daily.

        • Montserrat Blanco
          at #

          What is the measurement of intelligence for you????
          PhD? I hold one.
          Over 140 CI? yes, I do.

          My son is vaccinated on schedule.

        • sdsures
          at #

          That’s school, dear, not university. You don’t get top marks for “effort” at university.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      The vaccine “debate” is done. You lost. Get over it!

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      What monkey cells, mercury, and chicken fetus? Also, vaccines do not cause autism or retardation.

    • Fuckantivaxxers
      at #

      You, and people who think like you, are the literally the most ignorant and dangerous people in this nation. When your baby gets measles, or pertussis, or diptheria, or botulinum, or polio, or whatever the fuck else you don’t vaccinate your child for, I hope you realize your mistake and let modern medicine save your child’s life. Then, I hope you’re arrested for child abuse and your children are taken care of by someone with the mental capacity to raise a child.

    • Lucki Grrl
      at #

      I smell a troll

    • Yelda Miedema
      at #

      Wow, an ignorant Frisian! Unbelievable.

    • Who?
      at #

      You should protect yourself by staying far far away from all the ignorant stupid people.

    • Guest
      at #

      There are fourteen recommended vaccines given prior to kindergarten in the US. Not forty. Though I can think of quite a few other deadly diseases I’d like to vaccinate against (RSV especially). So I’m curious what the other 26 this poster thinks exist.

      • Jason Roder
        at #

        Too bad there isn’t a vaccine for stupidity. We wouldn’t have problems like Bernard here that way.

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        at #

        RSV would be good, but I would prefer hand/foot&mouth. That was nasty.

    • Montserrat Blanco
      at #

      Please, please, do not give your children pears (more formaldehyde in one single pear than in all the vaccines in years), fish (much more mercury and better absorbed by mouth than in all the children vaccines, that have NONE), and eggs (at my local supermarket sometimes with chicken fetus inside). 1 in 50 kids have autism. mmmm Maybe, all the studies regarding autism incidence demostrate that it changes according to diagnosis criteria and programs for diagnosis. You have no idea of what is inside vaccines nor their effects.

    • Dr Kitty
      at #

      Bernard, please outline to me exactly how increasing the incidence of autism would be in the best interest of governments?

      I mean, if you can…you don’t seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer yourself…

    • Anj Fabian
      at #

      A reluctant 2 out of 10 points. I gave it an extra point for specific details. Zero points for style. Zero points for blatant ad hominems.

      All in all, a disappointing read although thankfully a brief one.

    • sdsures
      at #

      You must be one of the zombies.

    • yugaya
      at #

      You go ahead and don’t. For people who are still not convinced either way, I suggest they instead of dr. Goggle go and ask their questions the parents in their local infectious diseases children’s wards (I’m having some unexpected insights at the moment): In my country, it’s currently full of nursing children and toddlers with chicken pox complications, and they are averagely spending more than a week on the intensive care ward. I think enough of proof of how serious these complications can be is the fact that this children’s infective diseases hospital in our run down state medical health care system has its own neurologist on call 24/7 as well as full science-fictiony looking neurology diagnostics lab.

      All my kids had mild chicken pox, the vaccine was optional and I did not really “think” it was you know, serious enough childhood disease to consider getting it. Ask me now, in retrospect, after talking to some moms there last night, how serious it can get and whether I would be ok with not vaccinating my kids against it. The risks of chicken pox and all other VPDs, unlike your monkey-chicken-poison ramblings, are real.

  35. arcade2
    at #

    I’d like to know what people have to say about this, since there is more than enough in this article to give anyone pause about who exactly they are entrusting their bodies and immune systems to. Stop marginalizing and vilifying people who ask questions! It’s anti-intellectual, it’s not scientific and it’s got to stop.

    m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5881914

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      Ther’s nothing remotely intellectual about mindlessly questioning authority.

      • arcade2
        at #

        Nobody is “mindlessly questioning authority.”. Stop trying to make anyone skeptical of the “all vaccines are safe” dogma conform to your ridiculous narrative. Did you even read the piece? Your comment is mindlessly dismissive.

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          at #

          You are mindlessly questioning authority.

          Didn’t you just write, “it’s enought to give anyone apuse about who exactly they are entrusting their bodies and immune systems to”?

          That’s a paradigmatic example of mindlessly questioning authority.

          • arcade2
            at #

            Nice try. Maybe you should stick to medicine and stop debating me on semantics, though based on this exchange I don’t think I’d trust your medical conclusions either.

            I said “it’s enough to give anyone pause” – “it” referring to the contents of the article you refuse to read or address. Because there is a basis for the raising of questions, that would be considered “mindfully questioning authority.”

            But go ahead, you’re as free to be delusional as I am free to demand accountability of those who make and administer what goes into my body.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            You’re not debating. You’re throwing random links (that you apparently haven’t even read) and saying, “See, see, here’s why I don’t trust authority figures.”

            If you want to debate, you might try using facts.

          • arcade2
            at #

            There’s nothing at all random about the posted link. I also never said anything about not trusting authority figures.

            You need to stop trying to paint me with that brush, it’s just baseless nonsense.

          • charlotte
            at #

            OMG please review what you wrote.

          • arcade2
            at #

            OMG nobody’s talking to you.

          • Wren
            at #

            OMG you are posting in a public comments thread so everyone is free to read and respond. For private correspondence perhaps you could try the email address given above?

        • Sullivan ThePoop
          at #

          There is no narrative and no one said all vaccines are safe for everyone. So now you are being dishonest.

          • arcade2
            at #

            Yes, there IS a narrative – the narrative upheld by the author of the piece of pure fiction above, which is that anyone who doesn’t unquestioningly vaccinate is somehow flawed in their thinking – either because they are anti-authoritarian, or because they are ego driven. This is absolute nonsense.

          • Sullivan ThePoop
            at #

            No, it actually is not. She never said anyone who doesn’t unquestioningly vaccinate. Now you are being dishonest again. What is it with you people and lying?

        • charlotte
          at #

          Yes you are doing this mindlessly. You get an answer and because it’s not what you want you dispute it…

          • arcade2
            at #

            I have no idea what you’re talking about. Sullivan posted an explanation to part of the article I linked to and it did NOT jive with my expectations, yet I thanked him for the information. Please, carry on.

    • Sullivan ThePoop
      at #

      It is completely fine to question. What is not fine is getting the answer over and over and over again and still asking the same questions. Oh, and nothing Lawrence Solomon says could ever give me pause other than to wonder how anyone could be so intellectually dishonest.

      • arcade2
        at #

        Excuse me? Where are the answers to the problems raised by the article I linked to? Where are they?

        • Sullivan ThePoop
          at #

          Lawrence Solomon is talking about a case against Merck that has not been settled. The case is not about safety but about efficacy. If Merck lied about the efficacy of the mumps component of MMR then they should be punished, but real world outbreaks seem to show they did not. Then he is dishonestly bringing up a CDC whistle blower which was not a whistle blower at all.

          • arcade2
            at #

            Let’s not make this about Lawrence Solomon, ok? This is about what he has reported, specifically, and most disturbingly, this:

            “The third whistleblower — a senior CDC scientist named William Thompson — only indirectly blew the whistle on Merck. He more blew it on himself and colleagues at the CDC who participated in a 2004 study involving the MMR vaccine. Here, the allegations involve a cover-up of data pointing to high rates of autism in African-American boys after they were vaccinated with MMR.”

            So yes, it IS about safety.

          • Sullivan ThePoop
            at #

            That is the whistle blower that is not a real whistle blower. So, not disturbing because it isn’t true. Also, when someone dishonest with no knowledge on the subject writes an opinion piece it is hard to not make it about them.

          • arcade2
            at #

            Oh, so we’re playing “your source is discredited” are we? Show me that he’s not a real whistleblower.

            You people are amazing!

          • Sullivan ThePoop
            at #

            He never said anything about a coverup. He complained that information should have been left in that showed that African American males that had an MMR late had a higher incidence of autism. The problem is that it was such a small group of children that were both African American and received their MMR between 24 and 36 months that nothing statistically significant can be gleaned from that information. Dr. Thompson is from the camp that says include everything and let the chips fall where they may. I am of the camp that giving statistically insignificant information to the public is not helpful for understanding. I have no problem with the first camp and understand their thoughts on the matter. This is an issue that most lay people do not think about and has nothing to do with dishonesty as Dr. Thompson has repeatedly said. If you looked up this information on anything but an antivaxx site or from an antivaxx author you would easily find the truth.

          • arcade2
            at #

            Thank you, this is a great, substantive reply to the issue I raised and I appreciate the information and your time. This will be taken into consideration.

          • Roadstergal
            at #

            More simply:
            http://xkcd.com/882/

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            That one was on my office door at one point.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            A fact, a fact, my kingdom for a fact!!

            We’re not amazing, but you are coming across as a fool.

            If you want to debate, make an empirical claim about vaccines and defend it.

          • charlotte
            at #

            There are plenty of articles about how he came forward and disputes his status as a whistleblower.

          • Jason Roder
            at #

            Jeebus son, did you really need to mount rocket engines on those goalposts of yours?

    • Patrick
      at #

      I would have to say that the case has proven to have no merit.

    • Jason Roder
      at #

      Antivaxxer are indeed anti-intellectual and non-scientific. People calling them out? Not so much.

  36. at #

    My comment got deleted so I’ll post it again:
    This article says nothing about what people don’t understand about anti-vaxers. In fact, it doesn’t say much about anything. Like a horoscope reading, I could replace the word vaccines and anti-vaxers with any idea and group I disagree with and get just as much out of this article.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      Well, apart from all the science denial and arrogant disregard for the wellbeing of others of the anti-vaccine crowd.

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      I doubt it got deleted. There are over 1000 comments on here.

  37. Sathya Rau
    at #

    With the measles epidemic there is a lot of derision poured on vaccine hesitant parents and even on pediatricians who accept parents who do not immunize. I am a pediatrician with a flexible open-minded vaccine policy. I accept the patients who don’t immunize and have, in fact began to attract them from a considerable distance. I have been under considerable pressure to turn away those patients who don’t adhere to the AAP-ACIP-CDC guidelines. I understand the risks and hence the urge to deny care to vaccine non- compliant patients, from the practical business point of view, the medico-legal consideration and epidemiological concerns.

    Isn’t that not the surest way to make the problem worse?

    Closing the door on the un-immunized and the under immunized to me feels a lot like giving up, quitting when the going gets tough. In my practice I don’t take the no on face value, I keep a constant pressure on them to vaccinate. On every visit I offer them the vaccine, they politely refuse, and I launch into a whole set of ‘rants’ I on the ready, to counter their arguments and ally their fears. Some of them leave, most of them eventually will accept vaccines, perhaps with some caveat– Only two shots per visit or, no live virus vaccines or, no mercury/aluminum containing vaccines. I graciously accept and shower them with praise like you would a toddler in toilet training. Until the next visit and the nagging/negotiations begin again.

    We try to win parents over by giving them scientific facts, which is never going to work. It is a very basic protective instinct that parents have where they feel they are protecting their child from harm and pain. We are up against maternal protective instincts and overcoming that. Their fears however unfounded they seem to us, are very real to them and we have to acknowledge it. I pick the ‘rant’ most likely to work in the circumstance. here is a small sample of my rants:

    “This very germ in his ear, can cause meningitis if it went half an inch farther.”“The miracle of immunization is not the vaccine, it is you baby’s amazing immune system”. “The vaccines are merely mug shots we are showing the immune system so that it can recognize the bad guys” “We can wait till he learns to talk and you are convinced he is not autistic, then give we him the MMR.” ‘If you use a car seat, a football helmet, training wheels why not vaccines’

    One of the greater didactic pleasures I have enjoyed the most over the years has been convincing anti-vaccinator parents, surrender to reason, and actually sign the consent form and have their child immunized. It is a lot like winning an argument with your wife, just the quiet inner triumph.

    Sathya Rau MD

    • GuestK
      at #

      Are there precautions taken to protect the other children in your practice? Does any pro-vaccine families leave? I can imagine one un-vaccinated child bringing the measles into your waiting room could transmit it to quite a few babies and other un-vaccinated children.

      • Sathya Rau
        at #

        I do the best I can with the resources I have. Separate sick and well waiting rooms, side entrance for febrile rashes, etc. Measles is still only a nightmare, Influenza is very real as a problem we take for granted.

        • Who?
          at #

          I really admire your patience and compassion, because of course the children benefit when you win the parents over. Hope the measles stays away from where you are, and long may you engage in your didactic rants!

    • Young CC Prof
      at #

      Doctors who accept non-vaccinated patients and try to change their minds are one thing. What I have an issue with are the doctors who tell parents that not vaccinating is a fine choice.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      You are a good and patient man. It’s very difficult to try to convince people who have their minds made up. I totally understand that in my dealings with the natural childbirth crowd. I get very impatient and angry with them and the anti-vaxxers and spout off about how we need to be drastic with them. Your approach is very gentle and compassionate and I admire you for that. I also like your simple approach to explanations in a way that they can actually visualize, like the germ in the ear moving one inch and causing meningitis, I like that. That is something that will cause a parent to really sit up and take notice. I hope you continue to win them over.

    • Guest22
      at #

      I actually have more respect for pediatricians who turn away parents for non vaccinating their children. You obviously have no respect for yours.

      • Guest22
        at #

        And to clarify the above comment – the bullying every time a parent comes in is completely disrespectful.

        • fiftyfifty1
          at #

          Bullying? How is this bullying? These parents are electing to drive long distances to see him so they can be…bullied?!

        • Samantha06
          at #

          Those “bullied” parents don’t seem to agree with you.. they keep going back to him.

    • DiomedesV
      at #

      OK, but you owe it to all your patients to put a sign up in your waiting room that states that you accept parents who don’t vaccinate their children. Even better, please put the rate of unvaccinated kids in your practice. The other parents should be able to make an informed choice to leave your practice. I would.

    • lunachick
      at #

      Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have an honest question: why are the parents of vaccinated children so worried about the un-vaccinated ones infecting their children? If the vaccine works and their children had it, then how are they at risk by those who did not get it? Are not the only ones at risk the ones who did not receive the vaccine?

      • Amazed
        at #

        Vaccines are not always effective. For a very small number of children, they do not catch. And some of the vaccines are given at certain ages. Until then, babies are vulnerable.

        I already posted this link below but I’ll give it again for your sake. The tragedy of two teens whose only fault was being in their pediattician waiting room when too young for the MMR shot.

        http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/10/so-predictable-so-sad-natalie-dies-of.html

        • EmbraceYourInnerCrone
          at #

          Thank you for bring this up again. I don’t think a lot of those parents who think getting measeles “naturally” could be a death sentence for their child a few years later, even if they appear to recover completely. SSPE is rare but, as was the case with these 2 kids, it does happen.

          • Amazed
            at #

            As ill luck would have it, the pediatrician the 3 kids shared (with other 4 exposed children as well!) now has 2 cases of this rare and fatal complication on their record. I wonder whether he or she changed their treatment of unvaxxed kids or even whether they reconsidered accepting them at all. It must be horrifying for someone who, no doubt, only had the best interests of all the children in mind to know that they were unlucky enough to have 2 of those rare lethal cases originating from their own waiting room.

            Anti-vaxxers scream, “My riiiiiights!” but they don’t give other people’s rights a fleeting thought. When you have chosen not to vax your kid, the least you can do it is inform yourself about the signs of the VPDs that your special snowflake was sure never to catch because they were so special and not bring a kid with such symptoms in the waiting room! There is a wonderful invention by the name of phone. Sorry but when you choose not to vax, you relinquish some of your rights, like going to the pediatrician without thinking. You’re bloody obliged to think more than your average parent, the unenlightened sheeple you so despise.

            Same problem with homebirth, VBAC and so on. “My midwife has delivered more than 300 HVBAC babies and no one ruptured, can you believe it?” Yes, indeed I can. I can also believe that your midwife delivered only 10 VBAC babies at home and two mothers ruptured. Nature has skipped maths lessons at school.

          • Patrick
            at #

            Here would be my question for the anti-vaxxers in this regard. If you don’t trust science and medicine enough to know what they are doing with vaccinations, which most doctors and scientists are in agreement with about their efficacy, why do you trust them to bring your child to them about the rest of their health?

            If your all natural, non vax ways are healthy and lead to a stronger child, why bring them to the doctor at all?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            I’d go further than that. If you don’t trust science on vaccines, why do you trust aerodynamics to keep your plane in the air, computer science to transmit your thoughts across the internet, and structural engineering to make sure your house doesn’t fall down?

            Why don’t anti-vaxxers apply their intuition to these other areas of science?

      • fiftyfifty1
        at #

        Because many of the patients at a pediatrician’s office are babies too young to have received the full series. And even if you have received the full series of a vaccine, there is a certain small percentage (2-5%) of people who, for whatever reason, don’t mount much of a response to a given vaccination. You don’t know if you are one of those people, but if you are one of those people you are relying on herd immunity.

      • Michele
        at #

        Because I have a 3 month old who is not old enough for many of the vaccines yet, including MMR.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        at #

        Please explain to us exactly how vaccines work to protect public health. If you can do that, you will have your answer. If you can’t do that, you don’t understand enough about vaccines to make any determinations about them.

      • Houston Mom
        at #

        As some of the other comments say, vaccines are not always effective. My husband was vaccinated against mumps but came down with mumps anyway in adolescence. He was very sick, in a lot of pain, hospitalized and rendered sterile. Ask him how fun a decade of fertility treatments and testicle biopsies were. Unless everyone gets their immunity tested post-vaccination, how will they know if they are in that small group of people for whom the vaccine was not effective? I don’t want to find out our son didn’t acquire immunity from his vaccinations because a vaccine refuser’s child has made him sick.

      • Patrick
        at #

        It’s not a matter of the vaccinated children that come in, but those too young to be vaccinated. If the unvaccinated child comes in with the disease, all the children too young, and most at risk for deadly or debilitating effects are at risk. So your argument doesn’t take into account all the facts. Also the vaccines are a series, so it takes time for the immunity to become fully active, at which time those children are still at risk as well. It’s not the vaccinated children that most are worried about, it’s those that are too young, or haven’t finished the series that are the major concern.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          Because some kids are on a medication that is contraindicated for receiving live vaccines as their immune system is being suppressed by medication to control an underlying condition. My daughter is one of these kids and we had to get a lot of advice about the MMR from immunologists and vaccine specialists. Most doctors wouldn’t have given her the MMR.

      • Sathya Rau
        at #

        Measles like chickenpox is more severe as you age. The older you are when you get it, the higher the risk of morbidity.If there is a serious outbreak much of the mortality will be in people in adults in whom the effect of the shot has worn off, or who were never immunized. Infants less than the 1 year of age cannot get the measles shot. so if you have a baby less than a year old exposed to measles the infant needs to be quarantined. If your baby is quarantined for 3 weeks, you can’t go to work. that is a potentially bankrupting situation for a lot of folks.

    • Patrick
      at #

      Now that is an amazing response to the problem.

  38. BBrown
    at #

    Vaccines are free????? how is it a privilege to get one?

    • Stacy48918
      at #

      If you don’t have insurance, vaccines are free for you here.

      How is it a privilege? Well, how is it a privilege to live in an age with antibiotics, clean water, hospitals, medicine, etc? We benefit enormously from the advances of the past, including vaccination.

      • lunasalix
        at #

        It’s also important to mention that not all regions of the world are afforded things such as free, accessible vaccinations.

    • Dan
      at #

      When did the author say that?

      The actual quote from the article clearly states, “Each and every anti-vax parent is privileged in having EASY AND INEXPENSIVE ACCESS to life saving vaccines.”
      Nothing about free. Easy and inexpensive is better than can be said for children in the Congo and North Korea.

    • BBrown: In a system where you pay for what you get, how is free NOT a privilege?

    • demodocus' spouse
      at #

      we pay for vaccines in our insurance premium. Because of DH’s pre-existing condition, we need one and that one needs to be a little above the bottom shelf. Our particular brand figures that giving us vaccines without an extra charge means they don’t have to pay more if we catch something and need to be hospitalized.

    • sdsures
      at #

      I don’t remember if they’re free in Canada, but I know they’re free here in the UK.

  39. truffle19
    at #

    Let me start by saying I am 100% pro sciene and pro vaccination. I always have been and always will be. That said, I think this article is horseshit. I’ve known two parents who were anti-vaccine. Where they misguided? Yes. Absolutely. But their sole focus was the health of their children. They were NOT acting out of privilidge, a desire to defy authority or a need to feel empowered (at least any more than all of us have this need). It’s fun to pile on, but Dr. Tuteur is being completely unfair here.

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      I think differently of the people that don’t vaccinate due to fears or concerns about underlying conditions as opposed to the anti-vaccine movement which seeks to capitalise on that fear to create pseudo-experts and bolster fragile egos by “outsmarting the sheeples”.

      • truffle19
        at #

        I agree with you there.

    • Who?
      at #

      So they thought they knew more than the combined knowledge of all the people who put their professional lives into this? To the point where they put their kids’ lives at risk? If they have gotten away with it so far then it is likely they live either is a closed community or one with high herd immunity: either way they’ve been lucky.

      Those people have let their fears overwhelm their good judgement.

      • truffle19
        at #

        I don’t disagree with you. But nothing you just wrote has anything with this piece or my response.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          I don’t know. I wonder about some people’s focus on their children. Is it about their kid’s welfare, or about how they view themselves as a “good parent”?

          • truffle19
            at #

            “Some parents”? Of course. But this article didn’t ever say “some parents.” It said anti-vax parents. And I’m saying that generalization is not fair.

          • Amazed
            at #

            In the beginning, I thought like you did. But when it became clear how rigid true anti-vaxxers were, unable to be reasoned with, I changed my tune. It takes a ton of hubris to think that you (and maybe the quacks you consult) know more than the generations of scientists developing and perfecting the very thing that got us rid of the smallpox. Really, how else can you explain this paranoid fear and absolute belief that they know best? Do they check the ingredients of every toy they give their children? Every cloth? The background of every child they invite in their home? They don’t, right? But when it’s vaccines, it’s suddenly, “nothing can convince me because I know best!”

            I’ve had contacts with many parents who are anti-vaxx to some degrees. Diehard anti-vaxxers are despicable. Utter disregard for other people’s lives. “Well, not that I want anyone to die, of course, but it isn’t my obligation to protect you.” But the majority of those “anti-vaxxers I know” (they say “I don’t know, I am not sure it’s safe, it’s too much interfering. Yes, I am against vaccines”) look at you if you’ve grown a third head if someone suggests that they mean they’d leave their kids without the MMR or TDP, or something like that. Turns out, they are not sure about Gargasil and the flue shots. But that’s fine with me because their children are too small for Gargasil anyway and there’s time for them to grow out of their parental fears and flue shots are not this popular here as a whole. But they are utterly astounded that someone can actually leave their kids without protection against diseases that killed and maimed so many not even three generations ago.

          • truffle19
            at #

            You are making broad generalizations. I know of two people who don’t fall into your generalizations. That is all.

          • ENK
            at #

            Sigh… law or large numbers…

          • Amazed
            at #

            Unfortunately, the world is made of generalizations. That’s the way it works. And while usually I don’t care what individuals do with their life and just how much they don’t fall into generalizations, when they undermine innocent people’s lives, I am totally fine with lumping them together with the rest of the people whose values and actions they share. You whine how unfair “the good doctor” and we here are being to your wonderful friends without mentioning how unfair your good friends, those good peopleare being to the world, leeching off everyone else’s heath. Some priotities you have! Love your sarcasm, by the way. That’s why I’m using it for your friends, who, according to me, are not good people. Anti-vaxxers are not good people by definition. They mooch off her immunity, claim that they don’t believe medicine, then rush in with their disease spreading kid, infecting others who are not always lucky enough to eat, and then have their friends defending them in forums explaining that they onoy think of their kids. If they believed what they preach, they would be keeping their kids out of the Big Pharma’s reach anyway. Good people, ha! Yes, I’m a zealot.

            IMO, the pair you know, those good people, are utilizing everyone else’s contribution making out excuses that make them sound better, or are simply very stupid people, so dumb that they don’t know that the modern healthy eating fads are nothing like vaccines which have been working for more than 200 years (any of them ever opened a few books from the period before vaccines emerged to save us? Because literally, you cannot read more than two books from the period without coming across the smallpox.) I really have trouble believing that anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together can deny the effect of one of the greatest gifts medicine ever did to humankind without being brainwashed, self-centered enough to care only about their own precious snowflakes, or so stupid that they don’t believe VPDs are still a thing today. Either way, those good people don’t come across looking good.

          • truffle19
            at #

            I’m sorry if I sounded sarcastic in my responses. I was just trying to make my point. I understand that people like to make generalizations and that we seem to love calling people who disagree with us stupid and selfish and the enemy (I’ve been guilty of doing that when it comes to politics). But I don’t think it helps anything. I happen not to agree with Dr. Tuteurs assumptions (and, yes, they are nothing more than assumptions) about people’s motivations.

          • at #

            I know nine people who do fall into these generalizations. My anecdotal evidence wins. That is all.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Congrats! I have a feeling winning means a lot to you. However, my point wasn’t that people don’t fall under the doctors description, it was that it wasn’t fair of her to make a blanket statement about all anti vaxxers. I wrote that more than once (in fact look up around 5 posts). P.S. You’re not a fan of anecdotal evidence, but you don’t seem to have any problem accepting the doctors opinion on this topic, and she provides no evidence whatsoever.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Maybe it’s not fair, but the anti-vax parents that have posted in the comments below have mostly served to bolster the generalisation.

          • truffle19
            at #

            As you know Karen, people with the loudest voice often don’t represent the majority. They are often the outliers. We just assume they’re the majority because they’re making the most noise.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            “As you know Karen, people with the loudest voice often don’t represent the majority.”

            Actually I don’t know.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Sorry, shouldn’t have assumed. Yes, people with the loudest voices usually represent the extremes (where they can make black & white, soundbite friendly statements), whereas most of the followers usually tend closer to the middle. Politics is a good example. Note: I don’t have any stats to back this up, so even though I’m pretty sure there are studies, I can only say it’s my opinion here.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            So do we aim to undermine the loud voices? Or appeal to the middle ground? Or a little bit of both?

          • truffle19
            at #

            I would suggest appealing to the “middle ground” or the more reasonable of the unreasonable if you will. The complete stubborn extremists (the ones Dr. Tuteur is really describing) are probably beyond convincing anyway.

          • sdsures
            at #

            On the other hand, by not vaccinating their spawn, the “reach” of anti-vaxx parents has the potential to roam far and wide. Its reach is so vast that generalization (like measles spreads) to the larger group is a given because smaller targets are meaningless.

        • Who?
          at #

          SporkParade said it much better than I did-the people you are talking about have the luxury of fearing vaccines because they don’t need to fear the actual illnesses, thanks to vaccination.

          That’s privilege, whether or not they realise it.

          As Dr T said, parenting is about what is right for kids, not parents.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Well, sure. And we have the luxury of getting to have vaccines, which is also privilege by that broad definition. Which means both sides have privilege and it’s pointless making that a pillar of her argument. And I agree with your last sentence. I have never disagreed with that thought. Let me repeat, on the question of vaccination, I am completely a believer in them. I personally think the government should consider making them mandatory. That is not my problem with her article. I just want to be clear on this.

      • SuperGDZ
        at #

        And their conceit.

    • SporkParade
      at #

      Keep in mind that, when people talk about privilege, they are often talking about an unrealized benefit of belonging to a certain class, race, or other social sector. So they are acting out of privilege in the sense that they have grown up in a society where vaccines are readily available and these diseases are consequently rare. When a parent says, “I am a good parent because I question what the doctors say about what is best for my child’s health,” it is because they have the privilege of doing so without immediate consequences (maybe Dr. Amy is conflating “feeling empowered” with “feeling like a better-than-average parent”).

    • AJ Escott
      at #

      You obviously dont understand the psycology behind it. They didnit for the health of the child? Soo ignoring expert reccomendations, and going by what ypu THINK is right, and what you think you know is not feeling empowered?

      • truffle19
        at #

        You understand the psychology behind the actions of two people you don’t know better than I do? Interesting. You’re amazing. And as I wrote in my original post, we ALL want to feel empowered.

        • sdsures
          at #

          That word (empowered) is used so much these days it’s become meaningless.

          • truffle19
            at #

            I agree. It’s usually used in a positive way. But clearly in this case it wasn’t.

          • sdsures
            at #

            I’m not even sure anymore what it’s supposed to mean. Do you know?

          • truffle19
            at #

            The way I hear empower used most often is “giving someone the confidence, freedom or ability to do something.” If you feel empowered, then you’re the one who’s been given those gifts. That’s why it’s usually considered a positive.

          • Cobalt
            at #

            Vaccines are empowering. Americans have the gift, the privilege, of the ability to choose to let themselves and their children be free of diseases that readily cause suffering and death those underpowered by this choice.

          • truffle19
            at #

            I agree on both counts. I’ve actually mentioned both elsewhere in my comments.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            BUT
            being empowered is manifested in the ability to do things, not in the things we do.

            So yes, we have the choice to vaccinate or not. But we have that choice, i.e. “are empowered to do so” regardless of whether we do or it or not. I am JUST AS EMPOWERED if I choose to vaccinate as when I don’t..

            So what does empowerment have to do with anything? Anti-vax people aren’t more empowered. They are making different choices.

        • SuperGDZ
          at #

          Your two people are irrelevant, if they even exist. What’s relevant is the core psychology/sociology of the anti-vax movement as a whole.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Thanks Super. I’ll tell them they’re irrelevant right after I sign off here. Also, why would I put myself on here for this debate if they didn’t even exist? Do you think I actually enjoy arguing with a mass of people (who, btw, I agree with on almost all aspects of this debate)? No, I do not derive pleasure from this experience. However, the doctor didn’t talk about a movement as a whole, she talked about the personal motivations of the people in the movement. I know of two cases where she was dead wrong.

    • Jonathan Joseph Reddoch
      at #

      People who care about their children’s health consult experts on children’s health, not make up garbage.

      • truffle19
        at #

        I know these two people and you don’t. I feel more qualified to speak on what they care about than you.

        • sdsures
          at #

          You cannot quantify the love of parents for their children, or concern for their children’s health. You CAN quantify the lack of education of the “experts” they consult.

          • truffle19
            at #

            The original post by the good doctor, quantified a lot of things and that quantity was 100%. She didn’t right 25% of anti vax people have a “sense of privilege” or that 75% of anti vaxers “are anxious to see themselves in a positive light.” She just said anti vaxers, as in all of them. My argument was NEVER whether anti vax is right. In fact, I’ve said numerous times it’s WRONG. Seriously wrong. What I did write, was the doctors generalizations were very unfair. I stand by that, and I haven’t read an argument that has really tried to counter that.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Probably because the ramifications of any percentage of anti-vaxxer’s decisions go far beyond the individual.

          • truffle19
            at #

            This article is not about ramifications. It’s about the psyche of anti-vaxxers. To do that, you have to concentrate on the individual.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Except that ramifications are the result of anti-vaxxer. I don’t understand how that can be adequately addressed by only looking at the individual, because without the group entity, anti-vaxxers would be less…I don’t know if this is the right word…powerful? To be part of the larger group who agrees with you lends legitimacy to your beliefs. If you are alone, it takes much more to keep your belief system intact.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Well, that is true. But let’s go back to what this article was about. It was about this doctor’s understanding of what mentally drives anti-vaxers. Obviously, since there are no real studies on this topic, she’s basing this on her beliefs, assumptions and logical reasoning. I have personal experience with 2 people who I am certain were not driven by the factors the doctor mentions. Therefore, I believe she is mistaken in generalizing about all anti-vaxers. Remember, she put no qualifiers on her statements. She just said anti-vaxers. I find that to be unfair. Basically, it’s just fanning the flames of our dislike of these people, rather than trying to solve anything. It’s pointless. It’s just trying to get clicks (…I think. Obviously, I have no real idea of her motivations, either).

          • sdsures
            at #

            I would be very interested if a large-scale psychology study were conducted on anti-vaxxers to understand what makes them tick.

            Writing about hot-button topics is what Dr T does. One way to understand her motivations would be to email her and ask, which you can do in the RH sidebar.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Good point. She also has a comments section. That’s where I chose to comment.

          • sdsures
            at #

            The government also forces everyone to have car insurance. Boo-hoo.

          • Who?
            at #

            ‘Unfair’. Are we doing ‘unfair’ now?

            People whose thinking is disordered are lumped in with a group who they claim to not be allied with despite sharing their core activity. That ‘sharing’ puts other community members and their own children at risk.

            And it is the lumping in that’s ‘unfair’? Get a grip.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Okay, who. Two things. First, you’re getting emotional and rude, so this will be my last post to you. Second, while I’m busy getting a grip, perhaps you should be getting a clue. My initial post was all about the fairness of her post. Closing line: “It’s fun to pile on, but Dr. Tuteur is being completely unfair here.” Are you just realizing that was my main point?

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            Perhaps you’re confusing anti vaxers with reluctant vaxers. The latter are parents who may be hesitating to vaccinate because they don’t understand the science and are getting conflicting messages. The former are those who’ve heard the science, “done their research” and insist on going their own way nonetheless, against all reason, and in trying to persuade others to do the same (thereby further confusing and scaring the reluctant vaxers).

          • truffle19
            at #

            Perhaps I am. I thought in this article the doctor was considering all people who aren’t vaccinating their kids anti vaxers.

          • truffle20
            at #

            You’ve got yourself worked up defending the honor of your friends, but consider this seriously before you impulsively reply:

            Every decision people make is inherently filtered by ego. If you choose to accept nonsense from quacks, that is the very definition of acting selfishly. Accepting any of the anti-vax garbage that is very easily proven false mean in this case that you’re valuing your own decision-making over the health and well-being of your community at large.

            Your friends may be lovely people in many respects, and your desire not to vilify them specifically is understandable. But you should really consider the possibility that you’re irrationally upset about the article because you don’t want to hate your friends or believe that Dr. Tuteur has accurately described them.

          • truffle19
            at #

            I have not been screaming and shouting or being irrationally upset. I have tried to clearly explain my viewpoint. You might want to consider the possibility that Dr. Tuteur might not always be right. Just a thought.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Nobody said you were screaming or shouting?

            As for clearly trying to explain your viewpoint, I’m still not sure what it is you are trying to explain? About your friends that we don’t know and have been trying to work out their relevance to the conversation?

        • Jonathan Joseph Reddoch
          at #

          Oh I see. You provide “evidence” but you think that because they are your friends, this protects you and them from scrutiny. If you present Exhibit A, you better be prepared to have that evidence cross examined, counselor. Or keep your biased opinions of your friends to yourself.

          • truffle19
            at #

            All opinions are biased, Jonathan. Every last one of them. And what “evidence” did you cross examine exactly? You just made a broad comment about people and what they care about.

          • sdsures
            at #

            True. In the case of cognitive biases, we can’t rid ourselves of them. The most we can hope for is that being aware of them helps us make better decisions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0GYBTNx5Q

        • JeffMc2000
          at #

          Is one of these two people a type of edible fungus?

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      Sorry, but if people are really concerned about the health of their children, they don’t consult Jenny McCarthy. They consult experts.

      The fact that anti-vaxxers are unwilling to consult experts speaks to their lack of self-esteem and feeling of intimidation in the presence of those with more education. How much easier, then, and how much more self-affirming to pretend that you can learn all you need to know by ignoring experts and reading quacks and charlatans.

      • truffle19
        at #

        Dr. Tuteur, your first line is a funny crack, but you know as well as I do that it’s not based on anything real. You don’t know the motivations of my two friends better than I do. In fact, you don’t know them at all. You are making assumptions. You are generalizing. Obviously, you are on the right side of the vaccination argument, but your approach is geared only toward the zealots. I believe the problem is, you’re convinced that they’re all zealots. Your goals are noble and correct. You’re frustration is understandable. But your solution is wrong. When you make assumptions about people, you have little chance of changing their mind. That said, keep up the good fight regarding vaccines. I’m 100% behind you on this bigger issue.

        • ENK
          at #

          I’m sure, as the modern figurehead, she’s just the stand-in for the “man who” statistic these days.

    • Johannine L
      at #

      Truffle, you have to keep in mind that Dr. Amy lives in an universe in which the majority consensus of scientists and doctors is infallible. At the end of the day, all of her arguments boil down to an appeal to a majority consensus. “There’s more of us; we win; you’re stupid” is Amy’s battle cry.

      As for the bizarre, over-the-top judgmentalism and patronization — keep in mind that blogging is her full-time job and this web site is supported by ads. She has a very real financial incentive to get as many clicks here as possible. I don’t believe Amy is actually so obtuse to think that vaccine-skeptics abstain out of a sense of privilege, rather I think she is quite smart recognizing that the more shocking her claims, the larger the crowd she’ll draw and the more engaged they’ll be. And it worked — here you and I are, not only reading her article but writing comments about it.

      • ENK
        at #

        It’s not argument from authority if you can legitimately question the credentials and the motives of an opponent, nor is it ad hominem. Argument from authority is only a logical fallacy when it is the sole element of reasoning, as is argument by consensus. The key element is that, in this case, experts can a) conduct research, b) have training and education necessary to critique research, and c) that those without the training and education do not understand population epidemiology, immunology, and pediatric medicine.

        The other side makes innuendos about “big pharma” conspiracies, argument from ignorance, and commits the appeal to nature; in addition, they also over rely on single experts (which can turn into personality cults), over reliance on poor-quality anecdotal evidence and “man who” statistics (“I know a man who…”), and confirmation bias.

        Having said that, there are also problems in framing the risks (i.e., they really don’t understand population statistics and Bayesian maths), they rely on the green precautionary principle over harm reduction (even when the risks and benefits are well known) in the absence of satisfactory evidence (to them, since in many cases, no amount of evidence is sufficient, it is entirely unfalsifiable), and wishful (borderline magical) thinking in that the law of large numbers and demonstrable immunology does not apply to them.

        • SuperGDZ
          at #

          An argument from expertise is not the same as an argument from authority.

          • ENK
            at #

            I was addressing Johannine L who said, basically, that it’s an argument from consensus, but I wanted to be as broad as possible listing the possible sources of cognitive bias. I will add that argument from expertise is not an informal fallacy, and thus supports what I’ve said as not illogical.

            “experts can a) conduct research, b) have training and education necessary to critique research, and c) that those without the training and education do not understand population epidemiology, immunology, and pediatric medicine.”

            Argument from authority is only invalid inasmuch as the claim rests solely on the authority, not the weight of the evidence produced under that (standardized and credentialed) authority. That is also not to say that two experts are equal either: a Ph.D. in neurobiology may make valid statements, and their truth values may be “1” (true), but without appropriate cross-training and education in immunology, the Bayesian value would have to be calculated against the mean of professional practice in, say, immunology, when weighing the probabilistic evidence when making inferences.

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            Yes, I was agreeing with you. Sorry if that didn’t come across

          • ENK
            at #

            I was addressing @johanninelogos:disqus who said, basically, that it’s an argument from consensus, but I wanted to be as broad as possible listing the possible sources of cognitive bias. I will add that argument from expertise is not an informal fallacy, and thus supports what I’ve said as not illogical.

            “experts can a) conduct research, b) have training and education necessary to critique research, and c) that those without the training and education do not understand population epidemiology, immunology, and pediatric medicine.”

            Argument from authority is only invalid inasmuch as the claim rests solely on the authority, not the weight of the evidence produced under that (standardized and credentialed) authority. That is also not to say that two experts are equal either: a Ph.D. in neurobiology may make valid statements, and their truth values may be “1” (true), but without appropriate cross-training and education in immunology, the Bayesian value would have to be calculated against the mean of professional practice in, say, immunology, when weighing the probabilistic evidence when making inferences.

      • sdsures
        at #

        “Truffle, you have to keep in mind that Dr. Amy lives in an universe in which the majority consensus of scientists and doctors is infallible.”

        I would hope that if that consensus were ever to change due to new scientific findings superceding the old, that scientists and doctors would appropriately alter their views based on solid evidence. Those who do not change their views in light of solid scientific evidence (like anti-vaxxers) scare me.

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      To come to this conclusion, they obviously can’t be coming from any mainstream scientific viewpoint. (Except one, discussed below.) So the question is: what’s the psychology behind their adoption of the Purity Model of health (over against the germ theory of disease)? It’s pretty hard to come up with non-narcissistic justifications for that.

      Now, there is an exception. You can also decide to free-ride, agree that vaccinations are beneficial, but enough of your neighbors have taken the small risk that you don’t think your children have anyone left to catch diseases from. That’s like dumping your household waste in to the street because your neighbors are hooked up to the sewer system. One person can do it, but if everyone free rides, the system breaks down.

      • truffle19
        at #

        Well, Andrew. Your exception in the second paragraph is most definitely not the case for the two people I can speak for, so lets focus on your first paragraph. Personally, I think they had some doubts about established scientific viewpoints, because it seemed to them that scientific viewpoints often change (for example, what is and isn’t healthy to eat, which does seem to change on a monthly basis). And so they don’t take mainstream viewpoints as gospel or infallible. Second, they erroneously believed some of the fear statements made by some of the mouthpieces of the anti-vax movement (ie they were misguided, the I word used in my original post). So for my two friends (the only two people I can speak for), their intentions were good and, yes, their decisions were made for their kids and not for their own egos.

        • Andrew Lazarus
          at #

          Free riding is coming in, whether consciously or not. Back when the vaccines first came out, parents queued up to get their kids immunized. Because, of course, they had seen the damage these diseases can do. It’s only the fact 99.99% of measles and polio are gone that anyone not working for a quasi-religous or cult viewpoint can consider this option—and that’s free riding on the rest of us.

          • truffle19
            at #

            The “free riding” really has nothing to do with this article or my response to it. I know it wasn’t in the conscious minds of the two people I know. So, though you have a very valid point, I think you’re making it in the wrong place. I interpret your second comment as “if the problem (measles/polio) has been eliminated through vaccines, then the only way a person could still be against vaccines is if they were in some cult/groupthink environment.” However (and remember I don’t agree with what I’m about to write, but it is another possible explanation), the thought that the potential risks are not worth the proven benefits (which is what a lot of anti vaxxers seem to believe) does not require a cult type environment.

          • Who?
            at #

            No it doesn’t, but it does require some pretty disordered thinking.

            Tell me the kids have the tetanus vax.

          • truffle19
            at #

            If this article’s point was that anti-vaxers are guilty of disordered thinking, I would have been the first person to hit “like.”

          • Who?
            at #

            So these guys are oh-so-independent and deranged as well. Sounds lovely.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Off topic, who. Go back to the doctor’s post. That’s what I was arguing against. It’s possible to agree on the main point (vaccines) and disagree with some conclusions. Also how you’ve made “deranged” a synonym for “disordered” is beyond me.

          • Andrew Lazarus
            at #

            It is true that if everyone else vaccinates, it really is statistically safer to skip the vaccine. All the benefits, none of the (small) risks. It’s just an unstable situation—economists don’t use free riding as a moral term. Society has to impose costs, because too many free riders, back come diseases.

          • ENK
            at #

            Maybe in a closed system, but with mass-transport and transit, it’s not a true case of skipping vs. getting in the risk-reward benefit ratio.

          • ENK
            at #

            A modern day tragedy of the commons…

        • SuperGDZ
          at #

          Scientific viewpoints, especially on what is and isn’t healthy to eat, don’t change as often as the media would lead one to believe.

          The conundrum is why parents who demonstrably care about their children stubbornly persist in demonstrably false and irrational beliefs that demonstrably harm children. The evidence for vaccinating is so overwhelming, and so near to unanimous amongst medically qualified people, that there must be something other than love and reason going on in their decision-making.

          • truffle19
            at #

            I think your first paragraph about diet is probably correct. But with different media bringing up different “studies” which seem to counter each other on topics like “what foods are good/bad for you”, or “are gmos really dangerous” etc., it’s understandable that some people would be confused about what’s true and what isn’t. And perhaps they become a bit distrustful of the information they get.

            As far as your second paragraph, I’m with you except that when you say there must be something other than love and reason, I don’t automatically assume that something else is ego like the doctor does. At least not with everyone. It may be concern for their kids and doubt on who’s really right (because as you said the media is good at seeding doubt). It might be their susceptibility to people who were really good at scare tactics. It could be a gut feeling that they’re choosing to trust. Who knows? But to just make a blanket statement saying it’s all hubris that drives anti vaxers (like the doctor did) is not beneficial. It’s certainly not going to help the debate. All it does is make one side hate the other side a little bit more. I believe it’s written to stir things up more than to fix a problem.

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            Well they should certainly be distrustful of what the media tells them about science. Not what their doctor tells them.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Sure. And we shouldn’t believe gossip. We shouldn’t believe everything our teachers taught us. We probably shouldn’t always believe what we think we saw. We shouldn’t even believe what’s written on Wikipedia, at least without double checking the facts somewhere else. But most people (even smart people) do end up believing things they shouldn’t. That doesn’t mean they have ego issues.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            The ego issue is when they can’t admit they are wrong and can’t learn from others expertise. Someone that is afraid of vaccinating and seeks expert advice to learn more about it is one thing. Someone reading scare tactics on the internet and then combatting every attempt to dispel that misinformation and being afraid to “lose face” because some tightly held beliefs might be wrong. That’s ego.

          • truffle19
            at #

            Absolutely. If they’re being stubborn just so they don’t lose face it’s absolutely about ego.

    • Eric Mathiasen
      at #

      It’s not a conscious attitude – they’re not going to say, “I’m doing this because I want to feel the privilege of doing this,” or “I get off on defying authority.”

      But what is the psychological mechanism that causes them to reject established science in favor of bad science? It’s the same as the psychological mechanism that causes any wilfully ignorant person to be wilfully ignorant, and privilege and defiance of authority are the two key features of that.

      When I was in high school I used to tutor kids in math. Most kids accepted what I taught about math and, by extension, logic, but occasionally I would get kids who flat refused to believe the math I taught. One who particularly sticks out in my mind was a neighbor boy who insisted that 2×2 did not equal 4. He didn’t say, “I’m rejecting your authority,” or “I’m rejecting your claim because I have the privilege to do so.” But he was in a broken home with an emotionally unstable mother and her unstable boyfriend and I knew better than he did that he was only doing this because it was one small area he could exert control in his life. Most anti-vaxxers don’t have such specific things they are reacting to, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the sea change in society and the economy over the past 30+ years has left many people feeling, even if just subconsciously, that they are no longer in control of their destiny. And they would be right, individuals rarely have as much control over their destiny as they’d like to believe, but contemporary society makes that, at times, far more clear than at other times in history. A subconscious effort by parents to be able to make a decision that puts them at odds with the establishment and, as a side benefit, allows them the self-deception that they are improving the chances for their child is a psychological win-win for anyone who doesn’t have a rigid background in logic and scientific method.

      The biggest difference between anti-vaxxers and my defiant student is that he ended up homeless for a big chunk of his young adulthood and they rarely suffer any real consequence thanks to a still-mostly-intact herd immunity.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        at #

        Exactly!!

      • arcade2
        at #

        You know what’s bad science? Skewing and distorting efficacy findings and/or covering up data.

        • Nick Sanders
          at #

          So, who did that?

        • Jason Roder
          at #

          You mean like Andrew Wakefield?

      • truffle19
        at #

        “… and I knew better than he did that he was only doing this because it was one small area he could exert control in his life.” How did you know this?

  40. Samantha06
    at #

    Now when I get on the site, it’s not in disqus, it’s in wordpress. I am actually posting this comment through my disqus account. I’m not that savvy with websites and so forth; do I need to create an account with wordpress?

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      No, you shouldn’t have to do so. What does you mean that is in WordPress. The site itself has always been in WordPress. The comments are a separate part.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        The entire format of the comment area looks different. Each comment has a “log in to reply” message and when I click on that, it goes to the wordpress log in screen, not disqus. So I went to my actual disqus account to post.

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          at #

          Ugh!

          Anyone know a good webmaster I could hire?

        • at #

          yes, it seems they changed something in the last 24 hours.

        • Who?
          at #

          I had that too-glad to see it back to normal!

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes, it looks like it is! Although I am noticing one thing, when I hit “view comment” it went back into disqus instead of going directly to your comment on the post… I guess it’s still working out some little glitches!

  41. Amy Tuteur, MD
    at #

    So sorry that the website has been having serious problems all day. I got on a plane and got off and found it down. I’ve spent hours on the phone with my webhost and hopefully the problem is fixed!

  42. Elizabeth
    at #

    You left out selfishness. Anti vaccine parents don’t care that their choices may cause other kids who are too young or too immune-compromised to get sick or even die. How any one person ever thinks they are so much more valuable than everyone else on earth is a mystery to me, but certainly applies to all who refuse to vaccinate.

  43. TraciB
    at #

    You could say the same about parents who choose risky home births (such as the woman who was determined to have a home birth of her breech baby, despite the fact that it is prohibited in her home state of NY). It’s all about them, not their child.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Yes, exactly!

  44. Anthony Clifton
    at #

    I think that this article misses the mark. The reason for the anti-vaccination movement is that our government has been so corrupt and incompetent that more and more people reasonably don’t trust it.

    We are asked to trust the same organization that has given us the DMV, the US Post Office and Lois Lerner combined with big drug companies to inject chemicals into children. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?!

    I am all for 100% vaccination. But, demonizing people for not trusting groups that have proven to be untrustworthy is not the right solution. We need to recognize that big government has failed us and misguided movements like this are a consequence. Our media doesn’t hold government accountable. We have to.

    • The Bofa on the Sofa
      at #

      the US Post Office

      What’s wrong with the Post Office?

      The US Postal service is AMAZING! It costs 45 cents to send a letter ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY!!!!!! And it gets there. And it has been self-sufficient (until congress tried to kill it by requiring massive funding of pensions far into the future, which is something that no private company has to do)

      Try sending something to a remote place by FedEx or UPS. It costs more than 10 times as much.

      And the DMV gets a bad rap, but seriously, what is the real issue? That it is busy? That it needs to be open more? And shoot, now that the bulk of the DMV services have moved to on-line, what is the problem?

      Finally, what do either of these have to do with vaccines? How do you go from “I had to wait in line all day at the DMV” to “the CDC vaccination schedule is wrong”?

      • gia manry
        at #

        Actually, I’ll second the USPS part of this, they rock. But Bofa, Anthony’s comment is spot on, because people absolutely do associate things like the post office and the DMV with every single thing the government does, because they are things the government is responsible for– sort of like, “If the government can’t even get _________ right, why would I trust them with my child’s life?”

        Which is absolutely a mindset that exists.

        • The Bofa on the Sofa
          at #

          Which is absolutely a mindset that exists.

          Oh for sure, but it is an illustration of why that mindset is so stupid. It makes no sense at all.

          “If the DMV can’t be open longer hours or hire more people, then why should I trust the people who set the vaccination schedule?” How does that even follow?

        • Young CC Prof
          at #

          What was that line? Tell the government to get its hands off my Medicare?

      • Samantha06
        at #

        I love the USPS.. when I lived in US, I had an issue with my mail being delivered to an address that was very similar to mine. I went down to the local office and they were gracious, responsive and fixed the problem. Now, since I’ve lived in Canada, it’s been a different story. Friends send me cards that I don’t receive, many are actually OPENED, and, one time, I got only the envelope, with no card! Never had those problems in the US..

    • gia manry
      at #

      I think this comment and the article both have important contributions to make. Anthony’s response gets to the heart of the reasons that people THINK they decide not to vaccinate; the original article gets at some of the emotional appeals of those reasons. In other words, a two-prong approach is needed: one that thoroughly explains the science/logic behind vaccinations, but whose tone helps counter those emotional appeals.

    • Somewhereinthemiddle
      at #

      You are kidding right? The post office, while imperfect functions really, really well and will mail your stuff for quite a reasonable price. They’ve never lost anything of mine and I use it at least once a week. And the DMV? Well, no lie, the lines suck but they do a decently good job at keeping us licensed/ relatively safe to drive. I don’t see the problem.

      • neeneko
        at #

        I am always perplexed by people bashing the post office. Granted in poor urban areas they tend to be understaffed relative to the population, but as a general institution they do a fantastic job for what they are tasked with doing.

      • Who?
        at #

        Do they still come and collect the mail you want to send if you put the little flag up? That is so great…

    • ActualModerateConservative
      at #

      Talk about missing the mark.

      While I don’t disagree that people trust the government much less – in AMERICA – than they used to, the American people have provided their signature incoherent response to the issue. Vaccination was not created by the government.

      People trust the government much less IN AMERICA because there is a coalition that has grown up around the concept of keeping the American public in the iron grip of fear, and government is the ideal target for that coalition.

      You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. I don’t think I need to explain to you the key leaders and benefactors of that coalition. It has been a fact of American life. The result is that the occasional nutbar group – anti-vaccination, the contrails folks, anti-GMO idiots, paramilitary lunatics, and other goofball conspiracy groups – are now able to gain some traction as a result of the generalized sense of fear held by many Americans.

      I am no conspiracy theorist. All that stuff is nonsense. I am a capitalist through and through (a near 1%-er, if you will), with a lot of equity in the system. However, what is true is that there are both political forces and commercial forces whose interest is served by creating an atmosphere of fear in the country. Why on earth would they not serve their own interest?

      • yugaya
        at #

        I don’t get the whole government argument really – vaccination extends over all types of societies and cultures on this planet, so either it is the case of a civilisational accomplishment embraced by all based on its proven merits or you have to go down the global conspiracy route. And once you go down the global conspiracy route how good or bad or trustworthy your own government is becomes insignificant.

        • Wren
          at #

          Honestly, I have pretty much only heard the government stuff from Americans. They seem to be the only ones that don’t realise there is a whole rest of the world out there.

          • Wren
            at #

            I should point out for anyone who doesn’t know, I am an American.

          • yugaya
            at #

            I should probably point out how I hold such trust in a government as a concept that I successfully took part in a revolution once. 😀

    • Walrus Alt
      at #

      As an anarchist, I would never trust any government. But I don’t let that get in the way of being scientifically literate and doing what’s right. Thus, I am not anti-vax.

    • BBrown
      at #

      Well said, and there is more to the story. People also refuse vaccinations because it IS about science, for some. Not only are they concerned about the toxic content, it relates to what Anthony is saying; that somehow the immunologists are missing the mark on its effectiveness, and/or age old vaccines that are presenting as no longer effective. So, until the folks who are EXPERTS, consider ecological change and human population growth, people do not have confidence in the government to accurately create effective new vaccines for first timers, nor do they feel the experts are on top of what the adults longevity is in terms of said effectiveness over time for those who were vaccinated. I feel there may be a need for a booster in adults for measles. For the flu, well, with a 20% effective protection, I pass, since I can provide myself with that level of immunity, + some.

      • Barb
        at #

        Oh, and by the way, whoever said that the government does not create the vaccines? Not sure where you are at, but here in Canada, it is a government agency that provides immunization FREE, and they are responsible for monitoring it nationally, which has been a failure. Flu is 1% of deaths, now, we are experiencing a measles outbreak, and meningitis which has had fatal results. Why? it has nothing to do with people NOT vaccinating, its about not having the right vaccine for the current need, wrong strain used in making the vaccine or targeting the wrong strain, in comparison to what has emerged as an outbreak (different strain). And for adults with measles? I am thinking boosters need to be looked at. Somehow, it relates to environment/population changes in relation to vaccinations over 20+ yrs old.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          So we need better vaccinations and until they’re better, you are going to keep arguing against vaccinating? Seriously? Aren’t you just clutching at straws here?

        • Young CC Prof
          at #

          The vast majority of people catching measles the past few years have been unvaccinated children and young adults. If the older generation’s vaccines had worn off, they’d be getting sick, too.

          The Canadian government pays for vaccines for the people, and pays the workers to administer them, and decides which vaccines to buy. It does not invent or manufacture them.

