Congressional Committee Casts a Harsh Eye On Vaccination Science

The Bad Astronomer writes "A recent hearing of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform became a bully pulpit for antivaccination rhetoric when Representatives Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) made speeches connecting vaccines to autism — a connection that medical experts have shown does not exist. Although there were actual medical researchers there as witnesses, they were mostly berated by the Congressmen on the panel. Vaccines are one of the most successful medical advancements in human history, having saved hundreds of millions of lives, and after copious studies have been shown to have no connection with autism. Despite this, a vocal antivax lobby exists, including, clearly, members of Congress. In part this is why preventable and potentially fatal diseases like pertussis and measles are once again on the rise."

Comments

Congress Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said...

Re:Congress Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, instead we get people denied life-saving treatments because the insurance company bean counters refuses to pay for it and people going in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars since the other choice is death.

Re:Congress Sucks

[s73v3r]

It is far less prevalent in nations with Universal Health Care.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, when the system is not deliberately setup to fail by one party's ideological motivations. People in pretty much all other first-world countries with single-payer system do not have to chose between death and crushing debt from medical bills.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Desler]

Nope. Contrary to what the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys would have you believe almost no one in other first-world countries would trade their health care system for that of the US. And, yes, this is even with the errors that happen.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Beardo the Bearded]

I've been in the Canadian, American, and Belizian medical systems this year.

In Belize, they'll do what they can. They can't get their hands on pretty much any supplies. Even gloves and syringes are impossible to get.

I've had to get some tests done at home. It took about 2 months to see a dive specialist and then another month for a follow-up. It took eight months to get an echocardiogram. I do require an MRI to check for nerve damage in my spine but I'm waiting to see the doctor who can refer me to the machine. OTOH, my friend got a CT scan in 30 minutes when they thought he was having a stroke.

In the US, you get in right away, any tests that you'd like. You just have to pay for it. There was a clinic in Belize run by a company in Texas, they wanted my CC first and then I could get treated.

I've considered -- seriously considered -- going to the US and paying out of pocket to get the tests sooner than Canada can get around to it. I mean, there's a simple fix, just add a law to prevent any elected official in Canada from having secondary health coverage.

Re:Congress Sucks

[AK Marc]

We already have death panels. The difference is that under the "old" system, your death panel makes more money the more people they kill. But the people that are (indirectly) paid to kill you are ok because it's "private."

Or are you asserting that there aren't thousands of dead people who were denied treatment (usually with the excuse it was "experimental") by their private insurance?

Re:Congress Sucks

[niado]

We have the same thing here. It is based on your system.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Archangel Michael]

And people make fun of Sarah Palin. Kucinich is a nut job, he is just left wing enough that leftwingers ignore much his nuttiness.

Re:Congress Sucks

[geekoid]

Y)OU cite sources. What rationing? what are you calling rationing?

Right now, in the US Rationing is happening in the form of '30+million people getting no health care.
Every country with government healthcare has better health care.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Bengie]

The NHS example is just another extreme, which is effectively a strawman for the universal healthcare as an idea. NHS is just a poorly implemented version.
I was in the ER recently and while waiting around, I got to talk to a nurse who told me that most of the people they see in the ER are just people who could not afford their regular check-up, so they just come to the ER claiming to have a problem.

The hospital is ethically and legally obliged to take them in and run tests, which cost A LOT more than a regular check-up. Because the price is too high for the patient, the hospital just soaks the loss and raises the prices for everyone else who does have insurance, which causes insurance rates to go up, which causes more people to lose insurance, which causes more people to come into the ER instead of getting regular check ups.

Do you see the problem? It's a positive feedback system that reduces efficiency and increases costs.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cptdondo]

That must be why the CIA ranks the US 51st in life expectancy, well behind almost every European nation.....

There is rationing here in the US along economic lines. Try getting medications or medical care with no insurance and see how well that works for you.

Re:Congress Sucks

[geekoid]

No, but I wish they could. Oprah and Jenny McCarthy should be sent to prison for manslaughter.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Trepidity]

Yeah, I typically have to wait in the US to see a doctor for anything non-emergency. And definitely to see a specialist.

I guess there might be some super-premium service where you pay tons of cash out of pocket and get concierge-like service. But if you're a normal person with a normal health plan from your employer, you play by their rules to get scheduled.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cptdondo]

And that's not rationing? If you have money, you can get it. If you don't, die. That's pretty severe rationing in my book.

