Slashdot Mirror
California Senate Approves School Vaccine Bill
mpicpp writes: California state senators have passed a controversial bill designed to increase school immunization rates. SB277 would prohibit parents from seeking vaccine exemptions for their children because of religious or personal beliefs. California would join West Virginia and Mississippi as the only states with such requirements if the bill becomes law. "SB 277 is about increasing immunization rates so no one will have to suffer from vaccine-preventable diseases," said Sen. Ben Allen (D- Santa Monica) who coauthored the bill with Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento).
I expect to see a lot of anti vaxx outrage and legal challenges, but this is a good first step.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Infectious diseases don't pay attention to your religion or any of your other crackpot obsessions about autism or mercury or whatever this week's flavor of craziness is.
So the prevention of said diseases shouldn't either.
Not really considering that California is the very definition of lack of common sense.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Keep in mind, for context, that California subsidizes and provides quite a bit of state sponsored support for homeschooling. This is not nearly the assault on religious liberties that will inevitably be portrayed.
There are some legitimate concerns about child vaccination. That said, the odds are with vaccination. Better to risk the possible problems than the certain ones. I don't know about the autism claims but I do know that getting 6 shots in one day can be a problem. I don't understand why some of these vaccinations can't be spread out a little more. When I went through the shot line in basic training I got a massive series of shots and I was sick myself at a healthy 6' 174 pounds and 20 years of age. I know it's got to be rough on the kids. One of the guys in my unit ran a 105 degree temperature and had to go to the clinic. A little common sense and spread those shots out and it ought to go a lot easier. Not getting them though puts public health at risk.
... the constitutional right to freedom of religion. If you are required by law to do something that your religion actually prohibits, then you are not free to really practice your religion in that country at all.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Just jab all the kids.
If you are able to, it must be because God had no objections.
However if the needle fails to Penetrate the skin, then that too would be god saying NO.
The parents are obviously not willing to put their trust in god.
Australia has something similar. The government consulted with the major religions beforehand and none of them had problems with vaccinations.
I think we should go further and when unvaxed children come down with preventable diseases, their parents should be charged with child neglect.
Wouldn't spreading out the shots more make them more expensive to administer? That's just fine to me if it's socialized, but it's really not okay if it drives up the price of immunization for poor and uninsured families.
The autism claims are entirely discredited now.
The clustering of vaccinations is for purely logistical reasons: Shipping out vaccines and a person qualified to administer them to schools costs money, and getting them all done in one day is more practical than going back for several trips.
I don't know about the autism claims but I do know that getting 6 shots in one day can be a problem.
The autism claims were based of a study that was completely fabricated by the author.
I am all for free speech and entitlement to personal opinion. But the very role of government and public policy is to have a rational and objective view on what is reasonable for citizens to do and not do as part of civil society. It is not to merely sway with the wind and throw up one's hands and say, well, we can't offend anyone's beliefs so we shouldn't do our jobs for fear of being voted out of office.
It is high time that both we as citizens and we as government not put up with or enable a small ridiculous minority of extremist views to hold the rest of society hostage, with the threat of lawsuits.
There is such a thing as being overly reasonable. And there are many more issues that don't rise to this level of publicity, that policy makers give in to, for fear of negative repercussions, rather than doing the right thing.
No, there are not "legitimate concerns" about childhood vaccination.
Ah, but this is what comes from nonsense like "teach the controversy!" and from a mistaken notion that the phrase "there are two sides to a story" means that all views must be equal.
Not really considering that California is the very definition of lack of common sense.
If Californians lack common sense, my dear Ageoffri then Texans, Georgians, Floridians and all the other people living in bible belt states are congenital idiots.
No one is facing violence. They simply can't send their unvaccinated kids to public school. They are more than free to home school their unvaccinated children and they will face no legal consequences.
Where I'm all for vaccinations and had my children vaccinated as their doctor recommended, not allowing for a religious exception is a bad idea for a number of reasons.
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you. You may think people with religious objections to vaccination (one or all of them) are nuts (and they may very well be) but that does not give the government the right to violate their freedom to do stupid things. It's called liberty. You may not like other's choices, but you MUST give them the choice.
But, more to the point, failing to put this exemption into the law will open it up to constitutional challenge. Such challenges will likely be successful.
Mark my words. This law will not stand... It might take 10 years, but this law will be struck down.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There are some legitimate concerns about child vaccination. That said, the odds are with vaccination. Better to risk the possible problems than the certain ones. I don't know about the autism claims but I do know that getting 6 shots in one day can be a problem. I don't understand why some of these vaccinations can't be spread out a little more. When I went through the shot line in basic training I got a massive series of shots and I was sick myself at a healthy 6' 174 pounds and 20 years of age. I know it's got to be rough on the kids. One of the guys in my unit ran a 105 degree temperature and had to go to the clinic. A little common sense and spread those shots out and it ought to go a lot easier. Not getting them though puts public health at risk.
Spreading out the shots is not the same as parents not wanting in any way shape or form that their kids be vaccinated in the first place. So stop bringing this concern into the debate as it it were the fundamental reason these crackpots are putting their kids and everybody else in danger. These criminal parents don't want their kids vaccinated because well "vaccines are bad, the Lord God said it so it must be true".
The main problem with legislating medical procedures is that in the event it turns out some unknown problem does exist with the procedure it will be difficult to get the law repealed/amended and in the mean time people are being subjected to a known to be damaging procedure potentially against their will becaus it's the law.
Unfortunately I think the antivaxers are the bodly autonomy equivalent of hate speech. I dislike everything they stand for, but for reasons more important than them I support their right to be idiots.
Because vaccines aren't always effective for everyone, and some people (e.g. immunocompromised individuals) can't get vaccines. But these people rely on herd immunity, which is depending on enough people being vaccinated that any disease that shows up isn't transmitted through the whole community. It's not the kids who don't get vaccinated that the legislators are worried about, it's everyone else.
And the rate of vaccinations in parts of California are so low that health officials are seeing the effects of lack of herd immunity.
Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
Getting six vaccines isn't a problem.
"I do know that getting 6 shots in one day can be a problem" is the problem. You don't know that. There is no evidence of that. You may BELIEVE that, and you're entitled to that opinion. But that's just what it is. An opinion. At least have the courage to label it as such.
We used to give kids that many routinely at 2/4/6 months and they did fine, too.
It is the fact that the companies creating these vaccines are largely not culpable for their products that has driven the anti-VAX movement. FIX THAT or this law will be ignored.
As it is California legislators basically gave a free pass to all current parents whose children have already aged passed the ages they were supposed to get vaccinated. Those children do not have to be vaccinated.
The legislators did that to defuse the daily protests by parents.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
The autism claims were based of a study that was completely fabricated by the author.
But the facebook group of Mothers for Natural Organic NON-GMO and Unicorn Farts said that those are lies for the pharmaceutical industry to make money! I am sure that author was an outstanding citizen that had no ulterior motives.
There are some legitimate concerns about child vaccination.
Any legitimate concerns about child vaccinations have been addressed for a very long time now. Every study that comes out continues to prove how safe and effective vaccines are. They prove beyond any legitimate doubt that vaccines are so effective that the very small segment of the population that cannot tolerate them are effectively shielded by the herd immunity. There are absolutely no legitimate studies that question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
On the other hand, there is an epidemic of willful ignorance when it comes to vaccinations. A large segment of the population flat out refuses to believe that they've been duped by someone trying to sell something. They refuse to admit that the science is overwhelming and undeniable. They flat out refuse to acknowledge facts staring them in the face. But, sadly, that's a disease that is impossible to overcome.
Touché. I still think its an unjust law based on shaky information/misinformation and mob stupidity. That's a heavy thing to force some families into.
Clustering of vaccines is not for logistical reasons. Vaccines are administered the way they are because the current schedule yields the best results (immunogenicity) in the fastest time.
Vaccines have been in common use for many decades. If there were unknown problems, they would have shown up long before now.
What is specifixally is unshaky? We are seeing direct correlations between the rise of parents not vacinnating their kids and the resurgence of chilhood diseases that were hugely eliminated due to vaccination.
Our government here in Australia has just done this too after outbreaks of hooping cough and other preventable diseases.
It is linked to welfare payment too, no immunisation, no family payments.
Last thing we need is an epidemic of measles, hooping cough or polio.
I presume you would exempt parents of unvaxed children who were unvaxed for reasons beyond their control, such as
1) Could not afford shots
2) No access to health care
3) Child could not get shots for medical reasons
I, for example, COULD NOT get my kid vaccinated vs. Hepatitis A because my healthcare provider didn't have the vaccine, and no pharmacy who HAD the vaccine would ADMINISTER the vaccine to a child, that I could find. (I tried 4.)
This persisted for a few months until I found a new pediatrician for my child.
So, maybe HOLD OFF on the prosecutions of parents until society has TRULY made an effort to make vaccines EASILY ACCESSIBLE to everyone. Like for example, "Oh, your kid is short of shots? We'll administer them in school for you, 2 weeks before classes. Just bring your kid in for their FREE IMMUNIZATIONS."
--PeterM
We know vaccines are safe & effective so there is no need to do randomized double blind clinical studies to prove any vaccines are safe & effective. Anyone who questions the official pseudoscience can enjoy homeschooling their kids.
While I might agree with the merits of vaccinating for most diseases, there is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree considering no actual science has been done. And I mean science in the strict sense of the word, if you haven't done a randomized double blind study then it can be a lot of things, but it's not science. Especially considering the huge uptick in all forms of autoimmune disease over the same period, you'd have to be a complete idiot to not at least think there *could* be a connection.
"I do know that getting 6 shots in one day can be a problem"
Maybe you should go look that word up in a dictionary before you post.
On the other hand, there is an epidemic of willful ignorance when it comes to [any abstract idea]. A large segment of the population flat out refuses to believe that they've been duped by someone trying to sell something. They refuse to admit that the science is overwhelming and undeniable. They flat out refuse to acknowledge facts staring them in the face. But, sadly, that's a disease that is impossible to overcome.
FTFY
The only mob stupidity are the people who arbitrarily reject science that is incredibly well documented with study after study. Vaccines are safe and effective. No legitimate study has shown otherwise since vaccines were first administered. The only shaky information is spread by the people with unfounded distrust of vaccines.
This is true, I'm glad someone said it. Especially the part about the shot line in the military being different.
I did the same thing when joining the Navy and me and most of my company were sick as hell for a week or so. But, they immunize you instead of simple MMR, for dozens of things including exotic jungle rots and things like malaria, etc. Things that you would never encounter if you stayed in the USA, and weren't in some muddy jungle or strange desert somewhere with their localized exotic diseases.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Depends what you're getting.
Yeah, cholera shots will tend to hurt like hell (although mine didn't bother me much compared to some other folks who got them at the same time). Yellow fever you're likely to get a typical viral reaction to it that night (fever, chills, headache) as the body learns what you're teaching it to fight. (I was sick as a dog after a yellow fever shot, but only for a day.)
Childhood vaccines are far more benign, I don't recall any of my kids having serious reactions to them, and routine shots I get (flu, pneumonia) don't bother me.
religiously founded or not, where MY right to not be exposed to deadly infections in civil society begins.
I have NO PROBLEM limiting freedom of religion for the defense of society. As someone pointed out, freedom of religion is NOT an unlimited right.
Consider for example a person whose religion involves ritual sacrifice and eating of the hearts of their political enemies.
I consider forcing vaccinations on people over their religious objections as of lesser degree, but in the same vein, as the example I just gave.
--PeterM
Seriously, stop it. Get rid of old bills that protects religious zealots already, they have no place in the modern world.
Yep. It takes one to know one.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
The federal laws passed in the mid-80s that insulate the responsibility of vaccine creating companies to flaws in their products needs to rescinded or heavily revised.
