Slashdot Mirror

Children have a greater chance of getting stuck by lightning than catching measles.

Kinda makes sense that people who commonly do risk assessment would choose not to vaccinate.

Especially when the majority of polio cases in the united states are caused by vaccinations than any other sources combined.

PS:Iâ(TM)ve had both vaccinations.

The risk of getting struck by lightning is pretty low, but I'm still not going to stand in an open field with a metal rod during a thunderstorm.

Children have a greater chance of getting stuck by lightning than catching measles.

Kinda makes sense that people who commonly do risk assessment would choose not to vaccinate.

Especially when the majority of polio cases in the united states are caused by vaccinations than any other sources combined.

PS:Iâ(TM)ve had both vaccinations.

The risk of getting struck by lightning is pretty low, but I'm still not going to stand in an open field with a metal rod during a thunderstorm.

Children have a greater chance of getting stuck by lightning than catching measles.

Kinda makes sense that people who commonly do risk assessment would choose not to vaccinate.

Especially when the majority of polio cases in the united states are caused by vaccinations than any other sources combined.

PS:Iâ(TM)ve had both vaccinations.

Children have a greater chance of getting stuck by lightning than catching measles.

Kinda makes sense that people who commonly do risk assessment would choose not to vaccinate.

Especially when the majority of polio cases in the united states are caused by vaccinations than any other sources combined.

PS:Iâ(TM)ve had both vaccinations.

Measles outbreak is almost entirely tied to either people who just got Vaccinated (read the literature on it, it causes Measles), and people coming in from out of the country (undocumented, illegally). BUT you're too fucking PC to actually acknowledge the problem.

Citation on that literature? I just visited the CDC and 'measles' is not listed as a side effect of the MMR vaccine.

And Autism is linked to Vaccinations (See Italy's court rulings),

After seeing Italy's rulings over the Knox case, I trust them less than the US. Besides, plenty of studies over in Europe disproving the Autism thing. You do realize that it was proven that the doctor fabricated his findings in order to further a lawsuit hoping for a payout from the vaccine makers, right?

According to the CDC there were less than 700 cases out of a population of over 300,000,000.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cas...
Measles is NOT A PROBLEM. They are TERRORIZING you.

It's popular to blame the ultra-liberal elite, but the reality is that outbreaks haven't been occurring within that population. In 2014, there was a surge of measles cases due to an outbreak in an Ohio Amish community. There hasn't been as many cases within a year since the Christian science student outbreak in 1994 in Missouri/Illinois.

On a side note, my friend in Mississippi was very excited about getting a Whole Foods. Apparently, there isn't too much variety in food down there.

How serious is the disease?

Measles itself is unpleasant, but the complications are dangerous. Six to 20 percent of the people who get the disease will get an ear infection, diarrhea, or even pneumonia. One out of 1000 people with measles will develop inflammation of the brain, and about one out of 1000 will die.

And remember. the chance of contracting measles in this country is low because of widespread vaccination:

Why is vaccination necessary? In the decade before the measles vaccination program began, an estimated 3–4 million persons in the United States were infected each year, of whom 400–500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and another 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis. Widespread use of measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99% reduction in measles cases in the United States compared with the pre-vaccine era.

However, measles is still common in other countries. The virus is highly contagious and can spread rapidly in areas where vaccination is not widespread. It is estimated that in 2006 there were 242,000 measles deaths worldwide—that equals about 663 deaths every day or 27 deaths every hour. If vaccinations were stopped, measles cases would return to pre-vaccine levels and hundreds of people would die from measles-related illnesses.

Going back to the pre-vaccine days, including population growth, we'd be seeing almost 10 million cases a year un the US (so much for your "tiny risk of exposure"), over 1000 deaths every year, and several thousand cases of chronic disability from measles encephalitis.

Not getting vaccinated for measles is a deliberate act of recklessness.

Rabies vaccination is not for the sake of the dog -- that's just a positive side effect.

The real reason rabies vacc is mandatory in much of the developed world is for protection of humans, because rabies is so readily transmissible, and is (with single-digit exceptions) 100% fatal. Annually there are about 55,000 human deaths from rabies, worldwide.

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

Incidentally, there have been a few cases of 'rescue' dogs imported from third-world countries, arriving with active rabies infections.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

The whole public school thing is just another measure of control, a way for the Federal Government to try and stick its nose into more states rights using money.

You really need to look into school vaccination requirements. School immunization requirements is on a State by State basis and not federally mandated.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates and licenses all vaccines to ensure safety and effectiveness. No federal vaccination laws exist, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Depending on the state, children must be vaccinated against some or all of the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and polio.

It is virologically impossible to spread smallpox with blankets. The whole story is mythology. The smallpox virus lives maximum 48 hours exposed to air and light. About enough time to move something 40 miles in pioneer days.

I'm sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Infectivity from smallpox contaminated fabrics has been documented after more than a year. Not mythology at all.