Re:Congress Sucks

[DigiShaman]

Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!

Re:Congress Sucks

[Just Some Guy]

We already have death panels. The difference is that under the "old" system, your death panel makes more money the more people they kill. But the people that are (indirectly) paid to kill you are ok because it's "private."

Maybe it's a good idea to take out a life insurance policy with the same insurer. "Oh, $100,000 is too much for a new lung? OK. That works out to $735,000 for my widow."

Re:Congress Sucks

[EvolutionInAction]

I don't know about the European, but the Canadian Debt Crisis is... Well, non existent. How's the mortgage crisis coming along?

Re:Congress Sucks

[interkin3tic]

Who modded this troll? Honestly, it's hard not to go into hyperbole when talking about anti-vaxers. They're killing children. Literally, albeit less directly than slitting their throats. And these people have ears on congress. It's not enough that congress protects banks above the national interest, protects industry's ability to pollute over the interests of it's citizens and the rest of the world, and erodes our rights to make people think they're doing something to stop terrorists... NOW you have these people spreading lies about an invention that does nothing but save lives?

What about that doesn't suck? If there's a better example of congress sucking than this, what is it? The patriot act's passage? At least there were two sides in that debate. With anti-vaxers, they've got nothing. Papers which were proven bad, gut feelings, and a lot of movie stars vomiting into the media. That's all there is. Compared to this, the patriot act is a shining beacon of logic from our legislature.

Re:Congress Sucks

[amRadioHed]

Maybe it seems that way because you aren't paying attention. People are about 10 times more likely to leave the US for medical tourism than to come to the US.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rich0]

I think a factor to consider is that care can vary considerably within both the US and Canada, which makes many average comparisons misleading.

My understanding is that in a well-served area in Canada you can get pretty quick service. In remote areas, not so much.

In the NE US my experience has been that while you do need to schedule non-emergency tests, you're talking about scheduling them within a few days, unless you have rigid scheduling preferences ("I'd like a Tues between 3-5"), and then you might wait a week or two. Oh, if you want to see the #1 rated cardiologist in the NYC area then expect to wait a few months. However, if you just want to see any cardiologist you can probably find one with an opening in a few weeks at most, and again all of that is assuming non-emergency care. If you show up in an ER complaining of chest pains or something you'll be seen by doctors and have a barrage of tests started almost immediately, with results back within hours (varies by test, largely due to the nature of the tests themselves). I would hope most first world ER/AEs would have similar results, but I know a guy in the UK who suffered with pneumonia for a month or two before getting antibiotics with all the delays (perhaps he just failed to go to AE when he should have, but you'd think the first doctor to talk to him would tell him to go - if I called a doctor in the US to schedule an appointment and mentioned difficulty breathing they'd tell me to call 911 right away).

From everybody I've talked to (mostly coworkers at a multinational all with good incomes and insurance/etc) the sense has been that the US tends to have the fastest care - you just really get ripped off price-wise all around. Again, if you're picky and don't want to talk to anybody but the "best" specialist in the region then you're going to wait, but I'm not sure how many countries even let you pick a doctor.

Re:Congress Sucks

[crazyjj]

Agreed! We need to get government out of health care. I propose the following changes, in this order, to finally free us from the burden of government run health care:

1) Eliminate all healthcare benefits for all Congressmen, past and present. This will give them all the freedom to handle their own health care. I'm sure the Republican Congressmen will be the first in line to support this!
2) Eliminate all healthcare for vets and active duty military. They've earned to the right to pay for it themselves.
3) Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Grandma deserves the chance to choose and pay for her own nursing home care. Get government out of the way!

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

Rationing exists in any healthcare system with limited resources (which is all of them) - it's just a matter of how you implement it. In USA, it's based mostly on your ability to pay - no cash, no care. In other countries, it's made available to everyone, which, of course, means that if you're a rich guy, you are not serviced as quickly or as well as you would in a system where you'd be the only guy buying the service (though in most places, you can spend extra $$$, beyond what you pay in healthcare taxes, to get better service - with some exceptions like Canada).

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

Is Germany going broke? What about Finland, Sweden, Norway? Canada, Australia, NZ?

Countries that are broke are not broke because they have public healthcare. They're broke because they didn't balance their books. You can do that with overspending on healthcare, but you can also do that with e.g. overspending on military while fighting pointless wars all over the world *cough*.