          Yes, the flu vaccine is not as effective as other vaccines, and this year’s flu vaccine was particularly ineffective. Last year, it was at least 50% effective. Still, it’s free, it’s easy, it might help. I don’t hear the down side. Do you stop listening to the weather forecast just because the weather man isn’t always 100% right?

        • canucklehead
          at #

          Wow. I haven’t read a single post that contains so much incorrect information in a very long time.

          As someone else stated, the measles outbreaks have been due to non-vaccinated children, NOT an ineffective measles vaccine.

          Also, as a Canadian, I think you’re completely misinformed about where vaccines come from. Canada has more affordable vaccines as the government places huge orders to protect the citizens of this country… purchased from pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccines. The government DOES NOT create the vaccines.

          As for measles strains, yes they exist. But it’s not like the flu where you get new strains annually. Measles have an extremely low rate of mutation and creating vaccines to fight measles is relatively easy.

          Barb, just where do you get your information from? If it’s from the Internet, I suggest perhaps you seek advice from the people who actually know. Going to the internet is akin to taking a poll of the general population for medical advice. It’s not a smart thing to do.

        • SuperGDZ
          at #

          Is this a variant of the different measles genotypes bullshit? All measles genotypes have the same serotype. That means that the measles vaccine is effective against all of them.

      • canucklehead
        at #

        Except, if someone don’t understand the science behind vaccinations, then choosing to not vaccinate his/her children is a decision based on fear and ignorance. The idea that some would look at the efficacy of the flu vaccine as a reason to not vaccinate a child against measles demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding. Flu and cold viruses are constantly mutating (changing) and thus have been extremely difficult to vaccinate against. You never get the same flu/cold twice because once you’re immune, you’re immune. Measles, on the other hand, has an extremely low rate of mutation and thus the vaccine against measles is very effective.

        As for distrust of government, doctors are not dictated to by the government. Doctors base their recommendations on the science that is obtained by research, not on what the government tells them. Fact is, the government itself is often ignorant of the science itself. What reputable doctor in his/her right mind would completely destroy his/her reputation by providing medical advice based on information provided to them by the government rather than science?

        The government doesn’t create vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies do. Should you distrust pharmaceutical companies? Possibly. They’ve often proven themselves to be untrustworthy. However, vaccines such as that for measles, chicken pox, etc. have been around for decades and have been proven extremely effective with extremely low incidents of harmful side effects (1 in millions).

        Anyone who chooses to disregard these facts in favour of their own incomplete knowledge is either very arrogant or very paranoid.

    • SuperGDZ
      at #

      You believe that all the governments, all the drug companies, and all the medical professionals in the WORLD are in on a vast conspiracy to poison your children?

  45. Sheree Zielke
    at #

    Can you say, “Thalidomide?” Too bad for those babies, huh? ‘Cause it was a “safe” wonder drug prescribed by “authorities” in the know. I bet those babies wished their mothers would have balked against the popular belief that this medicine was a perfect solution. With no side effects. Wake up, sheeples! You are being fed a bill of goods by the authorities who want to make a buck. Check out the effectiveness of the modern flu “vaccines.” Parents have every right to be suspicious and then to resist the bellowing of the many who repeat like parrots what they have heard is the right thing to do. Cigarettes were also once lauded as a good thing for our health. Lemmings off a cliff…and more money into the pockets of the drug giants.

    • Wren
      at #

      Yes, the MMR that has been used for how many children now is exactly comparable to thalidomide.
      Comparing all drugs to thalidomide (and assuming no lessons have been learned) is like comparing all natural substances to arsenic.

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      I sure can say “Thalidomide”, the drug that the FDA refused to ever approve here in the United States. Thanks Dr. Frances Kelsey!

      • Young CC Prof
        at #

        They always cite thalidomide. They never believe it’s an own goal.

        The FDA in the United States never approved Thalidomide for pregnant women, because the company had not provided safety studies on pregnant animals. (It has since been approved for certain other uses in non-pregnant people.)

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      “Lemmings off a cliff…”

      Sheesh are you gullible! Do you really believe lemmings actually run off cliffs? It’s a total myth! Can’t you think for yourself insread of accepting Disney hook line and sinker?

      http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56

    • The Bofa on the Sofa
      at #

      Can you say, “Thalidomide?” Too bad for those babies, huh? ‘Cause it was a “safe” wonder drug prescribed by “authorities” in the know.

      Quick quiz: what authorities approved thalidomide?

      Cigarettes were also once lauded as a good thing for our health.

      By actors wearing white coats in TV commercials.

      Check out the effectiveness of the modern flu “vaccines.”

      When the strains match, they are very effective. When the strains don’t match, they aren’t as effective, but are still effective. And since there is very little downside, it’s still a complete win.

    • SporkParade
      at #

      Thalidomide – the Godwin’s Law of any discussion about medicine.

      And just because it bears saying, you realize that the FDA has an entire division dedicated to following drugs already on the market in order to look for side effects that are too rare to be measured during safety testing? And that they are quite willing to add new warnings to the packaging or even pull the drug off the market entirely if the situation warrants it (as happened with Vioxx and PhenFen)? But, you know, damn the authorities!

    • Guesty
      at #

      Thalidomide was available from 1957 to 1961, when after a few thousand doses it was determined to be causing hideous birth defects in babies whose pregnant mothers had taken it. Vaccines have been administered in the billions of doses for more than sixty years with an astonishing track record of safety and efficacy. Thalidomide is relevant to this discussion like the failure rate of wooden wagon axels is relevant to a conversation on transportation safety.

      • “Thalidomide is relevant to this discussion like the failure rate of wooden wagon axels is relevant to a conversation on transportation safety.”

        I love this.

    • Amazed
      at #

      I can even say Claritin, the drug that local doctors said could not cause drowsiness when it first appeared here. I was one of the first patients in my city to complain of this side effect. Or I might have been the very first one, I don’t know. I cannot say doctors took me all that seriously. They didn’t. But a few years later, drowsiness was officially listed as a possible side effect. Good enough for me, although my ego didn’t appreciate being told that it came with a package of overly active imagination.

      • fiftyfifty1
        at #

        Interesting. I learned right from the start that it could cause drowsiness, just that the rate of drowsiness was orders of magnitude lower than with the first generation antihistamines. Were you in the US?

        • Amazed
          at #

          Eastern Europe. Years behind any first world country. And while we were struggling to find out which doses of medicines for my allergy I could safely take (my driving instructor was the first one who realized something was wrong, BTW, and he told me that I should stop doing “it”, be it taking drugs or drugs (like in, drug addict) because no licensing body in their right mind would give me a driving license since my instincts were too slow), there were occasions where I struggled to stay awake in the university. Drug-induced drowsiness and a boring professor were NOT a good combination.

        • Kirsten Houseknecht
          at #

          claritin was marketed here in philadelphia as “non drowsy” and “will not cuase drowsiness like other anti histamines”

          that said? it was a new medicine. unlike the MMR vaccine which was established, and gone up against by the prfiteering bastrd who wanted to sell his “new/safer” vaccine.

    • Corey Firepony
      at #

      Thalidomide was the 50’s and 60’s. Medicine has advanced a long way since then. By the way, Thalidomide is still used in certain medical treatments, because science discovered that while terrible for developing babies, it still had many other important and practical medical uses. Dosage is also a factor.
      So…bollocks on you for not doing your research.

      I was going to respond more, but I’ve determined this to be more bollocks than I care to deal with for one day.

      • sdsures
        at #

        Thalidomide is still used in treatment of leprosy. See my response above.

        • Corey Firepony
          at #

          Also, it’s used in the treatment of meylomas as well.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Neat! How successful is it?

    • Corey Firepony
      at #

      http://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/ToolsTemplates/EntertainmentEd/Tips/Thalidomide.html

      Here are those “authorities” openly admitting the risks of thalidomide, and explaining it’s uses, who should and should not take it. Just like responsible authorities should, not to make a buck as you say, but because that’s responsible medicine.

    • YEAH! I mean look at all the people in America with Smallpox and Polio!

      Oh wait…

    • LibrarianSarah
      at #

      Yeah Thalidomide had awful side effects. It’s a good thing that the FDA refused to approve Thalidomide for marketing and distribution. Bet you didn’t know that did you? It wasn’t until 2006 that the FDA approved Thalidomide as a treatment for multiple myeloma which is a deadly and invasive form of blood cancer. Nowadays a person with muliple myeloma can live 5 years. When my grandfather got it they gave him 1 year to live. He made it four. Thalidomide could have given me 1 more year with him. Not such an “evil drug” is it now?

      You are not as smart as you think you are Sheree.

      • sdsures
        at #

        This is sad. A new generation of thalidomide babies in Brazil, as a result of the scientifically legitimate use of the drug to alleviate some of the symptoms of leprosy. If the patients are female and have children, there’s the problem. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23418102

        • canucklehead
          at #

          Do you understand the chemistry behind the effects of Thalidomide? Look up isomer.

          In theory, Thalidomide can have beneficial applications if the harmful isomer can be eliminated.

          As for what’s happened in Brazil, it is definitely a good example of the damage that ignorance can cause.

          • sdsures
            at #

            I looked it up, but since I don’t have any background in chemistry, it’s very hard for me to understand. Please explain a bit more. For instance, how is the harmful isomer removed? Does thalidomide harm male patients (i.e. who can’t have babies)?

          • canucklehead
            at #

            A chemical can have what are called isomers. Imagine your mirror image in three dimensions. That’s what isomers are from a molecular standpoint. Identical in composition but exact mirror images. With Thalidomide, it turned out that one isomer (s-isomer) was the one causing the developmental defects while the other isomer (r-isomer) had the benefits with no side-effects. Very interesting actually but something that scientists had not considered when Thalidomide was first produced as a sedative to help with morning sickness.

            To understand how it can be that the body reacts to one isomer negatively and not the other has to do with how chemicals interact with your body. Best way to describe it is, your body has a set of locks that can be unlocked with keys. All the locks are identical but they keys have their notched half in one direction and half in the other. Only the “right” key can fit the lock. Using this analogy, one isomer of thalidomide “unlocked” the production of physical deformities and the other did not.

            In theory, if the r-thalidomide could be produced and used, then you get the benefits without the physical defects. Problem it seems is, once in the body, the r-thalidomide can convert to the s-thalidomide and thus cause the problems that particular isomer produces.

            As for Brazil, it’s simple stupidity and ignorance to place such risks on fetuses, knowing what we know about Thalidomide. Still, there are potential benefits to the drug if the r-thalidomide can be somehow stabilized and isolated.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Thanks for the info! 🙂

          • canucklehead
            at #

            Hope that made sense. 🙂

          • sdsures
            at #

            Yep!

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            You’re confusing terms. What you are talking about are enantiomers, isomers is a much broader term. I don’t know about Thalidomide specifically, but there are a lot of medicines that have that problem. One enantiomer is medically useful, while the other is inert or even toxic. Unfortunately, separating them is often extremely difficult because their chemistry is very nearly identical.

          • canucklehead
            at #

            It’s been a while since university chemistry class so I wasn’t precise enough. I should have said stereoisomers rather than simply isomers. But a correction for you… an enantomer is one of the two stereoisomers. 🙂

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Well played…

            I believe the laws of the internet now require us to declare a blood feud and hound each other bitterly until the end of time. I wish it didn’t have to be this way, but it’s out of my hands.

          • canucklehead
            at #

            Well, can I just concede and accept defeat? You deserve the win just for that response. I bow to you sir.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            In theory, Thalidomide can have beneficial applications if the harmful isomer can be eliminated.

            But the problem with thalidomide is that it racemizes in the body, so you even if you start optically pure, that bad stereoisomer still shows up.

          • canucklehead
            at #

            True, which is why I said “in theory”. I do wonder if there are any negative effects when used on men or non-pregnant women. After all, it disrupts the normal developmental process in fetuses so eliminating factor, does the drug have potential? It does appear to have cancer fighting properties.

    • HipsLikeCinderella
      at #

      The only parrot here is you and people like you who like to be part of the “uber cool counterculture against us sheeples”. Cause ya know the majority is always wrong and should be looked at suspiciously.

      • Honestly, I try to take everyone’s opinions into account but if someone uses the term ‘sheeple’ seriously, then it’s pretty obvious that they’re not gonna even consider any other arguments and I tune them out. Well occasionally I mock them but I do feel a little bad about doing that.

        • Young CC Prof
          at #

          http://xkcd.com/1013/

          Remember, never wake the sheeple!

          • HOLY CRAP THAT WAS HILARIOUS!

            You win all the LOL’s today!

        • sdsures
          at #

          I only respect people’s opinions when they can back them up with science.

          • Take them into account, yes. Accept them as truth without verified data, no.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Are you really going to take into account someone’s opinion that there is a giant white rabbit in the corner of the room?

          • Yes. If they can validate the statement with empirical evidence.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Like anti-vaxxers, Elwood P. Dowd couldn’t quite manage that.

          • You know I actually had to look up Elwood P Dowd. I came up with the handle from a comic I drew in high school about an insane asylum patient tortured by a giant invisible anthropomorphic rabbit.

          • sdsures
            at #

            Be vewwy quiet…I’m hunting wabbits… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsvYCid26Vk

          • ENK
            at #

            Richard Dawkins sums it up nicely: “When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong.”

    • canucklehead
      at #

      Really? You use Thalidomide as an example of why you shouldn’t vaccinate children from measles and chicken pox? Thalidomide was a drug. Our discussion is about vaccines. Let’s get that straight up front.

      First, yes, Thalidomide was a disaster. It was a failure in the understanding of how different isomers of the same molecule can have drastically catastrophic effects. The consequences of using Thalidomide were discovered within a couple of years once bables were born with genetic defects from mothers who took the drug. It was not a vaccine.

      Second, you cannot compare the flu vaccine with the measles vaccine. Why? If you don’t know the answer to this question, then you have no idea what you’re talking about. If you do know the answer, then you would never have used that as a supporting argument.

      Third, the measles (and similar vaccines) have been around since the early ’60s. It has proven effectiveness in protecting children from a disease that not only causes a lot of discomfort but can result in permanent debilitation and possibly death (at a rate significantly higher than any complications from vaccinations).

      Your understanding of the actual science appears either incomplete or altogether wrong. You seem to have gathered your information from the Internet and like to compare apples with electricity, making associations between things that are not at all similar.

      I fear for your children and for those who are exposed to your children.

    • Sullivan ThePoop
      at #

      Thalidomide was never approved in the US. Also, no one knew anything about the chirality of molecules before thalidomide. Knowledge marches on.

      • Dr Kitty
        at #

        Thalidomide is a very useful, effective drug for Leprosy, and Multiple Myeloma and shows promise for Behcet’s syndrome, HIV and various cancers.
        It should not be taken by pregnant women, but that doesn’t mean it is useless.

        Also- drug testing and licensing has moved on somewhat since Thalidomide was introduced in the 1950s and 1960s, and doctors are much warier of giving medication of any kind to pregnant women.

  46. Great article. Thank you Dr Tuteur. Unfortunately there are many people who just won’t trust the science or who give in to the hype.

  47. Jhana
    at #

    Excellent.

  48. Who?
    at #

    A sweet story of how a family ‘fell’ into not vaxxing, and how they changed their minds.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/02/i-didn-t-vaccinate-my-child-and-i-regret-it.html

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      And a not so sweet story of a family that also changed their minds.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855638

      Tetanus in a 7yo.. Not a risk most people want to take. Why people fear the rare adverse reactions over things like tetanus I’ve no idea.

      • Young CC Prof
        at #

        Because they don’t really get what tetanus is all about, or because they think it doesn’t happen anymore.

        Truth is, it is very rare nowadays, but ONLY due to vaccination. The bacteria lives naturally in soil and usually does not spread from person to person, so you can’t rely on herd immunity for tetanus. That’s why if you are injured and go to a doctor for stitches, you’ll be offered a tetanus booster as well.

      • Kirsten Houseknecht
        at #

        because so called “experts” insist that its ONLY found where there were horses… and you dont see any horses around where you live ? do you?
        never mind that 1. thats not true and 2 there dmn sure were horses in any area people lived previously.

      • canucklehead
        at #

        Wow. The Internet sure makes people ignorant. The arguments for both sides can be found on the Internet. That doesn’t make the arguments for the two sides equivalent.

        Just because you can find tons of stories of people being hit by lightning doesn’t mean people are being hit by lightning left, right, and center. It’s still a rare occurrence.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          Which is why we send our kids outside to stand under trees and climb flag poles during electrical storms…

          • canucklehead
            at #

            Actually, assuming you mean to follow my analogy, vaccination = taking action to avoid being struck = avoiding trees and flagpoles. What you describe is akin to not vaccinating your kids – that despite all the evidence and expert advice, you do exactly the opposite and let your kids play on flagpoles during a lightning storm.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Yep you got me. I was kidding.

          • canucklehead
            at #

            I have to apologize. Totally misread what you were originally saying. My bad. #totalfail. Sigh

  49. Mijnvoornaam Mijnachternaam
    at #

    “It’s not hard to argue that unflective acceptance of authority, whether that authority is the government or industry, is a bad thing. {…} Unreflective defiance is really no different from unreflective acceptance.”

    That is a very astute point indeed. It makes me wonder whether Stanley Milgram could have devised an experiment to support this very idea about the problems and mechanisms of unreflective defiance of authority.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

  50. Ectogwarb
    at #

    All doctors have the best part of a decade of schooling after high-school, specialists even more so, yet these people who think that because they’ve read a few studies that support that vaccines might have some harmful effects believe that they’ve educated themselves thoroughly on the subject. They ignore hundreds of studies and thousands of doctors that say that vaccinations are safe and beneficial and pick out the one or two that tell them what they want to hear. Worse, most of them haven’t even read the study, they’ve read a short article written by someone who read the study and then published an opinion piece designed to get people to buy the magazine or click on the link to get to the article, and “anti-vaccination” sentiment sells.

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      If they had read the studies, they might learn something. They read wildly distorted or fabricated summaries on their pet web sites.

      • yugaya
        at #

        They do not even bother to read the text carefully. B1/B2 level students of English as foreign language have to exhibit better reading comprehension when tested.

        • Young CC Prof
          at #

          That’s something I’ve noticed about the extremist antivaxxers: They seriously can’t read. That article about the pediatrician whose baby and toddler with cancer were exposed to measles in a clinic? The antivaxxer comments had the basic facts of the story wrong. Not just the biology, but the sequence of events. Comments like, “How does he know how they were exposed? They could have been exposed anywhere!”

    • Bernard Dijkstra
      at #

      Hundreds of studies? Alright then start with this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9481001

      Acute encephalopathy followed by permanent brain injury or death associated with further attenuated measles vaccines: a review of claims submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

      • yugaya
        at #

        75 000 000 doses administered over twenty three years and eight children died.

        “In developed countries, death occurs in 1 to 2 cases of measles out of every 1,000.”

        Which of these killers should we as parents be more interested in keeping away from our children?

      • Young CC Prof
        at #

        OK, the authors found 48 cases over 23 years. The vaccine was given to somewhere on the order of 75 million children in the USA over that time period. That fits with the known and documented one-in-a-million incidence of severe side effects.

        Also note, the auto death rate in the USA is one death per million vehicle miles. So, getting vaccinated is less dangerous than driving 1 mile to the clinic and 1 mile home again.

        • Bernard Dijkstra
          at #

          Over 23 years nobody, included the unvaccinated, died of the disease. In contrast, 23 deaths have been observed linked to the vaccine.

          Therefore, for a given individual vaccinating poses a higher risk than foregoing the vaccine.

          • yugaya
            at #

            Nice logic. How many would have died over those same 23 years if there was no vaccine?

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            How many? You tell me! Nobody was already dying when the vaccine was introduced. What caused the decline previous to the vaccine, Einstein? the prospect of a vaccine? ha ha ha!

            https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1136/1*1AQcxVe_IjKqZWpM9yhRvw.png

          • yugaya
            at #

            “Nobody was already dying when the vaccine was introduced.”

            OMG NOBODY!

            “Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually. Following licensure of vaccine in 1963, the incidence of measles decreased by more than 98%, and 2–3-year epidemic cycles no longer occurred.”

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            “…Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually..:”

            That’s B.S because in the decade prior to 1963 the deaths per 100K were far below 1.

            http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1OY0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=07UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2352,6193167&dq=measles+mortality+rates+decline&hl=en

            http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oP4wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7uMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1352,5474358&dq=measles+mortality+rates+decline&hl=en

            The drop in mortality was ALREADY a strong trend prior to the vaccine, so this medical treatment is superfluous to explain the trend. The correlation DOES NOT MEAN causation.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Drop in mortality, yes. Increase access to medical care, improve nutrition, provide antibiotics, and deaths from almost all contagious diseases drop. There were still roughly 500 deaths per year from measles in the early 1960s. I would direct you to the CDC website, but you wouldn’t believe it.

            Ebola is 50-75% less fatal among people who get the best medical care available, compared to no care. Want Ebola?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Ebola is 50-75% less fatal among people who get the best medical care available, compared to no care. Want Ebola?

            And this, too. The whole “it’s not deadly” is a complete red-herring. Things don’t have to kill you to be completely unwanted and avoided if at all possible.

          • Amazed
            at #

            I guess he’s a fine specimen of the oh so educated anti-vaxxers our new addition HCMedhi was gushing about.

          • yugaya
            at #

            Also the hypocrisy of: initiating the topic of documented vaccine related deaths while, at the same time, actively discarding 500 to 4000 dead people annually prior to vaccines as nobodies.

            Yes, mortality dropped due to overall improvements but it was never zero, which is both what that nice little suggestively put graph of his and he himself are saying here,

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I saw all this garbage on a link on the infamous “Dr. Wolf’s” website… great source! haha!

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            “..great source! haha!..”

            At least I have a source, what is yours? the one between your legs?

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            That image cites no sources, and is therefore worthless.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            I tried a search for it, but didn’t come up with anything – it looks incredibly convincing, but where do the numbers come from? And why is it looking at measles mortality, not incidences and not other issues like brain damage/hearing loss etc? We’ve gotten a lot better at medical care for the very sick between 1900 and 1960.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Over those 23 years, 1970-1993, a couple hundred people total died of measles, many of them in the large outbreak of 1989-1990, caused by low vaccination rates.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            Nobody died? 7,000 people around the world died from it in 2013 alone.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25530442

            (Full text, table 2)

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            What 23 people died of the vaccine? The only death I can find linked to the vaccine since 1998 was someone who already had leukemia before being vaccinated.

          • at #

            http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long

            No one died of the disease? That’s because people got the vaccine so they didn’t get the disease. From 1956-1970, ~450 people died per year of measles in the US, a death rate of ~1/1000. Even if you were correct that 1 person died per year from the measles vaccine, and I’m not saying that you are right, that’s still a whole lot better than 450 people dying per year of measles and 4000 cases of encephalitis per year.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            Correlation is not causation. Mortality had been steadily dropping since 1900. What factors were causing the drop? This implies the further post-vaccine drops in mortality are, by default, attributable to the same factors that were already working prior to the vaccine. Those who claim it’s not the case must provide extraordinary evidence. There’s not such proof. Full stop.

          • at #

            Um, actually, there is such evidence. The drop in measles cases after the introduction of the vaccine is such evidence. The reintroduction of measles as vaccination rates drop is more such evidence.

            Mortality had been dropping for many diseases since 1900, but the diseases were still being passed around. Do you understand that we went from hundreds of thousands of cases of measles per year to less than 100 cases per year, due solely to the measles vaccine? That is extraordinary evidence right there.

            Also, you misunderstand entirely what requires extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; this quote refers in particular to claims of a creator deity that cares about humanity. The claim that exposing an immune system to weakened or dead versions of a virus will prepare it to combat real exposure is not an extraordinary claim.

        • Bernard Dijkstra
          at #

          “..getting vaccinated is less dangerous than driving..”

          Still more dangerous than being exposed to the disease.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Huh? The chicken pox, for pete’s sake, kills about 1 in 20 000 who get it. That is 50 times higher than the vaccine you mentioned above (and the CP vaccine is even safer than that)

            Considering that most people got the chicken pox before there was a vaccine, that’s a real killer.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            “…, kills about 1 in 20 000 who get it. That is 50 times higher than the vaccine..:”

            The 1:20,000 probability is CONDITIONAL since you must get the illness first. What are the chances of getting chicken pox without a vaccine? 1:100? then the chance of death by chicken pox for the unvaccinated is 1:2,000,000 and HALF that of dying from the vaccine.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            If nobody gets the vaccine, then the majority of people get chicken pox and get measles.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            The probability 1:20,000 applies to those that GET the disease, not to those that SKIP the vaccine. In order to calculate the latter you must multiply by the chances of getting the disease without a vaccine… what is it? 1:100? then your chances of dying are HALVED compared to the vaccine.

            Ignorance of probabilities is endemic in the vax-pusher community.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            The probability 1:20,000 applies to those that GET the disease, not to those that SKIP the vaccine.

            But like I said, before the vaccine, pretty much everyone got the chicken pox. Probably 90% of the population would get it.

            The only way the number of deaths matches is if the chance of getting the chicken pox not vaccinated is 50 times lower than the vaccination rate. Which it isn’t.

            I brought the chicken pox up on purpose, because it is something we’ve experienced. Before the vaccination, almost everyone got it. There would be whole classrooms of school kids who would be out at the same time with it. Hell, parents were exposing their kids to those who had it so that they could get it at a convenient time or to get it over with! Because pretty much everyone got it at one time or another.

            And when they did, 1/20000 died.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            “…But like I said, before the vaccine, pretty much everyone got the chicken pox…:”

            The case definition was restricted after introduction of the vaccine as follows:

            A) Before the vaccine: An acute illness with diffuse (generalized) maculo-papulovesicular rash.

            B) After the vaccine: same as (A) + Laboratory confirmation.

            By definition B <= A. Always! This re-definition accounts for the "drop" on its own, whether there's a vaccine or not, whether it is effective or not.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            You are claiming that kids are still getting the chicken pox? You are a moron.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            Here, find out who the moron really is: http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/varicella_report_2010_euvacnet.pdf

            2010, chicken pox in Europe: 592,681 cases and ZERO deaths.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            Here, find out who the real moron is: http://goo.gl/eL2SIe Year 2010: 592,681 chicken pox cases in Eurpe and zero deaths.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            That article did not say there were zero deaths. It didn’t count deaths at all. This paper says that 25 people die from chicken pox each year in the UK. http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7321/1091.abstract

          • yugaya
            at #

            That paper also states that only five countries provided information on complications.

            Five countries = All of Europe
            Five hundred people = Nobody

            I’m starting to see the pattern there but the head hurts from trying to follow the logic behind it. 🙂

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            Your paper is 20 years old, it looked at three years from 1995 to 1997.

            In contrast, my stats are from 2010. There’s a section under “Complications”. Is death a complication for you? well, no such complication was reported, therefore your assumption that deaths continue to occur has no factual base.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            Your paper is 20 years old, it looked at years 1995-1997. In contrast, my stats are from 2010.

            The report includes a “Complications” section. Is death a complication for you? then it should be reported there. No reference to deaths means your claim that people continue to die from chicken pox has no factual base.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            You are seriously advancing the claim that since one article about chicken pox doesn’t discuss deaths, no deaths occur.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2588446/Harmless-No-chickenpox-killed-one-boys-left-stricken-years.html

            There. Proof that deaths are still occurring.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            That paper is 20 years old, it looked at years 1995-1997. In contrast, the stats I cited are from 2010.

            The report includes a “Complications” section. Is death a complication for you? then it should be reported there. No reference to deaths means your claim that people continue to die from chicken pox has no factual base.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            That paper is 20 years old, it looked at years 1995 to 1997. In contrast, the stats I cited are from 2010.

            The report includes a “Complications” section. Is death a complication for you? then it should be reported there. No reference to deaths means your claim that people continue to die from chicken pox has no factual base.

          • yugaya
            at #

            “That paper is 20 years old”

            So is the one that you pulled about vaccine related deaths and injuries – if you are going to try to discredit this reply based on that, then you have also successfully managed to discredit your initial post.

            Just sayin’.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            It didn’t elaborate at all on what the complications were. It very well could have included deaths.

          • Bernard Dijkstra
            at #

            “…And when they did, 1/20000 died…”

            How many die today among those with “unconfirmed chicken pox”? nobody even cares to count them?

          • Jason Roder
            at #

            Am you not from Bizzaro World?

      • Samantha06
        at #

        OBVIOUSLY, you have never seen measles up close and personal, like I have and many of my generation. The vaccine became available after I had it, otherwise my parents would have rushed me to the pediatrician rather than watch me suffer. A brain MRI I had in my 30s showed lesions consistent with residual encephalitis, so go to hell.

        • Bernard Dijkstra
          at #

          I had the measles myself, stupid. Want more personal than that?
          OBVIOUSLY you haven’t seen vaccine injury close and personal.
          I refuse to enter in emotional arguments with c.nts.

        • Bernard Dijkstra
          at #

          I’ve had the measles myself, need more personal that that? OBVIOUSLY, you have never seen vaccine injury up close and personal.
          I refuse to enter an emotional argumentation with an irrational female.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I see you edited your lovely response.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            And just so everyone can see your original response:

            Bernard Dijkstra replied to you on What everyone gets wrong about anti-vaccine parents 28 minutes ago
            Samantha06 33 minutes agoOBVIOUSLY, you have never seen measles up close and personal, like I have and many of my generation. The vaccine became available after I had it, otherwise my parents would have rushed me to the pediatrician rather than watch me suffer. A brain MRI I had in my 30s showed lesions consistent with residual encephalitis, so go to hell.
            Bernard Dijkstra 28 minutes ago
            I had the measles myself, stupid. Want more personal than that?
            OBVIOUSLY you haven’t seen vaccine injury close and personal.
            I refuse to enter in emotional arguments with c.nts.

          • S
            at #

            It is obviously super relevant to him that you are female.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes! Did you see his follow-up comment? It was even better!

          • Who?
            at #

            Well yes dropping the c-bomb makes him right and everyone else wrong….

            Lovely man.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes, a real peach isn’t he? I can’t find the other comment, maybe it will show up later when disqus quits acting up, or maybe he deleted it. He posted a graph from a link off of Dr Wolf’s site and I said, (very snarkily), “oh that’s from Wolf’s site, what a great source!” And his response was something like, “what is your source, between your legs?”
            Gotta love a misogynist!

          • Who?
            at #

            Do you think he types from rage, and the sexist stuff is his go to insult, or he really thinks, as a woman, you can’t know better than him.

            Oh, actually, who cares? He’s making your point beautifully.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            You know, I wondered the same thing. If you look at his profile and browse through some of his comments on other sites, he seems to be an “equal opportunity” offender when it comes to insults and has a very angry tone. Although he got particularly vicious with me! Maybe a combination of sexist and misogynist?

          • yugaya
            at #

            I saw that too, that’s when I flagged those two comments. Glad to see them gone. This blog tolerates a lot and this is the first time in a year I flagged anything, so congrats to him on such an accomplishment in just a few hours of posting here.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Thank you for doing that! You guys are all so great and supportive! I’m glad I didn’t respond to his crap other than to paste in his original comment. I wasn’t sure if anyone saw it, and I wanted to make sure it was out there. I don’t know how to do a screen shot, or I would have done it that way. Thanks again!

          • Who?
            at #

            It shows up lower down on my screen, I found it when I was looking to see what that other gem had to say after he ‘accused’ me of being Dr T in disguse.

            Very entertaining despite being so predictable.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Oh, I didn’t know he did that! I’ll have to look for that comment.. I’m glad he was called out for his nonsense..

          • Amazed
            at #

            I haven’t seen the comment but it sounds lovely *snark*.

            By the way, glad to see more people taking my nickname for Wolfson! Dr Wolf fits him like a glove, doesn’t it?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Absolutely! I was so blown away when I watched that interview, I was just slack-jawed. Then when I looked on his “natural cardiology” I wanted to vomit.. what is sad is because he is a physician, his word will be taken seriously..

        • sabelmouse
          at #

          you got very unlucky. most didn’t.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I do wonder if there are more out there like me that don’t even know it. I didn’t. I had vague, neurological symptoms, migraines, numbness in my extremities. They thought it was early MS so they did the brain MRI and found the lesions. They weren’t typical MS lesions, just tiny areas. I don’t have any problems now, but I do think, wow, do other adults like me have residual affects they aren’t aware of?

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            My uncle sometimes wonders if his learning disabilities had anything to do with an extremely high fever from measles at age 2. There’s no way to know.

            I do believe that the incidence of serious brain disorders is going down, due to vaccines, newborn screenings, etc. Tough to get good data, though.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            You’re right, there is no way to know. I know I have a few learning disabilities myself and my younger brother has ADHD and we both had measles. But is it from measles encephalitis? One can only speculate.

          • KarenJj
            at #

            I know that chronic inflammation can cause lesions on the brain due to pressure on the brain. Both my daughter and I had MRIs to look for this and didn’t find any, but I know of other patients that have had them.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Should add that this is high levels of chronic inflammation as verified by blood tests (eg CRP, ESR etc) not the sort of “chronic inflammation from eating donuts and chips” that “nutrition science” goes on about.

          • Who?
            at #

            There was an interesting talk the other day about how heartrate, and irregular heartbeat in particular, can cause damage to the smallest blood vessels in the brain, leading to tiny bleeds. Most adults are likely to have some, apparently, and be completely unaware. The thinking is that this could be implicated in at least some Alzheimers.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Interesting! I bet there are so many things like this that are yet to be discovered.

        • sabelmouse
          at #

          i got an email notification about a reply from you but couldn’t get to the page,it’s not on my feed. did you delete or did something go wrong?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Something must have gone wrong.. that’s strange! But disqus has been having issues the last couple of days.. I bet it will show up though..

          • sabelmouse
            at #

            we’ll see.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I think everyone’s been having issue the last couple of days. I know Dr. Amy is working on it!

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Did that reply ever show up? I thought I’d copy and paste it into a new reply and hopefully it will come through.

            I do wonder if there are more out there like me that don’t even know it. I didn’t. I had vague, neurological symptoms, migraines, numbness in my extremities. They thought it was early MS so they did the brain MRI and found the lesions. They weren’t typical MS lesions, just tiny areas. I don’t have any problems now, but I do think, wow, do other adults like me have residual affects they aren’t aware of?

          • sabelmouse
            at #

            never, so thanks.

  51. Catherine Novak
    at #

    We have to confront anti-vax parents where they live — in their egos. When refusing to vaccinate your children is widely viewed as selfish, irresponsible, and the hallmark of being UNeducated, anti-vax advocacy will lose its appeal.

    • SuperGDZ
      at #

      Quite. Anti-vax parents want to look cool and edgy. They don’t want to be social pariahs.

  52. Gill
    at #

    You are one ignorant women. The letters beside your name may say MD but that does not mean you are intelligent. All that tells me is that you can read and memorize what some person teaches you. Such,
    such judgement is spewing from you in this article. BTW judgement comes from the EGO. So you must be full of EGO, just absolutely full of it. You must feel self important enough to write this inaccurate article. Go a head and say we are definant against authority but if you were intelligent you would see that we, and by we I mean society, has been lied to for so long from pharmaceutical companies, governments, and bull-shit study after bull-shit, yes this drug is safe to take, study that how can I trust any of the information they are trying to sell me. Especially when pharmaceutical companies do their own studies. There are too many drugs to count on t.v. nowadays that have been recalled and pulled from the shelf that are discovered unsafe. Yet, 6 months prior this drug was on t.v. advertising how safe and how wonderful it is. And I don’t trust you or many other doctors either, because you are bought and paid for by big pharma. How much more money do you make now that you are injecting 36 vaccines into a child’s body before 6 years is age instead of 7 like when I was young. Again, bought and paid for by big pharma.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      You are the ignorant one…

    • NGH
      at #

      Vaccines save lives. Since childhood I have suffered from deafness — thanks to measles. Scientists dedicated their lives to eradicating childhood diseases. Now — all those diseases — and the suffering of children — are coming back. Thanks to ignorant anti-vaxers.

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      I inject my 6yo daughter every single day (the little trooper does it herself now). I do it (and have done it forcibly when she was little) so that she can live a long and healthy life – better than what I’ve had as I was undiagnosed with this particular issue for so long.

      36 vaccines – and even less needles – over six years – doesn’t even rate on my radar. She does that almost that many in a month.

    • Lars Eighner
      at #

      You are the most repulsive thing on the face of the earth.

    • Phil Beebe
      at #

      One of the biggest problems with your position is that vaccines have been around for almost 500 years (there’s evidence it’s been a thing for over 1,000 years but let’s not quibble) long before big pharma even existed.

      In order for you to be right you must dismiss hundreds of years of research by hundreds of thousands of experts. That fact the “big pharma” is now part of the equation is completely irrelevant.

      BTW, if “big pharma” didn’t do the studies, who else would?

      http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/all

      • Who?
        at #

        Gill will reject hundreds of years of research in the twinkling of an eye.

        Not authoritatively, but he’ll do it.

        • SporkParade
          at #

          Ooh, maybe we should market inoculation as Eastern Medicine since the Chinese practiced smallpox variolation since the 15th C. Oh, but the Sudanese did, too. Black people just don’t have the same cache as Asians when it comes to woo.

          • Andrew Lazarus
            at #

            Possibly linked by trade with the Ottomans on each end, who also had it.

    • Montserrat Blanco
      at #

      So when you have pneumonia you do not take antibiotics because they are developed by Big Pharma. Of course your cancer would not be treated, you would not take an inhaler for asthma, nor an aspirine in case of an infarct, etc, etc. All those things have been developed by Big Pharma. Most of my patients are really happy they can have chemotherapy when they get cancer in order to try to stay alive a little bit longer. Those that do not want chemo (very few) get their morphine and other opioids very happily, again developed by Big Pharma. I certainly wish you never have to use a Big Pharma drug in all your life, and that you do not need someone like me, really, I would happily go jobless because cancer had dissapeared. But the chances are that you happily had your vaccines as a child and that you happily take drugs when you need them and you gamble with someone else’s life… Your children’s. Not really very ethical in my opinion, and much less ethical than Big Pharma, in my opinion. And yes, my son is vaccinated. And no, I am not rich with the Big Pharma payments. I must be really dumb because I live at a rented flat and go to a discount supermarket for grocery shopping.

    • yugaya
      at #

      “BTW judgement comes from the EGO”

      The judgement in this article comes from knowledge and, as a subjective opinion, it is saying exactly the same thing as objective scientific census that is based on relevant scientific knowledge. Antivaxxers are wrong and if you can’t accept that I suggest you start examining your own EGO for reasons why that is so.

    • Wren
      at #

      Just out of curiosity, are doctors worldwide bought and paid for by big pharma? The UK runs a very different health service to the U.S. and I’m sure would be willing to stop vaccinating if it were a) proven vaccines are useless or detrimental and b) cheaper not to do it.

      The big Pharma argument has always confused me anyway. Drug companies make more money off treating illness than preventing it with a single or multiple doses of vaccines. I spent more on treatment for my son’s chicken pox than paying for the vaccine (not on the routine schedule here in the UK) would have cost me, and that’s without any complications requiring hospitalisation. Vaccines just don’t bring in the massive amounts anti-vaxers seem to believe and actually lead to reduced illness and therefore reduced use for pharma products in the future. It’s almost like the goal is reduced illness, not massive profit while destroying the health of the sheeple.

    • JillinNYC
      at #

      If you live your life in such a hysterical, polarized fear-based mindset you cannot expect to be respected or taken seriously. Too many drugs to count? Please do try will you? Life is filled with risk, why walk out the door? Get ahold of yourself.

      Anyone who gets in a car with their Little Darlings while refusing to vaccinate and hectoring on about the monsters under the bed that may “get” them somehow (big pharma, he big bad government etc) is not a logical human being and living in nameless fear. Its a living death.

      Perhaps see a shrink and find out what it exactly is that you’re afraid of – uncertainty? Welcome to reality.

    • 90Lew90
      at #

      Now wipe that spittle off your keyboard or the next person to use it might catch their death, since you’re vaccinated and they may not be.

    • Corey Firepony
      at #

      Well, M.D. means Medical Doctor. So, since that requires licensing, and rigorous education, training, clinical experience to acquire…I’m at least willing to wager that M.D. counts for something. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that being an M.D. doesn’t always make you an expert, but this doctor seems to have her i’s dotted and her t’s crossed.

      By the way, her position as a medical expert, and as a mother does not mean she is judging out of ego, it means that she is using her vast and extensive medical knowledge, combined with her knowledge as a parent to make an educated statement about a movement that poses a great danger to the world, informed by evidence, and not just discredited science and discredited anecdotes.

      Now, onto the meat of this bollocks you’re talking. Vaccines are not a drug, for starters. They are either a weakened or dead version of a pathogen injected into the body so that the body may develop immunity by contact. The advantage to vaccines/ inoculations are that the disease is less potent, meaning it poses far less risk of serious complication or full blown development of a disease, while giving your body a chance to experience and develop anti-bodies. This so that if you do experience the disease that’s full blown, you have significantly better chance of surviving the disease without significant injury, illness or complication.

      As to drug companies doing their own studies, I suggest you familiarize yourself with FDA accreditation Of course companies have to do their own studies, how else would they know adverse effects or side effects of the drugs the create. Once those studies are done, those same results must then be duplicated by independent research. By universities, by medical authorities in other countries. If you are suggesting that the pharmaceutical industry makes enough money to pay off researchers, universities (such as Harvard, Princeton, University of Michigan, Wayne State, Vanderbilt, Oxford, Cambridge) as well as the thousands of doctors, nurses, Paramedics, EMT’s world wide…than you show that you are clearly delusional. There is a reason why we as medical professionals advocate for vaccines. When you consider that they are low cost, highly effective, and have very minor side effects, its some of the safest medicine you can use.

      In terms of more dangerous drugs, again, going back to studies, the medical benefits outweigh the negatives. If you’re having a stroke, are you going to tell your doctor that you should take colloidal silver instead of tPA? If you have bacterial meningitis, are you going to suggest turmeric instead of Rocephin? Drugs that have been rigorously tested, and demonstrated to be highly effective? If you need pain medicine, are you gonna drink whiskey like in the old days, or get Dilaudid? Also, these companies are by law, required to set up trusts funds, so that if for some reason their drugs are proven unsafe or ineffective, they can pay out the damages. Because again, they are heavily regulated and constantly tested and improved upon.

      Shut your ignorant, fear-mongering mouth up and read more that Oz, and Tenpenny (That name just sounds villainous to us comic book fans).

    • Gill:
      Doctors are injecting more vaccines in children than they used to. More children are surviving into adulthood than used to.

      Gee, do ya think there *might* be a correlation!

      • Young CC Prof
        at #

        I need to make a graph of under-5 mortality versus number of vaccines on the standard childhood schedule. The negative correlation should be fairly strong. (Yes, there were other things going that also contributed, but vaccines were a big part, especially the DPT.)

        • I think Gill’s response would be something like:
          “You are one ignorant young professor! When I was a kid we didn’t have graphs and I’m STILL ALIVE. Prove that Big Graphs aren’t trying to kill me along with Big Gov and Big Everything Else.

          Except Big Guns. Big Guns are my friend. That’s the one industry standing up for me.”

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            I don’t think anyone’s killed by big graphs. Big signs, possibly.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Possibly, yes. I swear, some of the informed parents who do their extensive research are unable to read a long word without having two lunch breaks.

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      Ok then, so why don’t you settle for a compromise and at least vaccinate against the 7 ones that were available when you were a kid? Measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis and polio. If all the antivax parents had been willing to do just “good ol’ shots”, this measles outbreak never would have happened.

      • Wren
        at #

        Varicella probably wasn’t available when Gill was a kid.

    • Guestll
      at #

      Congratulations, 8 fellow tin-foil hatters liked your comment!

    • Methinks
      at #

      Gill, if someone made a chemical weapon to spread disease because they don’t like a certain authority organisation you would call them a terrorist. By not vaccinating your children you’re turning them into a potential chemical weapon to spread disease because you don’t like a certain authority organisation, so what does that make you?

      • SuperGDZ
        at #

        Since the unvaccinated child itself is at the greatest risk, perhaps a comparison to suicide bombers is apt.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Do you live in a house, drive a car, shop at the grocery store, have running water and electricity? Do you avail yourself of doctors and hospitals when it’s convenient for you? Do you take tylenol or ibuprofen for a headache? I’m guessing it’s a big, fat, yes to all of the above. But yet, you are an anti-vaxer and are OK exposing vulnerable people to life-threatening diseases because you think that “big government, pharma, medicine, whatever” is “out to get you.” Hypocrite.

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        at #

        What a great illustration of the fact that, despite how much like vaccines, we are STILL always trying to make them even better!

        Far more efficient than in the past, while maintaining effectiveness and still minimizing risks.

        This is impressive.

        • Young CC Prof
          at #

          Every year, the CDC releases a revised vaccine schedule, based on what was learned the past year. Most of the time, the changes are small, like a slight change in timing to improve effectiveness.

  53. at #

    This article says nothing about what people don’t understand about anti-vaxers. In fact, it doesn’t say much about anything. Like a horoscope reading, I could replace the word vaccines and anti-vaxers with any idea and group I disagree with and get just as much out of this article.

    • yugaya
      at #

      “I could replace the word vaccines and anti-vaxers with any idea and group I disagree with”

      Yeah but you know, even my average local neonazi bigots as the group I disagree the most with don’t carry this much potential to kill.

    • Who?
      at #

      Your point?

    • enoughAlready
      at #

      His point is this article was written by someone who believes the science they are reading is actually real science. Meanwhile, anyone who has insight into how “science” in our culture works knows that it is thoroughly compromised. His point is… you want to inject mercury into your childs viens… you should. The world needs less of your ignorance and your genetic line.

      • Alexa Fox
        at #

        From the CDC website:

        “Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.

        Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930’s. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.”

        If you’re going to be smug while calling other people ignorant, at least be right.

      • Who?
        at #

        As opposed to your special, real science.

        Do tell all about it.

        • yugaya
          at #

          The almighty “other ways of knowledge” at work again.

          • Who?
            at #

            Yup.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Well, his other ways of knowing led him to support Daviss of the study that murdered Mary Beth and the ignorants who caused the measles epidemics. I’m breathlessly awaiting the new strike of his brilliant intuition.

      • LibrarianSarah
        at #

        Yeah and the world needs more people like you? People who are so smug that they think everyone who disagrees with them should be wiped from the planet but are too dumb to know how vaccines are administered. News flash vaccines aren’t given interveinously dumbass. Also they for the most part, don’t contain mercury and they never contained the kind that was harmful to humans.

      • fiftyfifty1
        at #

        Ooooh, the next time I give a vaccination I will try to inject it right into a “vien” instead of SQ or IM in your honor!

        Gosh you are dumb.

      • Nick Sanders
        at #

        What mercury?

        • Jason Roder
          at #

          The mercury in enoughAlready’s fevered imagination, of course.

      • Ellzee Mason
        at #

        So… you don’t trust “science” in our culture – yet somehow you trust the scientists that tell you vaccines are unsafe and unnecessary. Could you explain to us how that works? What makes someone like Dr. Weston A. Price more trustworthy than the Dr who wrote this article?

    • at #

      My point is that this article was not written to “inform” but rather to “inflame” as it relies entirely on empty arguments designed to trigger and stroke the ego’s of those that agree with it.

      • Who?
        at #

        I think there’s a bit of both at play. Certainly the bare facts around the damage reactive vaccine refusal causes are pretty inflammatory on their own.

        Dr T’s interest seems to lie mainly around the damage that the spread of ignorance causes. In the case of homebirth, the misinformation pushed by midwives and others seeking to satisfy their own enthusiasm for being around pregnant and delivering women causes death and serious injury which could otherwise be avoided.

        As others have pointed out, one unvaccinated child can kill or injure even more people than a homebirth midwife, and what’s more, do it long after their parents have lost interest in the subject. Some of these parents don’t care, some identify as libertarians who won’t be told what to do, and still others think they are more educated than medical and science professionals.

        There’s not much inflaming needed where that kind of behaviour is concerned.

        • at #

          There are far better ways to educate anti-vaxers about vaccines and this author clearly has no desire to do so. She’s just looking for hits and has clearly set herself on a path to be on one side of the argument only to help her get on talk shows, sell books and other media. She’s an inflamer, not an informer. She’s loving it so much she just wrote another pro-vaccine article today, just two days after this one. I doubt her research is very thorough.

          • Who?
            at #

            What are those better methods? Love to hear them to better encourage anti-vaxxers to change their minds.

          • at #

            A good way to start is by addressing they’re actual concerns and not by calling them names, placing labels or promoting prejudices. Unfortunately nobody has the guts to do this because the actual concerns are very complex and difficult to address without opening a can of worms that nobody in pharma wants anybody to do. The funny thing is that mental illness and autism has nothing to do with what’s on antivaxers minds. I’m guessing that’s just a made up concern or perhaps one held by a minority that’s been given a prominent stage because of how easily it is to refute. Most antivaxers I’ve come into contact with are worried about much more subtle issues.

          • Who?
            at #

            Okay-so there is a constructive and effective way to communicate significant issues to some or all people who choose to not vaccinate their children.

            You know what those ways are but think they are too complex and difficult to address without upsetting big pharma, who those who don’t use vaccines don’t respect anyway. Can I ask why you care about upsetting big pharma?

            You know what is on the minds of those who choose to not vaccinate their children, but won’t share those subtle and nuanced issues.

            Without wishing to be rude, doesn’t all that make you part of the problem?

          • at #

            I came to this article hoping to learn more about these nuanced issues (I’m assuming you did as well?). So you shouldn’t be asking me to enlighten you on the matter, you should be asking the MD that authored this article. That is, of course, if you still think she’s qualified to do so.

          • SporkParade
            at #

            What nuanced issues? Vaccines are extremely safe and effective. This is not a two-sided issue where the truth is somewhere in the middle. The problem is that the hardcore anti-vaxxers CAN’T be swayed. There have been studies done to see what kinds of information are most persuasive, and the answer is, no matter the type of information or how it is presented, being challenged just makes them dig their heels in harder.

            The question is how we deal with those sitting on the fence, the kinds of people who ran to get their children vaccinated once the Disneyland outbreak came to light. The anti-vaxxers win them over by stroking their egos. “Oh, you’re too smart to blindly do what the doctor says. No doctor knows your child or cares about your child as much as you. You are the only one who can stop them from injecting your precious baby with scary chemicals and diseases.” Dr. Amy’s opinion is therefore that we also need to appeal to ego so that the choice to not vaccinate or to use an alternate schedule is seen as dangerous and selfish rather than good parents not following a one-size-fits-all approach imposed by authorities.

          • Who?
            at #

            Absolutely, those on the fence are vulnerable to exploitation by anti-vaxxers.

            On a personal note, I live in hope that one of these days someone will say something original in answer to the question: What do you object to about vaccines?

            Same tired old nonsense, and in the meantime the vulnerable continue to suffer.

          • at #

            Just to give you a sense for how nuanced some people’s stance is on vaccination: I’ve met people that oppose vaccines and still believe they work and are a good idea and are totally on board with the technology. Is that enough nuance for you? Yes indeed, many anti vax parents are for some vaccines and not others. They don’t disagree with the technology, sometimes they simply disagree an individual vaccine, the dosage, the frequency, the timing, etc. The situation is very nuanced (and again this author clearly has no clue and is looking only to inflame not inform).

            Putting vaccines up on a pedestal as if they are infallible heavenly manna descending from heaven is an equally dangerous and flawed perspective in my view.

          • Wren
            at #

            Who puts vaccines on a pedestal? I don’t know, in real life or online, anyone who would say “New vaccine? No studies? Awesome. Inject me and my kid.”
            Antivaxers who believe vaccines work, are a good idea and are totally on board with the technology while still opposing vaccines seem, at best, confused. Refusing specific vaccines without medical reason makes no sense either. Personally I find selective vaccination without medical reason and delayed schedules to be in some ways far less sensible than the straight out antivaxer. At least the latter has a logical argument, though from a flawed premise. The former does not.

          • Who?
            at #

            Having a bet each way, I think is what those guys are doing. If it all goes perfectly, as it is overwhelmingly likely it will, it was because they were so thoughtful/wise/whatever.

          • Sue
            at #

            “HCMehdi” seems to assume that the thinking behind the vaccine schedule somehow isn’t “nuanced”.

            What do all those immunologists and pediatricians do on those committees? I suppose they just drink coffee and discuss their travels, but don’t think carefully about what they are recommending for millions of children?

          • Who?
            at #

            Curious isn’t it how he and he only is capable of clear sight on this issue?

          • Amazed
            at #

            They disagree an individual vaccine? The ignorants DISAGREE?

            How many of them wise disagreers are scientists who have extended knowledge in the field of biology, chemistry, vaccine making and approval? Not many, right? They read some scary-sounding ingredients, failed to think what the scary names might mean, listened to some anti-vaxxers stroking their egos that they were the enlightened parents making this wise choice and bingo! they disagree.

            So they can take their ignorant disagreement and shove it up their you know what.

            Typhoid Mary also disagreed that she was dangerous. I suppose you think she was entitled on acting on her disagreement as well?

          • at #

            I’ve found the anti vax community to be very literate on the subject. I’m always impressed by the extent to which they research. Reminds me of those crazies that read everything on the food label and know all about how our food supply chain works. Gets to be a little much sometimes but ignorant and uninformed is definitely not a description I would expect unless coming from a bigot.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            You mean like the poster below that gave us a list of vaccine ingredients but no context nor any idea of what they were? You were impressed by that?

          • at #

            I’m referring to people I interact with face to face. Not sure what poster you’re talking about.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            So what sort of research do you believe to be “good research”? The sort of research where someone doing their shopping reads a bunch of ingredients when deciding to buy food, or the research where someone cultures a strange slow-growing bacteria in a lab and present their findings to other scientists for them to pick apart the results.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Well, he was impressed by Jo Ann Daviss of the Daviss “let’s hide the actual years of the hospital births we used!” study, so…

          • Amazed
            at #

            That speaks volumes about how gullible you are, in addition to you being so impressed by Jo Ann Daviss who lied in her study but appealed to you on camera. It says nothing about the actual level of knowledge. The anti-vax community is so very literate on the subject yet anti-vaxxers don’t know that the mercury in SOME vaccines isn’t the same as mercury in the old thermometers.

            I am very literate in the matters of repairing my household appliances. I like reading about it and in theory, I know a lot. You’re welcome to grovel at my feet admiring my knowledge, despite the fact that I will never try to repair my cooker on my own. I don’t want the short circuit that will be the inevitable result of my efforts.

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            “Reminds me of those crazies that read everything on the food label and know all about how our food supply chain works.”

            This is actually my area of clinical concentration. I treat the often profound malnutrition associated with “orthorexia” and other eating disorders. These people may spend all day reading food labels, but it doesn’t keep them healthy. Quite the opposite–it can be deadly.

          • at #

            That’s very interesting! In your experience what nutrition are these label-readers depriving themselves from? I would have thought most were checking for additives, colorants, preservatives, etc. Curious what your experience shows.

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            Mainly the macronutrients but often phos as well.

          • at #

            Curious though, why someone paying too much attention to the labels would lead to these deficiencies? Are you perhaps referring to people that are obsessed with “fat-free” and “sugar-free” products? I’m actually referring to people that try to stay away from preservatives, GMO’s etc. and opt for organic, locally grown, etc. Maybe you’re talking about a different crowd than I am.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Oh, that’s also orthorexia, and can be taken to truly dangerous extremes.

          • Who?
            at #

            Great way to hide an eating disorder.

            Reading the labels doesn’t make you a food and nutrition expert, just someone who reads labels.