It is the fact that the companies creating these vaccines are largely not culpable for their products that has driven the anti-VAX movement. FIX THAT or this law will be ignored.
No. The anti-vax movement has been largely driven by greed, stupidity, and the parents need to "blame" someone.
What's lost in most discussions of the fraud doctor in Britain is that he was trying to discredit the current vaccination regime so he could push his own = greed. Parents, preferred listening to that jackhole and dipshit blondes who's only claim to fame is stripping for cash instead of medical professionals with actual knowledge = stupidity. The whole blame game is the demented way humans interact with seemingly everything. Their child has autism = it MUST be someones fault.... which in reality is just more stupidity.
The companies that produce these vaccines are shielded from individual lawsuits because individual lawsuits would very quickly bankrupt said companies. The result of that would be no vaccines, which would lead to everyone in society fucking dying of easily treated illnesses = more fucking greed and stupidity ("everyone" being hyperbole, obviously, but given current transportation ease and population, "millions" would be a given) . Complications from vaccines are fairly rare, and very serious complications/death even more-so.... but vaccines are of critical importance to our species in the present day. If the argument is: let millions of people die each year because of diseases that can be easily vaccinated against, or requiring parents to keep their disease ridden kids out of school unless they vaccinate... that's an easy one: fuck the idiot parents.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I'm not an anti-vax person myself, but I do suspect that at least one of the vaccines I received in the Army caused my current chronic kidney disease, which is caused by a misformed IgA antibody. I suspect that because I have a familial history of Ceceliacs disease, which is suspected by some to be related to IgA Nephropathy, and the timeline of when I developed IgAn coincides perfectly with the progression of the disease and the time that I received those inoculations. That, and this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they? Because the anti-vax movement has made anybody who does easily lose credibility, because the anti-vax movement repeatedly and often makes very stupid claims (autism? are you fucking kidding me?) that cause everybody else to come down hard on anybody who speaks honestly about any potential down sides of it.
There may very well be good reasons to not vaccinate in some cases, but those reasons will be hard to find when idiots keep crying wolf for no reason other than they happen to be Jenny McCarthy fans.
Still though, and I do myself admit, I still accept that it's better to have practically zero cases of polio in exchange for a few cases of IgA Nephropathy, even though I happened to get the shitty end of the stick (dialisys, which is where I'll probably end up very soon, is a lot better than an iron lung.) That said, even if it is proven that vaccination is the cause of my condition, I'll still support it anyways.
What many of you guys don't understand is that vaccines can cause harm. The vaccine compensation fund has paid out over $3 billion+ in damages due to people getting brain damage and all sorts of irreversible problems. They don't want to admit that vaccines cause harm because then people would stop taking them according to this AP news article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin... People used to be able to sue the vaccine manufacturers directly but now the government has made them immune from prosecution so that we can all get vaccinated, its because they love us all and care about us so much. Remember, this is the same government that said that the 9/11 dust is safe, that agent orange is safe, that GMO foods are safe, fluoride is safe, that blowing up chemical weapons is safe (aka gulf war syndrome), that DU (depleted uranium) is safe, etc. They care about us so much, we just need to do whatever they say, its for the collective. And there has been one case where someone with autism was given compensation for damage from vaccine: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... Question: How many of the people who got sick with measles at Disneyland were vaccinated? Why haven't they released the numbers?
We spread the shots out after researching the Dr. Sears book (who advocates vaccines, but spread them out) because you learn what nasties are in each brand of shot. You learn that the recommended CDC schedule ironically has doses of aluminum (common in many brands) that are way, way, above the recommended amounts deemed safe for children by the same CDC -- something of a paradox they don't like to admit.
He is not anti-vax but tends to think that if you overwhelm the body with dead viruses the immune system goes into overdrive for some people with a particular gene. (There is growing evidence of this in the scientific literature). The vaccines, per say don't cause autism, but an overloaded immune system because of a genetic trait might.
There's nothing abstract about the idea of vaccinations. It's very well documented science.
California is a mix of odd politics. Partially heavily left leaning, partially heavy right leaning, and a whole lot of libertarian leaning to combine a bit of both. We want the government to keep their hands off of our pot and our taxes.
It is the fact that the companies creating these vaccines are largely not culpable for their products that has driven the anti-VAX movement.
Unless you're referring to not being able to sue the companies for a vaccine giving your kid teh autism, I've never heard this argument raised. All of the (non-autism) arguments I've heard were vague complaints about 'chemicals' and it not being 'natural'.
The companies are only insulated from lawsuits if they follow the guidelines set down by the government. They're only manufacturing the (already designed, investigated, and approved) vaccines, so making them open to lawsuits because your snowflake has an egg allergy would only increase the risk of providing a much needed product and decrease the availability of vaccines. If they cut corners or substitute ingredients, they're still subject to suit.
Because the same reason that's been posted and explained so many times there's no way a person who can actually read hasn't seen it many, many, many times: Herd Immunity. If you seriously have not read that before, Google it... or look at EVERY other thread on /. and probably EVERY other news site about vaccines.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I'll let measles be the judge of that.
California's southern border situation is far, far more dangerous than a few un-immunized natives. Immunization rates in central and south America are far, far lower than here in the US. But the right wants cheap labor and the left wants illegal votes, so we have no representation in this area. One naturally wonders why the obsession with immunization when public health is manifestly less important than open borders.
I'm pro-vaccines, after all they've done a huge amount of good over the years. They're not an unqualified good, some people do experience negative outcomes but the chances of that are extremely rare so for society as a whole they're a net positive when used approrpriately. I am concerned however with trends I've seen for dogs and horses where the vaccines schedules and number of booster shots keep getting increased. For the most part it looks like greed rather than science and with a public mandate I'm worried that behavior may move to human vaccinations.
What heavy thing? If they have a legitimate reason not to vaccinate then they can get an exception. However not vaccinating children does cause a public harm. Even the most staunchly adherent Libertarian allows for government activity in cases of protecting the public.
The Republicans that control CA...