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

The difference is that with private insurance you can switch companies and try for a better policy and better service. It is also far more likely to be efficiently run, and therefore not go out of business or suddenly cut benefits like government run programs will have to do when the money runs out.

All this hypothetical laissez-faire handwaving is well and good, but care to explain why, for an average citizen, healthcare is better and cheaper (accounting for taxes etc) in countries with public healthcare systems, compared to USA? Practice shows that 1) it is not more efficiently run (if by "efficiency" you mean bang for the bug, i.e. effective treatment and/or prevention per dollar spent), and 2) no matter how much you shop around, the best you can get is still worse than what you'd get in a public system.

With the government you've got exactly zero choices and if you don't like what they did what are you going to do?

Vote?

Re:Congress Sucks

[Hewligan]

Remember those "death panels" that were such a joke? Meet a victim of one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/2910780/NHSs-refusal-to-fund-cancer-treatment-costs-mother-21000.html

It's true. These socialised health care systems have a horrible tendency to not fund vital drugs like this, just because the clinical evidence shows they don't work.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Sentrion]

I live in America and get my family's meds mail-order from a well-established Canadian pharmacy. Saves me thousands of dollars, with or without insurance. Ironically, I'm not leeching off of the Canadian tax-supported health system - the Canadians are actually making a PROFIT off of me, even though those same meds from US sources are 10-100 times higher in price. In the spring I'll be flying to Bolivia to have dental work from an American (ex-patriot) dentist with a state-of-the-art facility and staff. Most of the cost will be in airfare and lodging, but four times cheaper than the same treatment in the US. I'll mix in some sight seeing to make it more of a vacation. Other Americans are flying to Spain for experimental brain surgury, paying out of pocket, generating profits for private practitioners, and getting treatment not available in the US even if it was affordable (which it never is).

In the end it doesn't matter what health care system America had as long as the laws are written to serve the interests of lobbying groups with billion dollar budgets.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Vaphell]

main reason the us hc is fucked up: the tax code. WW2 era wage freezes that made employers offer other perks, a practice that was later rubberstamped by the congress.
Employer based insurance is paid with pre-tax dollars, individual insurance is paid with post-tax dollars - of course everybody will pick employer provided option. That led to the moronic situation where you are bound to your employer like a dog on a leash and the whole industry is geared towards group insurance so the individuals have next to no bargaining power. Protectionist legislation rising barriers of entry for out-of-state competition certainly doesn't help, neither does using insurance for trivial bullshit that should be paid out of pocket.

Re:Congress Sucks

[mcgrew]

The US is #1 in only one health care metric. Life expectancy? Nope. Children dying in their first year? Nope. First five years? Nope. The one metric that we are #1 in is cost. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, but it's far from the best.

You really believe you get what you pay for? I have a bridge for sale...

Re:Congress Sucks

[ilsaloving]

Cite sources? Look north for pete's sake. As a Canadian, you will take my socialized medicine from my cold dead hands.

It's not perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about being bankrupted by the cost of cancer treatments because insurance wouldn't cover it, saying that that wart I had when I was 5 constituted a 'pre-existing condition'.

Honestly, the entire *world* looks at America as a fantastic example of how NOT to run a national health care system.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cheater512]

Australia's health care system works pretty well.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Comrade Ogilvy]

My mother-in-law was begging her insurance company for 19 months to get the MRI her doctor authorized, as her hip painfully disintegrated. The insurance knew better than the doctor -- hey, surely another round of painkillers will be good enough.

When the insurance company finally relented, I think it only took a few weeks to get that MRI. So under the statistics about the awesome American health care system, her "wait" was ~14 days. Yet from her doctor's POV, her actual wait was, oh, 570 days. If only she were in the crappy land of Canada, her wait would have been, oh, 400 or 500 days less.

Lo and behold, her MRI showed such a dangerously disintegrated hip that she was ordered bed ridden until she could have an emergency hip replacement.

But WE do not ration in the USA. Oh, no, no, no, not evil socialist rationing. We just worship at the altar of the Free Market (and pretend that rationing is not rationing, even to the point of lying to ourselves.)

Re:Congress Sucks

[mybecq]

*cough*

You'll have that looked at, right?