Here is the key paragraph:

In the mid-twentieth century, there was concern for inadvertent importation of variola virus into Great Britain in raw cotton shipped in from tropical areas (22). Suspicion was raised for this vehicle of importation after outbreaks occurred in British workers who handled raw cotton. An experiment was conducted to test the viability of variola virus derived from smallpox lesion crusts found in imported raw cotton (19). Viable virus was obtained 530 days from crusts stored in indirect light at room temperature. Crusts stored at higher humidity (73% and 84%) were viable until 70 and 60 days, respectively. Similar results were obtained from a study in Bangladesh, which found viable virus could be isolated from crusts stored at lower temperatures.

It is a fact that the influenza vaccine kills more people every year than influenza, and it's success rate is less than 30%.

If that's a fact that should be easy to prove. Please provide proof.

I tried the "let me google that for you" and got some anti-vaccine sites that gave anecdotes like "7 year old injected, 4 days later DEAD" from 2012, which sounds bad for sure, and then medical statistics saying "0 deaths from flu vaccines" from 2014 and specifically refuting the above example.

Save the "for the children" bullshit arguments.

No. We are literally doing this to save the children. That's what this is. This isn't a nipple slip case, this is deadly infectious diseases.

Only a massive increase in Autism and a laundry list of other physiological disorders, but we can't make a simple goddamn correlation to investigate.

You know that even the people who promoted this claim originally have recanted, and the original studies were invalidated?

we have to take some asshat's word for it that it's perfectly safe right? You are an idiot.

Some asshat?

Listen, you are "Anonymous Coward". Others on this who aren't AC are still aliases. Everyone on slashdot is just some asshat. If I listened to anything you said without a citation I'd be listening to some asshat.

The people whose words I'm taking are medical doctors and scientists. Who, by the way, do this to their own children, so you know they aren't just fucking around.

Here's some people who aren't just "some asshat". You may argue that they are wrong (futilely, but you can argue it), but you are not talking about the real world if you call them "some asshat":

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...

It is a fact that the influenza vaccine kills more people every year than influenza, and it's success rate is less than 30%.

If that's a fact that should be easy to prove. Please provide proof.

I tried the "let me google that for you" and got some anti-vaccine sites that gave anecdotes like "7 year old injected, 4 days later DEAD" from 2012, which sounds bad for sure, and then medical statistics saying "0 deaths from flu vaccines" from 2014 and specifically refuting the above example.

Save the "for the children" bullshit arguments.

No. We are literally doing this to save the children. That's what this is. This isn't a nipple slip case, this is deadly infectious diseases.

Only a massive increase in Autism and a laundry list of other physiological disorders, but we can't make a simple goddamn correlation to investigate.

You know that even the people who promoted this claim originally have recanted, and the original studies were invalidated?

we have to take some asshat's word for it that it's perfectly safe right? You are an idiot.

Some asshat?

Listen, you are "Anonymous Coward". Others on this who aren't AC are still aliases. Everyone on slashdot is just some asshat. If I listened to anything you said without a citation I'd be listening to some asshat.

The people whose words I'm taking are medical doctors and scientists. Who, by the way, do this to their own children, so you know they aren't just fucking around.

Here's some people who aren't just "some asshat". You may argue that they are wrong (futilely, but you can argue it), but you are not talking about the real world if you call them "some asshat":

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...

It is a fact that the influenza vaccine kills more people every year than influenza, and it's success rate is less than 30%.

If that's a fact that should be easy to prove. Please provide proof.

I tried the "let me google that for you" and got some anti-vaccine sites that gave anecdotes like "7 year old injected, 4 days later DEAD" from 2012, which sounds bad for sure, and then medical statistics saying "0 deaths from flu vaccines" from 2014 and specifically refuting the above example.

Save the "for the children" bullshit arguments.

No. We are literally doing this to save the children. That's what this is. This isn't a nipple slip case, this is deadly infectious diseases.

Only a massive increase in Autism and a laundry list of other physiological disorders, but we can't make a simple goddamn correlation to investigate.

You know that even the people who promoted this claim originally have recanted, and the original studies were invalidated?

we have to take some asshat's word for it that it's perfectly safe right? You are an idiot.

Some asshat?

Listen, you are "Anonymous Coward". Others on this who aren't AC are still aliases. Everyone on slashdot is just some asshat. If I listened to anything you said without a citation I'd be listening to some asshat.

The people whose words I'm taking are medical doctors and scientists. Who, by the way, do this to their own children, so you know they aren't just fucking around.

Here's some people who aren't just "some asshat". You may argue that they are wrong (futilely, but you can argue it), but you are not talking about the real world if you call them "some asshat":

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...

All of which is less that the risk of death/disease without vaccines. In 26 years there have been 3,540 cases compensated. That covers all vaccines.
According to the CDC;

Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, we estimate that about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (brain swelling) from measles.

If you use those figures to calculate the effect of not having the vaccine over 26 years you get 78 million infections, 10,400 deaths and 96,000 cases of encephalitis. That is only one of the big three vaccines. That makes 3,500 cases seem like a very small number.

Vaccines are not completely safe but not having vaccines is less save by orders of magnitude.

He said that he has heard of cases. And if you look at the list of side effects on the CDC page, you find that he's right.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

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

The argument for vaccines is that the benefits outweigh the risks. That's a good argument for taking them. It's questionable that it's a good argument for forcing people to take them.