I'm guessing *you* get your news from Fox News...
In real life, ain't many republicans around here in public office.
* no republican holds any state wide elected office
* State senate: 14R out of 40
* State legislature: 28R out of 80
* Mayors of largest cities: 3R out of 10
West Virginia and Mississippi being ahead of California in doing something involving common sense?
"STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARING: Drinking water contributes to urination"
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
We want the government to keep their hands off of our pot and our taxes.
Well, you're not doing a very good job of expressing your wants as reflected by your very high taxes and still-not-legalized pot.
Even if vaccines CAN cause harm, so what?
I, and every male in this country, can be made to fight, kill, get wounded, die, and suffer innumerable hardships in defense of this country.
If I can be made to risk life and limb to defend this country (no choice), why can't EVERYONE be forced to take vaccines to defend this country too? Or do you think that contagious disease isn't EVERY BIT as deadly a threat to this country as an interruption in our oil supply?
-PeterM
New York also requires vaccinations. Medical exemption, and in theory religious exemption. But the school can deny your religious exemption, and that's exactly what they do more often than not.
Bottom line is you've taken by tax the money I would use to educate my child. Having done that, I can't really avoid public schools, since you have my money and I can't pay private tuition with it. So I am certainly not going to allow for crazy people to infect the school that my child is effectively required to attend, because I can't afford to pay twice.
Taking my money and forcing my kids into public schools is bad. Allowing that environment to be medically unsafe is borderline criminal. If you want to have crazy infectious schools, give me my money back so I can avoid them. Until then, get used to forced vaccinations in the forced education system. It's the way we do things in America now. /sad
Because some people have an actual medical reason that they cannot take the vaccine. These people need protection, whether you believe so or not. Also there's no threat of violence, silly libertarian.
Shouldn't it be your choice to harm your child? Not the government's? If we lose freedom of choice we have no constitution. Freedom is what created America, don't you understand that?
And why should we trust the government? The government lies to us and is not honest, they truly don't care about us either, if they really did care about us, then things would be quite different.
We've known for over a century that schools are harmful to children, and finally someone has developed a vaccine to rid our society of this affliction once and for all.
Without schools, there is no wasting paper on tedious homework, no gasoline needed to power a fleet of school buses, and no parents beating their children mercilessly for failing to make the grade.
Be free and say FUCK NO to indoctrination by governments or religion!
- "Bob"
The NVICP is actually a great thing, and it suggests some willful ignorance to claim it's a problem. "Pain and suffering" is reasonably limited, the process is non-adversarial and significantly smoother and faster than a lawsuit, and for crying out loud, doesn't even preclude suit against the manufacturer later.
Not to mention the likely reality that by the time a vaccine is approved and recommended for use, any actual individual injury is not due to manufacturer negligence. This way the people actually injured get some no-fault compensation
Problems like being ineffective - that is, they just don't work or even worse, exacerbate the problem? Or problems like being generally dangerous with horrific side-effects that happen on a large scale? Never mind that, who gives a shit about Africa. Go USA!
I wish you weren't telling the truth. The drug companies seem totally without either morals or ethics. But vaccination is necessary in a population that lives as densely as humans do and which has rapid transportation. So I'm in favor of this law. I'm just not in favor of many others, and in particular I don't like the way that the wealthy and powerful are let off the hook...and here I'm explicitly including drug companies.
Step 1 should be that all publicly funded research is publicly available (with a very few carefully and explicitly stated caveats).
Step 2 is that while patents can be obtained based on publicly funded research, all citizens of the country have free licenses to those patents.
Step 3 is some other reforms of patent law.
Step 4 is some way for the laws to actually be enforced.
Please note that the order of these steps is not particularly important, as they are virtually independent, and that most of them would have good effects beyond the pharmaceutical industry. But one of the, I believe existing, laws that needs to be enforced is that the results of all trials in qualification for FDA approval need to be made public.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Childhood vaccines are far more benign,...
My daughter had a few days of 105 degree fever after the MMR vaccine. And some of the other vaccines resulted in large swellings in her legs (i.e. most of her thigh) at the point of injection that persisted for months after the vaccination. But she couldn't talk at that point and, of course, now she doesn't remember back to when she was that young - so I don't know how much she suffered.
The honest scientific answer is our knowledge of how young children experience vaccination (and pain, etc. generally) is very limited - and, of course, there's likely to be a lot of individual variation. On one hand, I do generally agree that childhood vaccinations are necessary at this particular point in time. But I also look forward to the day when childhood vaccinations are no longer necessary (almost certainly within my daughter's lifetime).
Part of the reason for feeling sick during those shots during basic training is members of the armed forces get shots for things that most civilians don't get shots for at any age - smallpox, anthrax, and cholera, for example, with the cholera vaccine being known to cause people to feel sick for a short while afterwards. Your vaccine experience in basic training is absolutely not comparable to what children experience.
They prove beyond any legitimate doubt that vaccines are so effective that the very small segment of the population that cannot tolerate them are effectively shielded by the herd immunity.
Of course, you are aware that due to medical inability for 6% of people to be vaccinated, and a non-zero vaccine failure rate, and the fact that we do not perform post-vaccination immunoassay to verify that the vaccination has been effective (and then revaccinate the shit out of the person until an immunoassay shows it to be effective), therefore herd immunity for measles and pertussis is mathematically impossible.
Right?
You *should* get vaccinated for these diseases, and you *should* get your kids vaccinated for these diseases. If the vaccine is effective, which for measles, it is 61% of the time according to a recent WHO study in Buenos Ares, Argentina, then you've saved your ass, or you've saved your kids ass.
But you are totally a moron if you believe that you are doing this out of altruism, rather than out of a selfish desire to save your own ass, because you will not, in fact, prevent either outbreaks or spread of these two diseases.
Particularly if we let people from hot zones with known active outbreaks fly into the U.S. with no border procedures to prove they don't have the diseases, and then let them go to Disneyland and infect the 39% of the 94% who are vaccinated (but for which the vaccine was ineffective), or the additional 6% who are immunocompromised to the point they can't tolerate being vaccinated.