Re:Congress Sucks

[TapeCutter]

Australia, it's not perfect, nothing is. However our national health outcomes are rated in the top 10, a family of four pays about 1/10th the cost of comparable private insurance in the US. It been.Statistically our system would have to kill another 20K people a year to be as effective as the US system. Polls consistently show that 80% or more of Australians approve of the system.

Re:Congress Sucks

[PPalmgren]

What about massive procedure backlogs for critical surgeries? My aunt in Finland died because there was too long of a wait between breast cancer detection and removal (1 year). To him, that's death panels...she wasn't important to operate on fast enough for a life threatening issue. Apparently they have some of the best socialized medicine in the world, but it was bad enough to turn my dad into a die hard conservative on the topic. He says its like a lottery, if you get assigned to a bad center then you're totally fucked.

Re:Congress Sucks

[DigiShaman]

Supply and demand. Piss off the doctors and medical industry, and either the docs will retire early, change career path, while disincentivizing the young from entering the field.

If you want to address the "why" of health care being so expensive and limited, maybe you should first understand the "how" of *regulation and it's effects along with the lack of proper industry standards. A lot of our healthcare issues boils down to the entitlement mentality and shoving the burden of support on others without just compensation.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Archangel Michael]

I'm Libertarian, and I find retarded people on every side, including my own. Some people even claim I am retarded ;)

Re:Congress Sucks

[TFAFalcon]

Would you rather have death panels appointed by the government or by the insurance industry?

In both cases they can decide not to pay for treatment you need to survive, but the private industry also has an incentive to let you die quickly - any money they save on treatments can then go to their bonuses.

And in both cases you have the option of paying for the procedure yourself, bypassing the panel.

Hey! Now we know

[phantomfive]

Pundits have been asking how we can overcome the deadlock in congress, and finally get things done.

Now we know. There is full bipartisanship on stupidity.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[LunaticTippy]

The loss of herd immunity affects everyone, even if you are vaccinated. Vaccines need to be nearly universal in order to have the full effect.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[N0Man74]

Here's a story for you, from This American Life, distributed by Public Radio International.

Episode 370: Ruining It for the Rest of Us, Act 1: Shots in the Dark

Summary:

Measles cases are higher in the U.S. than they've been in a decade, mostly because more and more nervous parents are refusing to vaccinate their kids. Contributing Editor Susan Burton tells the story of what happened recently in San Diego, when an unvaccinated 7-year-old boy returned home from a trip to Switzerland, bringing with him the measles. By the end of the ordeal, 11 other children caught the disease, and more than 60 kids had to be quarantined.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[Lurker2288]

You're a little off. It is possible to be vaccinated but not immunized--the vaccines aren't perfect, after all, so maybe you got the shot but you're still susceptible to infection if you're exposed. Herd immunity protects you by decreasing the odds that you'll be exposed. The same goes for people who are vaccinated, but who are immunodeficient for some reason--even though their immune systems might recognize the pathogen it may not be able to mount a robust response. So it's not just the people who aren't vaccinated who benefit.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[gorzek]

Yeah, but.... FREEEEEEEDOM!

Re:Hey! Now we know

[geekoid]

Some points, cause you are wrong.
1) Vaccines aren't 100% - Elderly aren't as effective, children before vaccinated are at risk. Which is, of course, unvaccinated but somethines peopel forget that includes infants.

2) Un-vaccinated people can be a vector for mutation, rendering the vaccination less effective.

3) Un-vaccinated people cost all of us tremendous amount of money. Lost work, hospitalization, etc...

Re:Hey! Now we know

[hondo77]

CDC to the rescue:

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.

Broken System

[RichMan]

The US electoral system runs on corporate money. Corporate money prefers politicians that can be manipulated. In some cases you get the direct results of the manipulation, in other cases you get the results because the politicians are not fact driven.

There is full bipartisanship on stupidity, and it is because the system is broken.

Re:Broken System

[Anonymous Coward]

As a professional political social engineer, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a person that can't be manipulated. In fact the more sure you are you can't be manipulated, the easier it is.

Essentially, the whole point of communication is manipulation. Either to get somebody else to do something, or to get some information, which will always be biased by the preferences of the other side and hence effectively resulting in manipulation.