The idea behind a vaccine is not to just protect the individual who gets it, but to protect the population at large. Those who choose not to get vaccinated are threatening other people's lives—the lives of those who may not even know they are being threatened.

Measles? http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm

We are starting to see just the beginnings of the results of this anti-vaccination movement:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/05/29/u-s-measles-outbreak-sets-record-for-post-elimination-era
http://news.health.com/2015/01/28/u-s-measles-outbreak-now-numbers-87-cases/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whooping-cough-outbreak-reaches-epidemic-level-in-california/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/health/ohio-mumps/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/24/nhl-mumps-vaccines_n_6375744.html

I think the most sickening part of it all is that most anti-vax parents have gotten their immunisations when they were a child, yet refuse to let their own children get them. It's sad that it will take at least another 5-10+ years, and many more outbreaks, before the anti-vaxers will even start to get swayed. We may likely see pre-immunisation-era numbers of infections before then though, especially with the world being as small as it is today compared to yesteryear.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

Check out the deep south and mid-west (AKA "Jesusland"); as regions, the have the low vaccination exemption rates compared to more liberal western and northeastern states. 7 of the 8 most vaccinated states when to Romney in '12.

Auto accident deaths number about 33,000 per year in the U.S. Not only is it not a leading cause of death, it doesn't even make the top 10. Hell, more people are accidently poisoned each year (38,000) then die in car accidents.

The CDC disagrees with all of your assessments. Sorry if I trust them over some troll who cant bother to post a link to any legitimate sources.

The suit should be against the company making the vaccine because it failed to work as advertised. That's if you are actually desiring to blame the party that failed to uphold its own end of the deal (and not other people for failing to agree with you).

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp...
How effective is MMR vaccine?
More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose.

That's what manufacturers advertise, and that's the deal they have to uphold. Something like 1/1,000 people who get two doses will not get immunity. If everybody got two doses of MMR, the viruses wouldn't propagate, and those 1/1,000 people would be safe because of herd immunity. If some stupid, selfish people refuse to get vaccinated, they're putting those 1/1,000 people at risk. Those stupid, selfish people are responsible for the deaths of those 1/1,000 people. They should be forced to choose between getting vaccinated, or being quarantined all their lives like Typhoid Mary. The law on that goes back hundreds of years, to European law.

Most people would be shocked to learn that over 80% of what doctors practice has no scientific basis whatsoever. Evidence-based medicine is a relatively small part of things. It's a classic case of sheeple following authority (oh noes, he said sheeple to describe people who act like herd animals instead of being individuals, that bastard, we hate him now!).

90% of statistics, including yours, are bullshit.

In the UK, doctors work for the government, and NICE reviews the scientific evidence behind every treatment for effectiveness. No effectiveness, no treatment. I've read the NICE studies and they do a pretty good job.

In the US, Medicare, Medicaid and the private insurance companies also review medical treatments for effectiveness, although politics has more influence here. Also doctors who are making money in the free market are more likely to do things just because they can make money out of them. And consumers are mostly stupid. So they give antibiotics to everybody who comes in with a cold.

The flu vaccinations are for the very young and the very old.

The CDC reccomends everyone over 6 months get the vaccine with certain exceptions. They are better informed on this subject than you are.

I do not get the flu. I have never had it. I have never had a flu vaccine and don't plan on getting one until my body is so frail that the common flu is a threat to me.

Consider yourself lucky. The flu can be quite unpleasant. In fact it sometimes can be so unpleasant that it kills young and healthy people. Your choice to get vaccinated or not but the notion that the flu only affects the weak and frail is demonstrably nonsense.

Sure, I got the flu a couple times (in my childhood). Sure I had ear aches (however, I have serious ear problems, resulting in multiple surgeries and my being nearly deaf). But: athletes foot? migraines? frequent sore throats and pink eye? pneumonia? Nope, none of it.

I certainly didn't get the flu every year and I definitely didn't get most of the stuff you listed. I've been quite healthy, with the minor exception of the ears being useless. The CDC's own stats support this, with only roughly 20-30% of specimens tested being positive for influenza. That's not "most people". It's significant, sure, but it isn't "most people" and it's definitely not "most people every year".

I think you might consider getting your hypochondria checked out.

Pneumonia is caused by bacteria, the flu by a virus.

So much to your "retarded" idea that the vaccination against flu caused your pneumonia.

To avoid looking like an idiot and asshole, it might be worth looking up Flu-Related Complications.

BECAUSE MISUNDERSTANDINGS LIKE THIS ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE

You're defending people who are bright enough to avoid the warnings, for the last 40 years. Do you flip out on people eating fast food? Heart disease is the leading killer.

Vaping IS cool, AND it is saving lives- more than the gum ever did.

Stopping a bad habit is beneficial, who would've thought? There are fewer smokers today despite vaping.

It's worth some karma. It's worth some anger. It's worth my ego versus yours. If you are opposed to tobacco replacement for smokers, if you spread lies about how e-cigs are like "lite cigs", then you are literally causing cancer.

Did adults suddenly not become responsible for their behavior? Their actions are solely responsible, not some blowhard on a forum, the person willfully inhaling.