P.S.: Now if you want to pick a different example, like Polio, chickenpox, or smallpox: yes, it's possible to achieve herd immunity. But most idiots who are bad at math tend to use measles or pertussis as their examples, because the outbreaks are always in the news (hint: because they are impossible to prevent via any method other than quarantine, and that's politically correct, even if we are talking about Ebola, for which there is no vaccine).
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you.
Baloney. Your religious rights do not and should not extend to the point where you can transmit dangerous and easily preventable pathogens compromising public safety. You can believe whatever looney nonsense you want as long as it does not hurt others. Claiming religious exemption to vaccination demonstrably hurts other people and therefore should be illegal.
You may think people with religious objections to vaccination (one or all of them) are nuts (and they may very well be) but that does not give the government the right to violate their freedom to do stupid things. It's called liberty. You may not like other's choices, but you MUST give them the choice.
What a load of complete nonsense. People don't have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want. That would be anarchy and you cannot have a civil society where people are free to endanger others without restriction. Do you drive on the wrong side of the road without consequence? By your logic people should have complete "freedom to do stupid things".
But, more to the point, failing to put this exemption into the law will open it up to constitutional challenge. Such challenges will likely be successful.
You should certainly hope that such challenges are not successful. Lives literally depend on it. Furthermore there is nothing preventing people from opting out for religious reasons. They simply cannot put their child in public schools and endanger others in the process. They are perfectly welcome to home school or find alternative schooling but there are and should be consequences for demonstrably irresponsible and dangerous behavior.
So the "gun grabber" squads in California are a reflection of the US in general? Seriously? You're on crack. California is at the fringe of one end of the political spectrum.
It is not Peoria.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What civil society is free from deadly infections? People die from COLDS and Flu you know...
Have you come down with polio lately? How about smallpox? I'm guessing you haven't had measles or mumps or reubella either. Here's a little tip for you. Vaccines work and they save lives. Just because we haven't cured every disease is no excuse not to vaccinate for the ones we can cure.
However in this case there are LONG STANDING religious belief systems that would object to vaccines for various reasons.
Don't care and neither should you. Your religious beliefs do not and should not grant you the right to endanger others. If you wish to quarantine yourself from society to protect your religious beliefs I will support that but if you want to participate in civil society then you need to take your medicine and stop doing stupid things that endanger others.
If this doesn't represent a valid objection reason to you on religious grounds, I'm not sure what does in your view.
There is NO argument you could make that would convince me that there is a valid reason to excuse anyone from a vaccine for any grounds other than medical necessity.
Remember Hobby Lobby? This is a similar issue. California simply doesn't have the power to do this.
Last I checked contraceptives are voluntary and not taking them doesn't result in communication of dangerous pathogens.
An immunocompromized individual belongs nowhere near a school. This is for their own safety. There's a strong likelihood they are quarantined from contact with the public already due to their condition. They may even have a special directive from their doctor telling them to STAY AWAY FROM SCHOOL.
The LAST thing that a person fitting your favorite loophole needs is to expose themselves to the germ exchange which is any large group of children.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Obviously each state has it's own personality for lack of a better term.
I'm mostly just annoyed at how he made a broad sweeping generalization of an entire state with a less than favorable one liner and got modded up for it. Here I can do the same thing. Everybody in Kentucky is a hill billy. Everybody in Georgia is racist. Everybody in China is a communist. You see how stupid it sounds, and he got modded up for saying that crap.
Shouldn't it be your choice to harm your child? Not the government's? If we lose freedom of choice we have no constitution. Freedom is what created America, don't you understand that?
Do you really believe that you have the constitutional right to harm ANY child? The days when women and children were chattels is long gone, but feel free to go to your nearest police station and start abusing your kid - they'll be better of in someone else's custody :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And vaccines can bring harm to children, look at vaccine compensation fund. I mean imagine how hard it is to prove that your child has been harmed by a vaccine! That's why it should be anyone's right to not vaccinate, because if they are harmed...whattya do then? Atleast if you get measles you can recover within a week or so typically.
Jenny McCarthy has measles, Mumps, Rubella, Shingles and Whooping Cough. Sad to see such a hot white girl go that way for being stupid. It is a waste!
Let's do exactly that
The idea of government is good. In practice, not always..
So it's the law that you have your children injected with a substance. I don't care what the substance is, for all purposes it could be a magical cure all. In my opinion, this comes down to invasion of one's body without their consent. That's assault.
Ability to metabolize toxins and excrete them varies widely between individuals, many people have deficiencies in their abilities. Children's ability to metabolize toxins are not the same as adults. To top it off, the resources in the body needed to metabolize them (antioxidants, enzymes, conjugating molecules) are consumed by many things in the environment --> Did the chem-lawn folks just spray your lawn? Did you recently repaint the infant's room before you brought the baby home from the hospital? New carpeting in the house? On a constant basis, you are breathing, touching, drinking and eating toxins -- everything is contaminated to some measurable degree today (with lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc)...usually in very very small quantities, but some of these things bio-accumulate. So how much stuff is your body dealing with when you get the vaccine and how will that affect development? The medications you might be taking all rely on the same chemical transformations and consume those resources as well.
In case you wonder if these toxins can have any effect, here is something produced by the United States NIH discussing the impact of environmental toxin exposure on children. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/11041...
Clinical toxicology (understanding the effect of toxins on the body) is not nearly as advanced as many of you probably imagine it is. Much of our knowledge comes from the last 15 years and a great deal is still not known. By the way, knowledge of clinical toxicology is virtually absent from the MD curriculum (at least here in the US).
And one last point to everyone who is pro-vaccine and antagonistic to those who aren't, I would like to point out that if YOU did not do the science yourself, then these issues come down to who you trust (I wouldn't trust Jenny McCarthy either). I bet all of you have an opinion one way or the other about climate change, but almost none of you have actually looked at the data and models yourself. Claiming "its science you idiots" when you did not do the science is pretty similar to religion....belittling someone with a *belief* that differs from yours because yours must be the one true god.