We design whole realities nowadays. and if you ever looked at the schedule of any meaningful politician: It's stuffed with meetings with what are basically purely lobbyist meetings. Sometimes disguised a bit, sometimes not even that. This is where politicians get all their views from. And there is not enough time for any other source to squeeze in.
The same lobbyists are the "sources" for most of your "news" by the way. (Slashdot is included in this.) So as unacceptable as it sounds... this is where your views come from too. (And mine, I must painfully admit.)

You can check all of that. You'd be an idiot to believe an AC... especially a SE one. So go ahead. trust your own eyes, and your own eyes only.

Re:Broken System

[dywolf]

the system isnt broken. it's amoral. i has no rightness or wrongess, no fixedness or brokenness. the system just is. it is a tool. the tool is never anything in and of itself but a means to some end. what the end is is dependent on the user.

and right now the majority of the users arent paying attention and/or dont care about how the tool is being misused to their detriment. they're too busy watching Biggest Loser and the Kardashians.

Understanding Burton

[kadams54]

This is mostly a side note, but I grew up in Dan Burton's district. He has a grandson with autism and has made the anti-vaccination a personal cause. That's not to excuse his ignorance, but rather to help provide understanding. Powerful emotions are at work here, which is why confronting them with rational logic will not work. To be honest, I wish his constituents would vote him out of office; his district includes a number of employees at the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly (headquartered in Indy) and his anti-vaccination stance puts him at odds with their best interests.

Re:Understanding Burton

[Hatta]

There are millions of parents of autistic children who are smart enough to understand that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. The fact that he has an autistic child doesn't help provide understanding. He's an idiot plain and simple.

Re:Understanding Burton

[T.E.D.]

Burton actually is retiring at the end of this session (this month). Kusinich lost his election, so he's leaving too.

Basically this is just a bunch of tinfoil hat screeching from a couple of loonies who no longer have to tone down the crazy because they know they won't have to face the voters again.

this is an old, old, story

[crgrace]

Anti-vaccination rhetoric is nothing new... in fact at the turn of the 20th century there were huge struggles regarding the smallpox vaccine. It's a fascinating instance of the struggle between liberty and social responsibility and the rights and the responsibilties of the individual with respect to the state.

There's an amazing book about the early-20th-century smallpox vaccination campaigns and the associated anti-vaccination campaign called Pox: An American History.

I can't recommend it enough. Says so much about the United States and how people's opinions have change (and how for some, they haven't!).

Anyway, here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/Pox-American-History-Penguin-Life/dp/1594202869

Re:this is an old, old, story

[MozeeToby]

Yes, stupid people have been speaking out against vaccines for more than a century. But this isn't stupid people on the street. It isn't a former playboy model. It isn't your high school drop out cousin. These are the people we chose to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. That they are so wildly, ridiculously misinformed on such an important topic is horrifying.

Re:this is an old, old, story

[T.E.D.]

Actually, no. Both of those men will be out of office next month. "We" chose others to represent us. Both are being replaced by women, as a matter of fact.

So essentially this is a couple of stupid people on the street, minus about 3 weeks.

These people infuriate me, way more than...

[kannibal_klown]

These people annoy me more than rabid moon landing denyers.

The people that believe the autism link, are really out there. I've seen interviews with people that believe this, and no matter what facts/figures/papers you put in front of them they believe they are wrong or lies. Yet they're sure the one report they heard about or read is 100% the truth.

What's more aggravating is when they invite you to prove them wrong, PLEASE prove them wrong, I don't want this to be true and don't want to fear this. Then someone does, and that same person just ignore them.

Penn and Teller had a great episode about this on Bull Sh*t. It's quite insane.

I mean, I have an easier time understanding people that believe the moon landing was a hoax. I don't subscribe to that theory, but I can at least understand them. It was a big deal, we really only have the government's say-so that it happened and that they didn't just send a probe to land stuff. Just 1 source: the government. Fine, be paranoid. It's not really hurting anyone if a person doesn't believe we landed on the moon.

But these people, they have tons of independent studies, investigations, saying that the link was faked or just plain wrong It would be one thing if just ONE party was saying the autism link was bunk... but we have LOTS of different / independent / smart people debunking it. And they don't want to believe it. Meanwhile children suffer.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[Jason Levine]

What's more aggravating is when they invite you to prove them wrong, PLEASE prove them wrong, I don't want this to be true and don't want to fear this. Then someone does, and that same person just ignore them.