YOU BECOME A CARCINOGEN. And unlike tobacco and the other carcinogens, you have agency, and can fix your goddamned shit. And you best do it fast before a statistically signifigant portion of your smoker friends are injured or killed, when your attitude could instead have lead them to STOP smoking, START vaping, and not have had that happen.

Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot put into their body? Sounds like these people lack discipline and willpower to deny themselves something they've LEARNED to like. FYI I'm a former smoker and not an antismoking nazi either.

This really intrigues me because it never struck me that this could be a mechanism for antibiotic resistance. It is even more interesting to me knowing the first CRE (Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae)

clearly arose in India [source]

but the reasons weren't clear to me and I just naively assumed it was a random mutation. India, also according to to that same paper has quite a problem with antibiotic resistance which one wouldn't expect as there isn't so much of a problem with antibiotic overuse as there seems to be in the West. So, maybe not so random and maybe we have honed in on a legit reason for growing resistance.

The other problem in India and similar places is that the dosage wasn't what the label said. The doctor may have prescribed 500 mg of amoxicillin, and the patient bought capsules in a bottle labeled 500mg amoxicillin, but what was in those capsules was a fraction of the prescribed dosage.

Case in point is Ranbaxy who sold millions of doses of what they knew was non-performing anti-retroviral drugs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...
And more like this:
http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/...
http://fortune.com/2013/01/10/...

The bad part is Ranbaxy only got caught because one of their executives was an American who ratted them out.
Ranbaxy only got into trouble because they tried to sell their crap in the USA, otherwise nothing would have happened to them.
There are numerous other drug companies with the same ethics, but they don't try to sell in the USA or Europe, so they'll never get caught.

Another thing I did not know is that the FDA almost never test drugs for efficacy.
What happens is the drug company does the tests and the FDA looks at the drug companies documentation and procedures and signs off on that. This is why cheaters don't get caught - they are grading their own papers, so to speak.

BTW, Ranbaxy was bought by Sun Pharma, so Who Knows where their drugs are going now.

This really intrigues me because it never struck me that this could be a mechanism for antibiotic resistance. It is even more interesting to me knowing the first CRE (Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae)

clearly arose in India [source]

but the reasons weren't clear to me and I just naively assumed it was a random mutation. India, also according to to that same paper has quite a problem with antibiotic resistance which one wouldn't expect as there isn't so much of a problem with antibiotic overuse as there seems to be in the West. So, maybe not so random and maybe we have honed in on a legit reason for growing resistance.

> The "child protection" services have all the apparent responsibilities of caring, without having to pay the price for the efforts they demand

"Responsibility without accountability" is the mantra that explain all the abuses the government commits in the name of safety. Just one random example, it explains the fact that the TSA exposed its own employees to radiation that "exceeded the maximum dose for the public." They make the rules but there is not enough oversight to make them accountable for bad decisions.

Right out of school is when women are most likely to get pregnant and quit work, after their employer has spent perhaps $10,000 getting them up to speed in the company environment.

[citation needed]

The mean age of first birth in the US is 25.8 years. The number of people with at least one degree is over 30% - and people with more education tend to wait longer to have a kid. I believe that you're letting false stereotypes influence your views. Happy New Year!

Drunk driving responsible for 31% of fatalities.
At least 23% of all accidents involved texting
For some reason, it is difficult to find statistics of percentage of actual accidents caused by drunk driving and similarly difficult to find statistics of fatalities caused by texting. I'm not sure why statistics are gathered differently for these two areas. But it does seem that well over half of all accidents are caused by one or the other.
I would bet that a close third is people who follow too close.

Wow, so we've now gone as far as drive while drunk once, and get the death penalty? Wow...

Worse than that. These people aren't thinking clearly. In fact, I wonder if they may be excessively fatigued.

Have any of these people advocating extreme punishments for victimless DUI have ever driven while tired? Because, if so, they are likely hypocrites.

Cognitive impairment after approximately 18 hours awake is similar to that of someone with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05%. After about 24 hours awake, impairment is equivalent to a BAC of 0.10%, higher than the legal limit in all states.

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/ds...

I'm guessing most of these people calling for draconian punishment for DUI are merely neo-Prohibitionists. They haven't built a solid case for why these punishments are deserved, whereas other driving impairments that can induce driving impairments equivalent to the 0.08 BAC level such as cell phone, eating, screaming kids in the back seat, etc, are not.

Let's be consistent! First offense, driving while tired: summary execution via rectal impalement, on the side of the road, followed by gibbeting until the corpse is dismembered by wild animals! That will *definitely* work and is a proportional punishment. Those tired fucks deserve whatever we give them, because they've... and... ... yeah!

In 2012 there were 30,800 fatal motor vehicle crashes.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/...

In 2012, 10,322 involved alcohol. (31%)

In 2012 there were 112 million self reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehicl...

The population of the US is 316 million.

I think the statistics speak for themselves, drunk driving does not significantly increase the chance for a fatal accident. We just happen to be a nation of drunks.

Actually here are the real numbers. GP is pretty close, though.

It lumps all accidents together, I couldn't find a breakdown of them. But I am willing to be that car accidents are the vast majority of them.