California state senators have passed a controversial bill designed to increase school immunization rates. SB277 would prohibit parents from seeking vaccine exemptions for their children because of religious or personal beliefs.
This is a good thing because religion must NEVER be used as an excuse to escape common sense. The same way with person beliefs, fighting known, proven science, isn't rational, this is a very good Bill!
I, and every male in this country, can be made to fight, kill, get wounded, die, and suffer innumerable hardships in defense of this country.
The supreme court ruled this constitutional as an exchange for a males right to vote.
of course a year later they also gave the vote to women... but hey... the government can't do wrong.
"His name was James Damore."
If Californians lack common sense, my dear Ageoffri then Texans, Georgians, Floridians and all the other people living in bible belt states are congenital idiots.
Tru dat!
Stick your baby with a needle, your government said you should. Eat GMOs and believe in the every word of the corporate lobbiest controlled gov't.
FOLLOW DIRECTIONS!
You see, eating more nutritious foods, and maybe avoiding certain conventionally grown foods that are known to suck up pesticides (i.e. only buy organic apples), and maybe using fewer BPA-laden containers, and maybe exercising, and maybe taking a good multivitamin, and maybe cutting your sugar intake. How about not smoking and cutting back on the binge drinking? We could also work to reduce the industrial pollution we pump into the air and water. But those things are all just too hard to do. This would mean you can't eat pizza and beer for every meal and put all your garbage into the land fill.
But vaccines are easy to avoid. So we'll just blame everything on them.
Other posters have pointed out your flawed reasoning. However, here we go again, this time with the actual numbers.
Of 2,236,678,735 vaccines administered during the period, only 1,709 received compensation for adverse effects. That translates to less than 1 in 1.3 million.
Contrast that with the death rate for measles in the US of 3 per 1000 infections. Compare that to death rates of up to 28% who die in the underdeveloped world.
Dead is dead.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Strange that I got modded offtopic for speaking about vaccinations in a reply to a post about vaccinations. Just to be clear. No one, and I mean no one in the medical field says that vaccinations are totally safe. They say that there are risks but that the risks of not getting vaccinated are greater. I don't see why steps to minimize any risks are so unacceptable. I for one see no reason to cluster so many shots in one group when there is really no added risk by spreading them out. Hammering a small toddler with so much medication at one time seems unnecessary. I know a lot of the people here consider themselves experts on every fucking thing and feel that any time someone questions their greater knowledge they must react viciously.
This fear of germs in America is getting ridiculous. A few hundred people get the measles, and now everybody is up in arms, calling for stricter vaccine laws.
I was never vaccinated, and I never take any special precautions against germs. In fact, I welcome germs into my body. I have a good strong immune system, and it gets a lot of practice. I do occasionally get an infection. When that happens, I let it run its course, without going to the doctor or taking any over-the-counter medication. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
People here talk about their "right to be not exposed to dangerous germs". This kind of thinking is out of touch with reality. Potentially-dangerous germs are everywhere. Thanks to modern transportation, they can spread around the globe very quickly. And they can also mutate quickly, becoming resistant or even immune to our medical concoctions. Trying to eradicate them all is futile. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their own health. Rather than complaining about these "stupid anti-vaxxers", how about getting some sunshine and exercise instead of sitting at the computer all day. And how about consuming healthy food and beverages instead of coffee, coca-cola, and other processed junk. Then you will not need to be so paranoid about all these germs that these "stupid anti-vaxxers" are spreading, because your immune system will have a good chance of killing them off.
I highly recommend watching George Carlin's take on vaccines and germs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X29lF43mUlo
This is an interesting perspective. I would say a quarantine after showing symptoms is less invasive than a preventative injection. This strategy is also more likely to be consistently effective. As it is, many vaccines have not really been tested under fire. WHO, CDC et al. better hope they are not since much of the long term effectiveness is highly speculative: we do not know how long the immunity lasts, etc.
it will change and destroy your DNA
Until the next phase comes about where such people are branded and banned from public places, or home schooling is made illegal because the government views such acts as "extremist". I mean, what kind of survivalist, anti-establishment, subversive nutjob doesn't want to send their kids for a government-sanctioned education?
I would be careful just accepting blindly any medical claims, do your due diligence as much as possible or remain neutral and just do argument from authority. They changed the definition of Polio to be more specific, this is very problematic for interpreting the effectiveness of the vaccine. I have not looked into that one in depth but I know that much to be true. Science is hard, observational medical data is even harder to interpret. That is why other fields that rely on observational data (eg astronomy) are heavily mathematical and based on precise predictions. This is missing from medicine which remains much more qualitative and rudimentary.
More people die each year from drunk driving. All of you that think the government should force us to do what's good for everyone should support a ban on alcohol. Otherwise you would be a major hypocrite. http://www.madd.org/drunk-driv...
Hello,
I hate to inject some facts into your prejudice, but it's a sad fact that large swaths of South America have higher immunization rates for measles (as an example) than the US does.
Even Mexico is only 2% behind US vaccination rates on measles. Check it out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
--PeterM
Man imagine all of the uncompensated people? How exactly do you prove you were harmed by a vaccine?
The autism claims are entirely discredited now.
Yes, but everyone is ignoring the fact that the DPT shot has been proven to be the cause of SIDS. An adverse physiological response of shallow breathing occurs 7-14 days after administering the shot. When's the last time you heard anyone advertise a stern warning about that?
Why issue a warning about false information? http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immunization_misconceptions/en/index4.html
Most of the cases where compensation was paid were settled without any finding of fact. The reasons cited, if you had bothered to read, were that it was sometimes cheaper to settle, sometimes both parties wanted to eliminate the risk of court, sometimes it was the fair thing to do.
Also, you have the figure for the number of uncompensated people if you read the rest of the link. My bet is you didn't read any of it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Actually the federal government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has a reasonable basis.