And then, when you do prove them wrong, they move the goalpost (the "reason" why they think vaccines cause Autism) and then tell you that you need to prove them wrong again. If you refuse at any point, they take it as a sign that they've won. No, anti-vax proponents, you can't just think up wilder and wilder explanations as to why/how vaccines cause autism and claim that everyone else needs to disprove you or you are correct. It is up to you to present evidence. Real, testable evidence. (And, no, "thinking of something in your head" or "listing something that goes into vaccines at some point in the process" isn't real, testable evidence.)

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Point 1: they've taken thimerosol out of most vaccines.

Point 2: We probably get more mercury exposure from burning coal than from CFLs. I personally get most of my mercury exposure from my silver-mercury amalgam fillings. That last one really adds up. CFLs are pretty much innocent, just like you admit vaccines are.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[AK Marc]

It hasn't been in vaccines for years, and the reports of autism increased with media reports, increasing after the removal of mercury.

P.S. Cl is a poison, and Na is also deadly. But they are the two ingredients in the most common seasoning on the plant. You really put NaCl into your body? It's an explosive metal and gaseous poison!

There's nothing wrong with mercury in vaccinations, and no evidence anyone was ever harmed by its presence.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[Desler]

How about you people explain why the only studies showing any links were to due to fraud and any legitimate study shows no links?

Re:Hasn't this been solved?

[MightyMartian]

More than debunked, Andrew Wakefield (I refuse to use the epithet Dr. for this vile repugnant and thoroughly evil man) has been outed as a con artist who was attempting to undermine the use of MMR vaccines so he could push his own vaccine combo.

Re:5.4.3.2.1...

[Andrewkov]

Yeah, don't they know autism is caused by wifi??

Re:Freedom of choice

[Arancaytar]

I agree that you shouldn't be obligated to get vaccinated, provided you lock yourself into your house and never touch or breathe on anything in public ever .

"a vocal antivax lobby exists"

[93 Escort Wagon]

So they're against out-of-date computers?

Please don't try to invent bad catch phrases that don't make any sense. Nobody refers to vaccinations as "vax". Yes, we get it - "vax" rhymes with "tax", and there's overlap in the two groups. Really clever, we're all in awe of your wordplay prowess.

Re:Insane

[dkleinsc]

1. Dennis Kucinich's Politifact record: He's about 17% wrong, as he is in this case. That's a considerably better record than many.
2. He's lost his seat. You don't have to deal with him past January.
3. For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane.
4. He's been frequently right when most of Congress was wrong. For instance, he firmly believed that Iraq had no WMDs.
5. Ron Paul doesn't think he's nuts, and worked with him regularly on bipartisan initiatives.
6. He's turned his political career into a small fortune and marriage to a really hot redhead, so his goals are reasonable enough.

One sided

[TelavianX]

I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I am just anti all vaccines for a newborn baby. Why pump a human, at its most critical stage, with a bunch of foreign chemicals? Does a newborn really need to be vaccinated against STD's? Why not wait until the child is more robust?

Re:One sided

[241comp]

Assuming you really want to know and aren't just asking to start an argument: It is because newborns are at greatest medical risk if infected by one of the many diseases for which they are vaccinated and because for some diseases (such as Hep B), once it is contracted it can be a lifelong illness which later vaccination cannot prevent/cure. From the WHO:
"Young children who become infected with the hepatitis B virus are the most likely to develop chronic infections:

90% of infants infected during the first year of life develop chronic infections;
30–50% of children infected between one to four years of age develop chronic infections."

Re:One sided

[MozeeToby]

A child's immune system is well established in the months after they are born, else the vaccines wouldn't do anything in the first place (since they rely on the immune response to actually do anything). We vaccinate children as young as possible because young children get sick! Pretty much the only "STD" that a young child is vaccinated against is Hep B, which is also transmitted any number of other ways and has huge repercussions for the rest of the child's life if contracted. Not to mention that every single "well baby" visit is less likely to be attended than the one before it, especially by the poorest people who are at the highest risk for these diseases.

This isn't rocket science! Vaccinating children, even newborns has zero detectable health costs (despite the anti-vaccine crowds looking for them for decades) and provides enormous benefits.

Re:One sided

[MozeeToby]

Ok, I should have been clearer, vaccinating earlier has zero detectable costs when compared to vaccinating later.