1. Accidents (over 37% of all deaths in this range)
2. Suicide
3. Homicide
4. Cancer
5. Heart Disease
(HIV is #6 for the 25-34 group)

Cancer and Heart Disease are #1 and #2 overall. Those will tend to get almost everyone in the end. If you manage not to die young.

Now, comparing with the 2002 data, a large drop in accident deaths in the 15-24 group, while 25-34 group went up. The total for both groups is lower, though. I am going to go out on a limb here and say this is due to cars getting safer, and not teenagers getting smarter. :)

Actually here are the real numbers. GP is pretty close, though.

It lumps all accidents together, I couldn't find a breakdown of them. But I am willing to be that car accidents are the vast majority of them.

1. Accidents (over 37% of all deaths in this range)
2. Suicide
3. Homicide
4. Cancer
5. Heart Disease
(HIV is #6 for the 25-34 group)

Cancer and Heart Disease are #1 and #2 overall. Those will tend to get almost everyone in the end. If you manage not to die young.

Now, comparing with the 2002 data, a large drop in accident deaths in the 15-24 group, while 25-34 group went up. The total for both groups is lower, though. I am going to go out on a limb here and say this is due to cars getting safer, and not teenagers getting smarter. :)

Wow, I remember back when I was young and naive and hadn't been taught the rule of thumb that if it came out of a body and didn't come out of yours, it's a hazardous material. Wait, no, I was taught about toxoplasmosis as a small child, so I was never innocent about cat feces.

As a well-educated cat owner, I will spend money on something if it means I never have to come into direct contact with cat feces. At least with a baby, the odds are pretty good that the bacterial burden will be rather close to mine. That said, I'd still suggest washing hands before and after & using gloves if the kid or you are unlucky enough to be sick, and point out that probably the safest choice for dealing with diapers are disposable diapers that can be incinerated and the ashes used to enrich the soil. (And, really, I'd want a baby bidet: just wash the poor baby's ass clean.)

Perhaps you are not familiar with the "evidence-based medicine" movement which calls blinded RCTs the "gold-standard" of evidence when testing a treatment.

Again, absence of a blind RCT study doesn't mean the observation is wrong.

A more than three orders of magnitude change doesn't require blinded RCTs to be observed. The "gold standard" is sufficient, but it is not necessary, to confirm observations that are orders of magnitude in strength. Finally, a blind RCT requires that some people get exposed to measles without the protection of the vaccine (the "controls"). That creates significant suffering and risk of death or major injury in order to confirm a strong signal. What is there to gain scientifically that justifies that price in suffering? I see no justification for it.

You seem to forget that it's all the true-blue liberal "smrat" people and areas who are the real anti-vaxxers.
We red-necks get our free guvmunt medicines.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

Broken down by vaccine, the states with the best MMR vaccine rates were:
1. Mississippi (99.9%);
2. Maryland (98.2%);
3. South Dakota (97.9%);
4. Texas (97.5%); and
5. Wyoming (97.5%).

Blue California was well behind at 92.7%
Summary from a CDC study linked:
Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding 75,000 dollars, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children.

In other words, Whole Foods, organic, homeopathic liberals.

As a pediatrician, how do you rationalize recommending the chicken pox vaccine? As an MD and a "scientist", you surely know that vaccines are a class of medicine, not a single medicine. So, saying anything positive of negative about the outcome of vaccines can only be used to discuss whether the basic concept is sound. It cannot dictate whether all vaccines are good or bad.

Rationalization: chicken pox vaccine benefits > risks Yes, a class of medicines can be collectively evaluated. NSAIDs are often collectively evaluated. It all depends on the question you are asking.

You have surely seen the statistics on chicken pox. It has a mortality rate of ~100-120 people a year. 10-12 of those are children for the entire US. So, from your list of dangerous things, chicken pox shouldn't even show up on the radar. As a pediatrician, you surely have also seen that the chicken pox vaccine has failed to give permanent immunity, and you are surely aware that the risk to adults from chicken pox is 10x that of children.

Quoting CDC here: "Before the chickenpox vaccine was widely used, nearly 11,000 people were hospitalized each year and about 50 children and 50 adults died every year from chickenpox. Most people who died from chickenpox were completely healthy before they got the disease, with no known conditions that put them at higher risk for a severe case of chickenpox. Thanks to vaccination, serious cases and deaths from chickenpox have declined dramatically. Since the United States started using the vaccine in 1995, the number of hospitalizations and deaths from chickenpox has gone down more than 90%." http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp...

So, as a medical doctor, how do you rationalize increasing a person's risk of mortality by 10x? How do you continue to push the agenda that all vaccines are created equal? How do you rationalize having a kitchen in your home and cooking home cooked meals for your children when you are surely aware that that 3x as many people burn to death in their kitchen every year than died of chicken pox pre-vaccine? And home cooked meal deaths are 100% preventable.

Not equal, you moron, but comparable. It may be hard for you to understand but if risks > benefits then vaccines do not get approved or get pulled back once that is discovered. All of doctors' children get the same vaccines that your children do, why would doctors support some kind of conspiracy against their own children? You should try taking the tinfoil off sometime :-)

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

I quit agree. vaccinations should be voluntary.
And those people who don't want to participate in a civilized modern society can move to Africa or someplace where you won't be imposed upon by these rules..
I know it sounds like the "love it or leave it" trope from the 60's, but I'm serious. If people want to have the benefits of a modern society, then they should participate in it or leave. We already have enough parasites of all kinds.