There are 2 kinds of vaccine injuries:
(1) The avoidable injuries that come from the manufacturer clearly violating the good manufacturing procedures, like improperly filtering the vaccine preparation or letting it get infected.
(2) The inevitable injuries that come even when the manufacturer does everything right, meets the good manufacturing procedures. That's because the immune system is complicated, and we don't understand everything about it. (Furthermore, they sometimes have to make tradeoffs between a vaccine that protects you better from the infectious disease, but has more adverse effects, and a vaccine that has fewer adverse effects, but doesn't protect you from the infectious disease as well.)
I think the inevitable serious injuries occur at the rate of 1 in a million vaccinations. These are the kids who just drew an unlucky lottery ticket. Nobody's wrong.
There were a lot of problems with the vaccine program, and manufacturers stopped making a lot of vaccines, because they were getting hit with big-dollar product liability lawsuits. Some of them were justified, some of them weren't, and some of them, nobody knows, because the immune system is complicated, and we don't understand everything about it.
In order to encourage manufacturers to make vaccines, and parents to vaccinate their kids, the federal government set up what amounts to a no-fault program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They listed a lot of known serious complications that everybody agreed were caused by vaccines. Kids with those complications were automatically compensated, and it was fairly generous compensation, designed to match what they would get if they went to court and won. That's worked pretty well.
The idea is, if a kid gets vaccinated, in order to protect society as a whole, and draws the unlucky lottery ticket, then society ought to insure him for that bad luck. That's the proper role of insurance.
Then along come the parents whose kids have serious complications where people don't agree it was caused by vaccines. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, and sometimes (usually) nobody knows. Those go to a special vaccine court. From the occasional articles I've read about it, they seem to be pretty generous in giving the injured child the benefit of the doubt. I can accept that. It's better to err on the side of compensating people who don't deserve it, than err on the side of not compensating people who do deserve it. But they held the line at the vaccine-autism connection, and rejected those cases.
Tylenol is not totally safe...Aspirin is not totally safe, Motrin is not totally safe, MRIs are not totally safe, X rays are not totally safe, water is not totally safe.......In all cases people have been significantly harmed by their use. So what is your point exactly about vaccines not being totally safe?
1. Done--see pubmed central.
2. Bye bye investor dollars for development (~80% of the cost of a new drug) == no new drugs.
3/4. Specificity???
shaky information and misinformation? that describes the Antivaxxers, not the basis for the law.
active duty military receives a hell of a lot more vaccines than stateside school children.. and travel to places where there's a hell of a lot more risk of catching something. you could very well be sicker without those shots.
Modern vaccines use fewer antigens than old fashioned ones. They aren't getting hammered with anymore antigens than if they ate some dirt, we just make sure that they get some antigens that make them immune to nasty bugs.
The evidence that Measles vaccines work is... not really convincing. There is no blinded RCT (despite the claims of Merck, follow their refs), and the observational data is suspect due to at least two reasons 1) Lack of correlation between different lab tests and clinician diagnosis 2) The loss in popularity of Measles parties. Together these can account for >99% reduction in incidence. However, these factors have not really been studied.
People prefer to jump to conclusions, which is not scientific. In science we need to rule out alternative explanations. I think the bar to be considered a "successful" vaccine is currently much too low to justify any mandatory use. My mind can be changed by studies ruling out those alternative explanations or a successful quantitative prediction derived from the current vaccine theory. Another problem is the simultaneous mass vaccinations performed in the 1960s may have been successful in interrupting the virus transmission, but this is not the same approach to vaccination used today (giving it to children "as they come").
I've posted this list a few times on this site. I welcome any peer reviewed literature to add to it that addresses or adds to my concerns listed above.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1843609/
It is my understanding that herd immunity is something that occurs over time naturally through generational multiplication, a Darwinian-style removal of the organisms less suitable to survive and that evolving state provides an incubator for the adapted immune systems to become more potent. Using vaccines on immune systems that actually need them, then treating them or thinking of them as naturally immune in this whole stew sounds like a recipe for a weaker herd even if the vaccinated individual is better off in the short term, if even that. An "artificial herd immunity" comes about without the vital step of, you know, having actual immunity as a metaphorical whetstone for the whole to sharpen itself against. If I'm understanding this right, that's a disaster waiting to happen.
So the "gun grabber" squads in California are a reflection of the US in general? Seriously? You're on crack. California is at the fringe of one end of the political spectrum.
It is not Peoria.
I've met Californians that like to brag that California would have 8th largest economy in the world if it were its own separate country. The more political crazy that spews out of that place, the more I wish it were a separate country, with a very well-guarded border. The rest of the US would be better off for it.
It does seem like the new California law is based more aesthetics than on science. There's a certain comfort that comes from forcing everyone to follow "proper" medical advice. It makes it seem like the world is a sensible well-understood place: "The medical doctors know what's good for us!"
At the moment, measles really just isn't a problem in California. There's the occasional minor outbreak. But, in a world where 20,000 children a day die of poverty, it's a small drop in the bucket. The question is whether there's some tipping point where a disease like the measles would go from extremely rare to extremely common - if just a few more parents were to seek a religious vaccine exemption. It's possible, in the same sense it's possible that Elvis was abducted by aliens, but it's really not supported by the science.
I do biomedical research for a living myself and, without knowing the details, the new California law seems like a bad idea. We need people to like biomedical research - to believe in it's potential to improve the human condition. But forcing a small number people to have their children undergo medicial procedures they don't want - and that aren't really necessary to the health of the child - well that's just going to make more people dislike biomedical research.
There's a problem with this: you can easily come up with counterexamples to yours that make sense.
"My religion prohibits the ownership of slaves, so I can't turn over the underground railroad travelers to the authorities."
"My religion requires I uphold human rights, so I can't follow my sergeants order to firebomb the innocent civilians."
"I had to march in Selma; I sensed it was a turning point for the nation."
"My religion requires paying taxes, because someone said give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods."
"My religion requires I protect the innocent from their oppressors."