            By the time they ‘do their research’ about food and add a sprinkling of their own beliefs they are living on organic salad leaves grown on an east facing slope, ‘lifestyle’ drinks and the odd piece of organic, no sugar, no gluten no dairy carrot cake (icing on the side, thanks) at the local boutique de pretentious food. With a decaf soy chai latte-low fat, of course-on the side.

            All while making gourmet meals for their families to have, and nibbling their ‘healthy’ dinner at the same time. Sad.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            “boutique de pretentious ”

            I love it!!! Can I use that one at work?

          • Who?
            at #

            Delighted if you do.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            In fact, I love the entire description.. it’s perfect!

          • Ellzee Mason
            at #

            If someone “believes they work and are a good idea and are totally on board with the technology” yet they oppose vaccines – that isn’t nuanced, it’s just insanity. They aren’t opposed on grounds of efficacy, or ideology or technology, so what grounds ARE they opposed on?
            You aren’t answering the question at all.

            You are being asked, quite clearly and earnestly, why the anti-vaxxers oppose vaccines, yet you just keep mumbling about “nuance.” If they disagree about a single vaccine, don’t get that one! If they disagree about the timing, follow a different time table! My own daughter-in-law did this – she had them give her daughter the vaccines one at a time, with plenty of “rest” between, so that if one caused a reaction she would know which one. But that is far different than refusing ALL vaccinations altogether.

          • at #

            What are your thoughts as to why some people (and quite a large number btw) oppose vaccines? I can’t speak for everyone but I’m definitely disappointed with this article and the deceiving title as it did absolutely nothing to answer the question.

          • at #

            Just to be clear, are you asking me to explain all the various reasons people either resist, are moderate, oppose or question vaccines? Is that what you’re asking me to expound on? If so, then tell me a little bit about your thoughts on vaccination so I can get a sense for where you’re coming from. I’m assuming, for instance that you’re pro-vaccines meaning that you’re on schedule, correct?

          • Who?
            at #

            Just the facts, HCM. Tell us facts. Don’t spin, don’t assume we want nuance. Facts. Surely there are some?

            Who cares what we think? We care about what you know about what others think. What has a super-communicator such as yourself learnt from people who choose to not vax?

            Simple sentences would be most helpful.

          • at #

            Facts? Oh goodness. So much. Where to start. Ok. First off, are you aware of the relationship between immunity/immunization and inoculation? Just want to get a sense for how much vocabulary I might need to explain because there’s no point in blurting out facts if they can’t be understood by the listener. Again. I need to know where you’re coming from but you are not being forthcoming of your own ideas, views and background.

          • Who?
            at #

            What on earth do my ideas, views and background have to do with all this knowledge you supposedly have? Just spell it out. If it’s actual science, my beliefs are irrelevant, the knowledge and facts will be there.

            And if I don’t get it there are plenty of very capable scientists, medics and others on this site who will have no trouble with it.

            And where is that list of PhDs?

          • at #

            I see. So again, you have no interest in learning it seems. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re the author of this article disguising herself under another account (perhaps multiple) to simply stoke the flames that her threads produce. And just in case you are, hear me out and please do the world a favor and publish articles with actual substance in them next time rather than daily rants. As a doctor you’re doing the world a disservice by publishing more empty calories. Your articles are like the fast food of the internet and are a cancer to the information age. I’ve given up on you WHO?.

          • Who?
            at #

            Just the science you have, just the facts you have. If they are as good as you say, they will be written in language scientists understand. Please share all this science, all the work from these PhDs, that will help me be wiser.

            How about you provide some substance if you’re concerned about what you perceive as a lack of substance here?

            I won’t bother denying to be Dr T, just thank you for mistaking me for someone so brave and knowledgeable.

            This post of yours is definitive proof that your butterfly has shown up, btw.

          • Stacy48918
            at #

            “I’m beginning to wonder if you’re the author of this article disguising herself under another account (perhaps multiple) to simply stoke the flames that her threads produce.”

            Has anyone else said it? BINGO!!!!!

            If it’s not on the board, it should be. 😛

          • Who?
            at #

            Yup.

            My personal favourite though is:

            ‘Facts? Oh goodness. So much. Where to start.’

            These guys are the gift that keeps on giving.

          • Who?
            at #

            Hang on, you claimed unique insight which I asked you to share. You shared are old, tired and discredited tropes, rejected by everyone except by the tinfoil hat brigade.

            Another grandiose anti-vaxxer: since you have nothing original, why would I pay any further attention to you at all?

          • Guest
            at #

            oh blast. just another troll. Can’t believe I took the bait.

          • Who?
            at #

            I live in hope that one day one of them will have something of value or interest to say.

            Not today, apparently.

          • Wren
            at #

            Troll? I clearly missed something here or disqus is acting up. Who has repeatedly asked you to share your insights, insights you apparently lack while claiming others should have them. The troll label seems to apply to you.

          • Who?
            at #

            I was seeing Guest, so Disqus is playing up, and I’m now thinking is HCM. He is a troll, no question.

            Disappointing as always.

          • HipsLikeCinderella
            at #

            I’m gonna go out on a limb here and state the obvious that she is certainly more qualified than you.

          • at #

            Which is why I was hoping for some substance but all I got from the article was empty calories.

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            Then why are you wasting your time here instead of finding something more to your taste?

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Why would you take anything here as fact? I don’t. I enjoy the discussion here and Dr Amy makes some very interesting points, but facts about vaccines etc or anything that actually affects my own health I always verify with my own doctor and specialists.

            Only anti-vaccinationists are happy to rely on medical information they find on the internet, in defiance of any experts they come across in real life.

          • at #

            No they usually talk to experts too. In fact there are many PhD’s out there with compelling evidence on both sides of the fence. I doubt, however, that you would acknowledge any point of view other than your own, even if from an expert.

          • Who?
            at #

            Awesome-can you share the names and quals of some of these PhDs?

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Are you sure these PhDs with “both sides of the fence” actually perform peer-reviewed research in immunology and vaccines and have clinical experience with a wide variety of immune system issues?

            Because funny enough I have had vaccine and immune system discussions with a few now. My Immunologist was also a vaccine researcher in a past job prior to clinical practise (he has a PhD and medicine degree). He asked me about adverse reactions to vaccines. I actually hadn’t had any which surprised him as theoretically I should have (due to my underlying immune system problem).

            After our discussion, I took a look at adverse vaccine reactions and found all sorts of terrible horror stories and “won’t someone think of the children!” on the internet – but no real data and no real match for what I was trying to find with what I had. It doesn’t mean that the issues my immunologist was looking for don’t happen – because I’ve found a lot of discussion amongst patient support groups with similar issues to mine. Other’s seem to line up with the immunology theory better than I do.

            But how can I speak to expert immunologists (I’ve moved again and see another different batch of immunologists) and get frank and open discussion about vaccines, vaccine reactions and underlying immune system conditions and others still see some sort of conspiracy. They can’t be talking to the same people. The immunologists I’ve encountered are generally consistent with their knowledge and the advice can differ (as it did when discussing whether my daughter would receive the MMR) – but they explain why they differ in opinion etc such that I understand. The bits I’ve read on the internet are largely fear mongering and scare stories. Unless you’ve got links to something better than what I’ve read that I could discuss with my doctors.. I was open to the idea of not vaccinating my kids if they needed to forgo it. But they didn’t and despite the issues are fully vaccinated.

          • Who?
            at #

            Yes we’ll see how many names appear-my feeling is either they are all camera shy or will have PhDs from mail order universities.

            Of course it would be great if I’m wrong so there is actually someone to engage with.

          • at #

            Your kids will need to take close to thirty vaccines by the time they reach the age of 18 and another twenty in subsequent years. Do you keep yourself on schedule? Or choose to opt out of certain ones?

          • at #

            correction..thirty different shots, not thirty different types of shots.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            meh – like I said earlier – my 5yo gives herself 30 shots in a month…. Are you sure it’s not needle phobia you’re dealing with? Not necessarily a problem of protecting people via a controlled introduction of disabled antigens more so a phobia of the delivery mechanism?

          • at #

            woah 30 shots! and your five year old does it herself. Please share this story. I’m fascinated!

          • Amazed
            at #

            Fascinated with a child’s medical condition? Wow.

          • at #

            Must be a sad place… your brain. How many different user accounts do you have on this page?

          • Amazed
            at #

            935823. Other questions?

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            You shouldn’t be surprised to see many people in agreement here. The majority of parents vaccinate their kids.

          • PrimaryCareDoc
            at #

            You’ve never heard of diabetes?

          • at #

            Oh yes I have but those aren’t vaccines, those are just insulin shots so I’m assuming KarenJJ is talking about something else. Let’s wait and see what she responds, unless you’re her with yet another account.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            I don’t divulge the actual name because it could be identifying due to it’s relative rarity, but she injects a relatively recent biologics drug to control chronic inflammation. Needles are methods to get medication where it’s needed. If you’re regularly in discussions with Immunologists with PhDs you should be able to ask about the sorts of things kids with rare immune system issues need to do to keep themselves healthy.

            And what’s with the paranoia over posters here logging in with different names – firstly Dr Amy typically warns people if they are from the same IP address and secondly many of us in this discussion are long-termers. I’ve discussed stuff like this here previously and am consistent with what I say, albeit a bit evasive on the actual name.

          • Who?
            at #

            Sorry about that for your daughter. It’s a lot for her to take on.

            And btw I am the queen pretender since according to HCM I am Dr T in a not very cunning disguise. It’s a little flattering, I won’t deny it, but does speak to a certain need to have very limited numbers disagreeing with him rather than lots of individuals piling on.

            In any event that makes the rest of you not Dr T in disguise, unless you all are, of course….

          • Samantha06
            at #

            “And btw I am the queen pretender since according to HCM I am Dr T in a not very cunning disguise.”

            I’m thinking of that song by The Who…

            “Who are you? Who who, who who?….I really want to know….

          • Who?
            at #

            Hint-definitely not Dr T!!!!

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Ah ha! The truth comes out! Don’t you know HCM is so disappointed… 😉

          • Who?
            at #

            He won’t believe me anyway…all my protestations only fuel his conviction, I’m sure.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            She’s good 🙂 but honestly – this “close to thirty vaccines” – is that meant to scare me or reassure me? I can’t decide whether to run for the hills or kowtow to big pharma?

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            You say “close to thirty vaccines” like it’s a bad thing?

          • at #

            I said “close to thirty vaccines” not sure where you got the bad thing part.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            n fact there are many PhD’s out there with compelling evidence on both sides of the fence. I doubt, however, that you would acknowledge any point of view other than your own, even if from an expert.

            Who are all these PhDs with “compelling evidence” on the other side of the fence? There are like two “usual suspects” that always get mentioned in a sea of immunologists, and they are, far and away, considered to be well outside the mainstream of the field. So just finding a PhD, even in a related field, who opposes vaccination is about as legitimate as the fact that there are people with PhDs who are creationists. That doesn’t mean they have “compelling evidence.”

            And don’t even get started on people without relevant PhDs, like Mayim Bialik or the ilk, because their opinion means about as much as mine (I also have a PhD in an unrelated area).

            So bring it on. Let’s hear the compelling evidence from PhDs on the other side of the fence.

          • at #

            Gosh where to start! Ok first off, just to give me a sense for where you’re coming from. Are you completely up to date on your vaccine schedule or are you selective? From your post I’m guessing you you’r over the age of 18 so you should have about 30 shots by now. You all caught up?

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            He just asked for a couple of names, you shouldn’t need a medical history for that.

          • Somewhereinthemiddle
            at #

            That’s an odd question to ask… Why should it matter “where he is coming from”? Or what a person’s vax status is. You either have support for your claims about PhDs and their evidence or you don’t. That is a rather amusing and novel deflection though.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            I have to say, I always am amused at the morons who think they are going to prove a point by coming here and over to Orac’s blog and challenge the readers, “Are you up to date on your shots?”

            Watching them try to scramble when everyone responds with, “Of course” is very entertaining.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Hey, dumbass, YOU were the one who claimed these immunology PhDs with compelling evidence. So why does it matter where I am coming from?

            Seriously, what does my vaccination status have to do with you claim? Nothing. Why don’t you just answer the fucking question?

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            So, are you ever going to provide these PhDs and their amazing evidence, or do you plan to keep going off on sidetracks?

          • at #

            Unfortunately I just found this video of her being interviewed on FOX news and if you watch it carefully, it seems to illustrate she has no desire to listen or be constructive. The woman on the left also gives a really good example of how an issue can be completely warped by how studies are conducted and framed.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01V08y2Ui4

            This dr is looking more and more like a mouth-piece to me so I’m afraid you won’t get answers from her either. Maybe you should talk to some anti-vaccine people.

          • Who?
            at #

            Thing is, I’m interested.

            Will you tell me, since I am asking to engage? If not, okay, but I am sincerely interested in understanding the perspectives you describe.

            I talk to anti-vaccine people all the time, they are of the ‘we know more than doctors because of all our research on the internet’ persuasion, which I find unpersuasive and arrogant. Perhaps you know another kind?

          • at #

            My sense is that you’re not listening carefully enough (unless your encounter with these “people” is limited to forum posts) because most anti vaccine people I encounter (face to face) seem to be very level headed and anything but arrogant or self-entitled. They’re usually very caring people and very concerned about their community and family’s well-being. From my experience in talking with them, there are legitimate quality control and trust issues ranging all the way from research, development to deployment to final delivery, and yes, some are concerned about side effects but these seem to be less of a concern. There are also philosophical concerns, some which stem from religion and others from well founded reason (ingestion vs injection, etc). So, like I said, concerns vary from person to person and to really dive into the subject in any fair way it would require a serious study and debate. Far be it from me to be a mouth piece for everyone concerned about vaccines.

          • Who?
            at #

            I post on very few forums, so most of my no vax people are in my social circle.

            I”m sorry you don’t think I’m a good and careful listener. There are no ‘legitimate’ concerns about quality control or trust, in the sense that these things are the subject of high levels of care and regulation, and damage caused by quality control is effectively non-existent. So those concerns are there, and the people involved ‘know’ things they can’t describe or show evidence of, which is pretty unsatisfactory.

            Religion, okay, though I’m unaware of any in my part of the world that discourage vaccination.

            Concerns about mode of delivery again have no basis in fact, and those who feel them don’t want to hear or understand why they could think differently.

            So far just some of the usual tired excuses. Very disappointing.

          • Corey Firepony
            at #

            I call bollocks on this.

            If they had those concerns, here’s a list of people who they could ask

            Chemist (for the chemicals involved in vaccine synthesis)
            Biochemist (Interaction of same chemicals and the human body)
            Biologist(basic understanding of how biological life works)
            Immunologist (Works specifically with vaccine and vaccine research)
            General Practitioner (Medical Doctor)
            E.R. Doctor (Again, Medical Doctor)
            Nurse (Medical Professional)
            Pathologist (studies disease and the cause of disease)
            Paramedic (Medical professional)
            EMT (Medical Professional)
            Pharmacist (usually requires masters or doctoral in Chemistry, medical professional)

            University Schools (research institutions where people are competing for recognition, participate in double and triple blind medical testing, a commitment to the passing on of knowledge )

            FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
            CDC (Center for Disease Control)
            NHS (National Health Service- Britain)
            AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics)
            AMA (American Medical Association)

            Drug manufacturer

            The problem is that they don’t have a legitimate concern, because if they did, there are plenty of places they could go to find the information, the studies, any controversy/concern. The real problem is that they don’t trust these people, because they believe they are pharmaceutical shills

          • yugaya
            at #

            We are not looking at same video apparently. What I saw:

            – dr Tuteur in response whether homebirth is safe underline how all studies and data up to this point proves that homebirth at least triples the chances of a baby dying.

            – CNM Davis being deliberately misleading in her response by saying that the single most important risk lowering factor is having a skilled birth attendant (true) without acknowledging the fact that that is by far NOT the case in the majority of US homebirths, and that lay midwives such as CPMs, DMs or LMs would not be considered skilled enough to attend births in any other developed country.

            -CNM Davis further indicating that the studies are wrong because they do not differentiate between CNM (real) midwife) attended planned OOH births (which would be the ones that have proper risking out and transfer plans that according to her make homebirth safe) and all other quack midwife homebirths. Since 95% of CNM attended births happen in hospitals, and since in Oregon’s hideous study out of 1 995 PLANNED OOH births exactly
            1 235 were PLANNED to be attended by quackos what she is saying is nonsense – the impact of a few percent of regulated ethical and safe practitioners with these numbers does not make up for the rest of homebirths which are attended by unregulated, unethical and unsafe charlatans or make OOH birth in general any bit safer.

            – some airhead asking a stupid nonsequential question about whether despite all of that it is still just a matter of choice. In response dr Tuteur is able to only repeat that it is a choice that must be based on informed consent, and that the information that needs to go out there that you need to know before you consent is that despite the flaws in the studies they ALL show that for your baby homebirth is at least three times deadlier than a hospital birth.

            “The woman on the left also gives a really good example of how an issue can be completely warped by how studies are framed.”

            There, fixed that for ya.

          • Amazed
            at #

            The woman on the left you so admire is responsible for the death of at least one baby (that I know of). Mary Beth Chapman, Whose mother believed the liar you admire and her joke of a “study” “proving” the safety of homebirth. The bitch on the left knew her own “study” proved no such thing, so she warped it into deluding expectant mothers that it did.

            Anti-vaxxers have long ago lost the right to be treated like human beings. They are fucking pigs whose concerns (My child is pure, you keep your leukemia survivor child at home and she caught leukemia from her vaccines anyway, per Dr Jack (Wolf) Wolfson) should be mocked and ostracized. You want to find common ground with them? Good luck to you. For myself, if I ever find myself alone in a room with this doctor or the bitches who bleat about their precious pure snowflakes never being touched by ebil vaccines but when their homeopathy doesn’t work rush to their pediatrician carrying their little disease vector because stupid pediatrician suddenly knows best and infecting innocent people who just had the bad luck of being there… well, I won’t be able to keep myself from telling them what I think of them and their “concerns”. As Jennifer Margulis said, she wouldn’t feel any guilt if her decision not to vaccinate killed someone else’s child. You think this is a belief that should be treated respectfully? A woman deserving respect because she popped out some Very Special Snowflakes?

            We tried persuading them into reason and it brought us to epidemics, Dr Wolfson the Wolf being fearless in expressing his terrifying beliefs and Dr Bob lamenting the fact that we cruelly interfered with the natural order because hey, diseases were here long before us!

            You want to argue with people who endorse such beliefs? Good luck. It’s been proven not to work. Maybe ostracism will, who knows?

          • yugaya
            at #

            I didn’t know it was her. I reached out to Bambi after reading her blog and if you want to hear a woman who is an inspiration in courage, ability to grow and learn and better herself through most unimaginable pain go over there and read it.

            It’s easy to not trust the lies if you are like me, early on inflicted with reason and science and pro chess-playing uncles and their personal libraries, not prone to too much religion or direct influence of beliefs of others around me. It takes a mountain of strength more to travel the road Bambi has traveled in the name of her beautiful daughter.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Wasn’t she the one that blocked their car in the driveway to get them to the hospital and left her to go and play soccer?

          • Amazed
            at #

            No, that was Bomb’s story, I believe. Bambi gor a midwife who missed the birth by an hour, looked at the baby, proclaimed her healthy, sent the EMTs away, and a few hours later Mary died.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Indeed. I remember Bambi mentioning that she was shown the study Daviss and her husband did and it helped convince her that homebirth was just as safe. She didn’t have the scientific education that would have enabled her to notice that the two groups in the study were by no way equal, with the hospital birth one extending back to 1960s.

            I was stricken by Liz Paparella’s account of her journey to homebirth. When she found her way to our favourite nest of vipers, she was your average mom, not thrilled with her hospital births, maybe crunchier than most, but the thought of turning her back on the hospital had never crossed her mind until she was sucked, slowly, deep into the empowering, loving, and whatnot swamp of “safe or safer!”

            Those were ordinary women who just took the comforts and good outcomes in their lives for granted (as most of us do nowadays, myself included. I mean, rationally I know there’s always a danger and I take precautions but I absolutely don’t believe it will happen to me or mine). And they were exploited by homebirth midwives and self-called researchers, both represented by the woman in the video.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I loved what Bombshellrisa said about her aunt wanting to chase down an anti-vaxxer in her scooter and hit them with her cane…

          • HipsLikeCinderella
            at #

            Well I would take your advice and talk with anti vaccine people, but I prefer not to talk to idiots 😉

          • at #

            What I’ve learned from talking to the anti vax community is that they are incredibly literate on the subject, not arrogant or on some sort of ivory tower. I’m kind of mind blown actually when I find out the extent to which they research. Reminds me of those crazies that read everything on the food label and know everything about how our food is made. Gets to be a little much sometimes but ignorant and uninformed is definitely not a description I would expect unless coming from a bigot.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            You’re confused. The anti-vax community is not scientifically literate; they are PSEUDO-literate.

            To be scientifically literate involves reading the scientific papers (the whole papers, not the abstracts) across the breadth of the particularly area. It does NOT mean sharing a bibilography salad of outdated, tangential and discredited studies cut and pasted from anti-vax websites.

          • at #

            I’m referring to immunologists with PhD’s. Is that literate enough for you? Btw Ms Tuteur, get your terms right. Immunity is different from immunization in that being immunized is different from being immune (referring to your posts on this website). As a doctor you might want to consult with immunologists before writing about the subject.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            You got a name for an Immunologist with a PhD that recommends against vaccinating? Want to share a few links to their research for us to have a read and open our minds to the possibility that vaccines are a serious health problem?

          • at #

            I could I guess, but given your responses so far my sense is you only want names of such people so you can crucify them. Your mind is clearly very closed.

          • at #

            Furthermore, it’s not like they’re that hard to find. Just do a little research.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            So why are you trying to hide their names on here? If their position is already publicly identifiable?

          • at #

            Because you and everyone else on this thread strike me as the kind of people who don’t like ideas that differ from their own. So I’m trying to do you the favor by letting you do your own investigation. You should find quite a bit of consensus among the PhD community on the science used to back their claims against vaccination. Prove to me that you have become familiar with these ideas by posting them here and your arguments against them. Heck, I could even point you to pro-vaccine PhD authors that have published some startling research. But you have no desire to be educated by me, so take some time to see what you can find and report back.

          • Who?
            at #

            Show me one line that suggests anyone here doesn’t like ideas different from their own. One line.

            Please post these consensus building papers. You assert they exist, you prove it.

            Are you a PhD in immunology? If not, I have no wish to be educated by you on this topic, but happy to look at anything you put up by people with those qualifications.

          • at #

            Nope, I don’t have a PhD in immunology, so there you have it. You said it yourself, “you have no desire to learn from me on the subject” Therefore go off and research. More importantly, talk to your friends that are anti vax and see if, in fact, this author properly reflects their point of view.

          • Who?
            at #

            I have, she does.

            They are in my world, not friends, and I spend a lot of time listening. When I start talking, just as I have with you, gently challenging, probing, asking more questions, they, like you, turn all mysterious and belligerent. They too can never quite find the amazing articles by all these talented scientists that will totally change my mind. And they can never quite resist coming back for more.

          • at #

            Wait.. you have a PhD in immunology?

          • Who?
            at #

            No. Your point?

            Do you think I need one to expose shallow thinking?

            Being an expert in an altogether different area I have respect for training, education and experience. So bring on your PhDs, people on here will love to read them and are more than qualified to tell someone like me whether or not it is something I need to take seriously.

            I think you don’t have a respectable PhD to bring to the table. Go on, prove me wrong.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            You misunderstand. We don’t want to learn from YOU we want to learn from those people that you found so convincing – I’d like to see the research that convinced you of your opinions on vaccines beyond WHO and all the other groups out there.

            These people with PhDs in Immunology that have information so readily publicly available obviously have something they want to add to the conversation. They’re proper scientists, aren’t they? So they’d be used to being questioned? They’d be used to arguing over scientific details? They’d have defended their thesis to a group of other experts in their field.

            What exactly are you trying to protect them from? I’ve “researched” anti-vaccination websites in the past and been unimpressed. But maybe there’s more about these days that’s more convincing. You judge us as close minded the more we push for the information.. What are we to make of that? Are you embarrassed that the information won’t hold up?
            Or perhaps you’ve checked and the PhD was in something like neurobiology and ‘oops’ wrong field and you’d rather attack us than admit you’ve got nothing…

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            That’s a very convenient position to take. If they have a PhD they also have publicised research. If you want to bring up all these Immunologists with PhDs that support your argument that you talk to regularly you should be able to point us towards them so that we can evaluate what they have to say – or in my case run the ideas past an immunologist with a PhD the next time I see one. You seem to be asking me to just take your word for it. It’s a funny way to try and win in a disagreement.

          • at #

            Oh I definitely can, but you can easily find them online and what I’ve learned from our little exchange here is that you have no desire to have your mind changed by someone else. So take some time to learn on your own by doing a little research. I think you’ll find the knowledge you gain this way to be more effective.

          • at #

            Again, typical. “Oh, I can’t actually source my claims or back up anything I say, YOU go find this mysterious yet 100% accurate and relevant information that Have I have.”

            I’ve gone through so many bingo cards on this thread.

          • at #

            Give me your list of requirements for legitimate sources and I’ll see if I can find something that suits your palate.

          • Wren
            at #

            Peer reviewed published research. Actual papers, rather than just abstracts.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            “Oh, I can’t actually source my claims or back up anything I say, YOU
            go find this mysterious yet 100% accurate and relevant information that
            Have I have.”

            Yeah, it is so typical.

            The next step is for her to get all pissed off and give in, doing a quick google search of their own and post the first thing they find that looks halfway close to what they are claiming, although, in fact, it won’t actually say what they originally claimed.

            But they have to throw a bunch of links in there

          • Who?
            at #

            Oh, secret immunological work. Right. So secret you can quote it but not post the material.

            Professionals disagree with each other all the time, I’m sure your people are pretty robust.

            No doubt their thorough work will speak for itself-it’s a shame to deprive the world of the benefit of it just to spare a few hurt feelings, surely.

          • at #

            Ah yes, the more words you place in my mouth the more it becomes increasingly evident you have no desire to converse. I feel sorry for you.

          • Who?
            at #

            Thanks, it’s doing me so much good already…

          • at #

            Typical parachuter. They have sources but can’t be bothered to share them because reasons.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Image over substance. It goes back to the ego thing again. Are you feeling flattered that you are smarter and nicer than the rest of the “sheeple” because you just *know* something really special? Well, maybe you don’t know what you think you know. Maybe others know better. Maybe the nice, chatty, charismatic person is not the image they’ve created. How do their actions match their words?

          • Wren
            at #

            You do realise that many, many people have tried to address the actual concerns of anti-vaxers and countless studies have been done to do just that thing. It’s an ever-shifting goal. If the concern is the MMR causing autism (a long standing one, thanks Wakefield), studies are done to show it does not. Oh wait, now it’s mercury. Take that out and do loads more studies. Oh wait, now it’s too many, too soon. Now the concern is not autism, but some unspecified subtle and nuanced issues. Find a way to refute those and it will just morph into a new concern.

          • at #

            I’m guessing it’s not people’s concerns that change, it’s simply that their concerns are varied and complex. Media just likes picking the clown that’s easiest to poke fun at by giving that one a platform when it suits them. Would you at least agree that this article fails miserably at addressing any concerns by antivaxers?

          • Who?
            at #

            Your first couple of remarks are broadly accurate in my opinion. And the media has a huge and shame-filled part in all this.

            I don’t think the article is aimed at reducing their concerns, which the author, who will correct me if I understate it, finds moronic.

            It’s a call to arms about the author’s perceptions. If you believe those are inaccurate, and there are constructive ways to engage with those who choose to not vaccinate their children, let’s hear them. Most regulars on this thread would love to have an effective way to do that.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Actual anti-vaxxers, people who are out there politically fighting vaccines, are extremely difficult to reach with things like facts or logic. “Vaccine-hesitant” parents are more common and they generally ARE reachable, although the message has to be targeted to the individual. Media campaigns probably won’t work as well as one-on-one conversations.

          • Wren
            at #

            My statements of concerns that have been high on the list come not from the media but from anti-vax statements in their own forums and in refutation to pro-vax sites.
            The goal of this particular article is not to address any concerns of the antivaxers at all. Not addressing those concerns is a failure in the same way that not making any baskets in a football game is a failure.

          • Corey Firepony
            at #

            Please, feel free to message me. If I have the knowledge, I will address any anti-vax concerns you have. If I cant, I will refer you to people who can.

          • Guesty
            at #

            When she refuses to wear socks to school, my child is worried about subtle and nuanced issues, too. The socks don’t match her dress. She can’t get the purple stripes lined up evenly and it makes her insane. Lots of nuance, lots of subtly. Unfortunately, it’s 20 below outside and her concerns about stripes lining up — while of deep significance to her — are completely irrelevant in the face of frostbite. I can be sorry she’s having a frustrating morning without allowing her to think that the line of her stripes is of equivalent importance to having her feet properly covered.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            “Most antivaxers I’ve come into contact with are worried about much more subtle and nuanced issues.”

            What “subtle and nuanced issues” are you referring to? I’ll just echo what I’ve already said in a previous comment. All of these issues have been ADDRESSED, on this blog, very respectfully and FAILED. Unfortunately, anti-vaxxers are not interested in learning real science. They’ve proven time and time again, they are more willing to believe celebrities, lay people and snake oil salesman. If you can come up with a better way to “get through to them” please share it!

          • at #

            Samantha, I’m afraid that you are misinformed. The nuanced concerns have not been addressed. Farm from it, in fact. More concerns keep arising from the lack of response by the medical community. And when any PhD happens to disclose new findings that would help shed some light on these concerns, the medical community revokes their license. Doesn’t sound like a place that welcomes new science. By all means, let’s just keep basing our medicine on discoveries from the 1920’s.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            So I will ask again, what exactly are the nuanced concerns that haven’t been addressed?

          • at #

            I’d be happy to, but to better understand where you’re coming from please explain your point of view regarding vaccines, why there is no reason to argue their validity and so on.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            So, like so many others who parachute in here, you make a claim, you are asked for examples to support it, and instead of answering the question, you turn it around and ask me to “explain my point of view.” Good try, but I don’t play that game.

          • at #

            That’s what I expected. Like everyone else on this thread you have no desire to hear an opinion other than your own. Before imparting ideas one must always understand their listener first. Sorry you don’t wish to learn.

          • Guest
            at #

            That’s what I thought. Just like everyone else on this thread you have no desire to hear any opinion other than your own. In order to impart knowledge one must always understand the capacity of the listener first. Sorry you have no desire to learn.

          • at #

            That’s what I expected. Like everyone else on this thread you have no desire to hear an opinion other than your own. Before imparting ideas one must always understand their listener first. Sorry you don’t wish to learn.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            What “subtle and nuanced issues” are you referring to?

            “But my baby is a precious snowflake who is different from everyone else.”

            That’s the “nuance” and it’s not all that subtle. And, unfortunately, they don’t listen to the answer: OK, and no, she isn’t.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes, and once you address their supposed “concerns” they all of a sudden have another “concern.” It’s never ending. And they deny the actual science by saying the science has been “manipulated.” Good grief…

          • Ellzee Mason
            at #

            I think she made the point that we have been trying to educate anti-vaxers about the SCIENCE for a long time, and they just aren’t believing it. So she moved on from that to trying to ascertain WHY they won’t believe the massive amount of science in front of them.
            And I think she just may have some very valid points.

  54. Lars Eighner
    at #

    Just tossing out something that I’ve been mulling over for a few days: It seems to me there are parallels between anorexia and being anti-vax. All three of your points lead me to think there might be something to that.

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      I think there’s some parallels between the desire to control the uncontrollable in anorexia and the clean eating/anxiety about chemicals/attachment parenting etc etc. But that’s purely speculation from someone that has no expertise in anorexia or mental health issues.

      • Lars Eighner
        at #

        Some people may know I had some experience with homelessness. When I got off the street, my partner’s brother gave us a TV. One of the first things I saw on TV was a special about agoraphobia. They visited a woman who had not left her house in some large number of years. The house was a mansion, in the top ten homes I have ever seen, in spite of my going to school with people who lived in the River Oaks section of Houston and visiting many of their homes. I could only think two things: If I had a home like that, I would never leave it either, and How come I never met anyone living on the streets who had agoraphobia?

        So, I kind of wonder, are their anorexics among people where the availability of food is really an issue. If you go to village where all the kids are starving, are any of them anorexic and glad not to have food forced on them? Or is anorexia a disease of privilege?

        So, anti-vax seems to me to be a disease of privilege. My great grandmother was a survivor of a family that lost 7 children under the age of ten to diphtheria in two waves in Illinois. The first wave took all four children under ten, the second wave came seven years later and took the three children born in the mean time. People would have been glad to take a vaccine even if the vaccination had a mortality rate of 30%. It is only from a position of privilege that people refuse vaccines with adverse event rates of less than 1 in 100,000.

        ..

        • Who?
          at #

          Lars so happy to hear your voice. What a tragic story of your great-grandmother.

  55. at #

    An observation – when someone below commented simply that they’re scared about vaccinations because a friend’s baby had a reaction… The meeen terrible provax people here… were sympathetic and kind, validating that it’s ok to be scared and politely sharing resources to help counter the fear.

    Funny, isn’t it? How commenters saying “I’m not antivax BUT (long list of standard antivax tropes)” get owned, but commenters expressing actual concerns get…support, kindness and actual information? It’s almost like we want people to actually learn, but are unwilling to tolerate antivax propaganda shills!

    ETA: I used the word actually and it’s variants way too many times, but I don’t have time to correct!

    • yugaya
      at #

      I for one will always try to talk to people about fears associated with being a parent and being scared of vaccines. Parroting, automated, antivaxx script spewing advocates on the other hand…you really cannot talk to THAT.

      • KarenJJ
        at #

        Yeah, I see anti-vax advocates similar to people that egg on suicidal people that are looking ready to jump from a height. Instead of trying to talk someone down from their irrational fears and mental processes, anti-vax advocates are shouting “jump”.

        Eg, the “pathogen corpses” from wayyy below. If someone is anxious and fearful, let’s go and make it worse…

  56. Amazed
    at #

    Hey, Dr Amy, is there a problem with the site? There were a few comments by a guest who wanted to tell us that vaccines were evil because the doses were the same for adults and children. I can’t see them now. I mean, I know we’re all deadly afraid of our Big Pharma loyalties being exposed but I swear, the posts were neither long nor too inspiring. They were no danger to our checks.

    Or is it Disqus acting up on me again?

    • Who?
      at #

      I can still see them but can’t respond-I tried-because they apparently are not active.

      • KarenJJ
        at #

        Saw that too, but can’t see it now.. It’s not normally that sort of thing Dr Amy might delete and considering how long winded this discussion has become I’m presuming disqus is struggling to cope.

        • Amazed
          at #

          Probably. I mean, if my “fucking animal” still stands, what’s the chance of such posts being deleted?

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      I haven’t deleted anything, so I’m not sure why that’s happenng.

    • Cobalt
      at #

      There was one earlier that their comment kept changing every time someone responded to it. Also, the areas with a “reply to a reply to a reply” chain that is 40 replies (or more) wide are getting a little goofy. Disqus just isn’t up to the task.

  57. 90Lew90
    at #

    What a brilliant post! I’m not often struck by blog posts but I take my hat off to you. Keep up the good work.

    Best Wishes,

    Lew

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      Thanks!!

    • Samantha06
      at #

      haha! Love it!!

  58. JillinNYC
    at #

    This is a refreshing addition to this dialogue, much needed. I think this may differ depending on region. My experience has been a bit different in that the area I live in – New York City – does not have a pocket of privileged people (that I know of anyway) that are anti-vaxxers. No way, it’s the opposite here,

    The anti-vaxxers I know from the Northeast occupy a corner of the spiritual community and from what I’ve seen with this group, it’s the opposite of the California issue – its class warfare.

    It’s all the same issues discussed so well in this article, especially ego and unreflective rebellion. But what stands out to me is an unconscious desire to give the finger to expertise and the white color educated professionals who seem to have what they don’t – privilege, higher education from well known colleges, intellectual and cultural sophistication. They have a way to call them sheeple, robots, to look down on them and feel empowered. So throw in class resentment to this mix and its especially hopeless. They will never budge.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      How sad.. they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces..

    • SporkParade
      at #

      Unfortunately, NYC does have a pocket of anti-vaxxers. That’s why there was a measles outbreak on the UWS last year. The good news is that the rest of the city won’t put up with is, which is why the schools have some of the most stringent vaccination requirements in the country (no personal belief exemptions, mandatory vaccines sometimes includes the flu shot).

  59. aharne
    at #

    This. Is. Amazing. Thank you for stating what I have been thinking in such a clear and coherent fashion.

  60. alex
    at #

    I’m afraid of a bad reaction from a vaccine. A friend of mine’s baby was hospitalized from a vaccine reaction and that was scary. I’m not privileged or anti authoritarian, I’m just worried.

    • Who?
      at #

      I’m sorry the baby had a reaction, and hope he or she is well now.

      Worried is fine, and reasonable with that experience. If you’ve got kids coming up to vax time, perhaps talk to your doctor about what happened, how often it happens, and what the diseases being vaccinated against look like.

      It’s hard to make a decision that hurts your child, when the option of doing nothing seems to have no consequences. But being unvaxxed is bad for your child and bad for your community.

    • Amazed
      at #

      Quite understandable. I hope and trust the baby recovered since you didn’t mention any lasting consequences.

      I’ll still say that you should be afraid of death more than a bad reaction. I’m quite sure my greatgrandmother would have given the world for having her TWO children hospitalized after a vaccine reaction than having them die from VPDs in their teens which is what happened. She started with three children, ended up with one. My other greatgrandmother started with three children and lost her son. THAT scares me more. Just like Olivia Dahl’s story does. And the story of those two teens that took place nowadays. I wonder how their pediatrician felt when two of his or her own patients met their agonizing death solely because he or she was their pediatrician – and also the pediatrician of anti-vaxxers.

      http://www.thelocal.de/20130614/50305

      Talk to your pediatrician. And keep in mind that being hospitalized usually ends up with staying alive. Unlike dying from a VPD.

    • Siri
      at #

      Fair enough. But you’re a parent. You owe it to your child to deal with that fear rationally and make a responsible choice. If you allow your fear to paralyse you, you’re not doing your job properly.

    • yugaya
      at #

      And that is ok. I am afraid of bad reactions from vaccines too. I go nuts whenever my kids are vaccinated, the irrational side takes over and I watch like an insane person for every tiniest sign that something went wrong. I’ve read all those adverse reactions warnings and they scare me senseless. Please talk to qualified medical professionals about your fears because they are the ones who can help you address them in a rational manner, something that I as a parent am often unable to do. Knowing someone whose baby suffered a severe vaccine reaction increases your fear, and I think it would help to talk about that specifically as well.

      • Who?
        at #

        There was a dad at the doc yesterday having a very little baby vaxxed, and she was Most Seriously Displeased about it. He came out on the verge of tears himself. We’ve all been there, and it is hard. Even harder to my mind when they are a bit older and looking at you with such trust as the needle goes in.

        But for the best, absolutely.

        • Julia
          at #

          That reminds me of my daughter’s 3 month vaccine when the nurse said to hold her leg between my leg while she got the shot – then told me to stop gripping so hard with my leg because I was hurting her leg because I was so tense and scared! It makes me laugh now. And my daughter is completely unafraid of shots now despite my anxieties for her. 🙂

    • JillinNYC
      at #

      That happened to my baby – he’s now a strapping ten year old boy who plays soccer and eats me out of house and home. He was fine after a couple of hours. Incidents do occur, but they are very rare and the odds are very much with you. Life does have risks and certainly no medical intervention is 100 percent effective ever.

      Think of it this way: its like getting on an airplane. Yes, something could happen and sadly things do happen. But there are 50,000 flights a day in this world, literally – and around 1400 people a year die in plane crashes. That doesn’t mean we won’t travel, we certainly cannot live in fear that way, that’s a living death. The odds are with you always on an airplane – or getting a vaccine.

      Driving our cars every day is much more dangerous, appx 10,000 times more dangerous than getting a vaccine. Don’t let people scare you with junk science, just think of that airplane.

      I remember taking my baby in for his vaccines and just cringing because of that crazy needle. The visuals of the process don’t help. But it’s over quickly and so much harder on Mom, lol. They waaaa and then its over. Then they won’t get some horrible diseases!

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Understandable. I’m of the generation who had all the diseases and I need to get the shingles vaccine. I’m a little scared about that too, but I’d rather take that risk than get shingles. And I can tell you from experience, you don’t want your little ones to get measles or any of the other diseases. I (and all my siblings) were VERY ill with them and I am pretty sure I had mild encephalitis. My mom told me she was always scared to death one of us was going to die. And I know for a fact that if those vaccines had been available when I was a kid, my parents would have rushed us to the doctor to get them. Those reactions are rare, but the diseases themselves are worse. Maybe talk to your doctor about your fears?

    • Guesty
      at #

      Totally understandable. With all the nonsense out there about vaccines being dangerous, it can feel safer to do the passive thing (nothing) than the active thing (take your kid for a shot a lot of people are telling you is dangerous.)

      Bad vaccine reactions do happen — but they are infinitely less common than bad car accidents, drownings, and household accidents. You expose your child to more danger on the drive to and from the pediatrician than you do in getting the shot. A certain amount of risk is just part of life. In this case, the active thing (vaccinating) is far less risky than the passive thing (leaving your child vulnerable to devastating diseases.)

    • I think it can be scary. I’m a nurse, am probably over-vaccinated myself (if that’s possible!), vaccinated my daughter, and will vaccinate the new kid arriving in July. But yes, when you hear about legitimate vaccine horror stories – medical mysteries – it is scary. A documentary that really, really helped me – even as a pro-vaccine peep – was NOVA: Calling the Shots. It talks about how the immune response can activate a variety of problems that these children would eventually be exposed to down the line…whenever their first fever occurred. I’m not explaining this well. Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/vaccines-calling-shots.html

      Hope it helps!

      • KarenJJ
        at #

        Yes – vaccines can cause a flare of an underlying condition for me and my eldest. But so can regular illness and injury (oddly enough injury more so than illness – someone that knows more about inflammatory response might guess at why that is better than me).

        • Exactly. There are numerous types of inflammation….at one point, probably back in nursing school, I knew them all. Not so much anymore. They are all part of our bodies’ normal and natural response…and protect us and help us heal on several levels.

    • Phil Beebe
      at #

      Some, very very few, people have bad reactions to certain vaccines. Usually because they have a, previously unknown, allergy to one of the components in the vaccine. For instance, people with egg allergies have a bad reaction to flu shots, people who have a yeast allergy have a bad reaction to the Hep B shots. But, even then, the bad reaction is seldom as bad as the problems faced by contracting the disease itself.

      Being worried is okay, but – as others have said – talk to your doctor about your concerns.

    • Julia
      at #

      I can understand your fear – I had a lot of fears about vaccines after my baby had an anaphalactic (I think I spelled that wrong) reaction to penicillin. It was such an awful experience that I was terrified to put any more chemicals in her body. But with lots of support from my pediatrician and the nurses and my mom (who is a retired pediatric nurse) she received all of her vaccines and has had to take a different antibiotic later on and was fine and is now a healthy, happy tween. Rest assured, just because my daughter could die if she took certain antibiotics, doesn’t mean your child will die if he/she needs and takes antibiotics. The same with vaccines. It is much easier to deal with hospitalization from a reaction to a life saving drug or vaccine than the even more awful possibility of hospitalization from a deadly disease. Trust your pediatrician and hang in there and know others know how you feel!

    • Wren
      at #

      I do understand that, and felt some of it myself. However, some of my earliest memories include my baby sister in the hospital with whooping cough, and that was after she had had the first vaccine in that series. I worried about a reaction, but was terrified of my baby getting whopping cough and vaccinated the day they were old enough with both of my kids.

  61. moonshin
    at #

    if an unvaccinated kid gets sick his parents should be charged with child neglect

  62. A very well-written, thought-provoking article. However, I think you are missing one key factor in why many parents distrust vaccines: because they are promoted by government. The conservative movement has spent the past three decades and more spreading the propaganda that government cannot do anything right, that it cannot be trusted, that it needs to be curtailed. This, coupled with scandals such as Watergate, Iran-contra, the infamous Tuskegee experiments and more, lead to an instinctive suspicion of any government initiative, no matter how benign it may seem to the rest of us. When people at the CDC and their public school (the latter of which many see as godless indoctrination centers anyhow) tell them they need to vaccinate their kids, is it any wonder they balk?

    • The Bofa on the Sofa
      at #

      When people at the CDC and their public school (the latter of which many see as godless indoctrination centers anyhow) tell them they need to vaccinate their kids, is it any wonder they balk?

      Well, no, it’s no wonder they balk, but that’s because they are clueless gits.

      The CDC Is not “the government” in any way (see my comment from a couple days ago). The CDC itself has lots of hired scientists on staff in adminstrative positions to a large extent. The science carried out for the CDC, including things like the recommended vaccination schedule, is done by private contractors, who are chosen on the basis of their expertise in the field. The committee that makes the vaccination schedule is made up by people in positions like “Chair of Pediatric Immunology at LSU Medical School.”

      As I said, I have done consulting work with the NSF. That doesn’t make me “The government” at all.

      • Justin Crosser
        at #

        So your saying the CDC is an independent organization and they are not part of the government?

        • The Bofa on the Sofa
          at #

          They are not “the government”

          They don’t govern. They are a center set up by the government to determine the best health practices for the country. The people they use to make those determinations are not CDC staff, but are the top experts in the country in the area of infectious disease.

        • Neya
          at #

          The top experts in the country COMPETE for CDC funding to do their research. Then, results are published in peer-reviewed journals. Many of the publishers of peer-reviewed journals are not even based in the US. Elsevier is in the Netherlands, for example.

        • Wren
          at #

          Even if the CDC were a part of the US government, all the other equivalent organisations in other countries around the world are not. If one cared to posit a worldwide conspiracy in which all of these governments and millions of scientists and doctors are all wrong about vaccines I suppose one could, but it totally undermines any further argument.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Do conspiracies of some sort exist? Yes. But whether or not a conspiracy is plausible depends on how many people would have to be involved, and whether they have diverse financial incentives.

            There are many thousands of genuine experts who tell us that vaccines are safe and beneficial, quite a few of whom do not work for either a pharmaceutical company or a government. They get vaccines for themselves and their families. Conspiracy is wildly implausible.

          • Wren
            at #

            Exactly.

          • Who?
            at #

            I think a capacity to believe in conspiracy theories displays a kind of naivete that would in other circumstances be rather sweet.

            Conspiracies are notoriously difficult to get going and in these days in particular, practically impossible to keep secret. Perhaps this should be a threshold test for a certain sort of anti-vaxxer: anyone who can’t see and appreciate that worldwide conspiracies aren’t real perhaps lacks the intellectual firepower to manage the basic understanding required for vaccines.

    • Teri Coley Adams
      at #

      A rabid fear of anything that has to do with the government is not logical. Example: The government supports seat belt laws. Seat belts save lives. They are not evil simply because the government supports them. This is just one small example. Do I totally trust that everything my government supports is in my best interest? No, but I also do not lean to the other extreme and denigrate all the good that our government and laws provide.

    • Lars Eighner
      at #

      I don’t think the bulk of the problem is the home-schooled by Mom/Sis types with old washing machines in the yard. That is thrust of point 1 in the article. It is the master of fine arts, tree-hugging, elite “natural food” shoppers. They have never faced a real hardship in their lives, they were no good at math, and if they were history majors they did not learn anything about the history of disease except 1665. These are the people who are demanding gluten-free when they do not have a real gluten sensitivity. They are not completely immune to science: they believe in climate change; and they are not opposed to government when it seems to be doing something about climate change. They think marijuana is medicine but vaccinations are not.

      • Daniel Delgado
        at #

        hey now, I am a scientist with a B.S. in chemical engineering and both I and my wife are granola swilling, tree hugging, natural food eating, fine art lovers and we vaccinate our kids. In fact everyone in my circle of friends, who have like habits and interests, vaccinate without a moment’s trepidation. I also happen to think marijuana is medicine and there are plenty of peer reviewed studies to prove it. I don’t partake personally but then, I don’t have a medical need. My wife is also on a gluten free diet, albeit by doctors order for complications of Hashimoto’s disease(hypothyroidism). Point being, don’t lump us all together. We can love fine arts and science, they are not mutually exclusive. Just ask DaVinci.

        • Who?
          at #

          Probably many regulars who post here share a similar profile with you. We don’t all bang on about it though, as I imagine you don’t, having other more valuable things to do with our time than try to big-note ourselves one consumer product or experience at a time.

          For my money, when lifestyle becomes identity is when the trouble starts. There’s a whole row at my recently renovated supermarket for ‘lifestyle’ drinks. I have no idea what that means and am studiously avoiding it. Have never seen anyone in that aisle come to think of it, so it will likely be gone soon.

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            “Lifestyle drinks.”

            That gives me a mental image of a fashionable cocktail with a frilly umbrella, but that’s probably not what they’re selling.

          • Who?
            at #

            No booze at the supermarket here, not that a slug or two wouldn’t go down well. I loathe the supermarket.

            It’s more likely to be weird concoctions involving coconut water, that green slime all the exercise nuts seem to be drinking, and water with either vitamins, or ‘twists’ of flavours, or both.

            It is seriously no wonder half the world is obese when you see the crap that passes for food. We need a word for things you can eat, that sort of pass for nutrition and won’t kill you today, but which really are not much good.

  63. Guest
    at #

    No, this is not what “everyone gets wrong about anti-vaccine parents”. What they get wrong is they belittle them and ridicule them with such vehemence that they cannot possibly want to hear your side of it. Please don’t tell me that you’ve tried. Do you, as a doctor, give up that easily? But they need discussion, not arrogance and conceit. Listen to their fears. They are not all ‘priviledged’. They are concerned for the health of their children. Some of them are doubtless conceited and arrogant and unpleasant, but they are human, after all. You’ll win them over with transparency, with an attitude of helping people, not looking down on them, and by listening to them. The level of ignorance in the comments and in this article is stomach churning. Is this really how people want to treat one another in the 21st century? Parents are concerned that vaccines are developed by businesses with an eye on profit, not on health; they are concerned about the government, the businesses and medical professions’ intentions and priorities; they are concerned about a history of deception and failings in the medical profession, much of which comes from their own experiences of bad healthcare. They are concerned that the number of vaccines and the contents of them are not as well tested as other drugs, and that the ingredients in vaccines are unnecessary and often impossible to uncover, except for the odd, often untrustworthy leak. If vaccines are safe, why the secrecy? Why not be transparent? What is there to fear as a doctor, as a pharmaceutical company, as a medical professional, by telling the truth and being open and honest? Very few parents would take these decisions about their child’s health lightly, and many will spend months agonising about the decision anyway. If you want to ridicule and belittle people, go to the YouTube comments section with the rest of them. But please don’t do it in the name of science or medicine.

    • Life Tip
      at #

      Literally every single one of these concerns has been addressed. Respectfully. So many times. Since that’s the case, what is left to do but assume willful ignorance?

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      You’ve missed the whole point of the piece.

      Anti-vax is NOT about parents concerned about their children, it’s about parents concerned with the EGOs.

      It takes an extraordinary amount of self-deception to imagine that you are somehow more knowledgeable about the risks and benefits of vaccines than immunologists, pediatricians and public health officials combined.

      It takes an extraordinary amount of hysterical conspiracy mongering to imagine that all the doctors, scientists and public health officials IN THE WORLD are engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the dangers of vaccines.

      And it take a stunning lack of logical thinking to imagine that those same doctors, scientists and public health officials are willing to expose their own children to the “secret” risks of vaccines in order to perpetuate that conspiracy.

      Children and their well being have nothing to do any of that.

      • Roadstergal
        at #

        I tried being rational with my anti-vax cousin. I was nice, I addressed every one of her concerns in a non-judgmental, kind tone (and this is kinda my area). Did fuck-all to change her mind. Now she’s going nuts about fluoride in the water supply.

        • Andrew Lazarus
          at #

          Non-trivial chance she lives in a part of the USA where natural fluoride in the water is higher than what they add elsewhere.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Actually, pretty trivial chance that that is what she is worried about.

          • Roadstergal
            at #

            I do get what Andrew was trying to get at – the benefits of fluoride in water became very clear when comparing the dental outcomes of children who grew up where the water supply naturally contained a high level of fluoride, vs those where it didn’t. The optimal concentration (maximum benefit vs minimum risk – I think the only risk that’s worth worrying about at the levels we’re talking is tooth discoloration) is still being tweaked, I’m sure, but is far less than the natural level in many parts of the US. So if you’re hard on the ‘natural’ bent, you’ll find yourself ingesting a lot more fluoride than is in the municipal water supply in a lot of places in the US.

            This was also a datum that went in one of her ears and out the other. Purity of Essence, and all.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            But places that have high natural levels of fluoride are not fluoridating, so I don’t see why the person would be complaining about that. So what is she complaining about? That the natural fluoride level is too high? I don’t think that’s it. Anti-fluoridation folks don’t complain about the natural fluoride levels, even when it it is too high.

    • Cobalt
      at #

      Vaccine risks, ingredients, side effects, effectiveness, etc. is widely known and available. Anytime a vaccine is given in the U.S., it comes with a printed handout detailing this information. Also, many areas have or have had vaccination rates of upwards of 95%, physically demonstrating safety for the anecdotally minded.

      Who convinced parents that the evidence of studies, the expertise of doctors, and the experience of their own eyes, was untrustworthy?

      • grandma jones
        at #

        Good question, Cobalt. I saw there are some books written about the anti vax movement. I believe it is anti vax parents who are convincing other parents not to vaccinate. It’s not enough for them to assert their personal beliefs and right not to vaccinate. They have to convince others to believe the same — that way they do feel a little bit smug about their decision. They want to pressure others to make the choice they made. I guess maybe people don’t want their kids (even if they are vaccinated) playing with the unvaccinated kids — what if the disease is brought home to younger siblings, neighbors or cousins? Maybe the anti-vaxxers are feeling left out and lonely.

      • DT
        at #

        And here’s the thing: even if every (EVERY!) case of autism EVER was because of a vaccine, we’d STILL be way ahead of the curve, because these diseases kill WAAAAAYY more people than that.

      • Roadstergal
        at #

        I have to recommend, as I often do, The Panic Virus – it does a very nice job of documenting the anti-vaccine movement (I hadn’t realized how old it was) and the face it bears today.

    • laineypc
      at #

      I agree. The problem is not so much with privilege, but paranoia- that’s my uneducated take- parents who refuse are irrationally paranoid. But what does the evidence say about vaccine refusal reasons? I think this article is an informed speculation.

      • Cobalt
        at #

        Where does this paranoia come from? Why are vaccines worth paranoia?

        • The Bofa on the Sofa
          at #

          As Paul Offit says, the problem is that it is really hard to “unscare” someone. That’s why education and rational discussion doesn’t work, and why anti-vaxxers can be successful. All you have to do is to create the question, and it will never go away.

        • EmbraceYourInnerCrone
          at #

          Some of it is part of the “all natural/organic movement that thinks that “toxins” and “checmicals” are in everything and if they just eat the right things and stay “pure” their chicldren will be healthy, awesome and brilliant.
          From a recent Ny times article(careful you may roll your eyes clean out of your head)
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html?_r=0

          “In San Geronimo, Calif., a mostly rural community of rolling hills and oak trees about 30 miles north of San Francisco, 40 percent of the students walking into Lagunitas Elementary School have not been inoculated against measles, according to the school’s figures. Twenty-five percent have not been vaccinated for polio. In all, the state says that 58 percent of Lagunitas kindergartners do not have up-to-date vaccine records.A lot of people here have personal beliefs that are faith based, said John Carroll, the school superintendent, who sent a letter home to parents last week encouraging them to vaccinate their children. The faith, Mr. Carroll said, is not so much religious as it is a belief that “they raise their children in a natural, organic environment” and are suspicious of pharmaceutical companies and big business.”
          25% have not been vaccinated against polio..just let that sink in a minute…

      • Life Tip
        at #

        Privilege allows people to be paranoid about inconsequential things.