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

I quit agree. vaccinations should be voluntary.
And those people who don't want to participate in a civilized modern society can move to Africa or someplace where you won't be imposed upon by these rules..
I know it sounds like the "love it or leave it" trope from the 60's, but I'm serious. If people want to have the benefits of a modern society, then they should participate in it or leave. We already have enough parasites of all kinds.

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

I quit agree. vaccinations should be voluntary.
And those people who don't want to participate in a civilized modern society can move to Africa or someplace where you won't be imposed upon by these rules..
I know it sounds like the "love it or leave it" trope from the 60's, but I'm serious. If people want to have the benefits of a modern society, then they should participate in it or leave. We already have enough parasites of all kinds.

I had a severe reaction to the flu vaccine and nearly died. Rather than enriching the doctor who gets paid when I take a jab, I now decide what goes into my body. Fact Check: list of additives in most vaccines: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

No, that did not happen. You made up the story about "nearly died".

I'm skeptical that there's actual evidence of severe adverse reactions (aside from the occasional allergic reaction). "I had a vaccine and then this bad thing happened to me," is not an indication that the vaccine caused the bad thing. It might have, but the severe reactions have been so incredibly rare that there's really no evidence of a causal link, as near as I can tell.

But what you are asking for here is a far, far higher barrier to obtaining a vaccination than is asked for for most any other medical procedure or remedy. The real information is, "This will protect your child, and the population as a whole, from serious diseases. It most likely won't cause any issues. Your child may have minor cold symptoms for a bit, which means the vaccine is working."

The CDC's page is informative here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

Note that under the "severe" reactions is usually the disclaimer that they can't actually be sure this reaction is caused by the vaccine. I'd be willing to bet that disclaimer should really be expanded to encompass every vaccine on the list, aside from the allergic reactions.

Where the bleep do you get that stuff? Looking at the CDC vaccination guidelines, I come up with an absolute maximum of 33 doses of 10 different vaccines, and a lot of that stuff is pretty well optional. Similarly, your claim that the CDC says MMR can cause permanent brain damage would be more believable if (a) it was taken from a CDC website, and (b) you hadn't already made a ridiculous claim.

The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine nearly killed me when I was a child.

Sorry to hear that. I know someone allergic to tylenol, should we ban that too?

The evidence is that the greater good is served by extensive vaccinations. The risk of getting pertussis 9/100,000 (varies by age with less than 1 yr old having an incidence of 160/100,000) this resulted in about 28,000 cases in 2013, with about 50% of infants requiring hospitalization, and further, there were 13 deaths from pertussis, he risks of reaction to DTaP (the pertussis vaccine) is "so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine". Here's the data, you make the call. Your "evidence" where n=1, or the CDC who collects the data over the whole of the US or surveillance of about 300,000,000 people (n=3x10^6).

Take a look at vaccine adjuvants[sic].

Ok, I've looked at them. So?

To start off with, I am a physician. No secrete about that... I've posted many times in regard to medical issue on slashdot. I do not know your background or motives, but I will now look at your argument.

Doctors are not scientists, they are business people, and use a lot of hocus-pocus for financial and other reasons. For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing.

So let me examine this argument...biologists are scientists. Right? So are scientist to be trusted or not?

So are doctors (physicians are what I assume you mean) not scientists? From the first paragraph of wikipedia:

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Hmmm. So by your logic I am not a scientist. But I have just proven to you that I have a dedication to acquire knowledge, and in fact have gone further to educate the group here at large. Did I use the scientific method? Fromwikipedia:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Well, I am not a bench scientists (even though I do have a BS in biochemistry and and BS in engineering), but I do write peer reviewed article in the medical literature . I use a standard and a control, I examine the independent variable in regards to the dependent variables. Can I control all of the variable as in a lab? Nope. So I use statistical methodology to arrive at the most probable conclusion. Is this always right? Nope. That's why we have conflicting studies out there. Do I present a hypothesis and try to arrive at a conclusion about said hypothesis? Yep. Do I have to get approval to even collect data from an insitutiaonl review board? Yep - Oh! Wait! - most scientists don't have to do that do they?

Hmmm, do I meet that definition? You tell me.

As for not knowing much about the human body: I spent 6 1/2 years earning two bache

The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine nearly killed me when I was a child.

Sorry to hear that. I know someone allergic to tylenol, should we ban that too?

The evidence is that the greater good is served by extensive vaccinations. The risk of getting pertussis 9/100,000 (varies by age with less than 1 yr old having an incidence of 160/100,000) this resulted in about 28,000 cases in 2013, with about 50% of infants requiring hospitalization, and further, there were 13 deaths from pertussis, he risks of reaction to DTaP (the pertussis vaccine) is "so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine". Here's the data, you make the call. Your "evidence" where n=1, or the CDC who collects the data over the whole of the US or surveillance of about 300,000,000 people (n=3x10^6).

Take a look at vaccine adjuvants[sic].

Ok, I've looked at them. So?