As for the complication rate, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the complication rates for the diseases that they vaccinate against. Diseases that used to be pandemic and almost certainly would be again if vaccination rates drop much more than they already have. On an individual, game theory level, you might have an argument for things not being clear cut. After all, if I'm never exposed to the disease (because everyone around me is immune) there's no benefit in getting the shot, there is only the (statistically tiny) risk of an adverse reaction that permanently harms me. But if everyone follows that logic society loses massively as the diseases return to their old levels. That's why the vaccine compensation courts were set up in the first place, to guarantee that the cost of an adverse reaction is recoverable, putting averaged out cost for the patient as close to zero as possible.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[Jason Levine]

Exactly. If only children of anti-vaccination parents got the diseases, I'd say this was the parents' personal call and keep the government out of it. But when a parent says "I'm not vaccinating my kids", they expose other kids (too young to get the vaccine, vaccine didn't "take", or has a valid medical condition keeping them from getting the vaccine) as well as senior citizens who grew up pre-vaccines to the disease. People DIE because of this. All caps just seems too small to emphasize this. If you don't vaccinate your kid, you might be responsible for someone else's baby dying.

And, even if you are heartless and don't care about anyone else's kids, get your kids vaccinated. To quote Penn and Teller: Even if vaccines caused autism - WHICH THEY DON'T - but even if they did, it would be much better for your child to get autism than to DIE from the disease.

(Note: I'm a parent of a child with autism, albeit high functioning autism, and I likely have autism myself.)

Re:Dumb fundie article

[denobug]

Stupid typical slashdot science fundie article.

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

The last thing, do you really think that the companies that make these really care if you have ANY health problems from whatever vaccine they make for you when in the US they are protected by law from harming you?

I don't usually make such direct and opinionated comment but you sir, is an idiot. Many vaccinations in discussion here are well proven with plenty of track records on their effectiveness and potential side effects. This records spans multiple DECADES and all over the globe. The United States Congress is running a race to the bottom while the rest of the world is trying to vaccinate every kids in their country to improve their public health. Yet someone like you is standing behind a position with very little proven science and are very much in a position to prevent the stability of public health.

We are not just talking about funding studies here on the side effect, which most would agree to be a beneficial thing (even if they don't agree with it). In fact we are talking about STOPPING current vaccination programs, which has been proven to be HIGHLY effective as far as public health goes. This goes a farther than than the individual expression. Public health at large must be properly protected with programs well run and supported by the professionals with good knowledge and experience. Right now the majority of the experts says vaccination is a good thing. We need to trust their ability in their field. There are very little reason why would majority of medical professionals would lie together on issues such as this.

I also don't normally make this request but some with mod points please mod this post down to negative (I don't mind if you do mod mine down as well). This post has zero benefit to the readers and is nothing but flame bite.

For the record I took all the vaccination required and it has no ill effect on me.

Re:Anti-Science party is...?

[GungaDan]

Kucinich wasn't an anti-science rep. Hell he claimed to have seen a UFO from Shirley MacLaine's house. Science fiction is kinda like science, right?

Re:Insane

[philip.paradis]

For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane.

A guy walking down the street wearing a bathrobe chanting odes to aliens that resemble giant bunnies is only dangerous to the extent that motor vehicle collisions might occur due to the distraction of the spectacle. Conversely, people who generally appear stable and sane, but hold deeply ingrained lunatic views and occupy seats of power are the ones you need to worry about.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Ichoran]

The VAERS database is open. You can check yourself to see if your entry is there (assuming you know enough to find it in anoymized form).

    https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

Re:SAY NOTHING

[MightyMartian]

Quite frankly I don't think it should even be a choice. We limit liberties in other ways for the general good; you can't throw toxic waste into water systems, you can't drive the wrong way down the highway, you can't shout "fire" in a theater and you shouldn't be allowed to move freely through the populace unvaccinated.

Re:Insane

[bhartman34]

1) It doesn't matter what percentage of the time he's right. If he's got this particular position, he's a moron. It's like being smart other than thinking the moon is made of Gouda cheese.
2) Thank .
3) 100% insanity doesn't matter. As we see here, 1% insanity goes a long way.
4) See #1
5) Ron Paul thinking he's not nuts should tell you something.
6) Crazy people can often do quite well for themselves. Look at Jesse Ventura.

Re:Hasn't this been solved?

[Ikkyu]

No need to call him Dr., he's been stripped of his medical license. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/andrew-wakefield/