        • Justin Crosser
          at #

          Or they have access to the CDC’s site.

          Severe Problems (Very Rare)

          Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)

          Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:

          Deafness

          Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness

          Permanent brain damage

          These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.

          • Bombshellrisa
            at #

            The handouts they give at the doctor’s office lists all those things. It’s not like you have to even access a website to hear it

          • Andrew Lazarus
            at #

            So why bring back the days when parents were much more concerned because all these problems are more common from wild measles!?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Because the AVers think “it just won’t be that bad” and besides, nothing like that will happen to Special Snowflake!

          • Phil Beebe
            at #

            I’ve actually seen AV nutjobs claim that they’d prefer their children to develop immunity the “natural way”.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Pretty dumb for sure! I got my immunity “the natural way” as I had all the diseases before the vaccines were developed, and it’s obvious they have NO clue what they are talking about. These folks only seem to learn from personal experience, and even then they still sometimes don’t get it. So, when their child gets chicken pox “naturally” they can then announce to them that they may have “natural” shingles to look forward to when they get older! I’m sure their children will be real happy with them when they find out they could have gotten a vaccine and avoided it..

        • Bombshellrisa
          at #

          Reminds me of the Rob Lowe commercial-guess we need to drill our cheese looking for listening devices

    • Amazed
      at #

      Doctors tried being nice and educating. The result? A measles epidemic.

      What is there to fear? A measles epidemic perhaps?

      Those who could be won over by being nice and educational keep getting won over in their own doctors’ offices. The ones who don’t are the diehard anti-vaxxers. Like yourself, I gather?

      Being nice and respectful doesn’t work and that’s proven, so get off your high horse and keep hiding in the herd happily but don’t try to push your infantile irritation with us. And take Ann, Kate, and Dr “I don’t care for your cancer survivor child” Wolf with you.

      Like it or not, we’re creating the immunity that lets you stay alive, so the least you can do is keep silent and take a little flak for stealing from society without giving anything back.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        Well said..

      • HipsLikeCinderella
        at #

        Obviously I don’t want anyone’s kid to get the measles etc., but I have wondered what the anti vax crowd is gonna say when/if their kids get an illness that could have been prevented by a simple vaccine. Will they reverse their stance? Or will they say that their child is still better off having a disease as opposed to a vaccine?

        • Young CC Prof
          at #

          Most of them do reverse course once they see that most VPDs are a lot worse that the normal “bugs” all children pick up. A few continue to say that getting the disease is better, but they tend to be those who are most religious about it.

        • Wren
          at #

          It depends a lot on the outcome. If the child is OK, well then, vaccines are pointless, right? If not, most will change their minds but not all.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Transparency has been tried.. and failed. Discussion (and RATIONAL at that) has been tried… and failed. Presenting SCIENTIFIC FACTS has been tried… and failed. All the things you list have been debunked. Another commentator listed all the actual ingredients in vaccines along with what they do in the body. Appeals to their sense of morality has been tried.. and failed. What else would you suggest? They are risking people’s lives. If they are so ignorant to believe the internet and a bunch of lay people, well, there isn’t really much more to say, is there? When, and only when, they PERSONALLY see the effects of not vaccinating, ie- DEATH and permanent injury and/or disability, will they (maybe) start getting it..

    • Guestll
      at #

      Yes, they’re concerned for the health of their children, they have questions, they have and fears. Yet what happens when those concerns are addressed, those questions are answered, those fears met with explanations and reassurance and science?

      What happens, let’s say, when 107 worldwide studies fail to find a link between MMR and autism?

      If you gave me a package insert list of ingredients, and I went through every single one with you and explained why it’s there, what it does, what would happen then?

      You tell me, I’d like to hear it in your words.

      • Julia
        at #

        When I have used those pieces of information to try to get through to my anti-vax friends their eyes just glaze over and they say “Follow the money. That science was paid for by Big Pharmaceuticals!” I have been told many times by folks that “we can not have a conversation because you are too brainwashed by so-called mainstream scientists who are all owned by corporate medicine” etc. So, I think the part about needing to not trust authority and “think on your own” was so true in Dr. Amy’s article. Because it is not about the science – if it was there wouldn’t be an anti-vax movement. I live on an island that has actually made it into documentaries for how big the anti-vax movement is though so I get to see the madness up close and personal. (thank goodness my whole family is vaccinated!)

    • Laura Thomas
      at #

      I don’t get into debates or ridiculing with my anti-vax friends. There is not much I can tell them anyway. As concerned as they are for the safety of their kids, like you pointed out, they have been steeped in a lot of fearful propaganda, half truths and downright incorrect, misunderstood information. But when I bring food and give money to my blind friend who was not vaccinated for measles, contracted measles, and is now visually impaired because of it, I lose some of my patience for my friends’ arguments and concerns. Blindness for life, very disabling, SHOULD be a much greater fear to these parents than the real, but extremely small risk, that vaccines pose. We live in an age where we don’t see the effects of not being vaccinated – until now.

      • Bombshellrisa
        at #

        We have a friend whose mother was exposed to rubella during her pregnancy-he is blind. We have an aunt who had polio as a child. They are kind, considerate, fun people to be around–unless you want to debate vaccines. Then the blind friend takes on a time that makes any anger I have look like a tea party and Auntie obliterates every argument so bluntly I am astonished every time. She also scares me because she once said she wanted to chase down a particular anti vaxer on her mobility scooter and smack them with her cane.

        • Samantha06
          at #

          I love your friend and your aunt…

        • NGH
          at #

          Me too. I’m beside myself with anger at the anti-vaxers. I suffered hearing loss my entire life because of measles. My parents also suffered (to see me suffer).

    • Medwife
      at #

      I tried. I’m trying now. I will continue to try, indefinitely. I have to say I can’t think of a single true “anti vax” patient I’ve convinced with all my facts and all my reassurances. As soon as I start talking “the face” goes on and I know I’ve become THE MAN. Another sheep. I can’t and don’t really want to mock my patients. I’m ok with dr Amy doing it though! I think the growing belief that anti-vaxers go right along with 9/11 and BHO Truthers and climate change denialists, and that their belief in pseudoscience is ridiculous. Subject to ridicule.

    • attitude devant
      at #

      You don’t want to be ridiculed? Don’t espouse ridiculous ideas that put the rest of us at risk.

    • Who?
      at #

      If you are ridiculous, you will be ridiculed.

      It’s all on you now.

      • KarenJJ
        at #

        Yeah this “sheeple” gets a bit miffed with the anti-vax ridicule and implication that they love their kids soo much to that they’ll “always protect her, never inject her”.

        Parents that don’t vaccinate come from all types of perspectives and with all sorts of issues. Some of them can be rasoned with, some of them have medical issues. The “anti-vaccine movement” is ridiculous and deserves being discredited.

        • Who?
          at #

          Oh look the more people crow about loving their children the more I wonder what they have to hide. Loving children is a given. Needing to carry on about it is not healthy.

          Ultimately it’s the kids I feel sorry for, particularly if they move into mainstream life. Imagine being the person who gave a friend’s new baby measles or whooping cough because you honestly thought you couldn’t, or didn’t remember you could. Imagine getting tetanus from a fairly minor cut because you’d never been vaxxed for it.

          Even if all this got sorted tomorrow there will be years of fallout from the current crop of anti-vaxxers.

          • Who?
            at #

            I’ll go further actually-when people crow about loving their children, I wonder what they are selling. ‘I love my children, and did X. How much do you love yours?’

            Guilt 101. Great marketing strategy.

    • Nick Sanders
      at #

      “They are concerned that the number of vaccines and the contents of them are not as well tested as other drugs, and that the ingredients in vaccines are unnecessary and often impossible to uncover, except for the odd, often untrustworthy leak. If vaccines are safe, why the secrecy? Why not be transparent?”

      What the hell are you talking about? None of that is true.

  64. attitude devant
    at #

    What I hate, hate, hate about these endless arguments with anti-vaxx parents is that we are stuck in this infinite loop, arguing about something which was settled long ago. There simply is no controversy here: vaccines work, and they present small statistical risks, much smaller than the actual diseases. Case closed.

    When I think of all the electrons re-routed in the service of someone arguing the equivalent of the “the earth is flat,” I get depressed. There is so much more to science and public health than this. It’s a huge waste of energy.

    But this is the thing that always strikes me about all these natural fallacies that play out on this page: it’s always more arduous and tortured than you can conceive when you first encounter them. AP, NCB, EC—all of them requiring a HUGE expenditure of mental energy to parse every little detail down to the very topstitiching on their baby sling. Thank God none of these people seem to have anything real to do with their time, like earn a living.

    • Life Tip
      at #

      If it was an actual conversation about why vaccines work, it would be so much easier. Instead, it’s an argument with a stupid/ignorant/irrational person about why they are being stupid/ignorant/irrational. Being anti-vax is the unfortunate manifestation of that stupidity/ignorance/irrationality.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        And, like Dr Amy said, ego. Learning the true facts would involve them opening their minds to the fact that they are wrong and mainstream medicine just might be right. And most stupid/ignorant/irrational people are not going to do that come hell or high water

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Organic baby sling..*snark*. So, so true though, and what I find most frustrating is their total lack of ability to see the big picture. They focus on the minute details so much I think they get overwhelmed. Add in a healthy dose of arrogance and distrust of mainstream medicine and it’s a recipe for disaster.

    • grandma jones
      at #

      I don’t care if they breast feed, home school, go organic or any of the stuff. i remember a family some 20 years ago swore by unpasturized apple juice — unfortunately it was tainted with e-coli and their child died. It doesn’t matter if that is their decision. What I can’t stand is the idea of anti-vax. Don’t really care if they put their own children at risk. What I don’t like is them putting all the infants too young for the vaccine at risk, and the people too ill for the vaccine at risk. So if they would talk to us older people who had the mumps, and had the measles — why go through that — I would have rather been vaccinated. I remember my whole family going to the public school and most of the town was there — joyfully taking the oral polio vaccine that had just been developed and providing our doctor’s names so our medical records could be updated. Everyone was so excited and relieved — and we looked to make sure everyone we knew was there! I also remember a high school teacher who walked with crutches because his legs were paralyzed by the polio he endured as a child. The anti-vaxers don’t seem to understand that they are a public health hazard — because they have their “rights”. I worry for all the little babies too young to be vaccinated.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        Absolutely! I had all the childhood diseases. A lady I worked with several years ago walked with a limp as a result of polio. Her leg was much thinner than the other and was much weaker. These anti-vaxxers need a history lesson in the worst way.. they don’t realize that having chicken pox can lead to shingles later on.. which is very unpleasant to say the least!

  65. JJ
    at #

    The thing about the anti-vax movement is that it can only exist because vaccines have worked so well. When I hear the argument “you are more likely to have a vax reaction than a complication of the disease” it is because epidemic levels of that disease are not going around the USA anymore showing us how awful it is!!! Since all of their children are not all being wiped out at once due to diphtheria, they have the luxury of complaining about all the “chemicals” how unnecessary the vax is! The vax seems unnecessary because it has worked so well!

    I have also wondered about the children who have a reaction to the vaccine. Would they really have fared better getting the diseases, especially most of the VPDs? I think severe vax reactions are horrible and I hope they can be decreased, but how many people could survive many of the VPDs without being harmed/dead? This is something that is not addressed by anti-vaxxers in my experience.

    My son had a mild/mod reaction to the measles vaccine and was sick for almost a week with a rash, fever, and ear infection. That me makes me think he would have fared worse if he caught it naturally because he would have had much more of the virus in him (?) Does anyone know more about this concept?

    I am not a scientist nor do I play one on the internet so I am not assuming my hypothesis is correct.

    • DigitalAtheist
      at #

      These are some of the medical problems the anti-vax crowd is going to be responsible. Mind you this is from polio.

      fever
      tiredness and weakness (malaise)
      headache
      nausea and vomiting
      muscle stiffness.
      severe muscle pain
      stiffness of the neck and back – with or without paralysis
      swallowing and breathing problems
      long-term disability – due to paralysis of the muscles
      death – in severe cases, when breathing and swallowing muscles are paralyzed.

      post-polio:
      decreasing strength and endurance
      breathing, swallowing or speaking difficulties
      pain in muscles and joints
      fatigue and an inability to stay alert.
      There is a reason I’m big on the polio kick, besides family history. Health care workers in places where groups like the Taliban rule are being stopped from administering the vaccine… sometimes to the point of death. Sooner or later the diseases is going to make a big return and the misery would have been mostly preventable.

      • To be fair, it’s the CIA that doomed health care workers on that one by using health care workers to check children’s DNA while looking for bin Laden.

      • grandma jones
        at #

        That’s the problem — things like measles and polio might start out like the common cold or flu. So by the time the serious disease is diagnosed, how may people have been infected by the unvaccinated person? Polio is scary, tetanus is scary. At least with a vaccination it can be administered when a person is healthy.

      • Bombshellrisa
        at #

        Post polio syndrome-it’s ugly. Our family member with this has gotten more and more frail and less mobile. She was the “lucky one”, she survived, the cousins of hers who got polio died.

    • grandma jones
      at #

      I knew someone whose family member had a reaction to the pertossis vaccination. So she got all the vaccinations for her son except that one. So instead of a DPT — he got a vaccination for Diptheria and Tenatus instead. Common sense — people! Why would you not give your kid a tetanus shot?

    • Laura Thomas
      at #

      “I am not a scientist nor do I play one on the internet” LOL!

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      ” Does anyone know more about this concept?”

      I think what you are asking is “Are those that have bad cases of side effects to the vaccine the same people who tend to have bad cases of the disease itself?” or perhaps “Since my son got so sick from the weakened virus, does that mean that he likely would have had a bad case of measles from the real virus?”
      I’m a physician, not a scientist, and I’m not sure of the answer either. It sounds like a reasonable hypothesis but obviously very hard to reseach as one person can usually only experience one or the other (shot or real illness). I do know of a set of identical twins here in our state where one had her MMR and the other didn’t get it due to some scheduling glitch. The one who got vaccinated reportedly tolerated the shot without incident. But the twin sister picked up a horrible case of the measles during the 1980s epidemic and is permanently neurologically impaired with wheelchair status. For what it’s worth.

      • KarenJJ
        at #

        It is possibly the issue with some of those with underlying conditions. I know when my immunologist and I were discussing vaccines when I was pregnant with my second and talking about adverse effects (he was the one that raised adverse effects of vaccines with me), I was on the fence about giving my newborn the Hep B vaccine (given at birth here). He did say though, that the last thing we want to be trying to deal with is liver damage from Hepatitis as well as the rare autoinflammatory condition we have.

        We’ve already got something causing fevers, hearing damage, swollen optic nerves and possible organ damage with our underlying condition. We really really didn’t want to mess around with a serious illness on top of that. At least with vaccines, they are given in a medical clinic with medical staff on had and a comfortable waiting area where you can be observed for 15 minutes or so. With an illness, they can get so serious so quickly and so far from medical assistance.

  66. Guesteleh
    at #

    I want to address one of the points that Ann made, which is that complete self interest and disregard for the common good is a rational choice. It’s not. There’s been a lot of research on altruism in the fields of games theory and Economics and it’s been demonstrated that behaving altruistically is much more beneficial to individuals in the long run. for example, if I don’t have school age children I may not derive any immediate benefit by paying taxes to the school system but in the long run I benefit from having children who grow up to be educated and productive members of society. The kind of complete self interest being flogged by Ann is held by not too bright libertarians who like to snuggle up to their copy of The Fountainhead. In short, Ann is not only an agile but not nearly as smart as she thinks she is.

    Also, here’s a cool article on the mathematics of altruism: http://plus.maths.org/content/does-it-pay-be-nice-maths-altruism-part-i

    • JJ
      at #

      This is an interesting article about how they have high vax rates in Sweden because their culture sees getting vaxed as protecting others, not mainly about protecting themselves. We need more of this type of thinking an America.

      http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-29/what-sweden-can-teach-america-about-measles-vaccinations

    • Guesteleh
      at #

      Agile = asshole. Stupid autocorrect.

      • Bombshellrisa
        at #

        Actually that is a funny thought–someone who thinks they are agile and smart, when they really come across as clunky and ignorant.

    • Cobalt
      at #

      So, let’s take all emotion, all altruism, out of the equation. Be totally selfish and practical. Just the cold, hard facts.

      Kids are an expensive investment (time, effort, and money). If they die, you’re wasting your investment.
      You cannot trust herd immunity, because you can’t trust others to protect your investment. You are personally responsible for your investment.
      Vaccines are cheaper than treatment.
      Vaccines have a lower death and disability rate than the diseases they prevent.

      So, even if you don’t give a crap about others, or about your own kid’s pain and suffering, vaccines still win.

      • DigitalAtheist
        at #

        Also, it is safer for your investment if the others around you also invest wisely in their child’s health. It is a win-win all around.

      • Lars Eighner
        at #

        This is the start of a pretty good argument: if it were all about Big Pharm profits, and vaccines are bad, why would Big Insurance pay for vaccinations? Is Big Insurance really about philanthropy? Why would they risk having to pay for treatment of vaccine reactions, if their financial exposure for vaccine reactions wasn’t way less than their financial exposure for the disease being vaccinated against. Are they just not so greedy as Big Pharm?

        Big Insurance is actually betting real money on the outcome. Are they just guessing off the top of their heads? Or do they have teams of actuaries looking at vaccination from every angle so they can hang-on to a much of that premium money as they can. And the result is, they bet on vaccination.

        • Samantha06
          at #

          One thing about insurance companies.. there is no emotion, it’s all about risk and money. They are not going to pay for something that doesn’t work.

    • DiomedesV
      at #

      I’m sorry, but the field of altruism, whether it exists, how it emerges and its spread and potential evolutionary significance is way more complex than “it’s been demonstrated that behaving altruistically is much more beneficial to individuals in the long run”. The details of the behavior, its ramifications for the individual and society, and its heritability and/or cultural transmissability matter a great deal in these models. You simply cannot state that altruism = good over long term for any subject.

      In fact, when these diseases are rare, it is a RATIONAL choice to avoid the vaccine. Because when the diseases are very rare, the risk of a negative reaction to the vaccine is higher than the risk of contracting the illness. Even when the disease becomes slightly less rare, the perception of risk is what is dominating this discussion. People naturally make errors of judgment when all the risks being discussed are very low, which they still are. Any one kid is still much less likely to get measles than they were 60 years ago.

      Selfish behavior is rational and can persist in communities and over evolutionary time. The details matter.

      • Montserrat Blanco
        at #

        So you can be absolutely sure that your children will never ever travel to an area with a low vaccine coverage and will not be infected… It does not work that way.

        • DiomedesV
          at #

          The point is that any model (ie, mathematical model) that looks at the evolution of altruism has certain, shall we say, inflexion points where it is absolutely rational and the ESS (evolutionarily stable strategy) where being selfish is the best policy. This is simple mathematics. I’m simplifying a great deal. Where that inflexion point is depends upon the actual details of the situation. It is simply true, in a mathematical sense, that if you model a situation where the disease is very, very rare, sufficiently rare that the vaccine side effect risks are greater, then being selfish is the ESS. That point will, of necessity, be fragile and as more people make that decision because then the disease becomes more common.

          A blanket statement that modeling shows that altruism can always evolve or will always be the best strategy is simply false. Anyone with a background in evolutionary modeling will tell you that.

  67. Diana Laughing-Dove Wells
    at #

    Thank you for this article. Many years ago, the parents I knew were against vaccines, the scare was autism. I asked my doctor and he said, “I cannot tell you to vaccinate your child or not, but I can tell you I have seen more children die from {whooping cough} I cannot remember the scientific name, than I have see die or be hurt by vaccinations. That was enough for me. I was educated by my doctor and my daughter grew up with every vaccine required. SHE was more important to me than my fears. I don’t think I was ever egotistical. I was only afraid of autism or that she would be hurt by the vaccines. Great article.

    • Kelly
      at #

      Those that don’t trust the doctors and are ardent anti-vaxers are the ones she is talking about. A concerned parent who talks rationally and listens to their doctor is not egotistical but concerned about their child. There is a difference.

  68. If it wasn’t for the much vulnrable babies and people whom could not get the vaccinations due them being too risky (those who got chemotherapy before need to wait a while to produce more white blood cells) I’d not care a single whit about these anti-vaccination morons, they would simply kill each other and the survivors would beg for vaccinations.

  69. A J Sharp
    at #

    The best way to get anti-vaxers to vaccinate would be to pass a law forbidding them from doing so. Within a week, Jenny McCarthy would be in court suing for her right to vaccinate her child. Again, it’s all about the ego and being counter-authoritarian for these idiots.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      I like that! Or give them a “limited time offer”…you get one chance to vaccinate, after that, you’re out of luck… *snark*

    • DigitalAtheist
      at #

      Tax incentives for vaccinating your kids… exemptions for medical reasons only? Or tax penalties if your kids are not vaccinated.. medical exemptions aside? Or both?

      • Bombshellrisa
        at #

        Have to apply for a permit to stay unvaccinated. Obviously those who have true medical reasons would be exempt!

  70. Chris
    at #

    There is an overpopulation problem in the world anyway. Vaccines are self preservation, which is selfish, not the Lack of caring for other people… Moto

  71. Justin Crosser
    at #

    While I am not an anti-vax parent I can’t agree with this statement.

    “Adults know that doing the exact opposite of what authority figures recommend is a sign of immaturity, not deliberation, and certainly not education.”

    I wonder if people said the same thing about Rosa Parks? The larger issue that you are fighting is government over reach. The government has grown so much in the last 40 to 50 years that people just don’t trust it and are starting to fight back in anyway they can.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      No, we’re not fighting government overreach. We’re fighting ignorance, privilege and immaturity.

      • Justin Crosser
        at #

        Do you really think your going to win over people by calling them ignorant, privileged and immature? When debating resorting to name calling makes your argument appear weak. I agree everyone should vaccinate their children. But you need to take the time to understand the reason people choose not to or your not going to win the fight.

        • Amazed
          at #

          Do you really think it’s a post meant to win anti-vaxxers over? Any attempts to win them over through nicety and education have failed.

          And the fight was never to win them over anyway. Getting up early for school never managed to win me over. I hated it whileheartedly, yet I did it because evil authority decreed it.

          I no longer care about anti-vaxxers tiny hurt feelings. I don’t want to win their eternal tearful gratitude for opening their eyes. I want them to vaccinate. Nicety failed. Maybe namecalling and ostracism will work? I really don’t care whether they’d hate it as much as I hated getting up early. I only care about them vaccinating.

          • Justin Crosser
            at #

            How do you plan to force people to do this?

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            Sue them for negligence when their choice of inaction causes harm to another. I’m just making up popcorn and waiting for the first lawsuits because of the Disney Debacle.

          • Justin Crosser
            at #

            That might work but by then it is to late the damage is done.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            If someone faces financial ruin for acting idiotic, it’ll be a strong disincentive for others to act idiotic. I’d like it if such a case never had to come before the courts because it would be a non-issue, but this is the next best option.

          • Amazed
            at #

            By making them feel as uncomfortable as I can about being leechers and teaching their children the same. By giving them the cold shoulder when they proudly share that their child is “pure”. By asking them if they drink vodka without fearing that methyl alcohol will kill them. Same with thiomersal.

            Of course, we’re talking only about the extremists here. Normal people rarely need more than a conversation with their doctor or even a few links from real medical institutions to grasp that someone is trying to brainwash them.

          • Justin Crosser
            at #

            Why do you think they care enough about your opinion of them? If they don’t care about your opinion, you can’t make them feel uncomfortable.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Really? People don’t like being snubbed even if they don’t care.

            Anyway, I am not sure at all that it will work. All I’m saying is that the debate you think should take place will work either. So I’m all for trying the new thing (and if there are more people like me, anti-vaxxers will be more affected. Such is human nature) that has not been tried than reverting back to your suggested approach that has been proven not to work.

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            How about turn the tide at the state legislative level? The reason we have “personal conviction” exceptions is because these anti-vax nuts lobbied for them. Let’s work to take that loophole away. States without that loophole increase vaccination rates.

          • yugaya
            at #

            You are welcome to borrow my country’s thought/vaccine police, Amazed. 99% vaccination rates guaranteed! :)))

            Here’s Ann’s interpretation of what a mandatory childhood vaccination schedule aka “forcible vaccinations” looks like:

            “I can picture parents crouched in hiding in an attic or a cellar … smothering the baby’s cries … the inevitable discovery … the jackboot on the stairs …dragging the screaming child out of the arms of the screaming mother … clubbing the cursing and fighting father to the floor … and the official letter of congratulations … or form regrets”

        • grandma jones
          at #

          It’s definitely lack of information or inaccurate information that is driving the anti-vax movement. My kids understand– because they had the chicken-pox right before the vaccination was available. But the younger parents — they have no clue how miserable it is to have chicken pox in your mouth, or eyelid, or in other areas of the body. So if their kids suffer through the mumps, measles, chicken pox and shingles later in life — I guess many of us lived through it. But to learn of babies dying of whooping cough and it was preventable? I fear the only argument that will work is when these deaths begin to directly affect the people in the anti-vax movement — either their own infant — or the neighbor’s baby next door will be the victim.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            But is it lack of information?

            For example, consider the chicken pox vaccine. Lots and lots of modern parents are of the generation to have had the chicken pox, so it’s not like they don’t know what it’s like. But despite that, the claims are, “I had the chicken pox, it wasn’t that bad.” Let’s consider “not that bad” chicken pox consists of maybe only a day of fever and a week of a mild rash and missed school. From a CP perspective, that isn’t bad (not consistent with mine, which was 2 complete weeks of nastily itchy rash, with multiple days of fever, but let’s grant them the “not bad”).

            So they take that “not bad” version of the CP, which is atypical, and conclude we don’t need a vaccine. But that doesn’t follow. OK, the CP was relatively mild, but you know what is even milder? The vaccine. Even a bad reaction to the vaccine consists of redness at the injection site, with maybe a chance of low-grade fever for a day. Compared to that “not so bad” case of the CP? It’s still way better. And that says nothing about the mild reaction to the vaccine (my kids were completely over it by the time we left the exam room).

            In terms of serious reactions, it’s true that they are rare for the CP, but it’s even rarer for the vaccine! There is just absolutely nothing that makes the infection better than the vaccine. For every “not so bad” version of the infection, there are lots more “not bad in the least” version of the vaccine, and even those that aren’t are still better.

            So they’ve had the disease but still want to inflict it on their kids.

            I have stated in the past, only a monster would not choose to do the CP. There is absolutely nothing to not do it.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          Nobody’s really trying to win over the anti-vaccination movement as such. But by calling anti-vaccinationists ignorant, privileged and immature I (personally) am trying to isolate a section of the anti-vax movement from the rest of those that don’t vaccinate that can be reasoned with and are just scared and need to discuss with someone medical about their concerns. They will hopefully get some help from people more knowledgeable than a bunch of strangers on the internet (including me).

          The rest of the anti-vaccinationists that have created a movement are hopeless cases and I argue with them here not to convince them, but to convince the more reasonable fence-sitters that might be reading. You guys help because you actually demonstrate Dr Amy’s point because:
          a) the technical arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny from medical people here (“pathogen corpses”…)
          b) the arguments are typically “because I wanna” and that’s exactly the mentality Dr Amy is pushing back against in this piece.

    • DigitalAtheist
      at #

      There are times for civil disobedience, however, when the actions you are taking put innocent people at risk–such as not vaccinating–then you are just being disobedient to be disobedient… in other words childish

      What the A-V people are doing is trying to be Special Little Snowflakes. Why with just a few minutes research on the Interwebs they are more knowledgeable than doctors and scientists who have studied tons of research over years worth of time.
      Your argument bears a lot of merit it some cases, but not in this one.

    • Siri
      at #

      Yeah. And they are fighting back in the manner of the overgrown toddlers they are – by chucking their toys out of their prams and breaking things on purpose.

    • SuperGDZ
      at #

      The piece mentioned “unreflective” defiance a number of times, including in the sentence immediately preceding the one you excised. Do you think Rosa Parks’s defiance was unreflective?

      • SuperGDZ
        at #

        Furthermore, do you think there is any valid comparison to be made between Rosa Parks’s defiance and the defiance of anti-vaccinators, who risk little ((in a largely vaccinated community) to gain nothing of worth? The conceit…

        • Justin Crosser
          at #

          I think she made a blanket statement about defiance that included all defiance not just anti-vaccinators.

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            Read it again. She explicitly argues the exact opposite:

            “unflective acceptance of authority, whether that authority is the government or industry, is a bad thing. BUT that doesn’t make the converse true.”

          • Justin Crosser
            at #

            She doesn’t say in some cases or in this case she makes the statement that all defiance is.

          • Justin, please improve your reading comprehension skills. “Unreflective” is an adjective. It limits the concept of “defiance” to specific kinds of defiance. It is not “all defiance” as you state.

        • Guesteleh
          at #

          Seriously. Get the fuck out of here with that Rosa Parks analogy. Privileged people appropriating black civil rights history to justify their twatty and self-defeating behavior. Again I say: Fuck off.

    • Justin Crosser
      at #

      Well have it your way keep with the message “I am with the government and I am here to help you ignorant hick why don’t you understand that.” I know a few anti-vex parents they are not dumb they have thought it through. They don’t trust the government and they view you as part of the government. You need to approach as a fellow parent who has see the effects of these diseases first hand.

      • ephena
        at #

        Thinking it through and being reflective are not exactly the same thing. I know a lot of smart, educated people who do very, very dumb things. Once you start lumping the government together as one monolithic, evil empire, you have pretty much lost the plot. Anti-vax parents are part of a movement in America that denigrates and minimizes educated, scientifically-trained experts. This idea that a parent who has read some well-meaning but completely inaccurate blogs, can bully the medical profession into backing down from evidence-based conclusions about disease, is the same impulse as the climate change deniers – I don’t like it, and if it were true it would mean someone could tell me what to do, so it must be wrong. The only way to deal with this is to legislate it. You will not convince them with anything less than dead and maimed children (witness the sudden rush for measles vaccination in California), and if you are willing to wait for children to start dying from vaccine-preventable illness in the kinds of numbers we saw before the introduction of vaccines, you have several screws loose.

    • Todd Scranton
      at #

      With your immediate cry of “government overreach!” you’ve inadvertently demonstrated a parallel problem: the rise of libertarians who are privileged, reflexively defiant of authority, and fueled by a upbringing that has spend FAR too much time telling them all how “special” they are. They are almost universally spoiled, selfish children who scorn the very social fabric that has allowed them to have the positions they enjoy.

  72. moto_librarian
    at #

    I love it when people like Ann pretend that they aren’t being selfish. As Bofa pointed out, not giving a damn about anyone other than yourself and your children is the very definition of selfish. There used to be this notion of the social contract in this country, that you considered the needs of others rather than just your own. I vaccinate my kids not only for their health, but for the health of everyone around them. I have a close friend going through chemotherapy, another who has HIV, and we also have many friends with infants too young to be fully vaccinated. Helping to strengthen herd immunity is a very simple way for me to demonstrate that I love these people. If you are such a narcissistic asshole that you can’t think about anyone else, you don’t deserve to interact with the rest of society.

  73. Amy Tuteur, MD
    at #

    Hey, everybody: Can we find out how Ann thinks vaccines work?

    I suspect that Ann is at a complete disadvantage in arguing with us, because she doesn’t actually understand how they work, and if she did understand, she’s have to re-evaluate her arguments.

    So Ann,, please tell us. How do you think vaccines work?

    • Ann
      at #

      I am mystified that you think the solution to forcible vaccination can be found in “How vaccination works.”

      In fact, I doubt the sincerity of your post — not saying that I doubt your honesty, of course.

      I already know that you are like the Shadow — the one who knows what secrets lurk in the heart of man — because you have a preternatural ability to discern the evil motives of people you have never even met.

      • momofone
        at #

        So you’re not going to explain your understanding then?

        • Ann
          at #

          I get paid for that work, momo.

          • momofone
            at #

            What does that even mean? With your advanced degree, and your med-tech-teaching experience, it should be no problem for you to belt out an explanation.

          • Ann
            at #

            I am not your performing dog.

          • momofone
            at #

            So you can’t. Because you’ve spent an incredible amount of time pontificating here, and evading the question; seems that it would be much a more efficient use of time to just answer the question. Your decision not to do so speaks volumes.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            I didn’t think you were. I’ve thought all along that you are an ignorant, self-righteous fool. Thanks for the confimation!

          • Ann
            at #

            Amy!

            You called somebody names — all by yourself!
            Just like a big girl.

          • Corwin S
            at #

            I’m not sure if you’re self aware or not, but let me tell you from someone on the outside of this looking in, you should just stop now. I truly hope that you’re just a troll, maybe some teenager in their parents basement, and not actually a college teacher.

            Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            In otherwords you thought by saying you taught biology it would get you off the hot seat. If you DO teach biology, I feel sorry for the children you do teach. You are not qualified to hold a position.

          • momofone
            at #

            Exactly. And for me it’s the opposite: if she teaches biology, she should be able to explain it quickly and succinctly, though quite abbreviated. She has spent more time naming performing animals she is not than she has giving any sort of meaningful response to this question.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            You sound like a braggart who’s been caught out by someone calling their nonsense for what it is. Talk is Cheap, Whiskey Costs Money.

          • Who?
            at #

            Sure you are, you’ve been performing for our entertainment for hours now.

            And that’s your right, right?

          • Who?
            at #

            I’ll chip in. What will you charge to tell us how vaccines work?

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            I’m game, let’s hear the price tag.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        at #

        Are you hesitating, Ann, because you are aware that you don’t know how vaccines work?

        I am 100% sincere with this request because I believe 100% that you don’t actually understand how vaccines work. If you did, you would not have made the arguments you have made. And when you find out, you are going to have to make different arguments.

        So, please tell us. How do YOU think vaccines work?

        • Ann
          at #

          I have been a teacher of biology at a community college in the Boston area for some time and before that I taught med techs.

          I hold an advanced degree from your own school.

          So please.

          Hey everybody!
          Give Amy some hugs!

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            If that’s the case, I’d expect to you have no trouble explaining how vaccines work.

            I would consider any refusal to explain as tantamount to admission that you don’t know how vaccines work.

          • Ann
            at #

            I’m not your trained seal.

            You should have read my mind to figure that out.

            I guess no babies are born on snow days.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            LOLOLOL!!!!

            So you DON’T know how vaccines work! I thought so.

            Now I have a logic problem for you: Why should we take you seriously if you don’t even have a basic understanding of what the rest of us are actually discussing?

          • Ann
            at #

            Hey everybody!
            Look at Amy.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Sorry, Ann, I don’t think your efforts to divert attention are working.

            You are front and center at the moment. I’m eviscerating you, and you are helping me do it.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            Yep, you’re avoiding like mad…*tap* *dancing* would be an even better and more fittingly dismissive way to describe your behavior here.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Nah, tap dancing is fun to watch

          • Karen in SC
            at #

            At our state community college, several adjunct have recently been hired that only have a BS in biology. Whether or not immunology is required by the curriculum, I don’t know. They don’t even have a Master’s.

            Previously, you could instruct at a CC with any type of Master’s. I was hired having a BS and an MA in marketing. I now teach at a university and some people are surprised to learn that I don’t have a chemistry master’s but I have years of experience and I guess the department head was happy with that.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            SO FUCKING WHAT! Explain, then…as a teacher, you should have it down to a (long) elevator speech. Your comment is using Appeal To Authority to claim we have no right to question you. I’m calling your bluff…if that’s true, explain the concept the way you would to your pupils…put up or shut up.

      • demodocus' spouse
        at #

        Yes, I force my kid to have immunizations. I also force him to wear a hat when it’s below freezing, wear sunscreen when there’s a high UV index that’ll burn his Irish hide, and get his nose wiped. He hollers, but at 15 months, he’s not exactly rational.
        Dr. Tuteur and just about everybody else I’ve read here or on other science blogs do not recommend forcing anyone to have anything. Telling you that you’ve made a stupid decision is not the same as advocating force.

        • Ann
          at #

          You are amazing!

          Thank you for responding to my rebuttal!

          I see.
          Well, if you all are going to confine your reaction to the anti-vaxxers to calling them names (“Hey everybody! Let’s all call them stupid!”) then I have no disagreement with you.

          I think they’re stupid too, but of course I don’t think that shouting abuse at people is a good way to smarten them up.

          I have a couple of lingering questions, if I may intrude on your time?

          1) Is calling the anti-vaxxers names among yourselves going to be sufficient to express all the disturbing anger that this issue has generated?
          For example, one poster has said that they should be denied access to libraries, and John James has said they should be killed.
          “I can only suggest a penalty for such actions that would be life-ending in nature.”
          ~ posted by John James
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/02/01/these-parents-oppose-vaccines-for-reasons-that-should-disturb-us-all/#comment-1829442466

          2) Can you tell me why you have your kid wear a hat when it’s really cold outside?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            Ann, where’s your explanation of how vaccines work?

            I’m sure that you realize that you can’t expect your beliefs about vaccines to be taken seriously if you don’t even understand how vaccines work.

          • Bombshellrisa
            at #

            “Denied access to libraries” lol she said public spaces and used libraries as an example. Anyway, anti vax parents don’t get their information at libraries. They read blogs, huddle in Facebook threads and post memes. They consider that education sufficient enough to make a decision about refusing to vaccinate.

          • Ann
            at #

            Well, of course the point was not to limit their access to information, but rather to limit their time in spaces shared by lots of kids.

            That’s why schools and libraries are good examples of what was meant.

            They are pest houses.

          • demodocus' spouse
            at #

            You are also amazing!
            1) I wasn’t yelling.
            2) I called their decision stupid, not them. Everyone makes stupid decisions from time to time, the trick is to try not to repeat them. I wasn’t paying enough attention and cut the tip of my thumb off a few months ago. That was stupid. I pay much more attention now.
            3) I personally try *never* to call anyone names. With the exception of my ex-stepfather and my husband’s attacker, both of whom fully deserve it.
            4) I have no control what John James says, and in fact had never heard of him until now. I do tell off people who get overly hyperbolic.
            5) Is your last question meant to be funny? I’ll answer it like its a serious question. Because he’s a toddler and cannot tell me when he’s getting frostbit! We do not have a car, and the wind chills by the Great Lakes are pretty serious. Not like Siberia, but still. We do need to go places during the winter, and public transit is a fine thing, but you can get too cold in 10 minutes while you wait. That’s if the buses are running on time and I timed our trips correctly.

    • Ann
      at #

      Amy — Did you write “Hey everybody”?

      What are you — eleven?

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        at #

        Stop stalling, Ann.

        Please explain to us how you think vaccines work to protect health.

    • DigitalAtheist
      at #

      Amy, from what I’ve read from Ann on this site, and another site yesterday, she believes that a) vaccines are 100% effective for those that get them and they don’t have to worry about whether unvaccinated people get the disease or not because the vaccinated ones can’t ever get the disease. The disease will only affect those who didn’t vaccinate.
      Ann also has this belief that it is selfish to tell parents who refuse to vaccinate–for moronic reasons–that they need to get their kids vaccinated for the sake of everyone around them.
      On top of that Ann also claims to not be an Anti-Vaxxer, but she shills their line pretty hard. Those A-V parents are just protecting their children from the very slight risk of complications cause by the vaccine, while exposing them to the full risks of associated with catching the disease. Twice already I’ve tried to point out that the risks of the vaccine are far outweighed by the absolute utter misery–or death–that accompanies something like polio, even going so far as to point out that medical problems associated with polio can keep popping up for decades afterwards.
      Here, and at Friendly Atheist it has been pointed out to her repeatedly that there are people who for various reasons CAN NOT be immunized so therefore they rely on herd immunity to avoid catching the various diseases. It has been pointed out numerous times that vaccines are not 100% effective for all people, or can wear off, thus exposing people to the disease.
      Dispite all of this, she insists that it is selfish of people to insist that unless there is a medical reason for not immunizing, then parents should vaccinate. After all those poor A-Vers are just looking out for the health of their children. She has no empathy for the population around them.

      • Bombshellrisa
        at #

        Thanks for the explanation!

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        at #

        I figured it’s something like that. If Ann were confident that her explanation was correct, she’d repeating it here.She apparently knows that she’s wrong.

      • Ann
        at #

        1) I have responded forever to the good point that some people cannot be effectively vaccinated.

        2) It is certainly unfortunate.

        3) The remedy cannot be — in a free society — that people be forced against their wills to receive medical interventions for the benefit of others.

        4) Such a desire is monstrously selfish

        5) Such a law would be grotesque.

        6) I am perfectly convinced that any society that goes down that road will bring more horrors down on its own head than all the anti-vaxxers since Jenner.

        7) that is how I have compassion for the population around me — I try to defend them against totalitarianism.

        8) You are short-sighted in the extreme if you think you are safer with government control of your children’s medical care than with unvaccinated children loose in the libraries.

        “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
        ~ Ben Franklin

        • DigitalAtheist
          at #

          So stop shilling for the anti-vax crowd and encourage them to get the damn VACCINES! Otherwise, when a massive epidemic does break out, which it will, there WILL be enforced inoculations. Also, just as a reminder, there IS a list of illness where people will be quarantined, and the President can modify that list at anytime by Executive Order.
          If things get bad enough for wise spread quarantine, you can bet enforced inoculation will be right beside it.
          Do everyone a favor, stop shilling for the A-V crowd. Stop trying to pretend you care about people’s liberty, and get out there and convince the morons to protect us all.
          Thanks to government health care, my mother received better treatment, at no cost to us, than she would have if we had had to go privately. Her last days were ones where she could be given the treatment she needed and deserved without us having to make choice about whether we could afford to pay for it, or having to fight with a private for-profit insurance company to get or be denied coverage. That meme you spouted needs to die.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes, this!!!! She’s all about protecting the A-V “rights,” she says she’s not an A-V, so let her put her money where her mouth is. Let’s see what she does to work with A-Vs to help them understand the importance of vaccinating.

        • Laura Thomas
          at #

          But we are forced to comply with traffic safety laws for ourselves and the benefits of others, no? Quite frankly, I feel like my rights to freedom are violated by having to go 35 mph down the hill near my home. I think it is entirely unfair that ON A HILL the speed limit is only 35 mph. I have gotten several speeding tickets from audacious police officers who think they are upholding the law for the safety of the “public good.” And then some friend dares to tell me that engineers set the speed limits based on their studied, calculated, mathematical equations of what is the “safe speed” for the traffic patterns and pedestrian traffic on that street. I feel like somehow the government is violating my civil rights and that it is “monstrously selfish” and “totalitarian.” The reason for not vaccinating children are very similar if we use your arguments. See where that line of thinking gets you Ann?

        • Guesteleh
          at #

          What will likely happen is that children who aren’t vaccinated won’t be permitted to go to school. And private schools will find themselves sued to hell and back if some kid gets sick because the school caters to the anti-vaxx crowd. So no, there isn’t a 1984-style crackdown looming. What will happen is that parents who refuse to consider the impact of their behavior on the greater good will be excluded from benefitting from public services or will be held accountable by the civil courts. So much for self interest.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            God I hope so! The only thing I think that will work is making them accountable for their choices and the consequences of those choices. The free ride won’t last forever.

        • DigitalAtheist
          at #

          Also, just to be clear about it, I availed myself of GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE!!!!11 while I was a soldier in the U.S. Army. The care I got was fast, efficient, and way cheaper than private for-profit healthcare.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            You know, I find that, for the most part, healthcare in Canada is pretty decent. There are some things, of course that I prefer about US healthcare, but our government healthcare isn’t bad.

        • ephena
          at #

          Ok. So at the heart of this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “Free Society”. Society is not free – not in terms of cost, and not in terms of being able to do whatever you like. We live in society, and benefit from the protection of society, because we pay for it – in money, but also in restrictions on our behavior.

          We can’t just murder anyone we don’t like. We can’t sell infected food. We have to drive within traffic laws, including not drinking while impaired. We can’t rob banks, even though it would benefit us financially. We can’t steal what does not belong to us – although, that would again benefit us individually.

          We combine our collective resources, to get electricity, education, legal protection, military protection, social supports for the sick and the vulnerable, and relief in times of natural disaster.

          To call living in a society that collects taxes in order to provide services, and enacts legislation and regulations to protect citizens from harm and violence Totalitarianism, is 1) an indicator that you have never actually lived in an authoritarian or totalitarian state, and 2) that you don’t pay much attention to world news.

          Evidence, collected over decades and generations, shows that you are in fact safer when your medical care is under control of the government. I would direct you to one of the other modern, western democracies that have universal health care (which would be, um, all of them), and to notice that they have a higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, better education, lower income inequality, less expensive health care, and – get this – more freedom of the press, more equality for citizens, greater economic mobility, and less violence. Get your head out of your delusional butt and look at what the Freedom(TM) you think you are defending really means.

          Purchasing “Temporary Safety” like not facing consequences for not vaccinating your children, is a major problem. Making the call to purchase long-term safety and security and to gain the protection of the collective, is the thing that America was built on. It is the bedrock of a healthy democracy – you give up something to get what you need.

        • Andrew Lazarus
          at #

          There isn’t a right to be a public health menace, never has been. Mandatory quarantine is in the Bible, not that you should get science from the Bible, but it’s very old.

          Typhoid Mary spent a lot of time in prison hospitals because she didn’t get it (either).

        • Guestll
          at #

          Well fuck, Ann. I was a perfectly good drunk driver. I did it several times, maybe dozens of times, in my twenties, and I never killed anyone. I should be allowed to drive drunk. Also on the left side of the road.

          And screw my daughter’s car seat. What kind of totalitarian regime insists that I have a government-approved seat correctly installed in my vehicle? What kind of anti-Ben Franklin world do we live in where I am forced to use it every time she rides in said vehicle?

        • The Bofa on the Sofa
          at #

          “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

          So what “essential liberty” do you think you are giving up?

          Since the “forced vaccination” is a strawman of your imagination, I’m trying to figure out what you are expecting.

          • Roadstergal
            at #

            “Those who would give up safety for both themselves and others for a little pointless Liberty don’t deserve to be part of our society.” So say I. I say it about drunk driving, I say it about anti-vaccination VPD-factories.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            “Those who insist on being assholes and douchebags hiding claiming ‘liberty’ are still assholes and douchebags, regardless of whether they have the freedom to do so are not.” – Me

        • fiftyfifty1
          at #

          Ben Franklin was a big advocate of vaccination, even back when it was variolation. He also invented the public lending library. He also said “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid”. You certainly must be working hard, Ann!

        • 3) The remedy cannot be — in a free society — that people be forced against their wills to receive medical interventions for the benefit of others.

          4) Such a desire is monstrously selfish

          5) Such a law would be grotesque.

          This is a public health issue. “Choosing to stubbornly resist an action that would benefit others” is the monstrously selfish action, not “requiring someone to make a sacrifice for the good of everyone.” YOU are the one advocating a “monstrously selfish” position. The idea that your “personal freedoms” – which absolutely infringe upon the health and safety of others – somehow outweigh the health of the rest of society… THAT is selfish!

        • Nick Sanders
          at #

          Two things:
          Regarding points 4 and 5, how so?
          Regarding Ben Franklin, he advocated vaccination.

      • yugaya
        at #

        i sincerely apologise to everyone for allowing her to run off on a tangent of presenting mandatory childhood vaccination programs as some sort of Orwellian nightmare turned real.

        In my country it’s a network of university level educated health visitors going around reminding people that their kids need to be vaccinated for the most part, and stringent reporting hierarchy that includes GPs, school doctors and nurses as well as well-baby health visitors. Occasionally, because no system is perfect, you will encounter more than a fair share of problems when trying to obtain medical waiver and if your health visitor is a bullying type they will try to bully. Complain to their head administrator, have your paperwork in order and ready and that is it if your child has documented, valid medical reasons for being exempt completely or vaccinated on an individual schedule.

        If you are hell bent on not vaccinating and shouting from the rooftops about it the monetary fine is as far as the ebil government is willing to take it. Only cases I have managed to come up with where parental rights were removed in part due to also not vaccinating involved serious other child abuse or neglect, and no child was removed and thus forcibly vaccinated solely because parents refused to vaccinate as far as I was able to google for a case like that in local language.

        I do not think I live in a society any less free or worse than the rest of the EU zone where vaccination rates are high regardless of whether they are mandatory or a matter of individual conscience (I mentioned Sweden as an example of a completely voluntary system that works and has similarly high vaccination rates ).

        On a personal level, the series of snide remarks aimed at showing how my fellow countrymen who do believe that absolute freedom of an individual can be regulated in the matters of public health by a societal consensus in the shape of a law are sheeple no better than supporters of active totalitarian dictatorships are indeed insulting. I tend to get upset a bit when people who don’t know shit about these things start throwing that as arguments. Probably because I know far more than I wish to know about truly oppressive Orwellian dictatorships and living in places where you are thanks to the government no longer able to live freely so much that the revolution is your only exit back into both collective and individual freedom and sanity.

        Sorry to burst your bubble Ann, but a mandatory childhood vaccination program is not something that makes a country so deprived in human rights department that allows it to be compared even remotely to those other places where I lived, and where indeed, at the time, I was not free.

  74. Staceyjw
    at #

    Anti vaxxers are ignorant fools. I think if you choose to not vax yourself or your kids, you should be banned from certain public spaces like schools and libraries. It’s only fair- we shouldn’t have to suffer for your choices.
    I have such little patience with these types, and my town is full of them.

    • Ann
      at #

      Unvaccinated children already cannot go to school.

      You may not enroll a child in school until you show a certificate of vaccination or proof of a legal exemption.

      • momofone
        at #

        Unvaccinated children certainly can and do go to school. In every state besides Mississippi and West Virginia, there is a personal belief exemption in addition to medical exemptions. Those do not keep unvaccinated kids out of school. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.)

        • Ann
          at #

          Well, naturally that kind of thing is what I mean by “proof of a legal exemption.”

          I guess my posts are hard to read all the way to the end.

          It is my understanding that some anti-vaxxers seek out compliant people who will provide the certificates of exemption — faking them essentially.

          • momofone
            at #

            Actually, your first sentence was “Unvaccinated children already cannot go to school.” It was pretty easy to read, thanks.

          • Ann
            at #

            That’s pretty much what I mean about people having trouble reading my posts to the end.

            That one had TWO sentences!

          • momofone
            at #

            How exactly does the second change the meaning of the first?

          • Ann
            at #

            Yes, that is hard to understand.

            I’ll try to write more clearly in the future — and just one sentence!

            Okay?

          • momofone
            at #

            Ann, you’re in over your head.

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            It negates it.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            and your second sentence contradicted the first, so why did you bother to include the first?

          • moto_librarian
            at #

            That’s why it’s time to end exemptions for anything other than medical contraindication.

          • Ann
            at #

            Yes, that is essentially a good idea, but entirely unenforceable, IMHO.

            Getting rid of religious exemptions won’t occur in the US for a long long time.

            I chalk it up to one more damage that religion and irrational beliefs have bequeathed to society.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            we can make it too expensive…and the monetary penalties in the civil suits I expect to be aimed at the anti-vaxxing people based on willful negligence will make the ‘right’s argument moot.

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            Absolutely!

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            Nonsense. This is just another lie we’ve caught you promulgating.

      • Elizabeth A
        at #

        Elizabeth

        • Ann
          at #

          Hi, Elizabeth ~

          Do we know each other?

      • Somewhereinthemiddle
        at #

        You are wrong. In my state, you sign a waiver (I think for religious reasons or whatnot) your child can attend school without vaccinating. I didn’t realize that one of my kids had missed a few vaxes a year or so ago and got a letter from the school stating that he either had to be caught up or I had to sign the waiver.

      • Elizabeth A
        at #

        Sorry for the hiccup there, but Ann, here’s an example from your home state: when I needed to put my children’s vaccines on hold, all it took was a ten second conversation with the school nurse.

    • dramacritic
      at #

      Banning a minority of people from something due to a perceived danger or risk (emotional response) is just the same as any jim crow or anti lgbt law. People saying that should be the ones who are ashamed. That is straight terrible. If someone wants to make a decision about their child’s health, let them! Whether you think it is a good decision or a bad one, you and the government are not the parents. Let them have the freedom here so that other minorities can be afforded freedoms as well.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        at #

        You win the award for self-pity, dramacritic.

        Let’s see if you know how vaccines work. Please explain to the rest of us how vaccines protect health.

      • bacnard
        at #

        I think you are overlooking the fact that decisions regarding vaccination affect more than just the parent’s child. They affect everyone that said child may interact with sometime in the future if that child contracts a preventable disease. The difference wrt LGBT or Jim Crow is the danger is real not simply a result of prejudice. Societies have to make judgements about actions of parents or their kids that can impact others. That’s why we don’t let kids bring guns or knives to school.

      • Alcharisi
        at #

        You’re comparing apples to oranges. There’s a substantial difference between people of color or queer people and people who don’t vaccinate, for two reasons. First, as bacnard said, the danger to the public from people who don’t vaccinate is empirically demonstrable, which is not true in the case of POCs or queer people. Second, choosing not to vaccinate isn’t a status, it’s an act.
        Also, as a queer lady myself, I’d prefer it if you didn’t use people like me as ammunition for a bad argument.

      • SuperGDZ
        at #

        Choosing to exercise an unearned privilege in a foolish and selfish manner to the detriment of everybody does not entitle you to affect the status of an oppressed minority.

      • Andrew Lazarus
        at #

        You are comparing quarantine to Jim Crow? Good luck with that.

      • Nick Sanders
        at #

        Their children are not their personal biology labs. They don’t get to make them sick just because they want to. If they mistreat their children in a way that endangers them, it is the duty of society to step in and protect the children, wether that’s because they don’t buckle them in the care, they don’t feed the, or they don’t get them vaccinated.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      I totally agree. Quarantine them. I have no patience for them anymore. They are endangering people’s lives. They don’t get it and it seems they don’t want to.
      A nurse practitioner I used to work with posted this article on FB.

      Ihttp://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2015-01-29/marked-why-berkeley-expert-calls-worsening-measles-outbreak

      Another friend posted this on FB this morning:

      “What’s that?
      My son can’t bring peanuts to school because someone might be allergic?

      But… your unvaccinated son can bring:

      Chicken Pox
      Whooping cough
      Measles
      Mumps?

  75. JustMeAurelie
    at #

    These motivations are probably those of most antivax parents in developped countries (altought I have seen parents truly frigthened by vaccines, because they were “warned” by people they trust but were saying bullshit).
    However, the motivation are different in Pakistan for example. In poor and developping countries, there is also antivax movements. What they defy is rather occident and science…

    • A. N. Kievsky
      at #

      Excellent points!

    • Jessy
      at #

      this is just a US phenomenon…

      • Ann
        at #

        Jessy — can you please elaborate on your remarks?

        I would love to hear how this problem is handled in other countries.

  76. Karkadann
    at #

    Those filthy disciples of doom would not exist if smallpox was still around.
    They would not exist if everyone knew someone who died from or was crippled by measles and polio. Their very existence is like spitting into the face of the previous generations.
    To hell with those selfish, retarded bastards.

    • Who?
      at #

      Doomed by their privilege, and taking others down with them.

    • Sarah
      at #

      Let’s leave ‘retarded’ out of it, but otherwise I agree. There are plenty of people with learning difficulties who understand the importance of vaccination, including one in my family!

    • Trixie
      at #

      I agree with the overall sentiment but “retarded” is an offensive term when used as a slur.