To start off with, I am a physician. No secrete about that... I've posted many times in regard to medical issue on slashdot. I do not know your background or motives, but I will now look at your argument.

Doctors are not scientists, they are business people, and use a lot of hocus-pocus for financial and other reasons. For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing.

So let me examine this argument...biologists are scientists. Right? So are scientist to be trusted or not?

So are doctors (physicians are what I assume you mean) not scientists? From the first paragraph of wikipedia:

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Hmmm. So by your logic I am not a scientist. But I have just proven to you that I have a dedication to acquire knowledge, and in fact have gone further to educate the group here at large. Did I use the scientific method? Fromwikipedia:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Well, I am not a bench scientists (even though I do have a BS in biochemistry and and BS in engineering), but I do write peer reviewed article in the medical literature . I use a standard and a control, I examine the independent variable in regards to the dependent variables. Can I control all of the variable as in a lab? Nope. So I use statistical methodology to arrive at the most probable conclusion. Is this always right? Nope. That's why we have conflicting studies out there. Do I present a hypothesis and try to arrive at a conclusion about said hypothesis? Yep. Do I have to get approval to even collect data from an insitutiaonl review board? Yep - Oh! Wait! - most scientists don't have to do that do they?

Hmmm, do I meet that definition? You tell me.

As for not knowing much about the human body: I spent 6 1/2 years earning two bache

The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine nearly killed me when I was a child.

Sorry to hear that. I know someone allergic to tylenol, should we ban that too?

The evidence is that the greater good is served by extensive vaccinations. The risk of getting pertussis 9/100,000 (varies by age with less than 1 yr old having an incidence of 160/100,000) this resulted in about 28,000 cases in 2013, with about 50% of infants requiring hospitalization, and further, there were 13 deaths from pertussis, he risks of reaction to DTaP (the pertussis vaccine) is "so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine". Here's the data, you make the call. Your "evidence" where n=1, or the CDC who collects the data over the whole of the US or surveillance of about 300,000,000 people (n=3x10^6).

Take a look at vaccine adjuvants[sic].

Ok, I've looked at them. So?

To start off with, I am a physician. No secrete about that... I've posted many times in regard to medical issue on slashdot. I do not know your background or motives, but I will now look at your argument.

Doctors are not scientists, they are business people, and use a lot of hocus-pocus for financial and other reasons. For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing.

So let me examine this argument...biologists are scientists. Right? So are scientist to be trusted or not?

So are doctors (physicians are what I assume you mean) not scientists? From the first paragraph of wikipedia:

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Hmmm. So by your logic I am not a scientist. But I have just proven to you that I have a dedication to acquire knowledge, and in fact have gone further to educate the group here at large. Did I use the scientific method? Fromwikipedia:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Well, I am not a bench scientists (even though I do have a BS in biochemistry and and BS in engineering), but I do write peer reviewed article in the medical literature . I use a standard and a control, I examine the independent variable in regards to the dependent variables. Can I control all of the variable as in a lab? Nope. So I use statistical methodology to arrive at the most probable conclusion. Is this always right? Nope. That's why we have conflicting studies out there. Do I present a hypothesis and try to arrive at a conclusion about said hypothesis? Yep. Do I have to get approval to even collect data from an insitutiaonl review board? Yep - Oh! Wait! - most scientists don't have to do that do they?

Hmmm, do I meet that definition? You tell me.

As for not knowing much about the human body: I spent 6 1/2 years earning two bache

The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine nearly killed me when I was a child.

Sorry to hear that. I know someone allergic to tylenol, should we ban that too?

The evidence is that the greater good is served by extensive vaccinations. The risk of getting pertussis 9/100,000 (varies by age with less than 1 yr old having an incidence of 160/100,000) this resulted in about 28,000 cases in 2013, with about 50% of infants requiring hospitalization, and further, there were 13 deaths from pertussis, he risks of reaction to DTaP (the pertussis vaccine) is "so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine". Here's the data, you make the call. Your "evidence" where n=1, or the CDC who collects the data over the whole of the US or surveillance of about 300,000,000 people (n=3x10^6).

Take a look at vaccine adjuvants[sic].

Ok, I've looked at them. So?

To start off with, I am a physician. No secrete about that... I've posted many times in regard to medical issue on slashdot. I do not know your background or motives, but I will now look at your argument.

Doctors are not scientists, they are business people, and use a lot of hocus-pocus for financial and other reasons. For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing.

So let me examine this argument...biologists are scientists. Right? So are scientist to be trusted or not?

So are doctors (physicians are what I assume you mean) not scientists? From the first paragraph of wikipedia:

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Hmmm. So by your logic I am not a scientist. But I have just proven to you that I have a dedication to acquire knowledge, and in fact have gone further to educate the group here at large. Did I use the scientific method? Fromwikipedia:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Well, I am not a bench scientists (even though I do have a BS in biochemistry and and BS in engineering), but I do write peer reviewed article in the medical literature . I use a standard and a control, I examine the independent variable in regards to the dependent variables. Can I control all of the variable as in a lab? Nope. So I use statistical methodology to arrive at the most probable conclusion. Is this always right? Nope. That's why we have conflicting studies out there. Do I present a hypothesis and try to arrive at a conclusion about said hypothesis? Yep. Do I have to get approval to even collect data from an insitutiaonl review board? Yep - Oh! Wait! - most scientists don't have to do that do they?