    • DigitalAtheist
      at #

      Polio is the reason I want to see the Anti-Vax crowd shut up tight. It wasn’t enough that my mother was born in 1928 just in time to see the great depression. It wasn’t enough that she was born prematurely, at home, in an area with no nearby hospitals. Those things alone should have been more than enough for one person. The polio she contracted at a very young age.. good grief. There was no vaccine for her to take at that time. While she came out lucky, she suffered the affects of it for the rest of her 83 years.
      As if my mother’s case wasn’t enough, I have another friend who contracted it just before a vaccine became available. Her outcome was even worse than my mother’s.
      By refusing to vaccinate, A-V idiots are putting people at risk of having to deal with that stuff all over again, and not just polio. I want to ask those morons if they’ve ever seen film of babies with pertussis? Just the memory of seeing one years ago makes me shiver. Why do you want to run the risk of measles, or mumps or even chicken pox?
      Sigh, I wish I could get those idiots to understand that there children are no more special than everyone else’s. They all deserve the chance to grow up.

  77. Hypocrisy Is Alive And Well
    at #

    I’m curious how many of the people posting here with such animosity toward the “selfish choices” anti-vax parents make, have themselves made a choice to drive or operate a motor vehicle while: Drunk, texting, or drowsy? If you have, you likely made a risky calculation that your choice & behavior would not harm someone else. As we all know, there are many many accidents that result in the deaths or severe injury of innocent victims, a direct result of distracted drivers or DUI. I trust that anyone who paints anti-vax parents as purely selfish has never themselves made a decision to drive even a little bit distracted, or under the influence, because you are no different then from an anti-vax parent. The pot calling the kettle black and making calculated/mis-calculated, perhaps poor decisions, that might or might not harm someone else, or many other people. Certainly, as a society we could possibly eliminate all risk (whether it be disease/deaths by drunk drivers/etc.), if we eliminate all free choice. But I for one support free choice and could go on with examples about how someone on a soap box calling out one population for being selfish in their choices, likely makes selfish choices in their own life that could harm others. Perhaps it isn’t drinking and driving, maybe you like to drive a gas-guzzler of a car, or eat red meat, or you name it, which puts more pollutants into the air, which we ALL have to breathe and might or might not play a large role in chronic diseases my child or I have to navigate in the future. Just saying, be nice people – The world’s not as black & white as you all would like it to be. And for those that are wondering, I am vaccinated, and so is my child.

    • Who?
      at #

      Never, thanks for asking. Never had a speeding ticket or parking ticket either. Or caused an accident. Driving is a serious responsibility, as is childraising.

      I would have thought a libertarian-excuse me if you aren’t one-would object in any event to all such laws: surely if you choose to drive drunk that is your right, and sucks to the rest of us for being unfortunate enough to share space with you.

      The world isn’t black and white but some things are.

      • Ann
        at #

        Hi, Who ~
        (LOL! I couldn’t resist saying that.)

        You probably know that driving a vehicle on the public streets is a privilege. That’s why you need a license.

        Walking on those streets is not a privilege — it is a right, and that is why you don’t need a license to walk.

        In like manner, having children is not a privilege that can be granted or denied by the State — at least not in the free world.
        (But humanity has seen a role model nation that does control childbearing, if you’d like to take a page from their book — it comes with forcible abortions too!)

        And that is why you don’t need a license to have children, even though it is likely that you will raise them without conforming to some of the rules of some authority person chosen by the government.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
          at #

          tell Typhoid Mary that walking on the streets is a right, or a violent schizophrenic, or a rabid dog…you might be surprised with what society would say on the topic.

        • Who?
          at #

          I have no idea what you are talking about.

          HAW was making the sneering assertion that people who sometimes don’t obey the road rules shouldn’t complain that others choose to not vax their kids. His style is more prolix than mine, which is why he took so very long to get there.

          I was pointing out that I do obey the road rules, is all. No discussions about licences. It’s that pesky butterfly that follows you around, distracting you at critical moments.

        • Nick Sanders
          at #

          No, but rearing them within a reasonably wide definition of safely and competently is a responsibility. And if it isn’t lived up to, those children can be taken away and put under the care of someone more fit for the job. Children aren’t property, they are individuals under the care of another until such time as they should be capable of caring for themselves, and as such, there are limits on what can and can’t be done by their custodians.

          • Who?
            at #

            The space in the libertarian dictionary where ‘responsibilty’ should be seems to have been swallowed up by an extraordinarily long entry on ‘rights’. I have yet to find a libertarian who has an understanding of responsibility.

    • yugaya
      at #

      “I’m curious how many of the people posting here with such animosity
      toward the “selfish choices” anti-vax parents make, have themselves made a choice to drive or operate a motor vehicle while: Drunk, texting, or drowsy?”

      I don’t drive. Never have, never will. Next question? :)))

    • Mishimoo
      at #

      One of my goals is to have my license by the end of the year, one of the main reasons that I don’t have it already is tiredness/distractions. I can’t learn to drive with kids in the car, nor am I willing to risk driving tired because it’s about as bad as driving drunk.

      We have a fuel-efficient car, use public transport where available, wash in cold water with eco-friendly detergents, have solar panels, compost, grow some of our own, eat grass-fed red meat including environmentally-friendly kangaroo and venison (deer are an introduced species), and vote with our dollar (that is, think about how/where we spend it). We also vaccinate. All of these choices benefit the wider community; none more so than vaccinating so that others who can’t be vaccinated for valid reasons will hopefully be protected by herd immunity.

      • Who?
        at #

        Well done on the driving-alert, snark ahead though.

        What kind of socialist are you, doing things that benefit the wider community? Where will thinking like that end?

        • Mishimoo
          at #

          Thanks!
          I know, how dare I think about others?! Clearly I am a Nazi, with jackboots and such.

          • Ann
            at #

            You are welcome to sacrifice yourself and your own ideas of your best interests until you lapse into a coma.

            What you may not do is force others to sacrifice their children for these ideas.

            I’m kind of amazed I had to tell you this — or that you think it’s wrong somehow.

          • Mishimoo
            at #

            I could say the same to the anti-vaxxers whose children share vaccine preventable diseases with immuno-compromised people and children that are too young to be vaccinated.

          • Ann
            at #

            If you had a chance to draw out your remarks a little, it would help to clarify your meaning.

          • Who?
            at #

            You force the immuno-compromised and children too young to be vaccinated to be unknowingly exposed, by allowing your unvaccinated children out in public.

            You sacrifice those children to your values.

          • Mishimoo
            at #

            Oh, but remember: Some people aren’t meant to live…or some other such nonsense. To be perfectly honest, if there is a depopulation effort by ‘Them’, my money is on the antivax movement being part of the plan.

          • Who?
            at #

            I keep forgetting the not meant to live thing. Imagine thinking everyone should get a fair chance at a healthy life. Where will that kind of thinking end?

            Maybe you’re right-the anti-vaxxers are actually the vanguard of an international de-population conspiracy. Fits the facts…

          • Mishimoo
            at #

            It’s like we think everyone is equal!

            The last time I raised that point, I was called evil for being able to think about conspiracy theories instead of swallowing them meekly. It was rather amusing. Unfortunately, the thread was deleted before I thought to take screenshots – a certain author (think measles) declared that I was not worth talking to, and I wish I’d printed it out to frame.

          • Who?
            at #

            So weird, right?

            That’s pretty high praise, and also-if I’m not mistaken-a reverse flounce: a challenging and highly techncai move, where the flouncer appears to banish the flouncee, but in fact stalks off him- or herself. Not a move undertaken lightly, you must have upset them a lot!

          • Mishimoo
            at #

            Enough so that they blocked me on facebook for a time after returning to the thread for a few failed snarks, and flounced off again.

          • Ann
            at #

            It is a great pity that children and adults are in peril all over the place — in all kinds of danger.

            But that fact does not permit the nation to place some completely different children at risk in order to act as shields fort the first ones.

            What kind of ghastly society would that be?

            Why would the risk stop at vaccination? Why not a mandate that says that a child in a boat has to be tossed overboard as a distraction to the shark if there is another child in the water about to be bitten?

            How about the duty of a parent to hold his child up in front of another to shield the first one from a sniper?
            ————

            The number of people who cannot be effectively vaccinated is much larger than the number who simply decline to be vaccinated.

            That means that these unfortunates are in far more danger from one another than from anti-vaxxers.

            Under the circumstances, maybe THEY are the ones who should stay home.
            —–
            If you had the time to respond to this rebuttal, I would be grateful indeed.

            No one ever responds. All they do is post the same point over and over — “But what about the unfortunates?”

            I guess I’m not making the rebuttal clear enough.
            They think I am writing “What did you say?” when I am really writing “Here is why you are wrong.”

            So whether you agree or disagree, I would love to hear your response to my rebuttal.

            Thanks!

          • Siri
            at #

            Omigod, you’re right, Ann! Expecting someone to vaccinate their child is EXACTLY the same as expecting them to let your children EAT their children to stave off hunger! Its EXACTLY the same as expecting to be able to BURN someone else’s child to keep your child warm!! And it’s EXACTLY the same as skinning someone’s child to make clothes for your child!! Why have I never realised this before?! Vaccines are truly evil, and herd immunity is just another way of saying ALL YOUR CHILDS ARE BELONG TO US (to do with as we please).

          • Samantha06
            at #

            haha! I think Ann is on another planet..

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            you just equated harm from a competent sniper (near certain) to vaccination severe reaction (miniscule to less than 1%). Are you claiming to be rational?

          • Taysha
            at #

            “What you may not do is force others to sacrifice their children for these ideas.”

            What you may not do is sacrifice other people’s children or immunocompromised people because you refuse to vaccinate. Blood on your hands.

            All because of ego, and stupidity.

          • Siri
            at #

            If you or your children ever lapse into a coma, I hope it isn’t from contracting a vaccine-preventable disease. People who don’t vaccinate ARE sacrificing children – their own included – to their own perverted ideas of ‘freedom’ and ‘purity’.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            wrong.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            *vegan* jackboots, made from hemp!

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      Yes, but this post was specifically calling out anti-vaccinationists. If someone here is a hypocrite or not, does it not still seem selfish that a healthy child with no underlying conditions does not take a very small risk (which the vast majority of parents are happy to take) in order to protect some of the youngest and sickest people in society? Why are you trying to defend that position? Are they selfless? Are they understanding and compassionate towards those that can’t be vaccinated due to medical reasons or due to being too young?

      I’m finding them pig-headed, gullible and selfish, personally. I may be like that in other areas, but that doesn’t change what I believe anti-vaccinationists to be. The discussion below hasn’t changed my opinion of that particular mindset of an anti-vaccinationist.

      • Ann
        at #

        That’s a good point, Karen.

        When the risk is miniscule on one side, and the danger is severe on the other side, then why should not one person agree to take that risk?

        The answer must be this:
        1) If they do agree to take the risk, then that is the end of the story

        2) If they don’t agree (for whatever reason), then there is nothing left except to accept their decision or to force it on them.

        I daresay that “a small risk” looks rather big to some parents with a new infant. After all, your characterization and estimation of the risk is only your personal opinion, and opinions may legitimately vary.

        • Siri
          at #

          Yes Ann, and you yourself have already likened vaccination to holding a child up in front of a sniper. Or throwing it to the sharks. So we know how you view the risk. The question is, why are you here?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
          at #

          I want to drop you someplace where there are strains of diseases for which there are vaccinations, refuse you the vaccinations and medical care, and see, if you survive, if your position changes at all.

          • Bombshellrisa
            at #

            It’s one thing to have your child get whooping cough and have access to excellent medical care, quite another to have your child get whooping cough and have to rely on herbs and colodial silver. I think that is part of the problem, anti vaxers not only have the advantage of relying on everyone else’s immunity to protect them, they also have the safety net of hospitals and medicines to rescue them when they do get sick.

    • A. N. Kievsky
      at #

      “I’m curious how many […]”

      That’s a classical fallacy “tu quoque / appeal to hypocrisy” – it’s irrelevant whether we are selfish drunk drivers, hunt people for sport, or own records of The Monkeys – none of these are relevant to the position being presented. Read here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

      • Who?
        at #

        No expert here but based on experience, getting libertarians or anti-vaxxers to stick to the point is an impossible task.

        This is a classic ‘oh look, a butterfly’ move.

        If they weren’t so predictable they’d be more entertaining.

        • A. N. Kievsky
          at #

          Honestly, I wouldn’t want to be an expert on either, and when it comes to anti-vaxxers, most of what I have is a growing sense of alarm and outrage.
          The group has the same degree of absolute fervent conviction as, say, the UFO true believers, but are capable of holding global public health hostage. Concerned yet?

          • Who?
            at #

            Oh yes, I’ve been concerned for some time. They are a bad bunch, no question.

            All rights, no responsibility.

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            And there lies the problem. People think that RIghts just are. They don’t realize that with those rights come Responsibilities.

            You can have the Right to own a gun, but you are Responsible for how that gun is used. If you harm someone–intentionally or not–you bear the Responsibility for that right and will have to bear some form of restitution to society for your actions.

            This point is valid for A-Vers too. You may have the right not to immunize, but if you cause harm society should hold you accountable.

          • Who?
            at #

            Oh, no you don’t, not in libertarian world. Go over to the gun nut post on this blog and get a load of the attitudes of gun owners.

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            Good grief no. You can’t talk to gun nuts about responsibility. I’ll be the first to admit I like my guns but have no problem with background checks or even being denied access, or limited access to certain classes of firearms. Still the argument for rights and responsibilities is just as valid for gun nuts or anti- vaxxers

          • Who?
            at #

            They’re a scary lot. You clearly don’t qualify as a gun nut if you are okay with background checks. And limited access-hell, what are you, some kind of socialist?

            I can’t seem to get the responsibility conversation going with either group, which may be a failure of my rhetorical style-though I was as clear as I could be-or some failure on the other side.

          • yugaya
            at #

            Nah I live abroad where police vaccinates everyone by force and people are so selfishly dumb that they even cheer on such ghastly government practices.

          • Who?
            at #

            But where is all your freedom-oh, there it is, freedom to not have vpds come roaring back.

          • yugaya
            at #

            There must be a limited amount of individual freedoms and responsibilities in the world, and we got the short end of the stick I guess. Dipped in poison too. 😀

          • Ann
            at #

            Well, it’s not just those things we need to fear.

            What about the diseases of unborn babies due to their mothers’ refusal to obey medical advice unless it’s to take thalidomide?

            We don’t want neural tube defects to come roaring back just because some selfish and stupid pregnant woman tried to pretend that she could eat or not eat whatever she liked.

          • Thalidomide was not given “on medical advice”. In fact the FDA never approved it in the US as a sleep aid, and those who wanted it had to find ways to get around that. It was virtually smuggled into the US, then, and now has been discovered to have medical benefit, but not for pregnant women. Lots of drugs must not be taken in pregnancy, especially the first trimester.

            Thalidomide is not a good example of the point you want to make. DES would be a better one — it took a whole generation to discover its long-term effects, and that only on the daughters of women who had received it. Yet for those who were desperate to have children, after having repeated miscarriages, and for those lucky enough to have sons, I expect many recipients of DES would maintain the risk was worth it.

            I’m waiting to see what happens in the long run — the long, long run — to brains exposed to massive cellphone use for decades. No one knows. Shall we ban cellphones now on the basis that as far as we know now, there are no long-term sequellae?

          • SporkParade and I live in Israel. BTW, anyone not vaccinated as a child will be vaccinated upon induction into the IDF. Since only haredim and those with chronic medical conditions are exempt from service at present, that means that at some point the children of anti-vaxxers have to choose between the stigma of not serving in the IDF or getting their shots.

            Certain immunizations, such as rubella, are given several times to girls IN SCHOOL, to make sure that no one can be non-immunized later when pregnant. Since immunizations are free, and one needs one’s immunization record for various situations, it’s rare to come across someone who hasn’t had them.

          • SporkParade
            at #

            I’m so jealous of you. I live abroad where compliance rates for childhood vaccines is about 95%, so no one ever bothered writing laws mandating vaccines. And now there is a geographically concentrated, English-speaking expat community that is chock full of anti-vaxxers.

          • Ann
            at #

            Do you feel comfortable saying where you are from?

            I realize it may not be in your best interests to dish out personal information on the internet.

          • Actually, when there was a recent measles outbreak among the haredim, all but one rabbi instructed their followers to be vaccinated pronto.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            the rabbis ain’t stupid…their congregations die off, who will hire them if they advised against what was needed for their ‘flock’ to survive?

          • violet
            at #

            Hey, comparing UFO true believers and anti vax cults is just unfair. Phoenix lights anyone? Documented cases? It may be strange, and there are many crazies, but at least there is actual room for debate. Here there is just none!

        • Sarah
          at #

          Whataboutery, I believe is the technical term.

          • Who?
            at #

            Gotcha.

      • NoLongerCrunching
        at #

        *Monkees 😉

    • Corey Firepony
      at #

      I’ll entertain your red herring, appeal to hypocrisy fallacy for a moment. Let’s say that I have driven drunk, texted while driving etc…let’s say that my decision doesn’t affect anyone the first time I do it. If that re-enforces in my mind it is okay to do, each time I do it, the higher the chance that my decision will have negative consequences for myself or others drastically increases. The difference is, I am likely to feel a great remorse at the point in which I do cause harm. It too late at that point, but odds are, I will feel remorse.

      In the anti-vaccine movement however, there does not appear to be such a thing. If requested, I’ll happily direct you to a few anti-vax pages so you can see how the anti-vaxxers feel it’s okay to joke about giving measles to immunocompromised individuals. Or how there is support for people who don’t care about other children. If they were a drunk driver, or texted while driving, there would be legal and societal consequences enforced (good luck getting a job, transportation, insurance). Here, they get a pat on the back for endangering the lives of their children and the children of others.

    • Amazed
      at #

      Never drove while drunk, texting, or drowsy. Haven’t driven in years, in fact. And not going to anytime soon because I am responsible enough to myself and society not to drive without having an additional course to refresh my skills. And I don’t have the time for that right now, although I do have the license giving me the right to jump into the car right now and possibly kill everyone I encounter… and myself.

    • Sarah
      at #

      Would you believe there are some of us who combine criticism of antivaxers with inability to drive a car? I don’t just mean I don’t have a licence, I mean I don’t even know how you make them move.

    • SuperGDZ
      at #

      I may or may not have texted on occasion while driving. But I don’t consider it a safe or desirable thing to do. I would view the decision to do it as a lapse on my part, not a decision based on rational consideration. I would also not plaster my blog or facebook page with propaganda in an attempt to convince others to text while driving, or to respect or approve of me doing so.

    • Gozi
      at #

      It is one thing to make a selfish choice on occasion. It is different to make a selfish choice, keep making it, and join movement dedicated to convincing others to make that same selfish choice.

  78. the wingless one
    at #

    I just read this article and I am LIVID. How the %*&@ is Jack Wolfson an actual doctor? I’m so angry right now, I don’t even know what else to say. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/health/arizona-measles-vaccination-debate/index.html

    • Who?
      at #

      The man is hideous, and his hideous wife is hideous too.

      • the wingless one
        at #

        AAGH!! and as if that’s not bad enough they are also apparently holier than thou homebirthers. why am i not surprised. at. all.

    • birthbuddy
      at #

      What kind of cardiologist would this idiot be?

      • Who?
        at #

        The kind you give a very wide berth.

        Apparently he’s a paleo cardiologist, so I imagine he operates by firelight, with a tooth from a saber tooth tiger for a blade.

        Having a Flintstones flashback…

        • birthbuddy
          at #

          I wouldn’t let him anywhere near my angina.

    • Mishimoo
      at #

      That is absolutely disgusting!! The poor kids, I hope they come through okay (yes, even that awful man’s ‘pure’ kids. They didn’t get to chose their parents after all.)

      • Who?
        at #

        His kids will become the pro-vaxxers of their generation if there is any cosmic justice at all.

    • Guest
      at #

      Wait, let me get this straight: Dr Wolfson is saying the Jacks family shouldn’t have taken their son to the doctor where he was exposed to measles? So all of us have to quarantine babies and sick individuals in our homes so that they aren’t exposed to VPDs? How does he expect that to work? Is he going to start doing pediatric appointments and chemotherapy treatments at people’s homes? (Not that I would let that man near my child with a 10 foot pole.) The stupidity and selfishness of the anti-vax movement is truly mind boggling.

    • Elaine
      at #

      That cardiologist is a disgusting excuse for a human being. I can’t even.

  79. Dr Kitty
    at #

    I don’t think the anti-vax people realise, their position was *just about* workable when less than 5% of the population shared it.

    That way if 92.5% of the population vaccinated, 5% didn’t because toxins and 2.5% couldn’t because of immunocompromise or illness or age, there was still enough herd immunity to protect everyone, even if 10% of vaccines didn’t take.

    But the anti-vax movement has become too popular.
    In parts of the USA 30-40% of children are unvaccinated.
    There is effectively no herd immunity at that point.

    If the anti-vax movement wanted to keep their kids safe from VPI, they needed to keep the movement small and exclusive.

    Too bad they made it cool and popular with Libertarians, crunchies and paranoid conspiracy theorists.

    Now everyone gets to worry about diseases that should be vanishing making an encore appearance.

    The “my special snowflake” theory of riding on the coat tails of other people vaccinating depends on fewer than10% of the population sharing it. Sadly, the anti-vaccine movement just had to go and share the stupid, and the fact that they CAN’T predict the outcome of the just shows what dumb bunnies they are.

    • Who?
      at #

      Perhaps eventually it will become so mainstream as to be uncool. Unfortunately a lot of people will pay a high price before we get there.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        I think there will be lawsuits over it. Like the dad (in California, I think?) asking the school to ban non-vaxxed kids because his kid is on chemo. When the epidemic gets more widespread, I think the tide is going to turn against the anti-vaxxers and they will find themselves in a place they didn’t expect to be..

    • SuperGDZ
      at #

      But it would have been so much less cool if they hadn’t been able to brag about it.

    • Delius
      at #

      Whoa, when did Libertarians get dragged into that group? I’ve seen no evidence of anti-vax sentiment in any Libertarian circles.

      • Lurker
        at #

        Well, Ann is running a pretty hard-core Libertarian argument in comments to this post:

        “I hope you are not suggesting that you have some kind of right to force other children to be exposed to a risk so that your children won’t be.

        That might be kind of monstrously selfish, don’t you think?”

        Complete with Randian inversion of the definition of selfishness!

        • DigitalAtheist
          at #

          You would think a proper Rand-ite would BE for immunizing there own… after all it IS in their own self interest to be health so they can get rich and powerful and do as the will with the looters below them… yes?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I think she said in one of her comments that her kids are fully vaccinated and she is too.

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            In other words she doesn’t have the courage of the convictions she’s been trying to spout for people who refuse to vaccinate.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes. I don’t know what a Rand-ite is, but from your description, she sounds like one of them..

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            a Rand-ite (Randian) is a special breed of idiot who buys into the alleged philosophy of selfishness. In Ayn’s books the heroes are all pretty much rich, selfish pricks who do what they want. Any law they don’t like they break because it is there because jealous people want to keep them from the rewards their riches and intellect rightfully award them.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I think that’s a pretty good description of Ann..

      • Dr Kitty
        at #

        In the “get the government out of my healthcare”, “my choice not to vaccinate doesn’t impact anyone but me”, “my choice not to vaccinate should not impact on my ability to access services because FREEDOM”, “government incentives to increase vaccination/sanction non vaccination are wrong” there does seem to be some overlap.

    • JJ
      at #

      Great point Dr Kitty. The more successful the anti-vax people are at recruiting, the more obvious it will become that they are wrong because the diseases will be back and they will be getting them. What a victory for anti-vaxxers!

      • Samantha06
        at #

        Be careful what you wish for…

    • lisajoy
      at #

      You are incorrect. The overall percentage of immunized people in the U.S. has actually stayed pretty much the same over the years, and state’s percentages are the same as well. There are small areas where there may be unvaccinated rates of 30-40%, but that is nowhere near the case of the entire U.S.

  80. James M. Grandone
    at #

    We need to point out that as part of the contract to live in the United States, parents have a responsibility to prevent their children from infecting the rest of us. We are a society and waiving off a vaccination is not a right, it is an attack on the rest of society. Continuing to defy authority will likely be met with an unpleasant mandatory edict by government to protect the rest of us.
    Is that what you want?

  81. at #

    A very distant-to-me person (friend of an Internet friend) is directly affected by this right now. Their 4-month-old baby, born premature, is in the hospital with measles-like symptoms (fever, rash, etc) right now. They went to Disneyland at just the wrong time.

    If you pray, I’m sure prayers would be appreciated. Otherwise, feel free to join me in punching pillows because this just sucks.

    • Who?
      at #

      So sorry to hear it, hope it all goes well.

    • Young CC Prof
      at #

      Oh, no. I am so sorry (and furious) to hear that.

    • Jennifer Smith
      at #

      Oh man, I hope that baby pulls through, that sucks so bad. That little one is too young to get the measles vaccine, babies that age rely on herd immunity. And yes, pillow punching is on order, only because the faces of the idiots that led to that outbreak are not available.

      • Who?
        at #

        Punching their faces would do no good.

        Bringing in their unvaxxed children for a nice long visit in the sick kids ward, appropriately masked, gowned and gloved to protect them from contamination, to show them exactly what a disease their parents think they isn’t worth protecting against looks like, would be in order.

        Unfortunately their ignorant parents would probably object to the protection as unnecessary due to their very enhanced immune systems.

        • Mishimoo
          at #

          If only!
          Though, I know of some people that were raised antivax and remain staunchly antivax despite having seen their cute puppies die of parvovirus. (It is a truly awful disease.)

          • Who?
            at #

            That’s discouraging.

          • Cobalt
            at #

            Parvo is a pretty horrific way to die. If you watch that, and still are against vaccines, you’re just a heartless asshole.

          • Who?
            at #

            Or brainwashed. Poor kids. Let’s hope they don’t have any more pets though, since the ‘teaching empathy’ part of pet owning seems to have failed with them.

    • rh1985
      at #

      this makes me so angry

    • Mishimoo
      at #

      This is so unfair!! thinking of them, hope bub pulls through with no long-term issues.

    • Amazed
      at #

      Praying AND throwing pillows.

    • Trixie
      at #

      Oh no. I’m so sorry. Please keep us posted?

    • moto_librarian
      at #

      I hope she will be healed quickly. Fucking anti-vaxxers.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      How awful… I hope the little one will be OK… please keep us updated.

    • at #

      Update: The baby is doing well. His fever is under 100 degrees and his rash is fading. It was confirmed as measles.

      • Who?
        at #

        Pleasing, let’s hope there is a lot more news like it throughout the outbreak.

  82. namaste863
    at #

    Anyone else watch the big game? Could anyone who did picture this exchange? “You just won the Super Bowl! What are you gonna do?” “I’m getting an MMR booster, and then I’m going to Disneyland

  83. Ann
    at #

    Amy, it takes a lot of unprocessed anger to read other people’s minds like this, and to ascribe to them nothing but the most vicious (and fanciful) motives.

    Probably most people just love their children and want to do the best for them that they know how.

    ~ No doubt they are disgusted by the list of ingredients in vaccines.
    ~ No doubt they are unwilling to take even a tiny chance that something they do may bring down severe consequences on their beloved children.
    ~ No doubt they have been made fearful by the hype regarding the (false) link to autism.
    ~ No doubt they realize that what they are told by important authorities is not always correct.
    ~ Perhaps they know that we would be full of fury and alarm if someone offered to provide medical treatment to our children as it was understood 100 (or even 50) years ago.
    ~ Perhaps that makes them think that medical knowledge is not yet complete or 100% accurate even now, and that in 100 (or even 50) years from now we will shudder at the practices and beliefs of 2000 AD.

    And no doubt they are relying on herd immunity to safeguard their children without the danger (as they fear) of a vaccination.

    From the point of view of an anti-vaxxer parent, this is a win-win decision.
    No vaccination and no measles either.

    It is neither an irrational decision
    (No vaccinations are necessary in situations of herd immunity)
    — nor —
    a selfish decision
    (Everyone else can still immunize their own children against an entire planetful of unvaccinated people)

    One consequence of this thinking is that the more it spreads, the lower the herd immunity, making it a more difficult call.

    So if everyone else would just go ahead and vaccinate their children, then these few parents can be perfectly safe in not vaccinating theirs,
    ——————
    Here are some other facts that the anti-vaxxers rely on:

    (1) Prescription drugs — correctly prescribed and correctly taken — are the 4th leading cause of death in the United States
    https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/4th-leading-us-cause-of-death-pharmas-drugs/

    (2) Here is a partial list of the ingredients in some or all vaccines
    Suspending fluids containing protein
    Neomycin sulfate
    Polymyxin B
    Calf serum
    Thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative
    Bovine extract
    Formaldehyde
    Antibiotics
    Type 16 viral protein L1
    Type 18 viral protein L1
    Vitamins
    Neomycin sulfate
    Amino acids
    Egg proteins
    Carbohydrates
    Peptone
    Yeast protein
    Albumin
    Lipids
    Monosodium glutamate (MSG)
    MRC-5 cellular protein

    L-histidine
    Phenols
    Phosphate buffers
    Glycine
    Ammonium sulfate
    Hydroxyphosphate sulfate
    Potassium sulfate
    Lactalbumin hydrolysate
    Sodium phosphate
    2-phenoxy-ethanol
    Glutaraldehyde
    Polysorbate 20
    Polysorbate 80
    Sodium borate
    Hemin chloride
    Nicotinamide
    Adenine dinucleotide
    Sodium dihydrogen phosphate dehydrate

    Aluminum gels
    Potassium aluminum sulfate
    Aluminum phosphate
    Aluminum hydroxide
    Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate
    (That’s a lot of aluminum for people who don’t even cook in aluminum pots)

    Plus the corpses (or parts of) pathogens

    • yugaya
      at #

      “Probably most people just love their children and want to do the best for them that they know how.”

      The road to VPD hell is paved with antivaxxers’ good intentions.

      • Ann
        at #

        Well, for better or worse, we are the parents our children get, and most of us make decisions with good intentions all the time, including decisions that are widely approved of in this society, and decisions that are unique to our family.

        I would never allow a child (or even a pet) of mine to go unvaccinated. I got a shingles vaccination myself last year when one of my friends was incapacitated by it. I had been letting it slide, but her misery raised my “Alert!” level, I can tell you.

        But I cannot see why the anti-vaxxers are a danger to your kids or mine.

        Nor do I think their gamble is entirely irrational.

        • momofone
          at #

          Intentions are completely irrelevant. Reality is what matters, and the fact is that someone else’s unvaccinated snowflake can kill a person with a compromised immune system. Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an issue on one side of my family. My cousin’s child with DMD could die from getting chest congestion that a healthy person probably wouldn’t even notice, because he doesn’t have the muscle function to cough it up. His uncle (also with DMD) died for this very reason.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, momofone ~

            I am sorry to hear about your cousin’s child and his uncle.

            Obviously it is crucial for him to reduce exposure to a condition that others can’t even tell that they have. How do you handle this problem?

            In his town, what percent of the population do you force to stay indoors when the child goes out? Is it on certain days, or during certain hours, or what? It appears that actually just being near some random person could be fatal, so naturally unselfish people would not go to work or be outdoors when he might drift by.

            Or would it be selfish for him to expect other people to stop going out?

          • momofone
            at #

            I find your attitude absolutely reprehensible.
            Actually, translated, that’s fuck you. And God help you if you ever have such a concern.

          • Who?
            at #

            Repulsive attitude, I agree. All rights, no responsibilities, takers not givers, leaners not lifters.

            We can see it, can’t understand it, don’t have to like it. I trust they will never knock on the door of another-or the government-wanting something.

          • Bombshellrisa
            at #

            Until it’s her or one of her loved ones going through chemo, it will be selfish. Until the person next to her is someone who didn’t want to get vaccinated against something and gives it to her or her loved one and it ends with them in the hospital because their weakened immune system couldn’t battle anything. Yeah, then let’s see how “balanced” she wants the anger to be.

          • Guesteleh
            at #

            You’re a libertarian, aren’t you? Aka a complete asshole.

        • Amazed
          at #

          The anti-vaxxers are direct threat to ME, Ann. Me. Who is not a kid. And no, not old or immunocompromised in any way. Just someone who never had the chicken pox OR the vaccine for it since I’m too old, or it was not approved here, I forgot already. And here, we don’t vaccinate adults for this.

          A doctor I know had a patient who developed severe lung troubles after getting it at 40.

          Still don’t see why the anti-vaxxers are a danger?

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Amazed ~

            I’m sorry to hear that you are in any kind of danger at all.

            But how do you get the right to tell someone else — “Look here — I don’t want to be in any danger, so YOU go expose YOURSELF to the same danger — in order to make me safe.”

            It’s not that I declare that they are no danger.

            It’s that I assert that no one has to put his own children in danger in order to spare someone else.

            Except for the military draft, I have never even heard of such a claim.

            Be well.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Shove your sympathy where the sun doesn’t shine, you fucking animal. You were oh so innocently asking why anti-vaxxers were a danger to other people’s kids, I answer you – and you just feel the need not to simply accept it as as a little side effect of your great choice to mooch off other people.

            Why asking, Ann, if you don’t want to be told?

            Scratch that, I know the answer. But keep writing, demonstrating the selfishness of anti-vaxxers in all its glory.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Amazed ~

            I am somewhat taken aback by the level of anger around this issue.

            It apparently made you misread my post.

            If you are really concerned about your relatives, please know that they are far more likely to be injured or killed by drunk drivers.

            That’s what you should be angry about, it seems to me.

          • NoLongerCrunching
            at #

            You can actually be angry about more than one thing you know…

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            The same danger? Not by several orders of magnitude. If a child in remission from leukemia is exposed to measles, he will probably be hospitalized and is likely to die.

            If a healthy child is vaccinated against measles, the most likely outcome is no harm at all. The probability of a shot reaction severe enough to require medical attention is less than 1%, and the probability of actually dying from the vaccine is roughly as large as the probability of dying in a car accident on the way to or from the vaccine clinic.

            Let’s say my child is playing with a child who has a documented severe allergy to bees, and came very close to death from a bee sting just a few months ago. Let’s assume my child has no known allergies. They see a bee in the room. Would I want my child to deal with the bee, even if he might be stung, to protect this other child from hospitalization and death?

            Of course I would. I can’t imagine a normal human being who wouldn’t.

        • Bombshellrisa
          at #

          “But I cannot see why the anti-vaxxers are a danger to your kids or mine.

          Nor do I think their gamble is entirely irrational.” Then you really don’t know about much about how diseases are spread.

          • Ann
            at #

            Well, they are certainly no danger to all the vaccinated people of the world.

            And they are gambling on the protection of herd immunity to cover their own risks — not a bad gamble as long as most of the other people get vaccinated.

            As for the people who cannot be effectively vaccinated, I don’t think that anyone gets the right to force others to expose themselves to risks in order to prevent someone else from facing the same risk.

            I’d be sorry for anyone in a perilous situation, but I don’t know of the slightest reason why any parent would be expected to use his own child as some sort of shield.

            Except for the military draft, I never even heard of such an expectation.

        • Guestll
          at #

          Anti-vaxxers are dangerous because community (herd) immunity is critical. When not enough people in the herd are immunized (say, 90% for measles) the threshold for protection is weak and outbreaks can occur.

          They are dangerous because they function as vectors for infectious diseases. There are segments of the populations (the very young, the immunocompromised, chemotherapy patients — children make up the largest proportion of these hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone) who cannot be vaccinated.

          Their gamble is the definition of irrational. It is not grounded in science, it’s rooted in feelings.

          • Anj Fabian
            at #

            If you get a large enough population that lacks immunity, it becomes a disease reservoir, a pathogen pool, a contaminated community.

            Zoonotic diseases like bird flu mean that there is always a reservoir of the viral pathogens, busy breeding more disease and worse – more mutations.

          • Ann
            at #

            Well, you can airlift a vaccinated person into the hottest spot on earth with perfect safety.

            But your point about mutations is quite excellent.

            Thanks for actually making a point!

            The problem is that the selection pressure of wide-spread vaccination may instead just drive evolution into resistance-type mutations, as happened with strep,

          • Young CC Prof
            at #

            Actually, no, when you vaccinate everyone, you drive the disease out entirely. No germs = no evolution.

            When you vaccinate, say, half the population, then you actually do have selective pressure on the disease to get around the vaccine, since infected people are constantly coming into contact with vaccinated people.

          • Ann
            at #

            (1) You are correct to say that the decisions of parents are based on their feelings.
            It’s hard to know what else those decisions could be based on.

            Or I guess that only parents with a degree in chemistry can make decisions about their children, as proposed by someone posting here.

            Of course, those parents would not be allowed to make decisions in non-chemistry areas (How old must my daughter be to date? Can my child go to the public swimming pool?)
            —-
            (2) I think you make a good point about the vulnerability of certain people who cannot safeguard themselves by vaccination.

            But the problem here is that there is no force on earth that legitimately allows you to compel one child to be exposed to a risk in order to benefit some entirely different child.

            Except for the military draft, I never even heard of such an idea.

            And I never even imagined the selfishness of those people to try to demand it.

        • Guest
          at #

          “But I cannot see why the anti-vaxxers are a danger to your kids or mine.”

          Because their refusal to vax and contribute to herd immunity increases the risk of catching a VPD by those who cannot receive the vaccine due to age or illness.

          • Ann
            at #

            I think it is almost unimaginable selfishness that makes anyone feel entitled to demand that someone else be exposed to a risk in order to safeguard the other person.

            Except for the military draft, I have never even heard of such an idea.
            And I certainly never realized that such monstrous selfishness lurked in people’s minds.

        • yugaya
          at #

          “But I cannot see why the anti-vaxxers are a danger to your kids or mine.”

          You need to look at it past your own now vaccinated children (or mine) to see the danger. Think when they were newborns for instance or were not fully immunised.

          • Ann
            at #

            Forgive me if I am misjudging you, but it does sound like you are proposing that it would be a good government kind of thing to allow the police to forcibly inject children for the benefit of some other children.

            Except for the military draft, I have never even heard of such a thing — to forcibly expose one child to danger in order to protect a different child from the same danger.

            And I never even imagined that this much selfishness was abroad in the world.

          • yugaya
            at #

            “Forgive me if I am misjudging you, but it does sound like you are proposing that it would be a good government kind of thing to allow the police to forcibly inject children for the benefit of some other children.”

            I wish that there was a vaccine that prevented the disease of being deliberately ignorant like that. Please keep your paranoid delusions to yourself and read my comments a bit more carefully. Also, try placing them in a context other than yourself.

            ” to forcibly (sic!) expose one child to danger in order to protect a different child from the same danger.”

            Mandatory vaccination when reinforced ( which happens oh so often that I could not find a case that extreme in my country that is somewhat recent) usually would be primarily concerned with THAT exact child who is being put at great risk by its own parents, a risk far greater than the census in that society says is tolerable, in fact so much greater that it warrants parents deemed unfit to assess anything concerning that child and removes their rights to make any and all parental decisions. No one is injecting any children anywhere on the planet solely to benefit some other children out there. Period.

            “And I never even imagined that this much selfishness was abroad in the world.”

            Because “abroad people” are so monstrously selfish and ghastly compliant that they go and help the police forcibly inject poisons into people. I guess all I can say is thanks bunches for the nice little “abroad” insult you placed in there among all your Shock!!! Horror!!! statements – makes interpreting all your other comments easier.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          I don’t love my children as much as anti-vaxxers. That is why they are vaccinated.

          • Ann
            at #

            Thanks for your reply, Karen.

            I will ponder it to deduce its meaning.

            I think you are wise to have your children vaccinated, Now the issue of herd immunity must be of no interest to you.

        • Trixie
          at #

          They’re a danger to my kids because how do I know if my kids are the ones who don’t get full immunity from the vaccine? We all rely on herd immunity.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Trixie ~

            I hope you are not suggesting that you have some kind of right to force other children to be exposed to a risk so that your children won’t be.

            That might be kind of monstrously selfish, don’t you think?

            Except for the military draft, I have never even heard of such a thing.

          • Dr Kitty
            at #

            Really?
            Plenty of countries have childhood vaccination as a mandatory requirement of accessing public schools, with only legitimate medical exemptions rather than the USA’s “conscience clause”.
            Are you unaware of that?

            In my practice, non vaccination is a significant adverse event. We write letters, make phone calls and if parents do not come in and explain, fully, why their child is unvaccinated, it may prompt a child protection referral.

            Some of the parents who don’t bring kids for vaccination are anti-vax loons, some are just generally neglectful parents who also don’t take their kids to the dentist, or the doctor, even when they are unwell. If we haven’t seen your 5 year old since they were 8 weeks old, we really have no way of knowing that you are taking good care of their medical needs.

            If you ignore all my efforts to discuss your reasons for non vaccinating, it is in your child’s best interest that I NOT assume you’re making a loving decision based on wrong information, but that you might actually be a horribly neglectful parent all around.

          • Trixie
            at #

            Did I say anything about forcing? I’m just stating a fact. Unvaccinated people selfishly endanger everyone.

        • wookie130
          at #

          The anti-vaxxers are putting my 5 month old son at risk. He cannot yet be vaccinated against certain illnesses. Their “gamble” may be putting my son in jeopardy. Screw their “intentions.”

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Wookie.
            (That’s such a cute name!)

            I assume you do not mean to say that you would force another child to undergo a risk because then you could avoid that same risk for your own child.

            That would be a little monstrously selfish, don’t you think?

            Except for the military draft, I have never even heard of such an idea — you get to force one child to take a risk so that your child gets nice and safe.

        • Samantha06
          at #

          “Well, for better or worse, we are the parents our children get, and most of us make decisions with good intentions all the time, including decisions that are widely approved of in this society, and decisions that are unique to our family.”

          And what about children, elderly, newborns, cancer patients and others who are immunocompromised? What about their lives? I don’t see any so-called “good intentions” in the decision not to vaccinate when it comes to the lives of others. But it’s not about anyone else’s life, is it? Well, at least they’ve spelled out their *true* intentions.

          And “widely approved of in society”?? What planet are you living on? Maybe among fellow anti-vaxxers, but not among mainstream society.

          “I got a shingles vaccination myself last year when one of my friends was incapacitated by it. I had been letting it slide, but her misery raised my “Alert!” level” I can tell you.”

          And so your your anti-vax friends will get a reality check, when one of their children DIES of a preventable disease, or causes the death of someone else.

        • Bob from Accounting
          at #

          Can you see that some kids and adults cannot be vaccinated due to compromised immune systems?

          Can you see that they are in need of that herd immunity of which anti-vaxxers comprise?

          Because I honestly can’t see whether you are full of it or are intentionally being facetious.

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            Been reading Ann’s anti-vax shilling all day. She is either a troll or willfully ignorant of Immunology, whether it be personal or herd, and wishes to remain ignorant AND dangerous.

          • NoLongerCrunching
            at #

            I wonder how those unvaccinated kids will feel when they grow up and learn that their parents’ choices put other people, maybe even Grandma, at risk of dying?

        • Gozi
          at #

          Isn’t there a measles outbreak going on? You don’t think that is dangerous?

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            Having been trying to process Ann’s nonsense all day at another site, her “logic” will make you want to claw your own eyes out because there is no way you can get through.
            The outbreak is dangerous, and will probably grow worse but this “not and anti-vaxxer” doofus doesn’t care.

        • Amazed
          at #

          Anti-vaxxers are a danger to everyone who is vaccinated in another way, too.

          When those parents who you think so rational and loving (and normal people consider dumb selfish assholes who will finally kill or maim some of their children in their quest for win-win) increase in numbers (stupid always does), the diseases will come roaring back and this time, they’ll have a greater chance to strike because there will be larger unvaccinated pockets. My lay understanding is that most vaccines of today (vampire vaccines, or whatever anti-vaxx nuts want to call them, as contrasted to the live ones) are maybe less effective in treating the diseases. But they are safer because they give less numerous and severe side effects. We rely on herd immunity and achieve better results than with vaccines of the past, the live ones, because the vast majority gets vaccinated and doesn’t suffer any severe side effects. But as diseases come back and anti-vaxxers are set to destroy herd immunity, we, the ones who see beyond the “scary-looking ingredients” (Really! Aren’t there ANY anti-vaxxers who can dust off some impressively-sounding but in fact, very ordinary components of their work?), will have to resort to more effective vaccines with more side effects to protect ourselves and society, Thanks assholes! Treat yourselves on the barrier we create so that you can stuff your faces on privilege while whining how we lack empathy to your please. Don’t be shy. The increased risk will be on us but since it has always been so and suited you just fine, help yourselves.

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      “Probably most people just love their children and want to do the best for them that they know how.”

      Naw. They are rejecting the best advice of everyone with any authority over them at all from scientists at the CDC, to public health experts, to pediatricians, to their own parents (the children’s grandparents who still remember these diseases). It’s about proving that “Nobody is the Boss of Me”.

      • Ann
        at #

        Well, fiftyfifty, maybe you are right.

        Unlike you, I don’t have the ability to read people’s minds, so all I could go by was the assumption that most people are rational and decent, even when they don’t agree with you.

        • Amazed
          at #

          You did try to read Dr Amy’s heart from your high horse, or have you forgotten? Of course, it was an epic failure, as were most of your posts here. So far, only one commenter has bought your “I’m just trying to present things from anti-vaxx PoV!” bullshit and she’s fairly new here. The rest of us immediately recognized you for what you are.

        • fiftyfifty1
          at #

          At a certain point we have to call out bad behavior. And when the badly behaving leave multiple clues as to their motivations, it makes sense to connect the dots. To throw up our hands and say “I can’t read your mind” leaves us vulnerable to being revictimized.

          When you get mugged, it’s ok to decide that although perhaps people *at heart* really are good, that *at that moment* they didn’t have your best interests in mind. And when the muggers says “I want your wallet” it’s ok to believe them.

          I grew up as the child of an anti-vax parent, and so I have a better view than most of the motivations behind it. My mom is a lovely person in many ways, but she has or had a number of traits that made the antivax stance appealing to her including anti-intellectualism, knee jerk problems with authority figures, a sense of wanting to be different and special, and a desire (at the time) to defy the grandparents.

    • Guestll
      at #

      You’re welcome, asshole.

    • Box of Salt
      at #

      Ann “this is a win-win decision. No vaccination and no measles either.”

      Have you failed to notice that a lot of people just lost that bet?

      The intentionally (and irrationally) unvaccinated have just spread the measles into 13 US States and Mexico. And this outbreak isn’t over yet.

      • Ann
        at #

        Yes, a few people did lose that bet.

        But I wonder how the statistics compare with the side effects of vaccination?

        And it was not an irrational bet — at least until the pool of vaccinated children got too high.

        But many decisions we make about our children are a question of balancing risks.

        We let them swim in spite of the risks of drowning, and we let them ride bikes in spite of the risks of being hit by cars, and so on.

        The risks that something bad will happen are small, but not zero. In exchange, the children get to live a more normal and healthier life.

        I think that’s all that the anti-vaxxers want too.

        And lots of times, parents who buy their kid a bike lose that bet too.

        • Amazed
          at #

          More and more revealing.

          Pack the trunk, Ann. Pack the trunk, get your kids and go living naturally in the jungle where you won’t be a danger to the society you don’t want to contribute to. Surprise, Ann: society is not obliged to protect you either, then. So, the trunk, the kid, the jungle, and normal and healthy life it is.

          Still, I suspect you’d want to squeeze the computer in this trunk.

          And no, you don’t get to decide to drive drunk and expect understanding either.

        • Kendra
          at #

          The anti vaccination movement is going to bring back diseases that have been irradiated from our part of the world! This is because you worry about additives that are already present in foods you consume, medications you already take and cosmetics and household products that are used everyday! Your own body contains live pathogens! Pathogens need to incubate and multiply to actually harm anyone, that cannot do that if they are inactive or dead.
          While it is true that there may be some side effects from vaccines, I would rather risk these side effects and maintain the real heard immunity to help those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. I know this because I have researched all side effects and their prevalence and balanced this against the risk associated with preventable disease and it was no contest. I also know to look for creditable sources that are based on solid science.
          I am writing this post with my three month old in my lap and thinking of my mother that endured 10 years of chemotherapy. if either of them come into contact with a person and contracted a preventable disease that they would most likely be severly sickened by based on their underdeveloped or compromised immunity. All because an antivaxx parent choose no to expose their child to a minimal amount of albumin, or mercury ( which is metabolized by the body and is present in larger concentrations in seafood) or antibiotics that they don’t believe in, how can you call that anything but selfishness! There is a reason that people have worked so hard to stop these diseases in their tracks. They killed millions or people and continue to do so in the underdeveloped world! World wide travel is going to occur and the population is never going to decrease, so there will always be a risk!
          Try explaining your rational to a mother in the underdeveloped world that has just had her child crippled by polio that has been completely absent North America for decades! I would guarantee that their reaction would be one of pure bewilderment. We live in a society that is so ungrateful and unaware or how truly lucky we really are!

          • Samantha06
            at #

            AMEN!! Very well said.. It’s that privilege thing again.. only someone with privilege would be so ungrateful as to turn their noses up at what we have available to us in North America.. I’m done trying to reason with these folks or even “understanding” their position.. their selfishness makes me ill…

          • Ann
            at #

            Wait! if a parent doesn’t want to vaccinate his children, that is selfish.

            But if you want him to do so for the benefit of your mother, that is not selfish?

            How does that add up?

            And I think you might consider that there are many substances that you might put in your hair or even eat that you would not inject directly into your baby’s body.
            Cannibal and serial murderer Jeffrey Daumer injected stomach acid into the brain of one of his victims, and it was no good pointing out that this acid is used quite nicely by the stomach.

            As far as the third-world mother is concerned, it is a mystery to me why a parent in the US who does not want to vaccinate his child somehow stops the other mother from vaccinating hers.

            That’s all — completely all — that any parent has to do to defeat the evil selfishness of the anit-vaxxers.
            They have to do to their own kids what they are so eager to force on other kids — namely, vaccinate them.
            Problem solved.

          • Elaine
            at #

            Wrong. Vaccines aren’t 100%. I would have to draw titers to make sure my kids are immune.

            And even if I do that, not every parent of a vaccinated kid will; there will be kids in the population for whom the vaccine was not effective. And not every kid can be vaccinated. Some are too young or have ironclad medical reasons. It would be nice for herd immunity to be available to protect these kids. It won’t be if people persist in not vaccinating their kids.

            So it is not as simple as “defeat the anti-vaxers by vaccinating your own kid”.

            As for your other points, I already addressed those in other comments. I would like to charitably assume you haven’t gotten to all the comments in this thread yet rather than that you are deliberately ignoring comments you feel you can’t address. Time will tell if this is an erroneous assumption on my part.

        • Box of Salt
          at #

          Ann, be honest: you ARE an anti-vaxxer.

          You are arguing against the use of vaccines.

          “Yes, a few people did lose that bet”

          Few is less than ten. At last count, the state of CA had 58 cases spread out of DIsneyland, and 32 of those had not been vaccinated (out of 37 whose status is known). That’s more than a few, http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Pages/Measles.aspx

          “But I wonder how the statistics compare with the side effects of vaccination?”
          Read these the information found here, and get back to me.

          Measles vaccine VIS: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.html

          Pink Book complications from the disease: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html#complications

          Spoiler: the rates of complications from the disease are listed per thousand cases, and serious vaccine side effects per millions of doses.

          • Ann
            at #

            No, it happens that I am not.
            In my opinion, the benefit of the gamble is on the side of vaccination.

            I was aware that my points could be just dismissed if I came across as a covert anti-vaxxer, but I still wanted to expose the illogic of the fury against them.

            And I would certainly be an anti-vaxxer (as everyone already is) if the odds tipped far enough. That’s why we no longer vaccinate against polio or smallpox. The side effects of the vaccine are greater than the odds of contracting the disease.

            But an incidence of 58 out of more than 310 million is clearly less than the incidence of the side effects.

            Nevertheless, I agree with you that the children lost that bet (because the side effects are not as serious or as miserable as the disease, in my estimation or speculation.)

            Although as far as I am aware, ZERO kids had serious or permanent side effects from the measles — which is better than the incidence for the vaccination.

          • Elaine
            at #

            Here we get to the categorical imperative. If you couldn’t will that your principle of action become a universal moral law, don’t do it.

            “Don’t vax your kids and count on everyone else’s kids shouldering the risk burden and giving your kid herd immunity” could not be a universal principle of action because it wouldn’t work. QED. So it’s not very ethical.

            This is probably put badly… philosophy was not my best subject.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            Elaine, with permission, I’m going to keep this for use as applicable? It’s great!

          • Elaine
            at #

            Oh, sure. It’s not mine at all, it’s Emmanuel Kant’s in the first place.

          • Box of Salt
            at #

            Ann, “Although as far as I am aware, ZERO kids had serious or permanent side effects from the measles”

            The jury is still out on that one, Ann.

            According to his USA Today report from Friday, 15% of the measles cases required hospitalization: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/29/measles-outbreak-dangerousness/22521529/
            This is lower than other reports I’ve read which put the hospitalization rate at 25%.

            Are 15% of MMR vaccine recipients hospitalized due to the receipt of vaccine, Ann? Are they?

            “incidence of 58 out of more than 310 million”

            Your denominator is wrong. In multiple ways. Let me know if you can figure out why. Hint: I linked the state of CA, not the CDC.

            “I was aware that my points could be just dismissed if I came across as a covert anti-vaxxer”

            Your posts come across as overtly anti-vaccine. Is that what you wanted?

          • momofone
            at #

            You have certainly exposed “illogic,” but I don’t think it’s on the side you thought.

          • Delius
            at #

            “In my opinion, the benefit of the gamble is on the side of vaccination.” Bullshit.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            if you are so sure of your opinion, give your name, address, etc. here so we can spread your fame far and wide, and all those who disagree with you can avoid you. After all, they should have the right to make an informed decision just like you’re claiming anti-vaxxers supposedly have an equivalent right.

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            ‘That’s why we no longer vaccinate against polio or smallpox.”

            You think we don’t vaccinate for these anymore?! You are so ignorant! The CDC shot schedule contains a full course against polio, with first dose starting at 2 months. And the reason we don’t routinely vaccinate against smallpox is because it was entirely eliminated from the wild because of vaccination (that is so cool!). But it is still given to a number of military personal and certain other individuals just in case some terrorist body steals the guarded lab samples. And this is even though smallpox is the shot with the most difficult side effect profile, including permanent scarring.

        • momofone
          at #

          “Yes, a few people did lose that bet.” The part you left off is “but they weren’t me, so it’s ok.”

    • Guest
      at #

      “So if everyone else would just go ahead and vaccinate their children, then these few parents can be perfectly safe in not vaccinating theirs,”

      AKA: So if everyone else can take the (minimal) risk in vaccinating their own children, we will continue to reap the benefits of herd immunity without taking on any risks ourselves.

      And anti vaxxers wonder why others call them selfish…

      • Ann
        at #

        I think you have expressed the hidden agenda behind all the anger around this topic.

        (1) There actually is a risk that is worth avoiding

        (2) Other children should take that risk so yours won’t have to – or at least take it equally with yours.

        (3) If you decide that your kid has to be put at risk, you get to decide that other kids damn well have to be risked too.

        (4) No fair that your kid has to get vaccinated while some other kid gets a free ride. Everyone should be in the same risk pool as everyone else — even if it is not necessary.

        Getting out of that situation is far from selfish, don’t you think so, Guest?

        • Amazed
          at #

          Haha! Thanks for proving my point, anti-vaxxer.

          Now, you can stop pretending you aren’t anti-vaxxer.

          Still avoiding the matter of those who cannot be vaccinated, eh, Anne? Still not wanting to say that they are expendable.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Amazed ~

            I’m not sure what post of mine you are referencing.

            Naturally everyone in the world would stop vaccinating if the incidence of some disease were low enough.

            That’s why we no longer vaccinate against polio or smallpox — the consequences of the vaccine are statistically worse than the consequences of the diseases (because nobody is catching them.)

            I guess I figured you already knew this. Or maybe you just dismiss the deciding body (the CDC) as a nest of anti-vaxxers?

          • Stacy48918
            at #

            I thought you were “educated” about vaccines? We don’t vaccinate for polio?

          • momofone
            at #

            I wondered about that too. I just looked at my son’s vaccination record, and he’s had four polio vaccines.

          • Ann
            at #

            Yes, sorry, Stacy.

            Good catch.

            You are correct.

          • JJ
            at #

            “Naturally everyone in the world would stop vaccinating if the incidence of some disease were low enough.”

            Yes. That is why we need everyone who can vaccinate to do so. Then we can eradicate the diseases! People deciding to opt out of vaccinating impacts people besides themselves and their children.

          • Sarah
            at #

            I might consider taking a smallpox vaccine if one were available to me, actually. Also, we do vaccinate against polio.

          • Mishimoo
            at #

            I’d love to be vaccinated against smallpox – especially since every so often, forgotten vials show up. I know that the risk of being exposed through human error or through bio-terror is incredibly low, but it’s one of those things that disproportionately bugs me.

          • Amazed
            at #

            We don’t vaccinate against polio?

            Sorry for bursting your bubble, Ann sweet, but the world isn’t the USA alone. WE still vaccinate for polio here and guess what? We don’t have polio! When there were small pockets of unvaccinated people here, someone from abroad brought the disease in and hey, two kids caught it. That was in 2001.

            Polio is only a flight away, just so you know,.

          • Ann
            at #

            Yes, you are right, Amazed.

            Someone else picked me up on that a while ago.

            Sorry about that mistake.

          • Box of Salt
            at #

            Ann, “why we no longer vaccinate against polio or smallpox”

            How dumb are you?

            The scar on my arm is part of the reason you don’t have one on yours (and, yes, I’m making a lot of assumptions here). Smallpox vaccine went off the US schedule in 1972.

            But my kids got the polio vaccine just the same as I did. The inactiavated Salk one, not Sabin’s attenuated live virus.

            We could lay measles to rest as we did smallpox, if it wasn’t for the resistance by folks like you.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Box ~

            A couple of people already picked up on that error.

            You are right, and I’m sorry for that mistake.

          • Box of Salt
            at #

            Ann, “You are right, and I’m sorry for that mistake.”
            Acknowledged.

          • Ann
            at #

            Thanks.

            I am embarrassed when I post bad information.

        • DigitalAtheist
          at #

          Why should someone else’s child have to risk the “DANGERS OF VACICCINATINS” just so your kids can be safe and not have to contribute to the welfare of those around them? Very selfish ANN.

          • Ann
            at #

            how come it’s selfish for a parent to say, “Go your way and I’ll go mine. I’m not bothering you with my decisions, so don’t try to force your decisions on me.”

            That is selfish, right?

            So what do you call it when YOU say –“Hey! I want you to expose your child to an avoidable risk for the sake of MY child. I have compared the kids, and I deem my child to be more worthy of a risk-free situation than your child.”

            That’s not selfish?
            Or worse?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            That’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying: My children will enjoy the benefit of herd immunity without participating in it. It’s like the person who steals from the store “reasoning” that the store can afford it. You can’t simply say: I’ll steal and you won’t steal and what I do has nothing to do with you.

          • Ann
            at #

            Not at all like stealing, any more than eating seafood I didn’t fish for is stealing..

            I am saying that I may enjoy the benefits of seafood or building construction or an unconquered America without participating in the risks.

            You do. Why not others?
            Or is it your position that the benefits YOU didn’t earn are okay for you to enjoy, but you are in charge of the list of such benefits?

            I made a pretty clear statement, and it doesn’t really need an analogy to understand it.

            I claim that a parent can benefit from herd immunity without ever impinging on another child in any way.

            Any parent who disagrees is urged to have his own children vaccinated immediately.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            If you didn’t fish for it and you didn’t pay for it, you stole it.

            As I said elsewhere, you don’t seem to understand how vaccines work. Why don’t you explain to us how you think they work and then we correct your errors. It’s very dfficult to have a discussion about vaccines with someone who doesn’t understand how they work.

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            Please stop being a moron, or at least trying to play one on the internet. The more people that refuse to vaccinate, the more risk their children will pay the price.

            Sooner or later, the people believing in this Moronic BS you are espousing are going to be culled from the human race. The culling will come from the dead children who had no say in you cavalierly playing Russian Roulette with their lives, or by being censured by the rest of humanity.

            When things get out of hand, vaccinations WILL be enforced, but by then it will be too late. Maybe that child who died from something preventable like Polio would have been the person to make a giant leap in cancer cure. It may turn out that measles kill the child who would have just given his/her parents the joy of their life.

            –“Hey! I want you to expose your child to an avoidable risk for the sake of MY child. I have compared the kids, and I deem my child to be more worthy of a risk-free situation than your child.” If it comes to the negligible risks associated with vaccines compared to the guaranteed torture of a disease like polio, I’ll choose the vaccine every damn time. As a refresher since you ignored it earlier:fever
            tiredness and weakness (malaise)
            headache
            nausea and vomiting
            muscle stiffness.
            severe muscle pain
            stiffness of the neck and back – with or without paralysis
            swallowing and breathing problems
            long-term disability – due to paralysis of the muscles
            death – in severe cases, when breathing and swallowing muscles are paralyzed.

            post-polio:
            decreasing strength and endurance
            breathing, swallowing or speaking difficulties
            pain in muscles and joints
            fatigue and an inability to stay alert.Also keep in mind that these post-polio problems can occur up to 40 years later.

            STOP BEING A MORON! VACCINATE

            Also, stop shilling for the Anti-Vax morons while claiming to not be one of them.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, DigitalAtheist ~

            You made some strong points.
            But just so you know, I did not ignore your post– I just haven’t reached it yet. I have more than 200 notices in my inbox. so it will be a while — if ever — before I see them all.

            1) If the incidence of communicable diseases goes up, the rate of vaccination will go up too.

            2) I certainly hope we will never resort to forcible vaccination (or any kind of forcible medical interventions.) The pictures it calls up are ghastly.

            3) We didn’t lose our heads when smallpox was actually a terrible danger and suddenly a vaccination became available, I trust we won’t lose our balance and judgment if a new disease breaks out in the future.

          • Box of Salt
            at #

            Ann, did you come here to exemplify this post?

            If so, congratulations!

          • Ann
            at #

            What?

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            WooHoo! The wingnut is finally properly baffled by the blame so rightly attached to her!

          • Who?
            at #

            I agree, she aced it.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Because as a whole and community-wide, the entire population is better off for having vaccinated than for not having vaccinated and the more people overall that vaccinate the healthier society is.

            If you struggle with that concept, then I think you are selfish and stupid.

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            And just so you can’t say you weren’t told this: Anti-Vaxxers don’t give a flying $*^% about the health of their children. Most are just trying to stroke their Ego and brag about how “smart”** they are… even more so than doctors who have been to school for years. If you find a doctor who goes A-V, please remember s-he is a quack and shouldn’t have graduated.
            **”smart” means “Dumber than a box of rocks and nowhere near as useful” when applied to anyone shilling for the anti-vaccination crowd. Alternatively it can also mean that said “smart” a-v person–or shill–shouldn’t be allowed to breathe without adult supervision.
            Please stop being willingly ignorant. It really doesn’t help the image others have of you.

        • Samantha06
          at #

          Let’s see how you get out of the situation where YOUR un-vaccinated child gets measles-related encephalitis and DIES.. but that will be on your shoulders won’t it? And how will you justify not vaccinating your kid then? Of course, if measles cases continue to rise, herd immunity will be threatened. What will you do then?

          • Ann
            at #

            Naturally the anti-vaxxer parents think that the odds of a serious side effect from a disease are much less than the odds of a serious side effect from the vaccine.

            All the choices parents make about their children carry risks and consequences, and the decisions are always trade offs.

            It is far more dangerous to feed your child food than it is to live in a country with the present levels of unvaccinated children. But eating food a trade-off like everything else.
            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6315a3.htm

          • Stacy48918
            at #

            If I eat tainted food, your child doesn’t die from food poisoning.

          • Ann
            at #

            If your child gets his vaccinations, then no other child’s immunity status has any impact on him whatsoever.

            And in the few cases where certain people cannot be vaccinated, how do you get to force one parent to expose his child to a serious risk (as he believes) in for the sake of benefiting some other child?

            Isn’t that kind of selfish of the other child to demand that someone else do that for his own benefit?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            “If your child gets his vaccinations, then no other child’s immunity status has any impact on him whatsoever.”

            That’s false. You don’t seem to understand how vaccines work. Let’s see you explain how you think they work and then we can figure out where you’ve gone wrong.

          • Sarah
            at #

            Ann, do you genuinely not know that no vaccination is 100% effective? My child could have all of hers- although obviously that still leaves children too young to have completed the full schedule at risk- but if she falls into the small but significant minority for whom the vaccine doesn’t work, other children’s status will have a potentially colossal impact on her.

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            They can think whatever they want. That doesn’t make them right, and it doesn’t entitle them to special treatment.

        • Elaine
          at #

          Getting out of that situation sounds unselfish when you put it like that, but you’re ignoring the facts that a. it’s the anti-vaxer’s kid who has to suffer for their decisions when they get VPDs, and b. it’s also potentially other kids who have to suffer if they either can’t be vaxed or the vax didn’t produce immunity in them and the anti-vaxer’s kid gets them sick.

          So yes, I would rather that everyone took the tiny risk from vaccines so that their kids wouldn’t have to get sick (I don’t want my kids to suffer, and I don’t want other kids to suffer either) and so that their kids wouldn’t get other kids sick either.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Elaine ~

            Thanks for your well-expressed and logical response.

            a) Every parent has to make the best call they can for the risks associated with every decision. Playing sports, riding a bike or living in a home with a pool — these are all avoidable risks that some parents accept and some parents avoid.

            I think it would be the absolute height of totalitarianism for the government to dictate medical interventions against the best judgment of competent parents.

            What ghastly images it conjures up — parents smothering their babies’ cries as they crouch in attics and cellars to avoid the Medical Obedience police squad, and then the inevitable discovery, the tearing of the screaming child from the arms of its screaming mother, the beating of the cursing and fighting father to the ground…

            Some people posting here have suggested that these parents have their parental rights terminated because the child would be better off in an institution, and some people have suggested that these parents by killed.
            “I can only suggest a penalty for such actions that would be life-ending in nature.”
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/02/01/these-parents-oppose-vaccines-for-reasons-that-should-disturb-us-all/#comment-1829442466
            ~ Written by John James
            https://disqus.com/by/Jbo_Mmbohbobhbjo/
            —–

            b) Yes, I see what you mean. but this is the problem here;

            On what grounds can you force a parent to expose his child to a risk for the sake of sparing YOUR child from that risk?

          • momofone
            at #

            You know, Ann, this troubles me on many levels. I hope (really) that you are never in the position of knowing that some moron who decided s/he knows more about immunology than actual scientists do could expose someone you love to something that may kill them, or that you lose someone that way. On a deeper level, though, I see what you’re saying as representative of a general decline in responsibility; it’s not just “me first;” it’s ME-ME-ONLY-ME. And that scares me for us all, even more than the people who don’t vaccinate.

          • Ann
            at #

            Thanks for your good points, momofone.

            The issue is not really about “medical knowledge.”

            It is really about the rights of free citizens to have control the autonomy of their bodies — in regard to vaccination, abortion, surgery, heroic care, or prolongation of the end of life, and naturally have the decisive decision regarding their children.

            Certainly parents who raise their children in a religion. for example, are not motivated by “knowledge.” Rather they are exercising their priceless rights as free people.

            I’m no fan of religion, but I think that allowing parents that right sure beats a society that does whatever it has to in order to kill it.

          • momofone
            at #

            And when your rights and my rights coincide, that’s what we’re discussing. Thanks for the enlightenment though.

          • Courtney
            at #

            Ann, as a parent who’s child suffered a terrible reaction from a vaccine (we don’t know which one because he had so many at once) I wanted to say thank you for speaking up. Maybe there is some ego involved in the “anti-vax” movement but for many people it’s just fear. Yes vaccines are an amazing thing but maybe they could be better and maybe that’s what we should be talking about.

          • at #

            And while we work on making them better, get the ones we have. That is the conversation we need to be having- get all the vaccines you can, because you can die or kill someone if you don’t.

            Irrational fear is irrational. Yes, even if your kid had a very bad reaction to a vaccine (and are you absolutely sure it wasn’t a coincidence but a true reaction?), it’s still worth it to avoid diseases that killed thousands of children every year before the vaccines came out.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            That’s not the calculation. You are taking the benefits without participating in the risks. You have to expose your child to the risk IN EXCHANGE for enjoying the benefits. Anything else is unethical.

          • Ann
            at #

            Well, Amy, I am glad to see that you at least admit that there are avoidable risks in undergoing vaccination.

            But I cannot think of why any one parent would have to expose his child to risks when he doesn’t hae to. In fact, if he sincerely felt that it was more risky to vaccinate than not — and then went ahead and did it anyway — then I would question his fitness as a parent. What’s he trying to do, bump his kid off?

            If the society is better off with tall office buildings, must we all be forced to climb girders?

            If we are better as a society when there are fishing fleets, do all children have to become fishers in order to eat seafood?
            (by some measures, America’s most dangerous job:)
            http://money.cnn.com/gallery/pf/2012/09/20/most-dangerous-jobs/

            Do all the grannies in the US have to fight Nazis if they are so mean as to keep on living here safely?

            Your argument is not sustainable, it seems to me.

          • Box of Salt
            at #

            Ann “Do all the grannies in the US have to fight Nazis if they are so mean as to keep on living here safely?”

            I am quoting this post because you have a Disqus account which allow you to edit.

            You are way off the rails of rational discussion.

          • Box of Salt
            at #

            Duh. No account. allow^s you to edit.

          • Who?
            at #

            So you don’t consider an unvaccinated child picking up an infection from another unvaccinated child a risk? Or just one worth taking.

            Consider tetanus-which is picked up through open wounds and isn’t contagious. Do you see it as a different case from other VPDs because the unvaccinated take all the risk and get none of the benefit when they choose not to vaccinate against it?

          • at #

            It is murder to watch a child die from a treatable disease, and the parents should be prosecuted for such.

          • yugaya
            at #

            You’d die of paranoia if you lived in a country with mandatory childhood vaccination program where termination of parental rights as one of the consequences is a legal option.

            To me it is far more ghastly to envision a society made up of individuals that are fine with allowing a perfectly preventable epidemic to occur. Imagine all the other things they would be fine with happening too.

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            “I think it would be the absolute height of totalitarianism for the government to dictate medical interventions against the best judgment of competent parents.”

            Is a parent who is unable or unwilling to calculate the relative risks of vaccinating vs not vaccinating competent to make that judgment? One can be a good parent but still be horribly, tragically wrong.

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          at #

          So if you lived during WWII, would you have refused to send your son to the draft on the theory that only you get to decide that your son should be put at risk, and that other women should send their sons to war to protect you and your family?

          And you think getting out of that situation is far from selfish, too?

          When you take the benefits of society, and you wish to be a moral person, you must share the risks, too. If you refuse to share the risks, you’re unethical.

          • Ann
            at #

            I have pointed out repeatedly that the military draft is the only situation I can think of where people are compelled to be endangered for the sake of some completely different people.

            I also pointed out that a military draft is a government tactic that is strongly resisted.
            http://barkeryear10vietnam.pbworks.com/f/112.JPG

            I don’t know of any reason why a parent should expose his children to any avoidable risk he has decided to avoid — no matter what other people choose to do. If one parent thinks it’s too risky to allow his child to ride a bike, what can other parents care? Is the leery parent supposed to send his child into the street as an alternate target for a speeding car, hoping to spare the neighbor’s child?

            What kind of selfishness it that?

            All the other parent has to do is refuse her child a bike, or get her child vaccinated.
            Problem solved.
            —–
            One parent’s decision cannot in the slightest affect the decisions of other parents.

            Unless those “other” parents would leap at the chance go get a free ride from the improved herd immunity.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            The benefit of vaccines is herd immunity. The burden is the risks (miniscule, but real) that come with vaccines. You enjoy the benfits without doing your share to participate in the burdens. That’s immoral.

            Your decision affects other children. The decisions of other mothers affect your children. That’s just the way it is.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Amy ~

            I think that it is worse than immoral — I think it is just evil — to try to force one parent’s children into a risky situation for the sake of lessening the exposure of risk of some other kid.

            I think that would be true even if the children were siblings.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            at #

            But that’s not what we are taling about. We’re not talking about one child taking a risk to protect another. We’re talking about YOUR children taking the benefits of herd immunity created by other children while refusing to participate in creating herd immunity.

            See the difference?

            It would be fine if you want to take your children somewhere that they aren’t benefiting from everyone else’s sacrifice and put your children at risk of a life threatening disease. That wouldn’t hurt anyone else. But that’s not what you are doing. You are benefiting from everyone else’s sacrifice and not only are you not sharing in the sacrifice, but you’re actually putting everyone else at risk.

            You keep refusing to acknowledge that you are benefiting from the sacrifice of others. That’s immoral.

          • at #

            That’s funny, I think that it is just evil to put your children and other people’s children at risk of a horrible death by measles instead of taking a shot with literally 1 in a million odds of complications, and then to gloat that you’re taking advantage of the parents who did take that 1 in a million chance in order to protect from a disease that kills about 1 in one thousand. After all, you’re forcing one parent’s child into a risky situation (exposure to measles) for the sake of lessening the exposure of risk of some other kid (minuscule risks from measles vaccine).

            It’s selfish, it’s rude, and it’s incredibly evil to be an anti-vaxxer. By your definitions, of course. I don’t think anti-vaxxers are evil, just misinformed, gullible, and sheltered.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            WTF? What risky situation is your kid facing by receiving a vaccination?

            My kid had risks vaccinating – which were discussed with her specialists. We still vaccinated because it is important to us that she’s protected from serious diseases that can kill, cause brain damage etc etc and it is important to your kid that as many people have immunity such that your kid doesn’t get these diseases either.

            So – what is the actual risk to your kid? Mine risked a flare of an underlying condition. We knew that. Her doctors knew that. What do you know about your kid that might be an issue with them getting a vaccination?

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            But you aren’t forcing a child into a risky situation. By vaccinating a child you are greatly reducing their exposure to risk – and also to a lesser extent reducing the exposure of risk of ALL the kids the child will ever meet – not just one hypothetical “other kid”. Attempting to reduce your child’s risk by refusing vaccination (other than in a small number of well-defined circumstances) is a little like attempting to reduce an infant’s risk by refusing to use a car seat – after all, some babies have been killed as a result of being strapped in a car seat. But far more have been killed as a result of not being strapped in a car seat. The risk of serious harm from a vaccine is actually much, much less than the risk of serious harm from being strapped in a car seat. It is so small as to be difficult to quantify, even with the vast amounts of data available from decades of near-universal vaccination.

          • Delius
            at #

            “I think that it is worse than immoral — I think it is just evil — to try to force one parent’s children into a risky situation for the sake of lessening the exposure of risk of some other kid.”

            Since being vaccinated is the OPPOSITE of being at risk, your point has no merit.

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            I think it’s just evil to force your own child and, to a lesser extent, other people’s children, into a risky situation for no better reason than to prove your right to make irrational decisions.

          • yugaya
            at #

            My late grandpa says thank you to those mothers and sons who did not resist that government tactic of WWII military draft. He was freed from a concentration camp in Italy in 1943. by Yankee sheeple who knew no better but to listen to their government that said it was a human duty to go over there and help.

        • Allie P
          at #

          It’s not just selfish from the “other people who can’t vax will suffer from diseases” POV. It’s also selfish from the public health and economy standpoint. Illness is expensive. It’s expensive from the perspective of lost work and business, and expensive from the perspective of what it costs the state in rehabilitiation and disability when willfully unvaccinated people or children of willfully unvaccinated parents (CRS, anyone?) wind up dead or disabled from VPD. My aunt is deaf from her (pre vaccine) bout of measles, and she received hearing aids and other assistance from the state due to her disability. If parents die from VPD, the children will receive social security benefits. Before vaccination, millions of people got measles, and thousands died or had permanent disability as a result.

          Even the anti-vaxxers will be paying for that.

          • Allie P
            at #

            Also, I doubt highly when the anti vaxxers have their little fantasies of “mild cases of measles” they are thinking of their children going deaf. I doubt they are thinking of their babies being born with brain damage as a result of CRS.

        • Delius
          at #

          You keep characterizing vaccination as a “risk”. That alone invalidates everything else you say.

    • Bombshellrisa
      at #

      There is nothing wrong with being angry with people who volunteer their children for unnecessary illness while exposing others to it too. Perhaps they are just gigantic douche waffles who read the list you made and actually believe their limited knowledge allows them to distinguish what is beneficial and what is not.

      • Ann
        at #

        Hi, Bombshellrise ~

        Thanks for your clear response.

        I think the anger around this issue is kind of unbalanced.

        The number of children injured and even killed (by one another) is far higher in sports or even idle games than is the number killed by the lack of a vaccination.

        Yet the anger at “building go-cart ramps” or “playing football” or “teens driving cars” or “playing with BB guns” is so much less.

        I guess parents who think playing football puts their children at an unreasonable risk just tell them they can’t play football, but for some reason they can’t just get their children vaccinated.

        It’s a mystery to me. I never gave it a thought because I had my children vaccinated.

        • Bombshellrisa
          at #

          None of those activities you mentioned pose imminent danger to vulnerable populations. I can choose to analyze the risk and decide playing football is ok or not for my son and if my neighbor chooses the opposite, it poses no risk to anyone else.
          Anger is often an appropriate response. Why should I balance my anger because some douche waffle with suboptimal reasoning skills insists on putting the vulnerable and everyone else at risk?

      • Ann
        at #

        Well, bombshellrisa, in what year would you have been wise enough to decline thalidomide?

        Or would your limited knowledge have made it suitable to force you to take it?

        • Bombshellrisa
          at #

          So what is your question? And if you aren’t part of the problem, why is my anger and any description I use any threat to you?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
          at #

          it wasn’t freely available in the US, and had to be smuggled in…so there goes another one of your useless so-called arguments.

    • Amazed
      at #

      ETA: And from time to time, some kids will die, in addition to epidemics, and they will die as a direct result from being near those loving parents’ kids but who cares about them? Win-win for the parents is all that matters.

      Here. Fixed it for you.

      • Ann
        at #

        Hi, Amazed ~
        Thanks for your response.

        I think there is no legitimate power on earth that can compel one parent to put his own child at risk for the sake of saving some other child from the same risk.

        The only exception I can think of is the military draft, which is a special case, with many elements not shared in the vaccination context, and which in addition is strongly protested as wrong.

        https://www.google.com/#q=civil+war+draft+riots
        http://barkeryear10vietnam.pbworks.com/f/112.JPG

        • Amazed
          at #

          We’re not talking about legitimate rights, Ann. You were painting a deceitful picture of the consequences of not vaccinating. I merely expanded it.

          It takes a lot of guilty conscience to rush in defense so. Uncomfortable much for freeriding and endangering other people’s lives, parasit?

          • yugaya
            at #

            It’s ignore the elephant in the room tactic – let’s keep mumbling about the draft and misplace the argumentation into the narrow limbo of at a glance perfectly reasonable parental refusal of accepting “the risks to my child solely for the sake of the benefit of other children”. The elephant is of course the utter failure to acknowledge the fact that vaccines serve to protect the child being vaccinated from real risks of VPDs.

          • Who?
            at #

            I call it the ‘oh there’s a butterfly’ tactic-quick change of subject to avoid a challenging question.

          • Ann
            at #

            Can you elaborate on my “deceitful picture of the consequences of not vaccinating”?

            I’d appreciate your drawing your observation out a little if you had the chance.

            Actual quotes would be better than mere characterizations, but I’d be grateful for whatever you had the time for.

          • Amazed
            at #

            “|So if everyone else would just go ahead and vaccinate their children,
            then these few parents can be perfectly safe in not vaccinating theirs.”

            Why bother mention other people and other people’s kids, eh? And when someone does, you immediately jump in defense of your right to keep mooching off and endangering everyone else.

            Picture me saying it slowly, so even your fearless brain can process it: we believe that vaccinating is beneficial to those who vaccinate in the first place. Herd immunity is just a side effect. But this side effect to others is beneficial to us, so we focus on that, primarily. The point of vaxxing being good for those vaccinated still stands.. So you can stop your moralizing lectures of us expecting everyone else to sacrifice themselves for us. Not that I expect it.

          • Ann
            at #

            (1) It is a right universally acknowledged in a free society that we may decline medical interventions for ourselves and (with some limitations) for our children.

            That includes the right — never abrogated — to decline vaccination, and therefore the right for people to decide for themselves what is “good for them,” although I am sure they are grateful for your help in knowing that for them
            ———
            (2) There has never existed the contrary right — that one child can be forced into peril as a shield for another.

            ——

            Don’t you think that the consequences of the opposite decisions would be really rather horrible?

            Just imaginie the mere ENFORCEMENT of these grotesque laws!

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            “Some limitations” A useful phrase, and I’m glad it’s there, as not being able to decline vaccination without medical contraindication seems like a perfectly reasonable limitation to me.

        • Delius
          at #

          “I think there is no legitimate power on earth that can compel one parent
          to put his own child at risk for the sake of saving some other child
          from the same risk.”

          And how, exactly, is vaccination putting their children at risk? It is REDUCING their risk.

    • Trixie
      at #

      I like how you just tone trolled Dr. Amy at the beginning of that. I wonder if male bloggers get accused of having “unprocessed anger.”

    • Guestll
      at #

      Aluminum gels
      Potassium aluminum sulfate
      Aluminum phosphate
      Aluminum hydroxide
      Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate
      (That’s a lot of aluminum for people who don’t even cook in aluminum pots)

      You claim that your children and pets are vaccinated, yet you spout the standard anti-vaxx party line. Have you bothered to ask anyone about that “a lot of aluminum”? Someone other than your friend google? Do you understand that the dose makes the poison? That’s your first clue. Instead of copypasting the insert, why don’t you figure out what those ingredients are and what they do before you use this list to create doubt and fear?

      • Box of Salt
        at #

        Vitamins and amino acids are on her list – plus two specific amino acids, and one specific vitamin. I wonder if this poster who thinks anti-vaccine parents are making rational decisions knows which those are?

      • Trixie
        at #

        I, for one, spend all my waking hours trying to avoid the most abundant metal on the planet.

      • Ann
        at #

        I can sympathize with people who don’t want to cook with aluminum, even though it is an issue I completely ignore.

        I also want to defend the rights of parents who don’t want to inject it into their infants.

        It’s like defending speech I disagree with.

        We are better off to let the parents make these calls, just as we are better off to allow disagreeable speech.

        The problem is that the alternative to allowing these things is horrendous.

        • Nick Sanders
          at #

          Horrendous, how, exactly?

      • Ann
        at #

        But GuestII, my whole point was to illustrate my assertion that the list of ingredients probably disgusts anti-vxxer parents.

        I had no comment at all about the nature of the ingredients, or their safety, or the desirability of injecting them into your infant.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      Even people who love their children can become obsessed with bolstering their own egos. That’s clearly what has happened to anti-vaxxers. This is not about children or vaccines. This is about people profoundly ignorant of basic immunology, chemistry, pharmacology and pediatrics, but busily (and cluelessly) patting themselves on the back for being “educated” … like you!

      • Ann
        at #

        Well, I don’t have the Superpowers that you do to read people’s minds.

        I must say I’m surprised to find that so many people have such vicious motives.

        • Taysha
          at #

          You must not have been paying attention. It’s basic psychology.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
          at #

          good, none of the rest of us do, either.

          However, we DO have one superpower you lack: The ability to review the evidence and reach a conclusion that’s statistically measurable about help or harm, and we use it.

      • Ann
        at #

        This is one of the strangest assertions I have ever heard.

        What a way to interpret the decisions of parents when they disagree with you.

        I don’t even know how you came by this information except by reading their minds.

        • Who?
          at #

          By their actions can they be judged. Reading their minds would be a risk to the sanity of a thoughtful person, best avoided.

        • Delius
          at #

          You see enough anti-vaxers patting themselves on the back for “educating themselves” and sneering at others for not having their eyes open, and you begin to sense a pattern.

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      Also dihydrogen monoxide.

      [EDIT: I deleted remarks about selfishness of Ann, why pile on?]

      • Who?
        at #

        Ah, the high road. You’re right of course, saying mean things only reinforces her sense of the need to be Alone (not in the cool, Garbo way, in the crazy way).

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      “Plus the corpses (or parts of) pathogens”

      LOL. That’s just awesome. Like all the pathogen corpses that are already in you at this very minute.

    • KarenJJ
      at #

      Regarding your point 1:
      “(1) Prescription drugs — correctly prescribed and correctly taken — are the 4th leading cause of death in the United States”

      Well then you should be mad keen on vaccination then to prevent further usage of prescription drugs should your kids get complications from any vaccine preventable illness.

      • Ann
        at #

        I AM mad keen on vaccination.

        I would never let myself, my children, or even my pets go unvaccinated.

        I estimate the odds differently from how anti-vaxxers do, but I also believe they have a right equal to mine to make their own decisions and estimate the odds for themselves.

        • SuperGDZ
          at #

          Calculating the odds is not an exercise in freedom of opinion. Some calculations are demonstrably vastly more correct than others. Do parents have the right to inflict their demonstrably incorrect calculations on their children?

        • Delius
          at #

          Yeah, sure. You’re not fooling anyone.

    • Cobalt
      at #

      I’m trying to figure out which of those ingredients is supposed to scare me off vaccines. I recognise, on sight, about a third of them, and none of those worry me; in fact, some of those I use on the kids in much, much higher doses already.

      For the rest, I have my kid’s doctor, the CDC, the health department, and the anecdotal evidence of seeing thousands of safely vaccinated kids, as well as myself and my kids, telling me it’s safe.

      • Ann
        at #

        And that is your perfect right that no one is even dreaming of depriving you of.
        Or murdering you for having.
        “I can only suggest a penalty for such actions that would be life-ending in nature.”
        ~ posted by John James
        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/02/01/these-parents-oppose-vaccines-for-reasons-that-should-disturb-us-all/#comment-1829442466

        But you are not the only one with rights, and it is the perfect right of parents to decline vaccination.

        In fact, it is the perfect right of anyone to decline any medical interventions at all, for any reason, at any time.

        The only way this right can be lost is by an adverse judgment in a court of law — and the anti-vaxxers have not lost that challenge.

        I didn’t post that list because I thought it would scare YOU, but because I think it scares anti-vaxxers. I had made a claim that they were possibly disgusted by the list of ingredients in vaccines.

        • “But you are not the only one with rights, and it is the perfect right of parents to decline vaccination.”

          For themselves, certainly. For their children, no. Someone has to advocate for the children’s rights until they are old enough to do so, and if the parents want to willfully harm their children, then the children should be protected from their parents.

        • Delius
          at #

          “In fact, it is the perfect right of anyone to decline any medical interventions at all, for any reason, at any time.”

          So, Ann, you’d be cool with sharing a bus seat with someone who had Ebola and refused treatment for it? That’s OK with you, because it is their “right”, right?

          • Who?
            at #

            How would that happen? Ann wouldn’t be on the egalitarian bus, she’d be driving her monster four wheel drive with the toddlers and the loaded guns bouncing around unrestrained, telling them about all their rights and to mind not getting shot, which only happens to the weak and stupid.

            And anyway, someone with Ebola would have just come from some mysterious faraway land, might have even been there selflessly helping others they didn’t even know. Ann wouldn’t want to mix with that type.

        • The Bofa on the Sofa
          at #

          You have the right to be a selfish asshole. Doesn’t mean you aren’t still a selfish asshole, nor that we can’t call you and treat you like a selfish asshole.

    • Taysha
      at #

      Oh, Ann, my love, where is your degree in biochemistry, biology, immunology or an associated science? Let me debunk a couple of your long list of things you obvs do not understand:

      Neomycin sulfate – antibiotic. Look up neosporin
      Polymyxin B – same thing, precious
      Calf serum – really, you get more of this in broth. Moving on.
      Thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative – FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. There is no thimerosal in vaccines anymore. Thimerosal, also known as ethylmercury, is the equivalent of vodka compared to methanol. Chemistry, where art thou?
      Bovine extract – burgers, anyone?
      Formaldehyde – Have you seen the levels of formaldehyde in organic pears? Higher.
      Antibiotics – yeah, we addressed those above. You know, those things that keep you from dying to disease?
      Type 16 viral protein L1 – these are the markers for the immune system. In a vaccine you get two. In a virus you get 200. Still wining.
      Type 18 viral protein L1 – see above.
      Vitamins – we’re seriously bitching about this?
      Neomycin sulfate – Look up top. Another antibiotic.
      Amino acids – YOUR BODY IS MADE OF THIS
      Egg proteins – mm, ommelettes
      Carbohydrates – Oh look, bread.
      Peptone – Oh look, BEER
      Yeast protein – Oh look, MORE BEER
      Albumin – Look mom, egg whites!
      Lipids – That jiggle on your ass? there you go
      Monosodium glutamate (MSG) – negiligible. you never eat Chinese food?
      MRC-5 cellular protein – this is a remnant of how the virus was grown. When vaccines are purified, they are run through a lovely thing called an analytical HPLC that removes all this crap, but to be fully upfront, it is reported.

      Anything else I can help you debunk, or do you need to go take Chem 101 now?
      Also, corpses of pathogens vs. full pathogen? Technically, you’re hoping your all natural immune system will turn the full pathogen into a corpse so….methinks she doeth protest too much

      • Gozi
        at #

        You win the internet today, in my opinion.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        Love this!! You must be from the south… dead giveaway when you said, “precious”….

        • at #

          Either that or a Tolkien fan… Although then it would likely be spelled precioussss

          • Taysha
            at #

            Neither? Fed up, more likely.
            At least I refrained from calling her “dove”

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Or bitch… the southern word for bitch (with a heavy dose of sarcasm) is “precious”…. that’s why I thought you might be from the south!

          • Taysha
            at #

            I thought it was “bless your heart!” =) Learn something new every day

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Well, that too! lol!!

          • DigitalAtheist
            at #

            Here in the south, “Bless your heart” is the right term. Means that you consider the person you are addressing is someone you consider too dumb for words.

      • Ann
        at #

        Surely you are not suggesting that anything that is edible can be injected into the body of an infant?

        How about giving a preemie a little extra oxygen to breathe?
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031203970.html

        • Is the premie better off dead? Possibly some might think so.
          Maybe we shouldn’t resuscitate babies — especially premies — at all? Let them lie there, and only if they make breathing efforts send them to the NICU and there only give them room air. Or maybe close down NICUs, where all sorts of treatments that might have side effects take place.
          This has personal resonances for me. My niece by marriage was born at 30 weeks, spent several months in NICU, had to have open heart surgery for a patent ductus arteriosus, and is now a happy and productive 24 year old –but has damaged vision from the oxygen she got when she had to be ventilated. Otherwise, she is completely normal

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            I remember my mother, a nurse in the 50’s-60’s, talking about how they used to do this for babies that couldn’t survive, just dosing them with morphine to keep them out of pain. Those days are gone, and for good reason.

          • toni
            at #

            I’m relieved to hear this actually. I think i read here a while ago that in the past they didn’t think babies felt pain so they did procedures and all kinds of things without any anaesthetic

        • SporkParade
          at #

          What is with anti-vaxxers and their belief that the disabled would be better off dead? First it’s, “Well, I’d rather my child die painfully of a preventable disease than that they have autism.” Now it’s, “Oh, SporkParade, you’re so silly! Don’t you know that your husband would have been better off dying at birth than living a happy, productive life with a disability?”

        • Taysha
          at #

          Surely you’re not suggesting that letting children suffer is good for them? I mean, it wasn’t until the last 20 years that it was recognized that children and infants felt pain, I know, but why is the anti-vaxxer movement intent on pushing us back?

          Surely you’re not suggesting anything natural is good for you, right? Because amanita phalloides begs to differ.

          Surely you’re not suggesting some children are better off dead from diseases than inconvenience you to protect yours?

          Ann, you can try to pull as many fallacies and modulate your speech as you wish. YOU HAVE NO IDEA. You are a scared little girl digging deep into the thesaurus, looking for some invisible monster to protect against that will make you feel good and righteous and moral. Yet you will drive a car, drink alcohol, go swimming. All known causes of death in much higher numbers that anything you might read in an insert. You have no idea of chemistry, you have no idea of biology, your knowledge of immunology is dismal. Audit a few classes. Learn for real.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        at #

        Taysha, you rock my world! 🙂 May I love you for saying this? 😉

    • guest
      at #

      isn’t the issue is herd immunity is failing because too many people aren’t vaccinating their children? we seem to be in the midst of a lose-lose situation right now. So I guess the win-win becomes a lose-lose when too many people choose not to vax Hopefully people will finally realize that it is better to vax and the rates will increase.

      Also, can you provide a list of what exactly enters and happens to ones body when it is overcome by a deadly or life-altering virus? That is what scares me, not the ingredient list of life/quality of life saving vaccines.

      • Ann
        at #

        Hi, Guest ~

        The failure of herd immunity can have meaning only for the unvaccinated.

        No one who vaccinates his children can have the slightest concern about herd immunity.

        In the rare cases of those who cannot benefit from vaccination, it is the height of selfishness for them to force other people to expose their children to risks so they won’t have to face any.

        When did that become a practice?
        One parent is supposed to risk his own child so some other child won’t have to face any risk?

        Except for the draft for military service, I have never even heard of such an expectation.

        • Celia Yurdelas
          at #

          It’s called altruism. The animal kingdom managed to do it unconciously for millions of years to get us where we are today.

        • anh
          at #

          my immune system doesn’t function optimally and I am one of the few people for whom vaccines don’t confer total immunity. I’m fully vaccinated, but I still rely on herd immunity.

          The risk of a true, honest to God vaccine injury is miniscule. teensy, tiny. It’s intellectually dishonest to frame the vaccine decision as the lesser of two evils.

        • guest
          at #

          A few things:
          1) I read that even if someone is vax, they can still get the disease if too many people aren’t vaxed.So a vaxxed person also has a higher probability of getting sick if the vax rate falls below a critical point.

          2) What about infants? Is it just tough luck for them until they are old enough to get the shots? I worked when my older child was born, he went to daycare at 12 weeks – I was happy parents chose to vax and I did likewise.

          Obviously in CA their weren’t enough people in the herd to protect those who “feel” the need not to vax based on junk science. What are anti vaxers going to do? Draw straws, have a discussion and decide who needs to sacrfice for their liked minded group and get a vax to keep the heard healthy? I read there is a school in CA that has a 70% vax rate, but 85% to 90% is needed to keep the herd healthy.

          How do anti vaxers feel about being required to stay home for three weeks? If they aren’t willing to help the herd by getting the shots, are they at least willing to stay out public for a while to help the herd? Will they avoid the Dr’s office when they get sick so they don’t expose an infant?

          Finally, I also read that if the rate falls low enough, even people who chose to vax are at risk because vaccines aren’t 100% effective, but when more people vax, the probability of coming in contact with an infected person is lower.

          If people don’t want to vax do they accept other limitations?

          • Delius
            at #

            ” Draw straws, have a discussion and decide who needs to sacrfice for
            their liked minded group and get a vax to keep the heard healthy?”

            “Sacrifice”? Getting an extremely safe and highly beneficial vaccine is “sacrificing” yourself?

            And please, stop with the “I’m just playing devil’s advocate” tone. You aren’t fooling anyone.

          • guest
            at #

            I am totally pro vax. I was being 100% sarcastic

    • Elaine
      at #

      A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

      I’m not in favor of information not being available regarding medications that people are to receive. But the flip side of more information being available is that people who are not equipped to handle the information are getting it, not knowing what to do with it, and reaching totally idiotic conclusions.

      The whole “That chemical with the long name is terrifying” thing is so frustrating. Someone who doesn’t know what the chemicals all are should do one of the following: go find out about each one, in depth (getting a degree in chemistry would be a good start), or stfu and realize they are in there for good reasons because scientists are not in the business of adding unnecessary crap to solutions that does not accomplish a constructive purpose.

      At any rate, I agree with most of this post by Ann. I think she is correct about the motivations of many anti-vaxxers. I think that those of us who are pro-vax will need to approach those who don’t vaccinate where they are, not where we think they are, in order to gain any traction in convincing them.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        “I think that those of us who are pro-vax will need to approach those who don’t vaccinate where they are, not where we think they are, in order to gain any traction in convincing them.”

        I don’t know.. I have an old childhood friend who’s daughter was “convinced” her child’s MMR vaccine caused autism. When I tried to talk to her about it rationally, she got her back up and refused to talk about it any further. The daughter is also a doula. One day she started going on about unnecessary C/Sections and I very nicely asked her what would make a C/S unnecessary and she got very defensive. I think these folks want to believe what they want to, in spite of evidence to the contrary. How do you work with that?

        • Elaine
          at #

          “How do you work with that?”

          I wish I knew. I know (mostly online) quite a few otherwise lovely people who are pretty deep in the woo. It’s baffling. I know that they love their kids and want what’s best for their kids and sincerely think they are doing so.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Maybe they are the semi-reachable ones… I know I was shocked at my friend’s reaction and I really think it’s the anti-medicine trend. A lot of her aversion to medicine stemmed from the poor care they receive in our home town. It’s a public system and there are very few really good GP’s there. They’ve had several bad experiences, so it’s like an excuse to “write off” mainstream medicine. However, her husband had throat cancer, detected early. He received excellent, timely treatment and was cured.I do think the militant ones are almost lost causes. No amount of reason or evidence is going to change their minds. Unfortunately, with these people, it has to affect them personally, with a death or something catastrophic for them to face reality. And even then, sometimes they are still in denial.

        • SuperGDZ
          at #

          You can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themself into.

          • Who?
            at #

            That is wise and more than a little unsettling. So we’re screwed, right?

            Better get some good PR people in to convince them vaccines are cool/crunchy/organic/paleo or whatever the nonsense of the day is. Perhaps if they were hysterical going in they can be brought out the same way?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            You’re so right. It’s so frustrating. I’ve learned to just back away unless I sense there might be a small chance they might be open to the truth..

      • Ann
        at #

        Hi, Elaine ~

        What a cowed and submissive population you envision.

        Only parents with degrees in chemistry can feel disgust and distrust at the list of ingredients in vaccines.

        Imagine the impact that list has on people who feed their children only the most careful organic vegan food or whatever.

        No plastic containers, no gluten, no pesticides, no commercial shampoo, etc.

        And then they are expected to bow their heads as authority figures tell them that they have no opinions that must be respected because they don’t have degrees in chemistry.

        As recently as the 1950s, premature babies were routinely blinded by oxygen — good old simple oxygen.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031203970.html

        And you will recall what happened when the people without degrees in chemistry (the “stupid people” as we like to call them) bowed their heads to receive thalidomide.

        Yes, yes, by all means let us assume that as of the year ____ , medical science became perfect and free of error.

        So everyone must obey.

        • Who?
          at #

          What an ignorant population you envision.

          We all feel disgust and distrust of certain things, some of which are bad for us and some of which are fine, but make us uncomfortable.

          One of the benefits of an open mind is that you can appreciate things you don’t understand.

          Ignorant opinions don’t deserve respect, because they are ignorant. Ignorant people deserve respect because they are people, but we don’t have to like them, or take them seriously, or let them run our lives.

          Do you suggest that people who suffer from anxiety should allow their anxiety, which is an illness, guide their every move? Or would they and those around them be happier and more fulfilled if they acknowledged their anxiety and worked to not allow it to limit them.

        • anh
          at #

          “Only parents with degrees in chemistry can feel disgust and distrust at the list of ingredients in vaccines.”
          no, because parents with degrees in chemistry are smart enough to understand the list of ingredients and understand that disgust and distrust are not warranted!

        • Elaine
          at #

          Someone who doesn’t even know what a particular chemical is FOR, but knows it must be bad because it has a long scary name, IS stupid. And there are a heck of a lot of anti-vax, natural-parenting voices encouraging exactly this reaction. You yourself were trying to drum up sympathy for this position by posting the list of long scary names.

          Yes, it is a free country and everyone can ultimately make their own decisions, but that doesn’t mean that a refusal to seek unbiased information or a resorting to scare tactics is a good thing or that I’m going to uphold it.

    • Medwife
      at #

      Corpses? The CORPSES of pathogens?

      • Taysha
        at #

        Dramatic license, I’m certain.

        Science, none of it is.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          Zombie vaccines.

      • Mishimoo
        at #

        Nicotinamide sounds super-scary! It’s spelled like nicotine, clearly it is a derivative and THEY are trying to make all of our precious babies into addicts!! /snark

        • Samantha06
          at #

          The thinking is that if THEY introduce that scary, nicotine-sounding stuff with the vaccine, it will “prime” the kids’ bodies for nicotine addiction. Kids will start smoking early, and big tobacco will reap more profits… because you know the tobacco companies are in on it too…

          • Box of Salt
            at #

            OK, my bad:
            nicotinamide = niacin (B3), precursor to NAD+.
            Try metabolizing anything without that.

            Seriously.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I believe you…Chemistry was one of my worst subjects in school.. 🙁

        • Box of Salt
          at #

          Well, to be fair, nicotinamide (niacin) and nicotine are structurally similar, with a pyridine ring substituted at the 3-position.

          If you have no clue what I’m talking about – try reviewing some organic chemistry. Or google them: wikipedia does get chemical structures and data right.

          Or check if your local community college offers a general science requirement course (ie. without a lab) specifically in chemistry, and take it.

          • Mishimoo
            at #

            Yes! Wasn’t there a study that looked at helping people quit nicotine by taking doses of nicotinamide based on the idea that they are structurally similar?

            (I was basically being an arse because I am so tired of antivaxxers. Chemistry fascinates me, so I am planning on taking a course once the youngest is in kindy.)

        • SuperGDZ
          at #

          I know a lot of wooey people who love them some vit B injections.

      • Box of Salt
        at #

        I prefer my pathogens as corpses.

        Fighting off the live, non-attenuated ones takes time and energy.

    • at #

      Ann, it takes a lot of ignorance to read other people’s minds like this, and to ascribe to them nothing but the most generous (and erroneous) motives.

      Probably most people just love their children and want to do what they have descided is the best for them despite all evidence

      ~ No doubt they are baffled and intimidated by the large words in the vaccine ingredient list.
      ~ No doubt they are willing to risk the documented chance that something they refuse to do may bring down severe consequences on their beloved children.
      ~ No doubt they have been made fearful by the ignorant and rebellious pseudoscience pushed relentlessly by the anti-science crowd.
      ~ No doubt they assume that what they are told by important authorities is by default incorrect.
      ~ Perhaps they know that we would be full of fury and alarm if someone offered to provide medical treatment to our children despite 50 (or even 100) years of evidence and revision.
      ~ Perhaps that makes them think that their medical knowledge is more complete and 100% accurate than the knowledge of actual experts on pediatrics, immunology, biology etc.

      And no doubt they are relying on herd immunity to safeguard their children without concern for the immunocompromised, infants and the elderly, and those who cannot vaccinate for medical reasons.

      From the point of view of an anti-vaxxer parent, this is a win-win decision. From the point of view of everyone else, they’re ignorant, selfish assholes.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        Word!

      • apal
        at #

        “It is neither an irrational decision
        (No vaccinations are necessary in situations of herd immunity)
        — nor —
        a selfish decision
        (Everyone else can still immunize their own children against an entire planetful of unvaccinated people)”
        ____
        No, it is a purely selfish decision, because there are SCORES of people who actually cannot be vaccinated (babies less than 12 months, those with immune disorders, whose who are immunosupressed because of cancer chemotherapy, etc, etc) and who desperately rely on herd immunity not to get sick.

        • Ann
          at #

          Why do you say it is selfish for parents to avoid exposing their own children to risks for the sole benefit of some completely different children?

          It is more accurate to say that the “other” children are wildly selfish to demand any such thing.

          Except for the military draft, I have never even heard of such a thing.

          I would seriously worry about a parent who threw his kid into the line of fire to draw the sniper away from some other kid.

          But I guess for you, any parent who didn’t do that would be just selfish, right?

          I think that a parent who demanded that another family do that is the selfish one.

          • Who?
            at #

            Is it selfish to take the benefit of herd immunity, and in so doing throw other people with immune compromises to the wolves?

          • yugaya
            at #

            “for the sole benefit of some completely different children”

            Never mind the fact that vaccines do primarily serve the purpose of protecting from VPD those who get them – herd immunity is not the sole benefit, it is the positive side effect.

          • Delius
            at #

            Yup, social responsibility must sound so odd to an anti-vaxer.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Why do you say it is selfish for parents to avoid exposing their own
            children to risks for the sole benefit of some completely different
            children?

            Kind of because that is the fucking definition of selfish.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            I want you dropped someplace where you’ll suffer for your foolish opinions in order to hopefully imbue you with empathy, because you have NO sympathy at all

    • Daleth
      at #

      Omg lipids?!?!?! Lipids, Ann, are fat. Yeast protein is not just safe but edible in large quantities (look up Vegemite, for instance). Ditto egg proteins, though people with egg allergies have to skip those vaccines or, where possible, get alternate ones not made with egg proteins. Carbohydrates, amino acids, vitamins… you think these things are legitimately scary to some people? Only to idiots.

      Oh, and as for “Mercury” (thimerasol), there hasn’t been ANY in kids’ vaccines in the US since 1999-2001 (it was phased out over that time period).

      • Amazed
        at #

        I like the quotes you put on. “Mercury” indeed. It’s funny how those educated people who cannot be fooled by the Big Pharma don’t comprehend that “mercury” in thiomersal and mercury in old thermometers aren’t the same thing. It’s like… vodka and methyl alcohol!

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          Or sodium chloride and sodium. One is explosive when it hits water… The other is table salt.. The properties of the salt are hugely different to the elemental properties.

          Thiomersal is a salt that gets peed out.

          • Ann
            at #

            Hi, Karen ~

            Here’s my answer to Amazed:

            So much trouble to eliminate it from vaccines!

            So much effort to reassure parents that it is present in only tiny amounts!

            You wouldn’t think they’d bother if it were such a non-issue.

          • Bombshellrisa
            at #

            Maybe they are trying to reduce the amounts because so many are using the presence as a reason not to vaccinate. Vaccination is important, herd immunity is critical and if one thing can be reasonable reduced it might be less of an issue and people who were concerned would then vaccinate.

          • Who?
            at #

            This is the trouble with pandering-the changes were made and the profiteers then came in with their ‘ooh, aah, what else aren’t they telling us’ rather than, ‘great, let’s move on’.

            Anti-vaxxers don’t like vax, just like one of the George Bushes didn’t like brocolli. Doesn’t matter what happens to vax, they just don’t like it.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            at #

            Of course, it has always been possible to have vaccines without thimerasol. However, it’s more expensive. So that is another consequence of pandering – it makes it more expensive for the rest of us, but with no benefit.

          • 'birthbuddy
            at #

            And here is feminerds answer to you:
            “Clearly, it didn’t work in placating anti-vax people, because it never was really about thimerosal in the first place”

          • Ann
            at #

            Ahh.

            I know now that the anti-vaxxers are unnatural beings whose only interest in their own children is vainglory,

            I didn’t know that before.

            I just assumed that they were pretty normal people with comprehensible human motives (which don’t agree with mine, as is their right.)

            But how could I have been expected to know?
            Unlike Amy, I’m not a mind reader.

            But I do admit I was shocked at the amount of evil that mind readers pick up on.

            Honestly, if she hadn’t asserted her knowledge so firmly, I’d almost have assumed she was just making it up.

          • birthbuddy
            at #

            “I know now that the anti-vaxxers are unnatural beings whose only interest in their own children is vainglory”

            Good.

          • KarenJj
            at #

            The issue is non-vaccinating parents. Not thiomersal. It didn’t help.

        • Ann
          at #

          So much trouble to eliminate it from vaccines!

          So much effort to reassure parents that it is present in only tiny amounts!

          You wouldn’t think they’d bother if it were such a non-issue.

          • at #

            They were trying to reassure the anti-vax parents. It’s not a big deal, but they came up with alternatives because they were hoping to avoid this exact scenario- a measles outbreak caused by people not vaccinating their kids.

            If people are being dumb and putting babies’ lives at risk, sometimes you play along with the dumb because of the lives at stake. That’s why thimerosal was removed. That’s the only reason it was removed. Clearly, it didn’t work in placating anti-vax people, because it never was really about thimerosal in the first place.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Alas, it was done because there were now ways to produce vaccine in single-dose containers, so the thiomersal was no longer needed, And because the health authorities didn’t realize that fools like you would take it as a sign that thiomersal was dangerous.

            I have no idea why they thought that just because they removed this particular sc-sc-scary looking ingredient, your lot would be smart enough to recognize what the names of the other sc-sc-scary looking ingredients meant.

          • Who?
            at #

            Triumph of hope over experience?

          • Amazed
            at #

            Probably.

          • Delius
            at #

            “You wouldn’t think they’d bother if it were such a non-issue.”

            That’s because to an anti-vaxer such as yourself, the concept of actually caring about other people’s concerns is completely foreign.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            And if there hadn’t been a panic, the stock market crash of 1929 never would have occurred. Psychological factors and mob reaction must be taken into account.

      • Ann
        at #

        Thanks for your responsive reply, Daleth.

        Unfortunately, you are not correct about thimerasol
        http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

        However, to the extent you are CLOSE to correct, let me say “Thank goodness we have finally reached perfection in medical knowledge with this elimination of the last conceivable error! Now from this time forth, there will be no need for research or anything like that — because WHAMMY we got rid of the very last mistake,”

        Sort of.

        But not when it comes to the widely-prescribed digitalis
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141121141220.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+–+ScienceDaily%29

        or the widely-prescribed coumadin (warfarin)
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121001191533.htm

        But those are just distractions.

        When it comes to vaccines, we are for sure 100% — no doubts and no room for correction. SCORE!
        —–

        And I forgot to add this:

        There are lots of things I would eat that I would not inject into my body. How about you?

        If you would eat a pizza, would you mainline a pizza slurry?
        How about a big dose of jalapeno pepper into a muscle?
        Would you inject pork sausage fat subcutaneously?

        • momofone
          at #

          No one is saying vaccines are perfect, but they’re a damn sight better than burying a child. But great try.

          • Ann
            at #

            Anti-vaxxer parents think that the risks are the other way.

            They are as entitled to make that call as you are to make the decisions about your own children.

            Or do you think that this freedom belongs only to you and those who agree with you? — vaccinations, no pit bulls, bicycles but only with helmets, no car until you are 20, medical check ups once a year (I bet your teens don’t do that), and so on for your particular list of things parents must do and must not do.

            Like Ford said, the customers can buy their cars in any color they want as long as it’s black.

            I’m wondering if you think that people should be as free as you are to make decisions as long as they decide the way you tell them to?

          • Nick Sanders
            at #

            “They are as entitled to make that call as you are to make the decisions about your own children.”

            Children are people, not property. A parent has no right to needlessly endanger them.

          • Who?
            at #

            Surely ‘they are entitled to make that factually incorrect call’.

          • SporkParade
            at #

            Simple. They are free to make decisions as long as their decisions don’t affect me or my family. My baby’s life is put at risk when people don’t vaccinate because he is too young for the MMRV and his age means that he would be more likely to suffer permanent disability or death if he got measles. So, yes, I am all for the government making vaccination mandatory.