Hmmm, do I meet that definition? You tell me.

As for not knowing much about the human body: I spent 6 1/2 years earning two bache

The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine nearly killed me when I was a child.

Sorry to hear that. I know someone allergic to tylenol, should we ban that too?

The evidence is that the greater good is served by extensive vaccinations. The risk of getting pertussis 9/100,000 (varies by age with less than 1 yr old having an incidence of 160/100,000) this resulted in about 28,000 cases in 2013, with about 50% of infants requiring hospitalization, and further, there were 13 deaths from pertussis, he risks of reaction to DTaP (the pertussis vaccine) is "so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine". Here's the data, you make the call. Your "evidence" where n=1, or the CDC who collects the data over the whole of the US or surveillance of about 300,000,000 people (n=3x10^6).

Take a look at vaccine adjuvants[sic].

Ok, I've looked at them. So?

To start off with, I am a physician. No secrete about that... I've posted many times in regard to medical issue on slashdot. I do not know your background or motives, but I will now look at your argument.

Doctors are not scientists, they are business people, and use a lot of hocus-pocus for financial and other reasons. For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing.

So let me examine this argument...biologists are scientists. Right? So are scientist to be trusted or not?

So are doctors (physicians are what I assume you mean) not scientists? From the first paragraph of wikipedia:

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Hmmm. So by your logic I am not a scientist. But I have just proven to you that I have a dedication to acquire knowledge, and in fact have gone further to educate the group here at large. Did I use the scientific method? Fromwikipedia:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Well, I am not a bench scientists (even though I do have a BS in biochemistry and and BS in engineering), but I do write peer reviewed article in the medical literature . I use a standard and a control, I examine the independent variable in regards to the dependent variables. Can I control all of the variable as in a lab? Nope. So I use statistical methodology to arrive at the most probable conclusion. Is this always right? Nope. That's why we have conflicting studies out there. Do I present a hypothesis and try to arrive at a conclusion about said hypothesis? Yep. Do I have to get approval to even collect data from an insitutiaonl review board? Yep - Oh! Wait! - most scientists don't have to do that do they?

Hmmm, do I meet that definition? You tell me.

As for not knowing much about the human body: I spent 6 1/2 years earning two bache

We can't have a rational dialogue because you make statements like that one.

Oh, the fact that you want clarification makes it an irrational dialogue? I don't believe you actually understand what dialogue is supposed to be if that's the case, but I'll bite once. All of the information that follows is using the CDC as the source unless I provide a link.

First, you can look up the rates for Autism without any help. This is one of many neurological disorders which have skyrocketed in the US over the last 40 years. In the 1970s and 1980s we were at 1 in 2000, and today it's at 1 in 68. This is only one of many, not the only disorder that has increased. Yeah yeah, our detection is better now but the reported cases of severe autism make up the majority of those numbers.

You can also look up the fact that we have moved from 8 vaccines (1 combo 1 series) from 1960-1980 to today's 49 doses of 14 vaccines today without help as well. CDC link, and here is a breakdown link to help you get started. Oh, and this by age 6 and by age 18 this goes to 69 doses of 16 vaccines.

We have drastically increased the amount of vaccines we get in our most sensitive year of development, and at the same time seen a similar rise in Autism and other neurological problems. As I said above, this does not prove causation but sure as hell does indicate a link. The CDC guidelines show that "severe" side effects for vaccines are about 1 in 10,000 but we are giving a kid 644 vaccines by age 6 (which is what the CDC recommends) we have upped the odds of receiving severe side effects to 6.44% of the population

Which correlations?
Lots of time, money, and effort has been spent studying vaccines in the wake of Dr. Andrew "brought the medical profession into disrepute" Wakefield's original paper (which has since been retracted along with his UK license to practice medicine).

Do you mean the correlation that I just demonstrated above using the CDC as a data source showing a correlation between increased number of vaccines and increases in the number of autism? Or are you really trying to argue that these profit generators are purely altruistic as your second portion seems to imply?

Have done away with the fast track programs for vaccines? We have forced independent study so that Merck can not do the study for a Merck vaccine, and Bayer can not do the study for a Bayer vaccine to ensure no conflict of interests exist? In fact this is not the case at all. I'm not saying that Merck and Bayer don't spend money on researching effects, I'm saying there is an obvious conflict of interest with our current laws regarding how vaccines are tested and approved for consumption. We further have known issues where contaminated (bad) vaccines have been shipped for use overseas in developing countries.

Lets also not neglect that most of a vaccine is not just the live, altered, or inactive virus but a laundry list of other things that we are exposing kids ourselves to when getting vaccinated. Vaccines contain chemicals, metals, proteins, antibiotics and human, animal and insect DNA and RNA. Those mixtures are sometimes varied batch to batch without additional testing.

Nobody in their right mind should be hedging all of their bets on one doctors paper, just like nobody in their right mind should be claiming that all vaccines are the same.

I really don't get why people are against science when it comes to vaccines. Against it to irrational religious levels.