          • momofone
            at #

            The problem, Ann, is that “what they think” is not supported by facts. They just don’t want (as a child I knew used to say) their “feelyuns” hurt, or their poor logic challenged.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            You’re all about ‘rights’, it seems, Ann. What happened to “Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose” ? Being unvaccinated, and thus a potential carrier of a highly infectious disease, takes this to a new level, “Your right to occupy a space stops when your effluvia can hurt me” Think of it as the old hiker’s adage: “Take nothing but photographs and memories, leave nothing but footprints”

        • Taysha
          at #

          You can also die from insulin, but I can guarantee you the risk beats the alternative.

          • Ann
            at #

            Certainly most parents think that medical care is better than death for their children.

            Some parents prefer to avoid medical care for non-factual reasons (religious reasons.)

            But in every case, it is the same thing:
            The parents make a decision about the best interests of their child.

            On rare occasions, that decision is challenged in a court of law. Sometimes the challenge succeeds.

            I can’t think of a better way to run a society.

          • at #

            Really? You think it’s acceptable to watch a child die from untreated diabetes because the parents don’t want to get medical treatment?

            Children are people too, you know. They aren’t chattel, slaves, or props. Their suffering and their lives matter. Parents do not have the right to abuse or neglect their children. Children do have the right to be protected from abuse and neglect. Parents do not own their children.

            I can absolutely think of a better way to run a society, one that involves less children dying horrific and painful deaths due to their parents’ “sincerely held beliefs”. It involves acknowledging the humanity of children by forcing people to make sure their children have access to medical care. And yes, sometimes poverty gets in the way even though the parents are trying. The solution to that is universal health care and a generally better social safety net.

          • Who?
            at #

            Like the Canadian First Nations girls whose parents won the right to not have them treated for cancer. One died, the other is dying. And the cancer quacks, as well as killing, are making a killing.

            Freedom tainted with the stench of death must smell so sweet, don’t you think?

          • at #

            Aye, just like them 🙁

            Or the numerous other people in various parts of the US (Indiana has a number of them) who have died as children from treatable ailments. One family managed to kill two of their children- one from diabetes, another from pneumonia.

          • yugaya
            at #

            “I can’t think of a better way to run a society.”

            I can – Sweden. Non-mandatory vaccination all around, vaccination uptake as it were mandatory, and quite a different cultural context in which people who question the things everyone else does for the sake of all gets you a lot of puzzled looks (to put it mildly).

            http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf

          • Taysha
            at #

            See, all your points would be valid if there was true scientific discourse. But there isn’t. Privileged parents are being sold the idea that they can be just as knowledgeable, just as smart and just as educated as the people who spend years learning and researching about these things. All they have to do is open the internet browser.
            So this, all of this bullshit you have been writing? It’s a direct appeal to the ego of people with no foundation in their lives. They grasp on to the idea that “they know best because the internet said” and put their children, and the children around them at risk.
            It’s ego. It’s not way to run society.

        • Elaine
          at #

          Medicine in general is constantly evolving as new information comes along. Clinical practice changes according to new findings. Vaccines are part of medicine, and their composition and the recommendations will change over time as well. What’s your point?

          “There are lots of things I would eat that I would not inject into my body. How about you?

          If you would eat a pizza, would you mainline a pizza slurry?
          How about a big dose of jalapeno pepper into a muscle?
          Would you inject pork sausage fat subcutaneously?”

          There are some extremely bad analogies. You haven’t presented a good reason to do any of those. On the other hand, if there was a good reason to inject a particular chemical, and it was in a suitably purified form such that it would not cause infection risks, and properly formulated to do the job I wanted it to in the body while avoiding unnecessary adverse effects… then yes, yes, I would.

          • Ann
            at #

            But that is the whole point.

            In order to vaccinate their children, parents have to be convinced that it is the safer alternative.

            Some parents are convinced.
            Some parents are not.

            It’s a free country — no forcible medical interventions.

          • Who?
            at #

            All about the rights, Ann.

            What do you see as your responsibilities?

          • yugaya
            at #

            To paraphrase one of the comments that nicely pointed it out, when it comes to vaccines your country seems to be not a free but a freerider country, and freedom in that case is just an excuse to do what benefits you individually the most without paying for the ride like everyone else.

          • Ann
            at #

            Well, we like it.

            And so do the many millions of people who have flocked here.

          • yugaya
            at #

            We get more foreign visitors in my city alone per year than there are inhabitants in my country. Since the majority of those are from antivaxxo infested lands, we must take necessary precautions. We’re no Disneyland.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Hey, yugaya, I think I can make a pretty good guess where you’re located. I’m planning to visit in a year or two. I’ll be up to all my shots, I promise! (This year, I have to re-vaccinate. DTP.)

          • yugaya
            at #

            You are more than welcome to visit and don’t bother with the boosters – we have police that vaccinates people by force over here.:P

            (my email is in the profile, fb is the same)

          • Amazed
            at #

            Geez, you’re so kind! Even vaccinating me! Do you offer free cake, as well? Vanilla please?

            You know, I think I’ll re-immunize here anyway. I mean, your police is so kind but I’d rather not die of tetanus if I happen to contract it (or catch it?). Just as I revaccinated as soon as a stray dog bit me about ten years ago.

            I’ll take the cake if there is one, though.

          • yugaya
            at #

            I’m more of a chestnut purée and local sweet wine for dessert type of person, but I’ll throw in some somlói galuska for you, it’s got vanilla in there (among other things).

          • Ann
            at #

            I am sure that your lovely piece of Eden is a world capital of wonderfulness, wherever it is.

          • yugaya
            at #

            You do realise that you resorted to direct colonial-type insults the moment you went “abroad” in this conversation, and that all you are getting after that is sheer sarcasm as response? No? Mkay, bye then.

          • Who?
            at #

            Most of whom choose to vaccinate.

            It’s a puzzler, isn’t it?

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            And we’re free to critique your decision and believe you to be mentally and morally deficient.

          • Who?
            at #

            Morally, obviously, mentally seems a bit harsh.

            There are plenty of perfectly nice mentally deficient people, there are no perfectly nice morally deficient people: it is an insult to the mentally deficient to suggest there is any necessary relationship between them and anti-vaxxers.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            You’re right. I can’t put my finger on how to describe the type of thinking below. It’s not particularly due to an inability in mental aptitude, but something really appears to be lacking somewhere. Not just morals, but how can everyone else read a list of ingredients and say “whatever, there’s some weird stuff I haven’t heard of but it’s likely it’s OK and no weirder than most of the other stuff I put in my body or that my body creates” and someone else goes “OMFG, it’s a disaster, it’s going to kill everyone, run for the hills, we’re all going to die”.

            I mean, ‘corpses of pathogens’.. Who the fuck thinks like that? What do they think happens when they wash their hands with soap and water?

          • Who?
            at #

            It’s disordered thinking. It assumes they can know better than anyone. It assumes no one but themselves is to be trusted.

            It would be arrogant were it not so pathetically fearful.

            English is a powerful language, I’m sure there is a word but I don’t know it.

          • SuperGDZ
            at #

            Megalomania?

          • Who?
            at #

            Homing in on it, though I see it more like some kind of god-like thing. They are omniscient, or so they think. And what they know is different, and superior, to what everyone else knows.

          • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
            at #

            Lack of empathy (from having been in a particular situation and having memories of it) and/or lack of sympathy (from having enough ‘fellow-feeling/mirror neurons’ to understand the distress another being is undergoing)

          • Ann
            at #

            Knock yourself out.

            I think that the more pesonal freedom and the less forcible medical interventions, the better.

            But of course, that is not the intelligent, healthy belief like the one you have.

            Can you describe to me how forcible vaccinations would work?

            I can picture parents crouched in hiding in an attic or a cellar … smothering the baby’s cries … the inevitable discovery … the jackboot on the stairs … dragging the screaming child out of the arms of the screaming mother … clubbing the cursing and fighting father to the floor … and the official letter of congratulations … or form regrets
            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

            Brave new world, Karen!

            Yours is a decision rejected for centuries by the combined judicious application of all the judges and all the legislatures in common law, which has universally held that compulsory medical interventions are never to be allowed.
            http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/899.aspx?categoryid=68&amp;

          • Who?
            at #

            You’re in the movies, right?

            There’s a real enthusiasm for the fascist motif which might just play well with the neo-cons.

            Courts do remove children from their parents for medical interventions in the common law world, and also enforce vaccination according to the government schedule where one parent wants it and the other doesn’t.

            What do you see as your social responsibilities Ann? Do you drive on the same side of the street as everyone else, with a burning sense of rage that your freedom is curtailed?

          • Ann
            at #

            Well, forcible medical interventions do call up well-known examples of societies that have tried it already.

            Probably a failure to distinguish between attacking people at the door (as one poster suggested) or driving to endanger is what is sponsoring all the anger and bad logic around this issue.

          • Who?
            at #

            Social responsibilities Ann-what are yours? Just one, tell us. We will then have some idea of where you are coming from.

            And don’t be shy about your dramatic credentials, they are clearly extensive if not professionally acquired-a bit like your opinions on vaccines, actually.

          • Ann
            at #

            Well, since you ask:

            One of my social responsibilities is to try to prevent the government from forcing people to undergo unwanted medical interventions.

            I think the society that would ensue would be pretty fairly horrible.

          • Who?
            at #

            Nice work if you can get it, but hardly a social responsibilty, more a hobby, so try again.

            Do you drive on the same side as others? Do you seeth with rage while you do it?

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Since when did I say we should force people to vaccinate? I just said that I thought you were stupid and morally bankrupt for choosing not to vaccinate your perfectly healthy kids.

          • Staceyjw
            at #

            You don’t have to physically force vax on anyone, you just have to restrict non compliant people from key public buildings (schools, libraries), and that would get us right where we need to be without use of force or violation of bodily integrity.

          • Elaine
            at #

            That’s a red herring. We weren’t talking about forced vaccinations, until you all of a sudden brought it into this post. The right or wrong of forced vaccinations does not change either of the points I made in my post, which you just cheerfully ignored. (And for the record, I am not in favor of forced vaccinations either, though it certainly doesn’t mean I like or approve of the decision not to vaccinate.)

        • Sarah
          at #

          I’d inject pork fat, yes. I really love sausages.

        • Daleth
          at #

          Kids’ vaccines = the vaccines that the CDC recommends for kids and that schools require unless you have an exemption. In other words measles, pertussis etc. etc. etc. None of those contain thimerasol anymore. The flu shot is not one of those vaccines. That being said, if you want to get your kid a flu shot but you are still scared of thimerasol despite the lack of any relationship between it and autism, as long as your kid is 6 years or older you can get the FluMist nasal vaccine, which contains no thimerasol.

          But I’m not sure why I’m telling you this. You seem to have impossible standards that are rooted in your fearful approach to medical care. It makes no sense to forego medical care that will prevent a horrible disease just because medical science has not yet achieved risk-free perfection. Nothing in this world has achieved risk-free perfection; that’s not in the nature of… this world.

          • Who?
            at #

            Interesting that freedom seems to be the freedom to allow your ignorant fears to run wild. What a glorious thing, hey?

    • Annette Mattes
      at #

      I am sorry people are not reading your carefully thought out ‘devil’s advocate’ comment and comprehending that you and they are on the same side.

      I see a lot of arguments on the internet, especially facebook, over vaccines and the associated paranoid delusions and I agree that there is more than one sort of anti-vax parent. As Amy Tuteur has pointed out there is definitely a contingent of personality disordered individuals who are being ridiculously stubborn about the issue.

      At the same time there are other parents who are simply highly anxious and have ended up in the alternative health world because they feel alienated by the mainstream world which they experience as aggressive or intrusive. Perhaps mainstream health care is too expensive [as it is in the US] for them, or it has failed them in some important way.

      Further along, there are people pushing anti-vaccine thinking as part of a massive conspiracy theory involving all sorts of reality-defying notions. The Australian Vaccination Network is a good example. And of course there are the charlatans that jump on the bandwagon to make money who truly don’t care about the issues. Those guys are the ones exploiting the others and pushing it all along.

      • Amazed
        at #

        She isn’t a devi’s advocate, she’s a rabid anti-vaxxer who tried to pull the devil’s advocate cart but wasn’t smart enough to do it properly.

        • Siri
          at #

          It takes a team of anti-vaxers to pull the devil’s advocate cart… ;-be

          • Siri
            at #

            Sorry, added an e to my tongue. ;-b

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        at #

        If someone is too stupid to take the advice of an expert in their own field of expertise because it would entail admitting lack of knowledge, even if the expert has rubbed the neophyte’s nose in said neophyte’s ignorance most impolitely, then said neophyte lacks the necessary maturity to be considered a full adult.

    • Siri
      at #

      Omg! Carbohydrates! Lipids! Albumin! Yeast protein! Couldn’t you have provided me with this list BEFORE I ate my toast with marmite and dippy egg this morning?

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
      at #

      It takes a lot of unprocessed sewage to write the bilge you’re spouting here, Ann.

  84. Allie P
    at #

    I was really moved by this account of a former anti-vaxxer. http://adayinourshoes.com/i-used-to-be-anti-vaxer/ When her special needs child was first diagnosed, she fell down a rabbit hole of anti-vax propaganda she found on the internet. She gives a pretty good account of how she fell for their stories and how other intelligent women like her can do the same, and also how she came out of it. Very worth a read.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Excellent article… “Ann” needs to read it and share it with her friends..

  85. Truly S.
    at #

    Some problems with this argument:

    1. It doesn’t explain why there have been measles outbreaks amongst such people as the Amish in Ohio. This is not necessarily because the Amish don’t believe in vaccinations, but because they are as vulnerable to the logical fallacies around cause and effect as the antivaxers described above. If a couple of their kids happen to get sick from something after a vaccination, they get spooked too, whether there is a connection or not. And suddenly, a very tight-knit community stops vaxing and has a measles outbreak.

    2. It’s true that “Only teenagers think that refusing to do what authority figures recommend marks them as independent. Adults know that doing the exact opposite of what authority figures recommend is a sign of immaturity, not deliberation, and certainly not education.” But you expect these people to know that? We’ve already established that they are immature. Since when do teenagers listen to adult advice? Oftentimes only age and painful experience teach them what the grownups knew all along. Immature people HATE lectures. So how is lecturing and shaming them going to work?

    3. For some people, it IS about the science–only they have the science all cattywumpus. I have seen antivaxers argue that if vaccines really worked, their children would be immune to the diseases against which the parents were vaccinated–but they aren’t, so obviously this is scientific proof vaccines don’t work. Really. They believe this.

    4. I agree that “refusing to vaccinate your children is widely viewed as selfish, irresponsible, and the hallmark of being UNeducated.” But the minds of selfish, irresponsible, stupid people are unlikely to be changed by someone calling them selfish, irresponsible and stupid. They will just double down and retreat to their own communities, full of people just like themselves who don’t see them that way at all.

    • Trixie
      at #

      The Amish who don’t vaccinate make up a minuscule percentage of the total number of Americans who don’t vaccinate. Obviously Amish individuals who don’t vaccinate aren’t doing so to show privilege. But that doesn’t mean that her larger point is wrong. It’s true for the vast majority of non-vaxxers.

    • Who?
      at #

      ‘Cattywumpus’ is not used often enough!

      • Samantha06
        at #

        A great southern expression!

    • Young CC Prof
      at #

      Let’s remember that the Amish in Ohio responded to last year’s measles outbreak by getting community caught up on vaccines, which ended the outbreak.

  86. Trixie
    at #

    By the way, some articles in the news in recent days have claimed that the Amish don’t vaccinate. That isn’t true, and there was a good rebuttal in my local paper this morning: http://lancasteronline.com/opinion/the-plain-truth-about-vaccines/article_9f0fc9c4-a7fd-11e4-baee-2f57445ff9b5.html

    • basement
      at #

      Thank you for sharing this. The Amish community outbreak is particularly interesting.

      I found this article of interest, as the Amish community’s story illustrates a complete reversal in their attitudes toward vaccinations when they experienced, first hand, the realities of preventable disease: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7929791/measles-outbreak-2014

      • Trixie
        at #

        Here’s the thing — there isn’t one Amish community. There are many. The Lancaster Amish are the oldest community, and because they’re part of a larger group of Plain people of various sects here, plus the “English” people around them have such a long history with them, that they are in some ways more integrated into the larger community than in places in the Midwest. Because of that, there are doctors and clinics (like Clinic for Special Children) who have spent decades building trust with the community and doing education on things like vaccines. I don’t know if anyone has ever done a study, but I’d be willing to bet that Amish communities that have that type of trusted relationship with the local medical community have higher rates of vaccination.
        But the point is, there’s nothing in the Ordnung that forbids vaccination. It’s left to the individual, and Amish reasons for rejecting vaccines are very similar to everyone else’s reasons — suspicion and fear. Although for them it’s never about demonstrating privilege.

        • basement
          at #

          Thank you for your reply. This is fascinating to me and I look forward to learning more about these communities. If you have any place)s) you’d like to direct my attention, I’ll happily engage. 🙂

          From your reply: “there are doctors and clinics (like Clinic for Special Children) who have spent decades building trust with the community and doing education on things like vaccines”

          This seems to be a powerful component of community engagement in the public health sector, in all corners of the world. I’ve been following the efforts to contain and eliminate the Ebola virus in West Africa quite closely. The communities that had trusted “head tribesmen” (not the exact term, I think) who positively engaged with healthcare workers (who are there to help) had some of the earliest successes in eliminating the virus from their communities.

          We cannot underestimate how importance of trust of the local community. Sadly, there are a few charlatan doctors who saw a gap here with the set of “anti-vax” parents. They have conveniently wedged themselves into these communities. I wonder if this is where the “unreflective defiance” Dr Teuter spoke to has an opportunity to take hold?

          • Trixie
            at #

            The Clinic for Special Children’s blog and website is a fantastic place to start learning. Dr. Holmes Morton is a fascinating man who has done enormous good for people all over the world suffering from rare genetic disorders, not just Amish. Amish people are not stupid. They’re very intelligent, generally, although they don’t have any higher education. If a compelling argument for vaccination is made, they will listen.

          • basement
            at #

            Thank you so much! I look forward to learning and I do appreciate the direction to Dr Morton.

            You seem to have quite a bit of personal experience with the Amish culture. I suspect your life has been enriched by that connection. I wish them, and you the very best in this life.

          • Trixie
            at #

            I’m no special expert or anything, just live around them like lots of people do.

  87. Mark P Stacy
    at #

    Dr. Tuteur: I’m with you on the approach to anti-vaxxers up to a point. It’s been my observation that they don’t perceive themselves as uneducated; rather they feel that they have educated themselves, using their understanding of research as was taught to them. The problem is that they’re tremendously uncritical as their understanding of research quality is poor. I could go all the way back to a root cause of poor science and math teaching and impaired or undeveloped critical thinking skills development. We’ve allowed the “math is hard” and “science is for geeks” culture to flourish into an anti-intelligence mindset. The result is still a follower mindset instead of true intellectual curiosity and engagement. The causes of this include political manipulation of education, fear of quality in teaching and learning, and the anti-reason mindset being fostered by some religious experiences. Sadly, I fear it will take an epidemic (in the original sense of disease) and loss of life before those who capitalize on “ignorance that feels like intelligence” will yield and allow reason to return.

    • Elaine
      at #

      Dunning-Kreuger effect. Anti-vaxers are so uneducated that they don’t even know how inadequate their knowledge is. If you try to point this out to them, they get mad. I was tongue-lashed over at MDC several times for saying that various people didn’t understand science. You can’t have a scientific discussion with someone who does not understand (for instance) that a molecule of a particular compound has the exact same chemical composition regardless of where it comes from, or that a randomized controlled trial is not the only kind of trial that has any validity, or … lots of other things. Yet these people will claim that they are “educated”. And they wear being shamed or criticized as a badge of honor, so trying to make not vaccinating an unpopular choice won’t have any impact on them. Those who are deep in the weeds are too far to reach, but there may be some in the middle who are still reachable.

      The other irritating part is that every once in a while there is some yahoo who does actually have a PhD in a scientific field, or a doctorate in a medical field, or some other degree that means they SHOULD know enough about science to know better, and still believes all this garbage.

      • Truly S.
        at #

        One more thing should be added: Some of them are just diehard conspiracy theorists, willing to believe anything if it involves a secret cabal trying to zombiefy and thereby control The People (i.e., the government wants all children vaccinated so they will all become autistic and the population will thus be more easily manipulable). If you are looking to appeal to that kind of person with logic, you are barking up the wrong tree indeed.

        • Allie P
          at #

          Wait, so now autistic people are more easy going and persuadable? Ha. I’ll have to keep that in mind next time I’m in an argument with one of the autistic people I know, because BOY that has not been my experience.

        • Kamiyu910
          at #

          “the government wants all children vaccinated so they will all become autistic and the population will thus be more easily manipulable”

          Possibly one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. Those of us on the spectrum are usually ostracized because we DON’T follow the crowd.

        • Samantha06
          at #

          Can you imagine how miserable their lives are? Imagine living in that fear and paranoia all the time.. it would make for a miserable existence for sure..

  88. Gozi
    at #

    I am sorry if this is off subject, but how can I find out if I need additional vaccines? I was fully vaccinated as a child. I don’t know where to start to find out if I need more.

    Also, I have never had a flu shot. Is that as bad as not vaccinating?

    • Daleth
      at #

      Start with your doctor. If your childhood medical records can’t be found, you can do a blood test to see what you have antibodies to (measles, etc.). If you have sufficient antibodies to whatever disease you don’t need to be revaccinated against that disease.

      That being said, if you haven’t been vaccinated as an adult, you definitely need the Tdap (tetanus, diptheria and pertussis) because even if you did get that as a kid, it wears off. You need to get it again at least every ten years, but if you are about to have kids or be near small kids a lot you should get it more often (because pertussis is incredibly dangerous to little kids so you need to maintain high levels of antibodies to it to protect them). It’s all one shot.

      The flu shot is something you get every year, generally in September or October (it’s not available until September each year–i.e. the very start of flu season).

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      I heartily endorse a yearly influenza vaccination! I make sure I get one every year along with my husband and kids. It’s a very simple and non-stinging shot or as an alternative, nasal spray. Knowing we are helping protect ourselves as well as contributing to herd immunity to protect others is a good feeling.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        You know, I can’t believe I actually fell for the “the flu vaccine makes you get the flu” crap! That was about 7 or 8 years ago, and I don’t remember why I even believed that, but I did. It’s amazing how the woo just infiltrates everything and you have to be so careful the info is sound, scientific and comes from a reputable source! I remember getting the flu about 7 years ago and I was so sick I said, that’s it, I’m getting the vaccine from now on! And I do.. every year..

        • Gozi
          at #

          That’s one of the reasons I haven’t gotten it, and the last person to tell me that works at my local health department.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I hear you! I got sick a time or two after getting it, so of course, I just attributed it to the vaccine, which is simply not true. I’ve received it every year for the last 7 or so years, and haven’t gotten sick immediately after..

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          I took my kids to the doctor for their flu shot and they got gastro one year. That was fun. Doctor waiting rooms are gross. Although not quite as bad as the time I had to take my 10 month old baby to the Emergency Ward at the children’s hospital with glass in his foot (it had gotten infected and his GP was unable to get it out). He came back with hospital-strength gastro after that one.

          I hate gastro but it was still not as bad and not as scary as the flu I caught while pregnant.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            You poor thing.. hope everyone is OK.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Oh we’re good thanks. This was a couple of years ago. There’s good reason to avoid doctor surgeries and emergency wards during flu and gastro season if you can. Plus it was incredibly difficult to keep the 10 month old from crawling around everywhere and putting things in his mouth.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Absolutely! Yes, the little ones do tend to put everything in their mouths…. I work in the hospital, so I usually get one upper resp infection a year..

      • Cobalt
        at #

        I get bad overall muscles aches the day after the flu shot most years, but I get it anyway. Still much milder than actual flu, and I don’t want to be a transmitter.

        • Trixie
          at #

          I sometimes get a headache the day after and feel slightly run down. No big deal though.

    • Gozi raises an important issue– it’s difficult especially for adults to know if they’ve been appropriately vaccinated. Pediatricians and Family practice docs keep those records carefully, but if you’re beyond the teen years those issues can be neglected.

      When in doubt, get vaccinated again. Extra doses are not extra-risky.

    • Trixie
      at #

      Look at it this way, even if you’re okay with the risk of getting the flu for yourself, are you okay with the possibility that you could unknowingly transmit the flu to a newborn, or an elderly person, or a little child going through chemotherapy? I couldn’t bear the moral responsibility if I hadn’t been vaccinated and I went on to infect someone else who wasn’t as strong as me.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        And that’s the difference between people like us and anti-vaxxers.. they have no moral responsibility to the public.. as long as it doesn’t affect THEM, who cares about anyone else? Nasty people..

    • Box of Salt
      at #

      Gozi,
      if you’ve been out of school (one where vaccines are required) since 1992, you probably need a second dose of the MMR.

      I had been “fully vaccinated” through college, but when I started grad school I found that the recommendations had changed, and got up to date.

      • Gozi
        at #

        I graduated high school in 1996. I entered college soon after. I wasn’t required to get any then.

    • Delilah
      at #

      Here is a list of the recommended adult vaccinations. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-schedule-easy-read.pdf

      • Box of Salt
        at #

        The table for adults includes MMR: 1 or 2 doses.

        The 2nd dose of MMR was added to the childhood schedule in 1992 in response to measles outbreaks in the late 80s/90.

        The schools I attended as a grad student (1 east coast private, the other west coast public) required all students to get the second MMR.

        If you live in any of the areas where measles is spreading and you are not sure of your vaccine status (1 or 2 or none?), I would follow the recommendation of the CDC official quoted in this article, who concludes “There’s no harm in getting another MMR vaccine.”
        http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/disney-measles-outbreak-came-overseas-cdc-says-n296441

        • Dr Kitty
          at #

          There is no harm in getting an MMR as long as you are not pregnant at the time of the shot and are using effective contraception for at least three months afterwards.
          MMR is not safe in any stage of pregnancy, and you need to plan accordingly.

          • Box of Salt
            at #

            Good point – you do need to plan accordingly.

            But the risk assessment when the diseases are not circulating are different from when they are. And the issue is muddier now because (and correct me if I’m wrong) the main risk of the vaccine is due to the rubella component, not measles.

          • Dr Kitty
            at #

            The rubella component of MMR is potentially capable of causing rubella syndrome in a foetus. Rubella infection in pregnancy causes serious and unpredictable foetal abnormalities and termination is usually advised if foetal exposure is confirmed.

            By all means, use this outbreak as a prompt to get the MMR, but the MMR Vaccine is not safe in pregnancy, not even if everyone you know has measles.

  89. Kate08
    at #

    Your logic is completely off on this. Are you serious? Like it or not those vaccines are not 100% safe, if u ever bother to do some actual research you might want to look into that. You can’t just ignore evidence because it doesn’t correlate with what you like. Vaccines are great for the majority of those who don’t react negatively to them. But for those kids who have a negative reaction, for whatever unknown reason, it’s life threatening and has often been fatal. For a lot of parents, it seems the likelihood of something like this happening is higher than dying from polio at this time. So sorry, it’s not just a fucking no brainer of a decision to make when there are serious safety concerns to consider on both sides. The blame belongs on the manufacturers who should be honestly and openly addressing these faults. And unless you yourself are up to date on your vaccines then STFU

    • Guesteleh
      at #

      For a lot of parents, it seems the likelihood of something like this happening is higher than dying from polio at this time.

      The point is if people keep opting out then polio is going to come back exactly the same way measles has. Why is the likelihood of dying of polio so low? Because of the vaccine! So opting out of the vaccine because the risk is so low makes no sense at all. It’s like me as an asthmatic saying I’m going to stop taking my meds because the meds have side effects and my risk of asthma is so low–when it’s the fucking medicine that’s reducing my risk in the first place.

    • momofone
      at #

      If someone has a medical issue that makes vaccines unsafe, that is not the same thing as refusing them on principle and how it “seems.” What it “seems like” is not how it IS. Feelings are not facts, and intuition is worthless when it comes to making this decision. You are absolutely correct when you say that evidence can’t (or shouldn’t) be ignored because it doesn’t correlate with what you like.

    • Sullivan ThePoop
      at #

      Nothing is 100% safe. Do you also not use your seat belt in the car because it is not 100% safe and could cause you to get trapped inside the car and die? What about infant car seats? Also not 100% safe. I guess you avoid water as well because there is a small chance you could drown

    • moto_librarian
      at #

      The next big epidemic: butthurt. It must be a bummer for people to be pointing out the obvious: anti-vaxxers are selfish jerks. Thanks for dropping by to prove the point.

    • Siri
      at #

      I think chances are good that Dr Amy and those of her minions – sorry, commenters – for whom vaccination isn’t contraindicated, are up to date with their vaccines. I know I am.

      • Sullivan ThePoop
        at #

        That whole, adults are not up on their vaccines so they are the problem, is just passing the buck.

        • Elaine
          at #

          I don’t get why “adults aren’t up to date on their vaccines either” is a logical response to an argument for vaccination of kids.

          One, that’s an argument for why adults should GET up to date, not for why kids shouldn’t be vaxed either.

          Two, adults are not quite as bad of disease vectors as little kids because they don’t tend to chew on everything and share it with their friends, wipe their noses on their hands, etc. the way babies and little children do. If I had to choose between being around a sick little kid vs. a sick adult, I’d pick the adult because they’d probably do a better job keeping it to themselves (although it is still staggering how many adults don’t understand not to cough or sneeze into their hands).

          • Dr Kitty
            at #

            We had an outbreak of measles here about 2 years ago. I think fewer than 15 cases altogether.

            It started in the Roma community (who have historically low vaccination uptake), and as we have very good MMR uptake locally, thankfully ( and it only got better after the outbreak) it didn’t spread too far.

            You know who did get it?
            A middle aged local woman who was on a bus with one of the infected children.

            She’d never had measles and was too old to be vaccinated once MMR came in, and she’d finished childbearing before routine antenatal rubella titres and postnatal MMR boosters for non immune women.
            Herd immunity had protected her successfully for more than 50 years.
            One trip on public transport with a kid with measles and she ended up in ICU.
            No, she wasn’t immunocompromised, or asthmatic, or suffering from anything else. She was an otherwise healthy fifty something woman with measles.

            Maybe the anti-vaxx ers are cool with their kids getting sick.
            Are they cool with their parents ending up in ICU too?

            If they’re not, they might want to stop spreading their message before herd immunity takes any more of a nosedive.

      • Haelmoon
        at #

        Up to date on all of the local vaccines, but many extras due to travel to India and Bangladesh. I got them all. The only thing I wish is that they are soon successful for a malaria vaccine because I have had bad reactions to the prophylaxis.

    • Amazed
      at #

      So sorry, it’s just a fucking no brainer of a decision to make that you should pack your nice little trunk and move your kids to the jungle – but safely away from the native population, please. We don’t want for them to get a native VPD or give the natives a VPD.

      If you think you and your kids have no obligation to protect yourselves, that’s fine with me. Unfortuvately, that tanslates into having no obligation to protect society as a whole, so I see no reason for society to be obliged to protect you. That translates into going to a place where you can do society no harm. Too bad you lose the comforts of electricity, internet, and the pediatrician you can rush to when homeopathy doesn’t work (and possibly infecting other kids in the waiting room with VPD whose only fault is to have met your litte Typhoid Mary when they were too young or sick to be vaccinated. But hey, each choice comes with consequences.

      • Haelmoon
        at #

        That is too bad Amazed. We give the same vaccine to children and adults. In out Varicella in Pregnancy guidelines we recommend that is moms were found to be non-immune for what ever reason in pregnancy, they should get the vaccine postpartum. In the future, it will be by routine screening, as we won’t be able to rely on a history of Varicella exposure.

        • Amazed
          at #

          Routine screening? Wow, medicine!

          Maybe with time, they’ll do something like that here as well. The moment they tell me I can get vaccinated, I will!

          • Haelmoon
            at #

            If you ever take a trip to Canada, you would just get it done. Might be a small cost associated, the vaccine was originally $125 before it was added to the schedule. We have drop in travel clinics that allow you to self pay for vaccines not covered by the government schedule (mostly those for travelling of course)

          • Amazed
            at #

            If I ever go to Canada, I will!

      • Trixie
        at #

        That really stinks.

    • S
      at #

      And for those very, very few kids who cannot tolerate vaccines for whatever reason, herd immunity is their only protection, making it all the more important for the rest of us to stay up to date. Do you agree?

    • Cobalt
      at #

      I am not only up to date, I’ve had to add vaccines to my schedule to compensate for other people’s lack of research and inability to understand the research.

      The only way to eradicate these diseases is to vaccinate until the disease is gone globally. It’s been done with smallpox, we are getting close on polio. We had achieved elimination in the U.S. with measles, but then a bunch of people did some “research” and caught Wakefield-McCarthy disorder and didn’t vaccinate. So measles is back. If we continue to let Wakefield-McCarthy disorder spread, it’s only a matter of time before polio comes back.

    • Mary-Maddy
      at #

      Wow, I was going to ask you for citations but you really persuaded me with your anger and foul language.

      • How could a Dr., who’s dedicated their life to trying to save lives, possibly be angry and self-righteous privileged people who are purposefully spreading curable diseases that can kill. It just makes no sense.

        • at #

          Heh. Doctor who.

    • The Bofa on the Sofa
      at #

      And unless you yourself are up to date on your vaccines then STFU

      I’m completely up to date. So are my wife and kids, and my parents.

      So fuck off.

      • Amazed
        at #

        At the time my grandmother was a cancer patient, I went to visit her every day. I entered the room full of patients who had just been operated on from cancer – and never once thought that I might be a danger to anyone. Of course, I wasn’t anyway. Because vaccine refusal hadn’t spread nearly this far here in 1997, I didn’t even know that un-vaxxed people could be a danger.

        Chilling to think what an un-vaxxed person could have done – not on purpose, of course.

        Medicine now treats cancer, FFS. At least some forms. Why would anyone think that treating VPD by not letting them rear their ugly head is a bad thing?

      • yugaya
        at #

        “And unless you yourself are up to date on your vaccines then STFU.”

        I am up to date with everything. Btw doesn’t that as a criteria for participation kind of leave her being the only one required to STFU in this conversation?

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      Vaccine reaction is fatal a lot less often than the wild diseases. Skipping vaccines but counting on the low level of incidence because everybody else continues to vaccinate is what economists call free riding. Just as a matter of economics, that won’t be stable. If more and more people free-ride, the risk of polio (measles, etc.) rises drastically. We can’t tolerate as much free riding as the antivax movement is giving us. Social pressure, including exclusion from school, mandatory quarantine, and so on, is necessary so that they (or is that you) bear your share of the small risks, just as you pay taxes even though it would be more fun not to.

      My family are up to date on vaccinations, except I had several of these diseases so I’m not vaccinated there.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        at #

        Exactly!

        It’s like the person who evades the water ban during a drought to water his lawn “reasoning” that the amount that he is going to use is tiny and no one else will notice. A great man (Immanuel Kant) once said that if you want to determine if an action is moral, imagine what the world would be like if everyone behaved as you did.

        If everyone copied Kate, millions would die and some of Kate’s children would probably be among them. That would be immoral.

        • basement
          at #

          The “free rider” economics comparison Andrew made is valid. This trend is not sustainable.

          I wonder if emphasizing the economic impact, both direct and indirect, could help. Reading about the demographics of the folks in this set of people, they are described as affluent and educated. It seems likely to me that these people own businesses — businesses that employ people.

          Given that these folks tend to live in clusters, a simple exposure to an illness is enough to send many people into quarantine. There are many families at the moment who are in quarantine. Even if their child does not become ill, there is a loss in productivity. The loss in productivity impacts not only the quarantined family, but also the businesses in which they work (as well as their local economies).

          If they understand that *their* businesses can and will suffer, perhaps they may rethink their position?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I think unless it affects them personally and they have actual economic losses, they won’t change their tune.

          • Guesteleh
            at #

            There’s a father in Marin County who asked the school district to ban children who haven’t been vaccinated because his son is immune-compromised from cancer treatment. I think this is genius because it may empower the district to stand up to the other parents (the district has an insane 30% vaccine exemption rate). And if the district takes no action he will have the basis for a lawsuit. Can’t wait to hear how this one turns out.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            I saw that on the news and I thought the same thing! Very smart man. I hope it works..

          • basement
            at #

            Exactly. They are firmly entrenched in the “what’s this got to do with me?” mindset. Economic Impact might be a bit too farsighted for them to see at the moment. It is, however, a logical progression. To be effective, it is important to keep their self interests in mind when communicating and educating them. Their self-centric attitude and vanity is their “weak spot”, so to speak.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            “Their self-centric attitude and vanity is their “weak spot”, so to speak.”

            It’s all about them… no one else matters.

    • Neya
      at #

      @Kate08: People like yourself are the reason why my immunocompromised toddler can rarely leave the house. No play dates, no playgrounds, no trips to the library for story time, no daycare, nothing but visits to the doctor. Can you imagine your child living a life like that so that people like you can enjoy the benefits of herd immunity without paying the price for living in civilized society? Can you imagine hearing people discussing how their “personal choice” where I have to deal with my child being at risk of dying? NO? I didn’t think so. Your irresponsibility is only paralleled by the callousness and coarseness of your language.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        at #

        Kate doesn’t care about anyone else’s children. She’s too busy burnishing her credentials as self “educated” and “empowered.”

        • Neya
          at #

          @AmyTuteur:disqus I think Kate08 would benefit from reading your post from yesterday… Genius.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Do you believe in homeopathy and taking supplements?

    • Really? “often been fatal”? Sounds like you’ve really been reading the peer reviewed scientific studies out there, huh? NOT.
      You are exactly the person this author is addressing. And yes, I am up to date on my vaccines so I will not STFU when there are so many people spreading disinformation and nonsense.

    • Maria
      at #

      “You can’t just ignore the evidence because it doesn’t correlate with what you like.” The same applies to you. I know that the vaccines are not 100% safe because my doctor told me and it is incredibly easy to find accurate information on the risks of vaccines. But because you want to believe the risks of vaccines are higher than the risks posed by the return of these preventable diseases, you seek out information that will “correlate with what you like” and believe the conspiracy of the drug companies hiding the dangers, etc, etc. Please take a step back and reevaluate your own logic on this one.

    • Gozi
      at #

      Like I will say over and over, you are one of the people who has no idea what these childhood diseases are like. There are people who still remember what they were like. They still remember helping their mother keep younger siblings alive. My mother had to stay up all night while assisting her mother during my uncle’s bought with whooping cough. It almost killed him. My mother was less than 9 when this happened. At one time, not many years ago, this was common. I don’t want to go back to those days.

      People can have serious reactions to every medicine available. If we should stop vaccinations, should we cancel everything from Tylenol to cancer treatments?

    • Bombshellrisa
      at #

      “the likelihood of something like this happening is higher than dying from polio at this time” I am guessing you don’t have a lot of experience seeing Post Polio Syndrome.

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      Kate08, you think you are “educated” but in reality you don’t know the first thing about vaccines or vaccine preventable illnesses. You think you are a rebel, and you are: a rebel without a clue.

    • onandoff
      at #

      “if u ever bother to do some actual research you might want to look into that”

      You mean like the actual research that I do in the lab every day as part of my job? Gosh, I guess I should “look into that”. Thanks for the heads up! LOL. Do you realize how idiotic you sound?

    • Trixie
      at #

      Another vote for completely up to date on all my vaccines! The whole family is — including the dog and cat.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        Same here! Even though I had all the diseases as a child, I got an MMR booster a couple of years ago. Now I’m looking at getting the shingles vaccine…
        I had a conversation yesterday with one of my neighbors and she is militant anti-vaxx, pro-herb, anti-doctors, anti-vet, etc, etc, etc… I knew it was a losing game when she started talking about herbs and I said, you know some of those can be very harmful and cause cardiac issues and so forth. She got very defensive and went into this tirade and I was like, get me away from this nut-case! She even gives her dog herbs! I just don’t know about these people…..

        • Gozi
          at #

          I’d like to suggest you start sharing what it was like to have those diseases. Many of us don’t know.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            You know that’s a great idea, and maybe there are some other commenters here who’ve had them and could share their experiences too. When one of these anti-vaxxers posts something stupid, I’ll share what I remember. I do know when I had one of the measles, (not sure if it was rubeola or rubella), I had an extremely high fever and was delirious. I remember my mom telling me it scared her to death. Later, in my 30’s I started getting severe migraines and had some numbness in my extremities. A neurologist sent me for a brain MRI and it showed some some small lesions that they thought might be residual encephalitis. I often wondered if that was from the measles. I also remember chicken pox. The lesions were extremely itchy and oozy and I remember my mom not letting me scratch them so they wouldn’t scar. I don’t really remember much more than that, just that all my siblings had all the diseases too and my mom said we were all really sick. One of my close friends didn’t have chicken pox as a child and got it last year. She was extremely ill and it took her almost six months to fully recover..

          • KeeperOfTheBooks
            at #

            Chicken pox as an adolescent is horrible. I know, I had it. Several days of a very nasty fever, plus the itching, oozing sores EVERYWHERE, some of which scarred. (My mother considers herself literally more Catholic than the Pope, and didn’t have us vaccinated against chicken pox because of the whole aborted fetal tissue thing.) Plus, we attended a homeschool co-op which let us back in while we still had sores and were feverish.
            Did I mention that the homeschool co-op was, I kid you not, in the basement of a NURSING HOME?!
            *facepalm* I swear, not one of those adults in that particular group of parents and teachers had three brain cells to rub together. It’s the only reasonable explanation. I only hope I didn’t transmit it to any of the residents; while I wouldn’t blame myself if I did (I was 13 years old, really sick, didn’t know better, and wasn’t allowed to miss “school” for any reason anyway), I still hate to think what I could have inadvertently done to someone.

          • at #

            I had chicken pox at sixteen. It was ghastly.

          • KeeperOfTheBooks
            at #

            Bleargh. 🙁

          • at #

            I’ve only been that sick in two circumstances in my life – when I got food poisoning, and when I was pregnant. And both of those were more about aching and vomiting. I vividly remember taking a swing at my mother during the delirious high fever, and I still have scars from a few blisters I couldn’t help scratching. I missed two weeks of school and was nearly hospitalized.

          • KeeperOfTheBooks
            at #

            Yup. I remember that all I could do was crawl into bed, and wrap a light blanket over my face before I spent a few very fuzzy, feverish days lying there and shaking. The blanket was because touching my face and feeling the scabs on it made me borderline hysterical. Honestly, it was one of the worst times of my life. I’m grateful that it’s unlikely my kids will ever have to go through that.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Wow, homeschooled in the basement of a nursing home.. that’s pretty sad..not to mention the possibility of transmisson to the residents… wow..

          • KeeperOfTheBooks
            at #

            I didn’t realize how weird it was at the time, but in retrospect, “depressing” doesn’t even *begin* to cover it.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            That’s for sure!

          • Gozi
            at #

            I had chicken pox as a child, but what I remember more is giving it to my sister. She was 14 at the time and became extremely ill.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Oh no!

          • anh
            at #

            Same. Had it at 6. I remember being itchy but not that bad off. Gave it to my 12 year old brother. He missed two weeks of school and was almost hospitalised

          • Elaine
            at #

            I had chicken pox at 12 after my sister (10) got it. The vaccine came out right around the time my sister was exposed, so whee, lucky us.

            I don’t think I had a particularly bad case relative to some, and I was at home the whole time with no medical intervention needed, and yet I do remember one night lying there in awful pain crying and thinking about what my funeral would be like. IDK, I had a morbid streak, I guess, since I know I knew I wasn’t really going to die, but I sure did feel awful.

          • Bombshellrisa
            at #

            Yes!
            I did this just this past week, a friend of DD was here on a play date and she asked me what the mark on my face was. It’s a scar from chicken pox and that is what I told her. She gave me a surprised look and said “Eww yuck! Why didn’t you just get the shot?”. I explained we didn’t have shots for that then. She asked me about what it was like to have chicken pox and I told her about it and she concluded she was “so lucky” she could just get a shot and not have to go through that. DD has also heard about when grandpa and grandma had mumps and of course, sees what post polio syndrome does to people (her great aunt).

          • KeeperOfTheBooks
            at #

            Yep. I had this conversation with some older relatives last month. They were foaming at the mouth, so to speak, about the sheer stupidity of not vaccinating. Both of them knew kids who had died/been permanently impaired in some way by having polio/mumps/measles/etc. Sure, if your kids gets any of the above they might be okay…but they might not. Ugh.

          • momofone
            at #

            I had rubella when I was four. I don’t remember a lot, except that it was miserable, and I found what looked like a heart in the rash on my thigh. I had chicken pox when I was 11, in the heat of the summer, and had pox in my throat, under my eyelids, between my toes, in my nose, you name it and there was a pox in or on it. I had febrile seizures with it, and while I only vaguely remember anything related to that, what stands out clearly is my always-calm, non-overreactor mother frantically talking to the doctor and trying very hard not to sound frantic with me. Despite his best efforts, my brother did not contract it, and now, in his forties, still has no immunity.

            My ex-husband’s grandmother had two children die of pertussis before vaccines were available. One was an eight-month-old daughter, and the other a six-week-old son born a year after the daughter’s death. Both were exposed by cousins. She could never understand why anyone would even consider not getting a vaccine for a disease for which it was available.

    • yugaya
      at #

      “Vaccines are great for the majority…”

      Wrong. Vaccines are there for the greater good of all of us, and especially for those most vulnerable among us all, but I doubt you will ever either understand the concept and logic behind that or embrace such level of social responsibility in an individual as one of our positive civilisational achievements.

    • Amy M
      at #

      No one here denies that there is a small risk of adverse events when someone gets a vaccine. It’s true. For example, someone might be allergic to some component of the vaccine and experience anaphylaxis. That’s a person who should be medically exempt from receiving more vaccines.

      It’s also true that vaccines are not 100% effective. A few people who are vaccinated against measles, could still get measles. But, overall, getting vaccinated is much safer and the benefits far outweigh the risks.

      Oh, and I am up to date on my vaccines and so is the rest of my immediate family. None of us has experienced any bad reactions to any vaccine we got. However, we all have asthma, so many of the diseases we are vaccinated against could kill us. I feel safe knowing I live in an area with a high rate of vaccination.

      • Ann
        at #

        The benefits of vaccination do not outweigh the risks unless herd immunity falls off.

        But people naturally bristle at the suggestion that they should put their children at even a small risk so that YOUR children won’t have any risk.

        The best situation is the one the anti-vaxxer parents are going for:
        (1) No risks from vaccination
        – and –
        (2) No risk of disease because everyone else opted for the vaccination

        The problem is that the herd immunity may not be enough, so unvaccinated children might be more at risk from the disease than from the vaccination.

        All parents make that call for themselves.

        • Amazed
          at #

          And make the call for everyone else around your little disease vectors as well, Ann. You seen so terribly keen to dodge the issue. I don’t believe you don’t vaccinate. I believe you’re trying to position yourself as the moderate understanding voice but you’re worse at it than even Dr Sears. And that, Anne, is saying something since he isn’t that smart at all to start with.

          No, the only people who “naturally bristle at the suggestion that-” are you and your fellow fools. Everyone else recognizes that it is about THEIR children first and the society comes a distant second.

          Someone tell me again why I am trying to explain elementary truths to someone who’s above a level under Dr Sears’ intelligence?

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Ann is simply confirming Dr. Amy’s post about welfare queens.. anti-vaxxer’s ride on the backs of others, letting everyone else take the risks, while they reap the benefits. She’s just not smart enough to realize it.

    • Florida Farmer
      at #

      Great job on proving the point about people and how they have “educated” themselves. Extra irony points for the cognitive dissonance of “you can’t just ignore evidence because it doesn’t correlate with what you like.” Well done.

    • Guestll
      at #

      I’m UTD. I’ve had shots you’ve probably never even researched when you were doing your research. And you’re welcome, assshole.

      • Ann
        at #

        GuestII ~

        I know you may not believe me, but I am respectfully asking if you can share the source of your anger if you had the time?

        Thanks, my friend ~
        Ann

    • NC
      at #

      Then I really hope those same parents never drive a car. If they’re looking to avoid something life-threatening, they should dispense with all auto travel as the risks to their children are FAR greater than the tiny percentage that might have a negative vax reaction.

    • the wingless one
      at #

      I am fully vaccinated, as is my husband and 2yr old (as much as he be anyway). So far it would appear that you are the only one who should be STFU-ing.

    • Samantha06
      at #

      Well, I HAD all those diseases as a child, and my mother said it scared her to death I was so sick. Even so, I still got an MMR booster and am fully up to date on everything else. I am now getting ready to get the shingles vaccine. In case you don’t know what that is for, which I’m guessing you don’t, since the rest of your comment is so unintelligent, it’s for people who had chicken pox as a child. The virus is in the body and can reappear in adulthood as an extremely painful rash. And, adults who did not have the chicken pox as a child can get adult chicken pox which can be very dangerous. If all these vaccines had been available when I was a kid, I’m sure my parents would have rushed us to the pediatrician rather than go through what they went through when we had the diseases themselves. That being said, it’s time for you to STFU..

    • demodocus' spouse
      at #

      Myself, my husband, and our 15 month old are utd. No, vaccines aren’t 100% safe, but they are a heck of a lot safer than catching the diseases. Anecdotally, I don’t know anyone who’s had a bad reaction to a vaccine, but I know 4 people with permanent disabilities thanks to (formerly) common childhood diseases.

  90. Andrés Nicolás Kievsky
    at #

    Although I agree overall, the “authority defiance” analysis is simplistic (should young people remain acceptant when it comes to contraception in a conservative State?), and it seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater – the baby being independent thought. Questioning claims is nothing but the very seeds of skepticism, and they should be rewarded – but also carefully nurtured by education.
    The underlying problem is a lack of appropriate, affordable education. These are seeds of skepticism that have gone bad and turned against us – they are poorly-tuned and were sowed by quacks and ridiculous celebrities.

    • Cobalt
      at #

      Skepticism is asking questions. Throwing out all the answers you don’t like is willful ignorance.

      • Andrés Nicolás Kievsky
        at #

        The tragedy is that this could have been real skepticism.

        • Cobalt
          at #

          I don’t know. Real skepticism is mental, there is a drive to know more, to reject the current limitations of knowledge and the easy answers of childhood. The “skepticism” that drives anti-science movements is very emotionally based, a reflexive defiance. This emotional, reflexive, unthinking rejection of science is but magical thinking.

          A skeptical parent, curious about vaccines, has many resources available to understand the basics of how vaccines work, data on safety and efficacy, and experts like pediatricians to discuss their personal situation and how vaccines fit into it. If a parent decides that Jenny McCarthy is a reliable source, then they aren’t asking questions, they’re searching for the answer they want.

          • Melissa
            at #

            I think that skepticism is about questioning our own internal thought process as much as questioning other things. With what we are learning about cognitive bias it seems clear that the biggest source of misinformation is our own mind and preconceptions. Without questioning those there can’t be any real skeptical inquiry.

    • guest
      at #

      The parents I know who are anit-vax read the research and still they took anti-vax route. Many anti-vax parents are highly educated in the book sense and they choose to believe a celebrity mom over peer-reviewed research.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      The definition of scientific skepticism is not “questioning claims.” It is “requiring scientific proof.” Questoning claims is just denialism:

      http://www.skepticalob.com/2012/10/the-difference-between-skepticism-and-denialism.html

      • Andrés Nicolás Kievsky
        at #

        I never claimed otherwise.

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          at #

          I agree with you that our science education is generally poor quality. I’m not sure that’s the problem, though. You don’t have to have an excellent science education to recognize that Jenny McCarthy cannot possibly be an accurate source for information about vaccines. That’s why I think it has more to do with the way that anti-vax parents feel about defying authority and fighting their feelings of inferiority by pretending that they can “educate” themselves to the same level as physicians, immunologists an public health officials.

          • Gozi
            at #

            At one of my local schools science lab has been turned into a keyboarding class. They take open book science test. I don’t know how they are getting away with this.

          • demodocus' spouse
            at #

            I bet the teachers were pissed off about that. (or the admin were pissed in the British sense)

          • A. N. Kievsky
            at #

            I believe the problems start earlier on – by lacking a cogent, accessible and all-encompassing educational system, these people don’t understand the consequences of their own impulses. I agree that there’s a big component of immaturity at play here, though.

    • Guesteleh
      at #

      The anti-vaxxers are far more educated than the average person. I don’t think it’s an education issue but an assertion of privilege as Amy has said. They have their own select group “experts” that they turn to at great expense since the doctors and alt med people who support this shit don’t take insurance. They live in affluent enclaves where they are insulated from the teeming masses and can delude themselves that they aren’t subject to the same natural and economic forces as those other poor, fat, transfat and artificial ingredients-eating slobs.

      • Samantha06
        at #

        Exactly this. I see it in the privileged who are “forced” to come to the hospital when their perfect little home birth scenario failed. They treat the doctors who save them or their babies with contempt and treat nurses like maids. They are extremely disrespectful and disdainful and it’s always, “you did this to me.”

        • basement
          at #

          “You did this to me” …

          This kind of thinking is a subtle, yet extremely powerful and potent, trend I’ve noticed in our American culture (I wouldn’t doubt it exists elsewhere). This idea that *somebody* must be blamed if life does not turn out like you planned.

          There is a difference between professional accountability and blame. It works the other way too — if a mother/parent has an unvaccinated child who does become seriously ill, their “naturalist” doctor will *blame* them for the severity of child’s illness for a list of reasons, including eating GMO foods, not taking supplements these “doctors” manufacture and sell under their names, etc.

          The blame game is very dangerous, indeed. It is also responsible for a staggering amount of unnecessary anxiety for the parents who have fallen prey to these “doctors” who provide this, very expensive, concierge care.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            So very true. Much of it simply unwillingness to accept responsibility for one’s choices and the consequences. It’s very insidious and it’s easy for *real* healthcare professionals to get caught up in the blame thing because we are always trying to help. These folks know that so they play on it.

  91. guest
    at #

    Once again, the Onion get it right.

    “Say what you will about me, but I’ve read the information out there and
    weighed every option, so I am confident in my choice to revive a
    debilitating illness that was long ago declared dead and let it spread
    like wildfire from school to school, town to town, and state to state,
    until it reaches every corner of the country. Leaving such a momentous
    decision to someone you haven’t even met and who doesn’t care about your
    child personally—now that’s absurd!”

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-to,37839/

  92. basement
    at #

    Thank you for this analysis Dr. Tueter. It is helpful and insightful.

    The neurosis is staggering with this issue. I wonder if educating them on the risk of birth defects during pregnancy could help them see how real this stuff is. For example, a young woman who is 16 and experiences an unplanned pregnancy and has not been vaccinated would put her child at serious risk if she were to contract rubella. Their vanity is so tightly wound, some emphasis in this area might help.

    • Anj Fabian
      at #

      If you insist you care about children, rubella should be very concerning.

      “From 1964-1965, before the development of a vaccine against the disease,
      a rubella epidemic swept the United States. During that short period
      there were 12.5 million cases of rubella. Twenty thousand children were
      born with CRS: 11,000 were deaf, 3,500 blind, and 1,800 mentally
      retarded. There were 2,100 neonatal deaths and more than 11,000
      abortions – some a spontaneous result of rubella infection in the
      mother, and others performed surgically after women were informed of the
      serious risks of rubella exposure during their pregnancy.”

      • fiftyfifty1
        at #

        Yes, one of my colleagues in the lab I worked in during medical school was one of these babies. He was deaf, which was the lucky outcome.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          One of my neighbours was affected by rubella in utero and is deaf in one ear.

        • Haelmoon
          at #

          My cousin is one of the affected, but not so lucky. He is deaf and legally blind and severely challenged. It was one of my first introductions to the health care system when my mom explained that vaccines could have prevented his deficits. Very humbling. His two brothers are exceptionally bright and accomplished, so it provides a window to what my cousin could have been.

          • Amazed
            at #

            So very sad.

      • basement
        at #

        This stuff is very real and has very serious, lifelong implications. This is the kind of information I don’t see being thrown around in the one-liner nonsense I see from these folks online. They’re suffering from shortsightedness — it’s not just about one’s child squeaking through their early development.

        The disturbing thing is that many of these parents do not inform their daughters who are now teenagers about these risks. If/when they do become pregnant, they do not know to take great caution during their pregnancy — because they do not know about it.

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      MY teen daughter would not experience an unplanned pregnancy! MY children wouldn’t get sick during epidemics! They were breastfed and avoid high fructose corn syrup and gluten!

  93. Sue
    at #

    I suspect there is also a vulnerable group of parents who are struggling with kids with developmental or behavioural issues who are looking for an external locus of blame. They are courted by the anti- vax narcissists who take advantage of them by appearing to be their heroes against the evil forces, which appeals to their sense of powerlessness.

    • Sullivan ThePoop
      at #

      Not only that, but people whose infants die of SIDS and people whose significant other shook their baby to death and they don’t want to believe it. The antivaxx people are insidious

  94. Bombshellrisa
    at #

    I actually heard someone say that doctors push vaccines for “minor” illnesses like the flu and chicken pox for the “convenience” of mothers who work. As in so they don’t have to take time off work to take care of sick children.

    • Who?
      at #

      Or they can be like my anti-vax contact, who uses home remedies on her sick kids on her non-work days and doses them up with panadol etc when she needs to go to work, so she can send them to school.

      One of the commenters here talked about the parents who ‘love’ being around sick kids, I do wonder if that’s her thing.

      • Wren
        at #

        Ugh. I know a few of those. I really would rather not have a sick child to look after, even though I am not in paid employment and all I miss is volunteer hours or household errands. If you love it so much, then take the whole week off and stay home with your kid until he or she is well.

      • at #

        I’ll admit, when my son is sick, it can be a bit of a “treat” that he wants to play quietly and snuggle a lot. I’d still rather he not get sick, especially since I don’t have paid time off until I’ve been with my company a year. But hearing about parents who “love” being around sick kids makes me think Munchausen by proxy.

    • Sue
      at #

      There is probably a grain of truth in the fact that most working parents can’t take a week off to look after a sick child. But assuming that parents of the past somehow enjoyed nursing miserable sick kids is crazy. It just couldn’t be avoided then. Now it can.

      • SporkParade
        at #

        Sick kids used to have to take care of themselves when they stayed home from school, back before we started criminalizing having children while poor.

      • And when most of the world were farmers, there was no taking time off when a kid was sick or you were sick. You couldn’t just say to the cows, “Hey, I’ll milk you in 3 days when I feel better. Tell the pigs to get their own food.”

        No, you had to drag yourself out of the house into the barn and do the work. And you left your sick child alone while you did so.

        I think about my grandmother, who had 9 children, and all the “work” that she had to do, that I don’t have to do. For instance, she had to make all her own baby formula (tried and failed to breastfeed), she had to wash her clothes with a wringer washing machine. She ironed everything. She had a half acre garden that she tended, and canned everything, because how else would she feed her family?

        She had no time to take off work.

        Incidentally, her children (my mom and my aunts and uncles) were included in the first polio vaccine trials. My mo received the placebo, so after the drug was approved, she had to be “re-vaccinated.”

    • Elizabeth A
      at #

      Some people just love to shit all over convenience.

      But let’s take a look at this. My kids’ school was closed three days last week, and I was home with them. I was able to work less than half my usual hours last week, and I will be receiving less than half my usual paycheck as a result. This is a nuisance, but since I’m not the main income for our household, it will ultimately not have noticeable impact.

      Plenty of other people aren’t so fortunately circumstanced. Indeed, many workers in the U.S. receive no paid or legally protected sick leave, and can be fired for taking too much time off.

      “Convenience” vaccinations have a major effect on childhood poverty, and for that alone they are well worthwhile.

    • Andrew Lazarus
      at #

      I think one thing driving the antivaxers is anti-feminist backlash. The mommies are positively eager to nurse Junior through his “mild” and “benign” illnesses, which doesn’t fly if both parents work outside the home. I suspect these self-deluded fools feel neglected by their own mothers (the first generation to work outside the home routinely) and this is their revenge.

      • yugaya
        at #

        Their mothers working outside of home was not neglect. You’ll find a somewhat more continental summary of why the mommy-bloger subvariety of what goes for feminism today is not really feminist: http://www.amazon.com/The-Conflict-Modern-Motherhood-Undermines/dp/B00C2I3078

        • Andrew Lazarus
          at #

          I certainly didn’t mean to suggest objectively that a working mother was neglectful. I think your citation has it right (except about breast-feeding: the tendency AFAICT is more lactation rooms in offices, acceptance of nursing in public places, etc.), but there must be some personal need that these Natural types are addressing with their choice. What is it about recreating 1950s stay-home-with-sick-kid mothering that appeals to them?

          • yugaya
            at #

            Clothes?

    • Cobalt
      at #

      Oddly enough, I do find my kids being sick inconvenient. So do my kids. I guess shame on us for wanting to spend our days doing something interesting or productive, instead of laying about hacking our lungs up.

      • S
        at #

        Exactly! And i don’t work.

        • Amazed
          at #

          My mom always said that she preferred a hundred antics over one of us being sick.

          • Cobalt
            at #

            I’ll be the honest “bad” mom and admit that sometimes it’s not bad. Depends on the kind of sick. The short-term mellowing no-long-term risk stuff that gets treated with acetaminophen and movies on the couch is fine on occasion. Anything with a hospitalization risk, real discomfort, puking or itching isn’t.

    • fiftyfifty1
      at #

      Those selfish mothers who reject their God-given roles to work outside the house! And sure enough, The Scientists have invented shots to enable their sinful ways!

      • Cobalt
        at #

        All those women working outside the home, the shame! And so many just by choice! And those society-destroying scientists enabling them to escape punishment!

        Now, replace “working outside the home” with “having sex” and “pox” with “HPV”.

    • carr528
      at #

      What would really piss me off is if I had to stay home with my infant who is in isolation because they were exposed at the doctor by an anti-vax kid. Most working moms of infants have used up every second of sick leave for their maternity leave (assuming they had any), so to have to isolate for another three weeks would be a huge financial hit, even if their baby was fine. And if baby got measles? Personally, I think we need the anti-vax parents to start paying for all of those costs.

      • Bombshellrisa
        at #

        My husband suggested having to pay for a permit to be unvaccinated with the money raised in fees to go toward compensation for what you are talking about. We were talking over a glass of wine, so it made much more sense in the moment : )

    • JJ
      at #

      I have heard this too. Even if that was a main reason it is still a good one IMO. Not all parents can afford to take time off and provide for their families. Also, why not eliminate needless suffering?

      • KarenJJ
        at #

        My workplace actually brought in free flu vaccinations for their employees after the flu went right through the company one year. Half the people in my dept caught the flu and a couple were off work for a couple of weeks. Healthier and fitter people than me (I was 6 months pregnant and addicted to cream bikkies) were fainting and all sorts. There was so much lost productivity the company decided it would be cheaper to have a nurse come in a couple of days and pay for flu vaccinations for a hundred or so employees.

    • demodocus' spouse
      at #

      That’s a bad thing?

  95. Mariana Baca
    at #

    Maybe we need to use ego-flattering marketing or luxury goods marketing to address this problem. Package vaccines under a different sub-brand, market it as “hypoallergenic version” or “toxin free verson” or “organic”, you can even charge more for this labeling of the exact same product. Parents can feel priviledged at buying the more expensive/better version for their kids, they can feel empowered making a “choice” (Even if it is a meaningless one, the way you tell a toddler whether they want the red shirt or the blue one), and they can feel counter-cultural by not selecting the thing the doctor recommends, but the lesser chosen option.

    • Siri
      at #

      Mariana, that’s a brilliant suggestion! Please, please take it forward so it can be implemented; I believe you could steer the whole imms debacle in a whole new direction.

      • Mom of 2
        at #

        That is brilliant! I can hear it now, “I got little zephyr the organic version of his mmr because I’m no sheeple!”

        And it wouldn’t matter one iota if it said right on the package that it is no different than the regular vax. There is plenty of info out there stating that organic food has little to no benefit over conventional but that doesn’t stop these folks from spending double on food.

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          Just stick a label on the packaging of a vaccination that says “99% Natural”.

          a) you’re not lying and
          b) marketing.

  96. Andrew Lazarus
    at #

    Not that someone with your credentials, Dr Tuteur, needs kudos from me, but this is outstanding: especially the analysis of the narcissistic motives driving the antivax death cult. You might also consider the perverse desire of these mothers to bond with sick children, which they articulate increasingly clearly as their faith in their organically-bolstered immune system wanes (pun intended). Better they should have become pediatricians or nurses, if they like sick kids so much.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      at #

      Thanks!

      • Mom
        at #

        Being respectful is a talent. It’s a knack. It also includes showing dignity to others, who are not like you. Bolstering your claims of being highly educated, while simultaneously reducing the importance of parents’ feelings indicates a lack of empathy and integrity. If you believe that people want you to disregard their emotions, you are one of the bad guys–Possibly, the worst form of narcissism there is. If the prestigious credential community’s goal is to help us ole uneducated rednecks, you may want to reshape your message to include love and understanding. Respecting a mother’s intuition and her feelings may not be high up on your to-do-list, but it is perhaps the most important. We are biologically designed to protect, defend and secure the lives of our young. It is out of our control. When we are pregnant, our sense of smell is dramatically heightened. Our sense of hearing becomes highly sensitive. Our bodies naturally begin working with our glands to produce lactation. We are created so intelligently. It’s biological. It’s instinctual, and these changes are what afford us to lay our lives down for our children, on impulse. I assure you, a mother’s love is powerful, and it is beautiful.

        You are losing the war that you created against nature. The message of your campaign involves belittling and the immoral use of force and coercion, which speaks volumes about what you view as healthy.

        Unvaccinated doesn’t necessarily mean someone objects to vaccines. There are many different reason that people are unvaccinated: including age, religion and access to medical health care. There is an element of trust and empathy that is required, in order to obtain a healthy relationship with those people as a whole. When you sound like a violent ex-boyfriend whose message is “If I cant have you, no one will!” you lose your credibility as a helpful person.

        Thank You!
        -Mom

        • SporkParade
          at #

          Yes, motherhood has made me more protective. Right now, I want to protect my baby from selfish jerks who are willing to risk his life because little Timmy is just too special a snowflake to be subjected to some shots. Dr. Amy didn’t “create” a “war against nature.” Literally the only two evolutionary advantages humans have over other species are a) physical endurance and b) brains that allow us to kick nature, “red in tooth and claw,” square in the pants.

          • Mom
            at #

            Yes, I agree with you, completely. Selfish jerks are deplorable. Motherhood does make us want to identify and stay away from anyone, who wants to risk us harm. I am suggesting that lumping all human beings, who are unvaccinated, into the selfish jerk stereotype pile will do nothing to help us bring the good people effected by this issue together. There are many different reasons that people are unvaccinated. Sincere, religious beliefs, age and possibly education level and access to medical care can effect people’s vaccination status. I am suggesting that stigmatizing people has never worked and doesn’t create an environment conducive to working together for the good of public health.

            There may always be those who are unvaccinated. If we learn how to have a healthy dialogue, maybe we can identify those who do not vaccinate for selfish jerk reasons vs. sincere reasons.

          • nomofear
            at #

            What religion are you referring to?

          • SporkParade
            at #

            No one is suggesting on lumping all human beings who are unvaccinated into the selfish jerk pile. Vaccine activists are especially concerned about protecting people who cannot be vaccinated due to either being too young or having an illness. We are also all for increasing access to vaccines in places where access to medical care is poor.

            The issue is people who *choose* not to vaccinate their children. Choices have consequences, and I am not obligated to put my baby’s health at risk out of respect for anyone’s religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely they are held. Who was it who said that your rights end at the tip of your nose?

          • Andrés Nicolás Kievsky
            at #

            How sincere you are in your beliefs makes absolutely no difference to a microorganism – it will attack the jerk and the sincere alike.
            Hence the disconnection between belief and reality in this discussion – the disease truly does not care what you think, and will happily spread and kill during our discussion.
            You see, that’s the main issue with reality – it does not go away when you stop believing in it.

          • yugaya
            at #

            Your insistence on “working together” makes you sound like a lay midwife. You know, the false concern of the type who blames bad outcomes that are the result of her own narcissistic ignorance on the real health care professional who refuse to “create an environment conducive to working together for the good of public health.” Which is btw a complete lie, no public health good ever came out of letting charlatans run our hospitals.

        • andrea
          at #

          If a mother’s protective instincts involve challenging a rare consensus of experts and massive weight of historical evidence then those instincts are faulty. Mistaken beliefs should not be respected.

          This post is clearly about people who are anti-vaccination, not those who are unvaccinated due to age or lack of access.

          • Mom
            at #

            May I ask you what anti-vaccination means? There were people, who were anti-vaccination, when there was only one vaccine–Smallpox. I can imagine there was great fear of the unknown, during those times.

            If you are referring to anti-vaccination as mistaken belief, maybe the more appropriate term is vaccine-hesitant or vaccine-confused? In order to reach that group of people, how do you help them? Do they deserve help? Fighting with them certainly won’t change their minds or convince them to go get vaccinated for the good of public health, which keeps everyone angry. The spirit of fighting is not healthy.

            Religious beliefs are a sincere reason for people being unvaccinated. Do we respect their religious beliefs? These unvaccinated people make up less than 1% of the population in The United States, and they will probably always be around. Do we respect their religious laws? I do not feel in danger, because of these people.

          • SporkParade
            at #

            Fun historical factoid: Benjamin Franklin decided not to variolate (the precursor of vaccination) his children against smallpox. It’s estimated that the variolation process, in which pus from smallpox sores were scratched into a healthy person’s skin, killed about 0.5% of those who underwent his procedure. Nonetheless, it was popular in the face of smallpox epidemics because catching the disease naturally was so much more dangerous. Franklin wrote in his autobiography that he strongly regretted his decision because his son caught smallpox anyway and died.

            It’s really sad that we are still debating this over 200 years later given that the current odds of severe injury from the standard set of childhood vaccines is less than one in a million.

          • andrea
            at #

            When people are truly mistaken in their beliefs such that they think vaccination is more dangerous than the diseases they protect against, I do try to politely point them to correct information. I have heard of people coming back around to vaccination. Unfortunately being challenged with evidence is more likely to lead to people digging in their heels even harder.

            I will, however, go out of my way to attack the things said by the “doctors” pushing the line.

            If people aren’t vaccinating because of their religion (genuine religious reasons are very rare) I would give low priority to trying to convince them otherwise.

          • Mom
            at #

            Ok. Great. I totally agree. I know that there can be a healthy discussion and common goal in this. Thank you!

          • yugaya
            at #

            There can’t be a healthy open discussion when discussion is infantilised by one participating side insisting that language and tone must be subdued and fit within their limiting perception of what a healthy discussion looks like. That’s not healthy at all. Likewise, common communication etiquette says that someone joining an ongoing conversation like this blog should respect the communication’s individual register and not just parachute in and demand that everyone else talk to them in a particularly nice manner.

          • Trixie
            at #

            There are almost no religions that forbid vaccinations. Certainly none of the major world religions, who view vaccination as a moral imperative.
            Some religious groups may have pockets with lower vaccination ratesrates, but they tend not to vaccinate out of the same concerns that secular parents have about vaccines, rather than religious commandment.

          • andrea
            at #

            Indeed.

          • Trixie
            at #

            What religions in particular do you think forbid vaccination? Most people who cite religious exemption do not, in fact, have sincere religious beliefs against it. They are just using that as a loophole.

          • Amazed
            at #

            When someone takes their chicken-pox kid out because the kid is bored at home, mom thinks they aren’t infectious and everyone else has had chicken-pox anyway, I don’t respect their beliefs, their confusions, or whatever the politically correct term is. They’re placing my life at risk because where I am, there’s no vaccine against chicken pox for adults and I have not had it. A doctor friend of mine once had a patient who developed severe lung problems from getting it at 40.

            You might not feel in danger because of these people and generally, I didn’t feel in danger before personally encountering this nut who practically shoved her sick kid at me in the bus. I don’t care whether she thinks vaccinating is against her religion, opted out of this vaccine that is not obligatory, or it just didn’t take, A kid with chicken pox has no place being around people. And not vaccinating is only one of the problems with anti-vaxxers. Insisting that these diseases aren’t this bad is another one and it leads them to bad decisions and endangering lives.

            I respect no one’s religious beliefs other than other people’s lives. At least Jehovian Witnesses only endanger themselves.

          • Siri
            at #

            There is no moral imperative to respect someone’s religious views or dogmas any more than there is a duty to respect any other form of superstition. I am more than happy to TOLERATE people’s irrational beliefs as long as they do not encroach on my rights or those of my children. Not vaccinating is irresponsible and selfish, regardless of what excuse is given. (I am of course not talking about those with genuine medical reasons).

        • KarenJJ
          at #

          Please don’t claim the “unvaccinated” into the agenda of the “anti-vaccinationistss”. We nearly couldn’t get a vaccine for one of my children and worked with immunologists and vaccine specialists to try and get her fully vaccinated. Parents that have unvaccinated children for medical reasons are doing what we can with what we’ve got and are in discussion with some fantastic doctors that are experts in their fields.

          I don’t need our vaccine issues – and others with issues like us – being co-opted into any backlash against what Dr Amy is saying here. I certainly don’t need anti-vaxxers saying “what about those poor people with medical issues that can’t be vaccinated?”. We don’t need anti-vaccine nutters on our side – we’ve got some expert immunologists and researchers in our corner to speak our case.

          • Mom
            at #

            I am on your side, and I agree with you. Failing to vaccinate for unrealistic reasons is deplorable. Just as failing to build a healthy relationship with parents, due to a lack of social skills, is deplorable.There are better ways to communicate with one another, than to create a hostile, aggressive environment, by calling parents names. There are perfectly kind, logical people who are unvaccinated. The mantra of pro-vax and anti-vax has harmed all of us. The unvaccinated is not involved in either of those rabid arguments. Take the harmful arguing out of the equation, and see if there are better results for everyone. It’s worth the effort. If there are mother’s on the fence, it will not help to shame them or attack them. They may become more nutty. I think we need to clearly identify what exactly an anti-vaccine person is. And do they even matter? If questioning a medical doctor is equivalent to being an anti-vaxxer nutter, though, then there lies the ego problem that can be worked on in the public relations department.

          • KarenJJ
            at #

            Well horses for courses in these sorts of things. I’d rather be respected as an adult with a brain instead of someone mincing their words to try and protect me from reality. If I believe something stupid I’d like to be told that I believe something stupid – and why it is stupid. I’m a big girl, I can handle it. I don’t need to be patronised to.

          • Amazed
            at #

            But the majority of anti-vax parents aren’t anti-vax because their pediatrician lacks social skills. It’s just that they fall for “I’m educated, I’m a mom/dad, no one cares about my children more than I do, other moms/dads say vaccines are evil, these diseases are benign…” They come with the preconceived notion that their pediatirican is a victim of the Big Pharma’s brainwashing, not an old grump. When a mom is convinced that she must save her precious baby from aLotism, does that say that the doctor lacks social skills? No, it only says that mom has spent too much time in internet forums getting scared out of her wits. And that she isn’t half as educated as she thinks she is.

            There’s nothing wrong with questioning a medical doctor. There is much wrong with questioning a medical doctor having wired your brain that they’re evil and vaccines will harm your child and when they don’t confirm it, starting crying, “Big Pharma! A conspiracy! They want to kill/maim my kid!”

          • Cobalt
            at #

            Anti-vaxxers don’t. The unvaxable can’t. It’s a big difference, one that is well acknowledged by pro-vaxxers, and is part of why maintaining herd immunity matters so much to pro-vaxxers.

          • Siri
            at #

            Lactivists claim that breastfeeding isn’t ‘better’ than formula; it’s simply the ‘biological norm’. How about if we frame vaccination in a similar manner? Ie pro-vax and anti-vax arent ‘choices’; one is the default setting, and the other is an aberration.

          • Elaine
            at #

            Well, the problem with that is that unvaccinated is the biological default, so that argument won’t last with those people. Being susceptible to mumps, polio, smallpox, etc. is the default setting. Some default settings aren’t so great. These same people do not hesitate to wear eyeglasses, drive cars, use the Internet, and do lots of other unnatural things.

          • Siri
            at #

            Do you regard parents as some kind of overgrown babies who must be coddled and cajoled? What the hell do paediatrician’s social skills have to do with anything? My kids are fully vaccinated, not because of the social skills of my healthcare providers, but because it’s the right and responsible thing to do. I don’t need coddling. If you do, I suggest you put on your BGPs and behave like an adult.

          • Siri
            at #

            And if people choose not to vaccinate in spite of all the evidence that supports vaccination, they are not being logical and not being kind. They are choosing superstition and selfishness over science and ethics.

        • yugaya
          at #

          “reducing the importance of parents’ feelings”

          I don’t know about you but in my mother tongue there is a saying “may God never grant you all the bad things that a parent will think can happen to you”. Last night’s trip to the children’s ER with my youngest further proves my personal statistic that 99 out of a 100 times such a trip was not called for. But that’s what doctors are for to me, to establish whether my parental feelings of fear are right or wrong. They are the professional, objective assessors that help me overcome my subjective tendency to indulge worst case scenario fears and also the competent persons that I as individual trust will know and act in that one situation out of a hundred when my intuition and parental feelings are spot on.

          Unless of course you believe that your intuition is a valid cognitive device that has a significantly lower margin of error than current scientific methodology which is behind the recommendations to vaccinate our children. Your statement that we are create biologically intelligent suggests that and I’ve actually learned a lot from the people on this blog about how biology (nature, evolution) is not the designer of perfections, it usually comes up with viable solutions. Natural, intervention free childbirth for instance kills at a whopping rate, it is not perfect or ideal, and when compared to what we as humans were able to upgrade it to it is a hundred times more deadlier. Same goes for our natural immunity vs. vaccination.

          • Mom
            at #

            I completely agree with you. You are exactly right. We do need the medical community’s expertise to validate our concerns, and tell us when we are being irrational. It is about working together to make the mother feel comfortable. This article may not be helpful or conducive to making the mother feel more comfortable. I feel like we should all be on the same side. I don’t understand the politics or spirit of party involved in this. We are on the same side, and I agree with you completely! If doctors are losing the war in the vaccine department, but winning the war in ER care, what are ER doctors doing differently?

          • yugaya
            at #

            What are the doctors doing differently? Nothing, but as a parent the fact that you are taking the kid to the ER “just in case” means that you are placing the trust for most objective and best possible opinion outside of yourself. You are acknowledging the fact that the best call that is in the best interest of the majority of the children around you as well as your own child is going to come from doctors who are put there by the system to make those calls.

            If on your route to the ER you are already past the “mother knows best” or “nature knows best” point, which is exactly where parents who refuse to vaccinate get stuck and refuse to let go of their own sense of superiority.

          • Cobalt
            at #

            It’s the parents in the ER behaving differently, not the doctors. As yugaya explains, going to the ER admits that the situation has moved beyond what can be treated with parental intuition.

            At that point, nature has already fired a shot in the war on your child. A vaccine is a shield, most effective when given before exposure, before infectious disease comes your way. At that point, anti-vaxx parents are still trusting nature to protect them.

          • Amazed
            at #

            “What are ER doctors doing differently?”

            Are you serious? I have trouble believing this is a serious question.

            Let’s review… Usually, mothers who rush to the ER are mothers in panic, holding a severely ill child – a child who needs saving NOW because all the mama intuition in the world and a sea of miracle mama milk cannot help them.

            What are the ER doctors doing differently? They’re saving the child (hopefully) from an eminent, clear, obvious danger, so mom can later go and show this old grump, her pediatrician, just how inferior their education is compared to her mama intuition and warm mama milk. The VPD are nowhere near, they aren’t visible at the moment and she has the luxury of feeling religious, called to protect her precious little one from the Big Pharma and the big conspiracy and what not.

            Medicine is always good enough in crisis. It’s when the particular child isn’t in eminent, clear danger that the mom has ever seen (because she had been vaccinated herself, of course, in most cases!) that the mother starts thinking internet and mama intuition make her as educated as those who saved humankind from various VPDs.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Since it’s been proven that all the respectful explanation from doctors doesn’t work and the mother usually becomes more rigid in her ways, I am all for making the bitch feel uncomfortable before she killed someone like those pigs did.

            http://www.thelocal.de/20130614/50305

            But as illustrated by Jennifer Margulis who clearly stated that should an unvaccinated child happen to die from a preventable disease caught from her little disease vectors, she would not feel guilty, it isn’t as if anti-vaxxers feel uncomfortable with killing someone else’s child. If making them feel uncomfortable and ostracized in the waiting room achieves something, I say go for it.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            “If making them feel uncomfortable and ostracized in the waiting room achieves something, I say go for it.”

            I do too! Put a big sign on the door at the peds office: “Unvaccinated children are not allowed in the common waiting room. Please enter by the rear door.”

            Then usher them to a room closest to the back door and let them know that snowflake can’t be near the other kids.

          • JJ
            at #

            I think this is a great solution. If you want to be special, you can be in this special room!

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yep. Don’t deny them care, but let them know they cannot be allowed to pose a risk to others.

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            “If doctors are losing the war in the vaccine department, but winning the war in ER care, what are ER doctors doing differently?”

            The ER docs aren’t doing anything differently, it’s just that a medical crisis can sometimes be enough to shake a parent out of complacency. Like last week, one of my peds colleagues saw a 5 month old baby that had been crabby and tired, but mom wasn’t really worried because babies can do that when they are sick, no? Baby was also not vaxed. Mom “wasn’t against vaccinating, just wanted to delay”. My colleague didn’t like the baby’s color or lethargy and got a CBC and blood culture. Baby slept through those blood draws which was the last straw, my colleague called the ambulance without even waiting for the results. Which was good, because the CBC came back at almost 40,000. And in the ER the lumbar puncture came back positive too. Baby has pneumococcal meningitis—a vaccine preventable illness, and is in the ICU.

          • Amy M
            at #

            Oh my god. I hope that baby is ok….and that the mom decides to catch up on the vaccines now.

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            Last report is that baby is doing better, feeding on his own and afebrile. I’m sure my colleague will be watching for neurologic/development outcomes like a hawk over the next year. Colleague, of course, is totally beating self up over this. Could something have been said different to convince parents etc?

          • Amazed
            at #

            I would add, have the doctors send a personal notification to all non-vaxxed parents whose kid infected others with a VPD. Not that I expect they will be moved but let them know what they are. People who kill and damage children. Let them know!

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Excellent idea! Although with HIPPA laws they might not be able to include names. But at least letting them know might help. And send it to the parents of vaccinated kids too! Lets them know how these idiots might impact their kids’ health too. Maybe parents will start asking other parents about their kid’s vax status. When 2 kids show up to un-vaxxed little Johnny’s birthday party and they invited 15, maybe they will sit up and take notice.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Oh my! I hope all ends well, both crisis and vaccinewise!

          • Siri
            at #

            It’s not about working together to make the mother feel comfortable; it’s about keeping children safe and healthy. The mother’s comfort should be way down the list of priorities, and if it isn’t, there is something wrong.

            If doctors are losing the war in the vaccine department, it’s because so many adults insist on believing quacks and charlatans over real experts.

          • Amazed
            at #

            That. Just one slight amendment, Siri, if you’d allow me? “A mother’s comfort should be way down…” is more accurate, I think. Because a mother’s decision about vaccinating isn’t about her kids alone, as the article I referenced show. The mother there single-handedly made the decision for her own kid and 6 others, 2 of whom died. Because, presumably, when homeopathic remedies didn’t work, this non-vaccinating mom rushed in panic to her pediatrician where the kid spread the virus to other mothers’ children.

            2 of them died, Mom. DIED.

            Why the hell do you say “the mother”, as if she’s the only mother who matters?

          • Siri
            at #

            Good point, Amazed!

          • Amazed
            at #

            In fact, instead of going our way to accommodate anti-vaxxers (aka catching them with honey) which doesn’t work, I wonder if we should just go to the other extreme. Being polite and educating doesn’t work, so why should other parents expose their children to the risk of catching a VPD in the pediatrician’s waiting room? Although the vast majority of pediatricians would be terrified, I think those who accept non-vaccinated by choice children in their practice act as the parents’ enablers. Maybe if they start losing a vast part of their regular patients who don’t want to place their own children at risk, they’ll stop be so accommodating and make their patients feel not enlightened and acceptable (since they accept them!) but ostracized and a little bit dangerous?

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            ” Although the vast majority of pediatricians would be terrified, I think those who accept non-vaccinated by choice children in their practice act as the parents’ enablers.”

            It’s a tough issue. The AAP has looked at both sides and has told pediatricians NOT to have policies that exclude anti-vax patients. The concern is that if unvaxed kids develop illnesses, they will not be able to be seen. Kids will suffer and die from all sorts of causes and in addition VPI epidemics will not come to the attention of public health officials because these kids can’t go to the doctor and be diagnosed.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            It is a tough issue for sure. However I think the line has to be drawn at some point and how do you do that?

          • fiftyfifty1
            at #

            I think the best way would be if peers started to pressure non-vax parents. How can I as a doctor ethically refuse non-vaccinated children? What am I supposed to do, let them die? It’s not their fault. As I’ve shared before, I was raised by a non-vaxing mother (I got my baby shots before she switched over, but my younger sibs didn’t). I’m sure glad our local doctor didn’t refuse my sibs and that the local children’s hospital didn’t refuse my cousin when they all caught pertussis and my cousin needed to be hospitalized.

            It’s not cool to be an anti-vax parent. As Dr. Tuteur says, if you apply the Kant question and ask “what if all parents refused shots, what would happen?” obviously the answer is disaster. But you can apply the same question to pediatricians. Sure it’s nice for the pediatricians who refuse non-vax patients: their patients will be healthier, they won’t have to worry about their waiting room and they weed out the Woo-crazy parents all in one fell swoop. But what if every pediatrician did this? Would parents then vaccinate, or would they just avoid the doctor? I think they would just avoid the doctor and show up last minute in the ER.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Good points. I think peer pressure may be the best way to turn the tables. I did hear about a doc in California interviewed on the news and he is refusing non-vaxxed kids, but those same parents are now lining up in droves to get their kids vaccinated. There is one in NY doing the same thing. It will be interesting to see how many others start refusing these kids and the impact. It’s certainly a huge issue and you’re right, it’s not the kids’ fault. Maybe the middle ground will be quarantine. If the docs tell patients, look, I’m not refusing you, but I can’t let you in the main waiting room. You’ll have to come in the back door. At some point I think something will have to be done in the interest of public health.

          • Amazed
            at #

            Maybe you could have a separate room for anti-vaxxing patients? Just like there was separate rooms for kids who were on their routine visits and kids who came in with actual complaints when I was a kid. At the time, non-vaxxing was not an issue. And now, the state of things here is such that it will never work here, for practical reasons. Sad thing is, the vaccine issue is the least of our healthcare system worries here. But maybe it could be done elsewhere?

            We’ve seen what trying to accommodate anti-vaxxers led to: no more understanding. No less incidence of epidemics of VPDs. Maybe we should try something else? But I really cannot see it without doctors showing at least a bit of ostracism as well, besides peer pressure.

            Honestly, I am a little troubled by the idea that doctors should not do even a little pressuring. Ant-vax parents regard vaxxing parents as sheeple anyway. Sure, being ostracized by them isn’t cool but since they do go to the doctor, I am not OK with the doctor letting them present vaccinating as a choice that is equally only about their kids as having a bottle of Coke when sick or not.

          • Amazed
            at #

            It’s a tough issue, indeed. However, if anti-insanity parents demonstrate that they won’t stand for their own young, immuno-compromised, or just not “caught the vaccine” children, maybe AAP will think of working out a different approach that will force parents to vaccinate against the illnesses that are most dangerous on local ground?

            It’s clear that for now, authorities can do little to help. If more parents become like a friend of mine who told her pediatrician, “You aren’t my kids’ pediatrician anymore because you accept non-vaxxed kids who endanger mine”, could that be a solution?

            Is the AAP’s statement a real guideline, or just recommendation? Because I know there was a hot debate over doctors refusing to see unvaxxed kids. Clearly, it’s being done.

          • moto_librarian
            at #

            You know what I find interesting? The same people who eschew vaccines are quite happy to avail themselves of emergency medical care when their child is severely ill or injured.

          • Wren
            at #

            I wouldn’t actually want to put it into practice, but I do sometimes wish a large fine were levied against every parent who chooses not to vaccinate but accesses medical care for their children.

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes!!! Oh but it’s “different” then, they’ve been “forced” into it…. same as home birthers.. use the medical system as their back-up, and then complain about the evil doctors..

          • at #

            Oh, fuck your feelings if you don’t vaccinate. Fuck your need for coddling and hand holding. Babies, children, teens and adults are DYING from diseases that were all bit eradicated.

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          at #

          Respect is earned, not demanded. Although everyone deserves to be treated in a respectful fashion, it is not disrespectful to point out that your intuition regarding immunology is worthless, and that your knowledge of immunology can be summed up in one word, “ignorance.”

          As for losing the war I created against nature, do you live in a house? Does it have central heating? Do you own a car?

          You have to be incredibly privileged and mired in denial to pretend that having “researched” vaccines from your computer, in your centrally heated house that you got to in your car, you are living “naturally” by refusing to vaccinate.

          In reality, you are living stupidly, selfishly, and immaturely.

        • Siri
          at #

          Being ethical is a talent. It’s a knack. It also includes showing consideration for others who are not like you, eg babies and immunosuppressed people. Bolstering your claims of ‘having done your research’, while simultaneously showing a disregard for the rights of others, indicates a lack of empathy and integrity. If you believe that people want you to keep spreading vaccine-preventable illnesses, you are one of the bad guys.

          And

          So

          On

          And

          So

          Forth.

        • Melissa
          at #

          Look up the backfire effect. No, kindness and love does not change the mind of the anti-vaxxer. The best we can do is to try and get at the fence sitters by making it clear that forgoing vaccines is not a socially acceptable position.

          Also, intuition is bullshit. If I listened to my intuition I’d never leave the house because my anxiety disorder is telling me that I’m going to die if I do. Nature is not some benign Goddess who is inherently good while man is evil. Nature created the bloodworm which enters people swimming in slow moving water, moves into their kidneys and then eats it until they die.

        • Nick Sanders
          at #

          “You are losing the war that you created against nature.”

          What?

  97. Guesteleh
    at #

    Vaccine critics turn defensive over measles

    Kelly McMenimen, a Lagunitas parent, said she “meditated on it a lot” before deciding not to vaccinate her son Tobias, 8, against even “deadly or deforming diseases.” She said she did not want “so many toxins” entering the slender body of a bright-eyed boy who loves math and geography.

    Tobias has endured chickenpox and whooping cough, though Ms. McMenimen said the latter seemed more like a common cold. She considered a tetanus shot after he cut himself on a wire fence but decided against it: “He has such a strong immune system.”

    • Box of Salt
      at #

      See my poke my own eyes out comment below.

      How much do you want to bet that the whooping cough was* not* actually diagnosed by an actual MD?

      • Guesteleh
        at #

        We’ve had a lot of whooping cough in California so it wouldn’t surprise me if her kid had it. But I’ll bet mama is minimizing the symptoms. “He only coughed for a month! Most kids cough for six weeks. His immune system is so strong!”

        What freaked me out worse was refusing the tetanus shot. Just reading that made me break out in a cold sweat.

        • Box of Salt
          at #

          Guesteleh “whooping cough in California”

          I live here too and one of my kids may have had a mild case due to vaccine failure, but it was not laboratory confirmed. If she can describe what her kid had as “like a common cold,” I have a hard time believing it was actually pertussis.

          As for the tetanus – I guess she missed the news about that kid in New Zealand.
          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855638
          (hope link works)

          And in conclusion I will once again refer readers to my earlier comment below.

    • Amazed
      at #

      Yeah, so did those who survived the smallpox.

      I recently had the following exchange with my (educated) father.

      He: Why on earth is the earth (pun intended) overpopulated? I know, developing countries and so but people in most first world countries don’t have anywhere near enough children to account for the difference.

      Me: Because the greatest killer of the XXth century is no longer around.

      He: Blank look.

      Me: I don’t mean Hitler, Dad. And no, it wasn’t Stalin either.

      He: Blank look.

      Me: Meaningful look at his shoulder.

      He: Oh.

      The beauty of living in the XXIth century is that even if you’re not in a first world country but have clear water, good sanitation, and vaccines, you can reasonably rely not to be left on the mercy of a (hopefully) strong immune system and smallpox is only a vanishing memory.

    • Elaine
      at #

      I can’t imagine deliberately rolling the dice with my kids’ health like that. Poor Tobias. He has to suffer for his mom’s idiotic beliefs.

  98. anh
    at #

    There is this twit of a girl I went to high school with and we have Facebook friends in common. She always shows up on threads talking about “toxins” being “injected into our bloodstreams”. When I pointed out that vaccines were injected subcutaneously she told me to have fun drinking the koolaid.
    What I want to say, but I don’t, because I’m such a nice person (and I’m afraid she will throw burning dog poo on my parents’ porch) is “homegirl, you were a perfectly average student in high school who took at most three years of public school science for which you showed zero aptitude. Do you seriously think you are so searingly intelligent you can see through some giant hoax that the world’s medical establishment has somehow concocted.” Like, how did this numbskull convince herself she is a visionary?

    • Box of Salt
      at #

      anh “she told me to have fun drinking the koolaid”

      This is when we ask her *why* she thinks she isn’t on koolaid herself.

      It might not change her opinion, but with any luck it will get the bystanders thinking about whose sources of information are actually credible.

    • Amy M
      at #

      HOw can anyone even argue how vaccines are injected? You can WATCH them do it!!
      I’ve administered vaccines to animals, granted it was 20yrs ago in college, but I’m pretty sure the ROA hasn’t changed. We were vaccinating cattle–no one has time to find a vein on every cow in the herd. You smack them on the flank a few times, stick the needle, they don’t even feel it. If anyone can hit a vein with that method, they are a phlebotomy god.

      • Cobalt
        at #

        Injection sites are chosen based on the risk of hitting a vein. IM sites are in specific locations where there aren’t any veins, to prevent hitting one by accident. You’re not walking up and just jabbing the cow (or horse, or dog, or person) anywhere, but on large muscles masses that don’t have large veins nearby.

        • Amy M
          at #

          I know, that’s what I was trying to say, but clearly failed. 🙁 I meant they are IM and that a (hypothetical)vaccine that was IV would be really inefficient for cattle because no one has time to find a vein on every cow in the herd. I see how that came out wrong though. Sorry. I did know it was IM, I’m not a doctor or a vet, but I’m not that stupid.

          • Cobalt
            at #

            I was elaborating, not correcting. Point being the whole “straight into your bloodstream” crap is just that: crap.

          • Amy M
            at #

            🙂 Cool. Yeah, its just like the “epidural goes straight into your bloodstream.”

  99. Mac Sherbert
    at #

    OT- I came across an online cemetery listing. One physician in 1900 had 28 stillbirths. The total number of still born list for 1895-1905 is 343. Modern Medicine looking good.

  100. Cobalt
    at #

    This is an issue that currently hits way too close to home. My baby and I are getting extra shots because these morons can’t be bothered to be decent human beings.

    Maybe it’s because I’ve been poor, and had experience with real practicalities in life, I don’t know. I just can’t come to terms with:

    “We have a very safe, proven effective vaccine that will prevent your child from getting sick.”

    “No.”

    The overall public health benefits are important but secondary when it comes to the kids. For example, I get the flu shot, even though I have side effects almost every time, because I don’t want to spread flu. The kids get it because I don’t want them to get sick. How can you be ok with just letting your kid get sick, when it can be prevented? Because the internet said so?

    It takes a special breed of asshole to spew antivax shit.

  101. Trixie
    at #

    Agreed!

    • Mike Stevens
      at #

      Ditto!

  102. attitude devant
    at #

    Thank you! I got so frustrated talking to curiousmama on this issue. She kept claiming to be open-minded and ready to hear about vaccines, but she wanted a damn tutorial in immunology. “I had science in college so you must drop everything and explain this!” Lady, public health specialists have spent decades developing their expertise; it is not distillable into a paragraph on the web.

    • SporkParade
      at #

      I think she expected us to be impressed by her extensive dithering on the issue, as if the quality of one’s parenting is directly proportional to the amount of time one spends questioning no-brainers.

    • Ainsley Nicholson
      at #

      It was frustrating, but I think she started to see reason towards the end.

  103. fiftyfifty1
    at #

    So what exactly can be said? What script for what situations?

    • Trixie
      at #

      I think social shaming is a good place to start.

      • fiftyfifty1
        at #

        But what, when and how exactly?

        Like would it be a good idea if whenever anyone mentions the word “vaccination” in public, I made a point of always throwing out a brief “Anti-vax parents are the tinfoil hatters of 2015” without giving any thought to the audience etc? Or is there a better statement? Or a longer statement?

        And then what to say in a professional setting? I have long ago given up any science based education strategy. As Dr. Tuteur says, it’s ineffective. What I do is briefly tell the story of my mom and aunt and their decision not to vaccinate and the consequences for my sibs and cousin. Patients definitely respond better to anecdotes than statistics. But is there something even more effective? Can a doc try to shame in this area without it backfiring in some way? I would be afraid to risk it.

        • Trixie
          at #

          No, I mean, when you’re standing in bleachers at swim lessons, or something, and another mom brings up that she doesn’t vaccinate (and it’s not for actual medical reasons), I’d pick up my things and back away and say I don’t want my kids in close proximity to hers. Or mention how I’m sure worried about any babies that may be close by. Probably mention how contagious measles is.

      • Amy M
        at #

        And taxation. Maybe make it expensive to not vaccinate, and some may think twice. Tax exemptions for the vaccinated, specific non-vax tax for those people (not for the legitimate medical exemptions of course.)

        • Trixie
          at #

          That’ll never ever pass.

          • Amy M
            at #

            Batting a thousand today, I am. Of course not, but if it could, I bet it would make some of them think twice.

  104. The Bofa on the Sofa
    at #

    One of my things is the “I don’t trust the government” nonsense. The people who work for the CDC and especially those who serve on the committee that sets the recommended vaccination schedule are not “the government.” They are, in fact, experts in pediatric infectious disease that are consulted by the “government” (the CDC) to determine best practices. These are folks like “The Chair of Pediatric Virology at LSU Medical School” and the like. They are among the world’s experts in this stuff.

    So when someone claims they “did research into vaccines” I just laugh, because they haven’t the first clue what they are talking about. The people serving on the ACIP? THEY have done REAL research on vaccines.

    And they aren’t “they government” any more than I am “the government” because I have served on panels for the NSF. I have no patience for those who claim that vaccination comes from “the government.” The folks dong this are not elected nor do they govern. They are scientists, with the charge of determining best health practices.

    • Sue
      at #

      You are right, Bofa, but many of these parents must feel suspicious and disempowered because they have never known anyone who has ever advised government or been on a policy committee. In their worlds, public policy is made by faceless officials who they would never meet in everyday life. This doesn’t excuse being illogical about health issues, but it can make ppl suspicious.

      I am more angry about those ppl who DO have influence in their lives in other fields, but somehow assume that they know better than anyone outside their area of expertise. That is arrogance and folly.

  105. Amazed
    at #

    I just found out what two of our leading specialists here have to say on the matter. “Generally, there are two groups in risk that do not follow the obligatory immunization schedule – Romas and hyperinformed internet moms”, the director of the periatric unit of the Infectious Diseases Hospital said regarding measles.

    Quite sad.

    • yugaya
      at #

      Roma, if given access to state healthcare without systematic racism included WILL vaccinate their children and follow medical advice. But in my country hospitals still have special “Roma only” rooms so that the paying customers who bribe their doctors do not have to suffer their proximity. It is same as with segregate schools, as long as the majority of people think it is ok to not want your child to attend the same school as Roma kids or not be in the same room after birth with a Roma woman the practice will continue, only the authorities are careful to mask it as something that fits within the laws.

      Roma kids do not get vaccinated only if the health visitor does not even bother to come to their village or school, which happens too often.

      • Amazed
        at #

        Oh yes, mostly. But here, there’s also the scare that vaccines are meant to make Romas sterile. There ARE those who hide from health visitors and refuse to vaccinate. The problem is that it doesn’t take very large pockets of unvaccinated to spread the disease.

        Anyway, it is sad and absurd that hyperinformed internet moms who do not suffer racism are considered a group at risk, just like Romas. Racism+lack of education equals too much neducation?

        It would have been ridiculous if it didn’t take real human lives. As it is, it’s just very concerning. Hyperinformed moms don’t suffer racism, poor living conditions, bias at the hospital and so on. They suffer… internet. And society here suffers measles.

        • yugaya
          at #

          I wouldn’t blame the Roma for the prejudice that they themselves hold against the state health care system in the region though: http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/pdf/1475-9276-10-53.pdf

          The edmuckated crowd on the other hand beggars belief and I hold no such understanding for their actions – unlike Roma, they are not a vulnerable minority and their actions are not the consequence of lack of, but of too much.

          • Amazed
            at #

            That was what I was trying to say with my initial post! When a man of such rank compares your risk to those of Romas, that means that you’re in big trouble. Worse, it means that you ARE a big trouble. Cause you know, measles won’t kindly stay in your unvaccinated child alone.

          • Trixie
            at #

            Only because I know you’re a scrupulous student of colloquial English, I’ll point out that the normal parlance is “edumacated” as Homer Simpson would say it (although Popeye may have said it first). 🙂
            http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/12/simpsons-doh-meh-english-language/

          • yugaya
            at #

            Thank you! I try to keep up with you guys, one of the unintended benefits of this blog is that it does increase the overall accuracy levels in non-native speakers of English language. 🙂

          • Samantha06
            at #

            Yes, I think it was Popeye!

      • Montserrat Blanco
        at #

        I have Roma patients. They are usually very respectful and follow medical advice to the letter. They usually look very well after old relatives. At the NICU my son stayed at the only baby that was NEVER alone was a Roma child. To my knowledge she was vaccinated on schedule. Healthcare is free here and easily accessible (Spain). That might be the issue since they are usually not very well off. Here you have a GP office less than 1 mile from your home if you live in a town or village, if it is a very small village it might be open only some days a week, but it is very accesible in order to get kids properly vaccinated.

  106. NoLongerCrunching
    at #

    I definitely think this is true for many people, but there is a subset that is just irrationally scared. I see it as similar to a fear of getting in an airplane crash. The science and statistics are clear that cars (like being unvaccinated) are much more dangerous, but it appears that people do it all the time without consequences. When they don’t actually see people suffer through VPDs, they think it can’t happen to them.

    • Therese
      at #

      I agree and if the only focus is on shaming people, that will just cause the irrationally scared to just be quiet about not vaccinating. It will also probably cause them to skip well baby visits because who wants to go see a doctor that thinks you are stupid and selfish? So that’s my only concern about this strategy. Also, I don’t know how prevalent of a problem this is, but I do know those who are “anti-vax” but fully vaccinate. They want to fit in with the crunchy crowd, so they spout anti-vax rhetoric, but their kids are actually fully vaccinated (one mom I know claims it is only because her ped “forced” her to against her will, yeah right!”) I wonder how much people like that contribute to making anti-vax seem much more prevalent than it is?

      • NoLongerCrunching
        at #

        Great points. Part of my LLL training was to teach mothers to dialog with their doctors. Many moms do the smile and nod method, rather than honestly airing their concerns and giving the doctor the chance to address them. If a mom doesn’t plan to take the advice (say, to not fill a script for antibiotics), she needs to let the doctor know, and ask what symptoms she should watch for that would necessitate coming back.

    • JJ
      at #

      I have always been prone to anxiety so when I had severe PPD/PPA I was primed for being terrified of vaccines. It all did start with that Bradley class though. Once I thought the medical community could be trying to hurt me, I could not think rationally. When I started going to therapy 2 years ago I realized that my biggest problem in life was anxiety and that I needed to make rational decisions not based on my mental illness. Then I was able to put my children in school, get them vaccinated, ect. There is a set of people who reject vaccines (and other low-risk parts of normal life) that really just need treatment for anxiety.

      I agree that there is an ego driven as component well. I am trying to reach them through: 1. You really think we know better than the global medical/scientific community?! 2. We need to have compassion for the vulnerable in our world. It’s really not fair for everyone else to have to vax and they get the rewards while risking babies and immuno-compromised.

      • JJ
        at #

        I was also tired of worrying about tetnus and feeling like keeping my kids healthy/educated/ect. was 100% up to me. A moderate mental breakdown can sometimes be a road to clarity 🙂

        • basement
          at #

          You raise a valid perspective. What gets under my collar is the doctors who actually frame the discussion of vaccination with parents who experience what you’ve described. These charlatans frame vaccinations as if it is something they should worry about. It’s like they have a radar for this kind of vulnerability and they manipulate in order to exploit this. Worse, they freely assign *blame* squarely on you if your child becomes seriously ill. It’s a sickening cycle.

          • Amy M
            at #

            I was just watching “The NIghtly Show” (the one about vaccines of course) and at least one of the women on the panel discussion said “as a mother, I am responsible for protecting my child.” There is certainly an idea that mothers are almost entirely responsible for their children’s safety and if the child gets sick, hurt or becomes a psychopath, it must be mom’s fault. That’s a terrible thing and eliminating this idea from society might help more non-vaccinating people, at least those closer to the on-the-fence-area, to change their minds. It would also help with maternal mental health I bet, but that’s a different discussion.

          • JJ
            at #

            I agree. Having some medical doctors incite fear of vaccines contributed a lot to my irrational fears of them.

  107. Amazed
    at #

    OT: I think I just found one of the ways of the anti-vaxxers around here to influence people. I was having coffee with a few friends (all highly educated ladies, but unlike me, no medical professionals.) One of them said something like, I know, I know vaccines have eradicated diseases but I am not sure I’d want to inject something like mercury in a baby’s system. Even I know that she won’t because there isn’t any mercury in any of the vaccines meant for children here. Any. Zero. None. One bloody atom, that’s all.

    Of course, that isn’t to say that it was some kind of great secret that I unveiled. More like, it was the first time I realized anti-vaxxers (or rather, the one leading the movement) are deliberately conflating early vaccines that scare people (it’s about their children, after all!) with later vaccines for which, generally, no one gives a damn. Of course no one gives a damn. Because you know what? At age 7, when they receive some new vaccines, autistic children have long ago being diagnosed, so it cannot be those later vaccines. But what a minor inconvenience, there’s no real mercury in the early ones…

    • Isilzha
      at #

      Terrified about mercury, but will still feed their kids fish a couple times a week because it’s healthy?

      • Amazed
        at #

        Now, now, Isilzha, don’t spoil the party with your boring facts…

        I have to admit that I eat fish despite being mildly allergic to it. Not a couple times a week but I do eat it. Bad, bad, irresponsible Amazed!

        • Amy
          at #

          Some of them do. I prefer all-natural, less-processed foods myself. Whole Foods has made millions from selling people all-natural junk food. In fact, I think Dr. Amy herself once made a post about all-natural Cheetos.

      • Mishimoo
        at #

        The answers I’ve heard for that are: “There’s nowhere near as much mercury in fish as vaccines.” and “It’s different! Eating it means that the body’s natural defences push it out and prevent it from becoming a health issue. Injecting it into the body puts it right into the bloodstream, bypassing all of the natural defences, and the body reacts differently.”

        • Mike Stevens
          at #

          Yup, those silly tropes are hard to banish.

        • Daleth
          at #

          Because… there are no white blood cells and t-cells and such IN THE BLOODSTREAM to defend the body against bad things?!

          • Mishimoo
            at #

            Apparently not! “Those only do germs, not toxins.”

          • Daleth
            at #

            Question to ask the tinfoil hat anti-vax types: “So what, pray tell, ‘does’ toxins?”

            Or no, more to the point: “Your liver is what ‘does’ toxins, and your entire blood stream goes through the liver dozens of times a day.”

          • Mishimoo
            at #

            Oh, I have tried. It usually brings out “But Dr. Mercola said…” and “But Philip Day said…”, and at that point, I usually end up laughing.

      • Who?
        at #

        Or send them for chelation for their various issues as diagnosed by the quack du jour. How on earth you decide it is okay to not vaccinate, but perfectly safe and reasonable to allow some nobody to put fluid through kids’ systems to cure some ailment only the diagnoser can find, beats me completely.

        And what you have to say to the kids to get them to do it. Repeatedly.

      • Cobalt
        at #

        Not just fish. Colloidal silver.

  108. UNCDave
    at #

    A very minor quibble, but ‘unrelfective, though accurate, is a bit awkward. I’ve seen ‘reflexive’ used, and it seems to flow a bit better.

  109. Box of Salt
    at #

    As a So Cal resident, I’ve been following this outbreak in the news since it began. Recently, there have been a lot of articles quoting anti-vaccine parents. The ignorance and hubris displayed by these parents makes me want to poke out my own eyes with a pencil, because the alternative is wishing that they experience the consequences of their misguided beliefs, and I cannot wish that amount of suffering on their innocent children.

  110. at #

    I think shame and ridicule is entirely justified. It’s the only thing to actually make people stop smoking (seriously, being a smoker is shameful now, and I say this as someone who is in the long and painful quitting process). If it all comes to ego, go after the ego.

    • NoLongerCrunching
      at #

      How’s it going?

      • at #

        Slow and steady. I switched to vaporizers and went from a pack+ daily to bumming 2-3 from my husband a day. I’ve also stepped the nicotine down from 24mg to 12…

        • Somewhereinthemiddle
          at #

          Quitting is hard and it sucks but you will feel soooo much better. I mean, I know it’s better for you in the long run too, but feeling better was the shorter term carrot that was motivating for me.

  111. jhr
    at #

    A dreadful but not entirely beyond the realm of the possible: the return of polio with tiny children in braces and iron lungs. Images from the nightmares of everyone over 60. Media outlets should be flooding the airwaves with documentary footage of the terror aroused by a polio epidemic and the consequences.

    • just me
      at #

      I worked with someone once who had had polio. He as born in ’58 so I’m not sure if he didn’t get the vaccine or what. He was “lucky” in that all he had was one paralyzed leg.

      • Kazia
        at #

        My mom was born in 1956 and had a classmate who had polio. They were good friends. She would have named me after him had I been a boy.

    • SporkParade
      at #

      Well, it’s good news for the last few people living in iron lungs since the company that made the spare parts for the iron lungs has gone out of business.

      • SporkParade
        at #

        Oh, and it’s entirely possible, thanks to Bashar al-Assad denying vaccines to areas of Syria not under his control. Israel has already revaccinated all the children who had received the injectable polio vaccine with the oral one after polio was found in the sewage system, but most European countries don’t monitor their sewage for pathogens, which means that they won’t know if it’s arrived until someone actually gets sick.

      • Sue
        at #

        The return of widespread polio would be a tragedy, but at least the tecnology for portable positive-pressure ventilators has progressed dramatically. From the same medical science that brings us vaccines.

    • Liz Leyden
      at #

      Polio outbreaks still happen in Pakistan and northern Nigeria.

      • Ainsley Nicholson
        at #

        Actually, not in Nigeria for the last 6 months…it is possible that transmission has been interrupted there.

  112. Kazia
    at #

    Two of my professors talked about vaccines and about how they do NOT cause autism. We also looked at Wakefield’s original article and pointed out the many flaws.

  113. Sullivan ThePoop
    at #

    The weird thing is antivaxx parents think that they are are acting out against authority when they are really acting against expertise.

    • at #

      Well said!

  114. Someone
    at #

    Spot on, Dr. Amy!