These are also real cases. Your argument tends to take situations where people are doing something ethically wrong, such as trying to kill or steal with religion as an excuse. That isn't the maxim being discussed here. The maxim is more like:
"People have a right to decide for themselves what they put in their bodies" or "The state should not be able to force people to put things in their bodies they don't want to put in them" or something akin to this.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
The thing that really makes me smile, though, is that in the last two World Happiness Reports (2013 and 2105), the USA ranked below Mexico. People in Mexico are happier than people in the USA. That's not to say that Mexico is without problems. But the Americans really need to take a hard look at themselves before getting up on their high horse and criticizing others.
So perhaps key allergen tests are required at schools to measure specific allergen pattern responses and getting gene data based around that allergen testing. This prior to blanket immunisation, could be done at the birthing hospital prior to release of the child. Thus facilitating more safe immunisation as well as pointing out the child's future dietary et al problems to the parent prior to experiencing those problems.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Are Autism claims really? Are you aware of just how difficult it is to get a control group together for an autism study? Reproducibility is the single most difficult part of these studies that nobody is willing to talk about.
I say let them exercise their right to not vaccinate their children. Similarly, let the rest exercise their rights to keep these crackpot's children out of public schools.
Huh? The vaccine companies remain responsible for what they create. If they release a batch of vaccines laced with cyanide, they will be legally culpable. Also, every ingredient in these vaccines is publicly available and frequently monitored, if you have wheat allergies or whatever else may set up a reaction, your doctor should know about it and set up an alternative or skip it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The problem is that quarantining does not heal (quarantining the polio kid won't save his legs) and there has to be an infected host that spreads the disease so it won't be just one, there will be dozens if not hundreds of kids that require quarantining by the time the first one shows up with symptoms (read up on the lifecycle of these preventable diseases)
Vaccination is a good idea until we have the technology to auto-vaccinate or to eradicate the disease worldwide.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
"but I do suspect that at least one of the vaccines I received in the Army caused my current chronic kidney disease,"
You'll be please to know that the Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) has largely been replaced by the IPV (Inactivated), except in areas where there is a current outbreak.
OPV is known to have increased risks compared to IPV. But while IPV will protect yourself, only OPV helps to stop you from passing it to others. The latter being important when there is an ongoing outbreak.
/.,'s tend to be more educated than most places, however what I find odd is how logic escapes a lot of people.
1. If YOU are vaccinated and vaccines work, then why do you care if I'm vaccinated or not?
2. Yes, 1 vaccine is safe, are 7 shots of vaccines in a month safe?
3. Sure vaccines don't cause autism. They do however have encephalitis as a potential side effect. Look up any vaccine's risk factors. Or read this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1956061/
4. Much like how people who support gay marriage don't get it, people who support this bill don't get it either. I don't give a shit who you want to marry. The GOVERNMENT should have no say over who marries who. Including heterosexual people.
By the same token, the government should have no say over what goes in my or my children's body.
5. Who takes responsibility if a family does not vaccine their SECOND child because the first child had an adverse reaction. Now we force the family to vaccinate all their children even though the mother sees the first child get sick/die from a vaccination? What happens when the second kid dies/gets sick? Yay freedom of choice country! Oh and obviously all parents are bad, want to kill their kids and the state will take better care of their kids. The number of kids who came out of foster care who went on to do great things are a LOT higher than kids who grew up with their own parents! It's a fact.
" Even the most staunchly adherent Libertarian allows for government activity in cases of protecting the public."
Nope, not if you really understood a 'libertarian' perspective.
You probably think the US government stopped the Ebola virus in Africa. Do some research.
> and still-not-legalized pot
That's just spin based on what specific restrictions you think are just. It's effectively legal now.
The obvious answer is lower density, particularly in third world disease breeding grounds. Killing diseases are inherently self-limiting, even in a somewhat non-diverse species like humans. The diseases will run their course, those individuals with some or full natural immunity will survive, and the population will be stronger. Why did European settlers not die of Smallpox in North America as did most of the native population? Because they were the descendants of survivors. Seems cold, but that's how nature works. A side benefit for pseudo-populist assholes like you is that diseases, particularly viral diseases, tend to be completely agnostic regarding wealth and position.
Jesus dude, are you completely ignorant of the history of disease for the past 100 years?
California is a microcosm of the United States as a whole: liberal around the coasts, except for the south coast; and conservative inland, except near the large body of water on the border.
They also tend to run liberal in federal elections and conservative in state elections.
This split personality is behind a lot of California's budget problems, as one part of the populace with a majority vote has mandated spending on certain programs, and another part of the populace with a majority vote has prohibited raising certain taxes, leaving the legislature tightly bound between the rock of having to spend money and the hard place of not being able to raise it, requiring them to borrow it.
Which, come to think of it, is another microcosm of the United States as a whole, and the reason for the constant debt crises we keep having. Congress mandates spending, doesn't authorize the necessary taxes, and then blames the president for coming to the unavoidable necessity of borrowing to pay for what they've required him to spend and not allowed him to raise.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Ummmm I think you are talking crap.
http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/s...
Prior to the vaccine, almost all U.S. children were infected with rotavirus before their 5th birthday. Each year, among U.S. children younger than 5 years of age, rotavirus led to
more than 400,000 doctor visits,
more than 200,000 emergency room visits,
55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations, and
20 to 60 deaths.
Also from the CDC website - Rotavirus vaccine risks - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
It is possible that an estimated 1 to 3 U.S. infants out of 100,000 might develop intussusception within 7 days of getting their first dose of rotavirus vaccine. That means 40 to 120 vaccinated U.S. infants might develop intussusception each year.
What the fuck is intussusception?
a medical condition in which a part of the intestine invaginates (folds into) into another section of intestine
Treatment?
The intussusception can be treated with either a barium or water-soluble contrast enema or an air-contrast enema, which both confirms the diagnosis of intussusception, and in most cases successfully reduces it. The success rate is over 80%. The remaining 20% require surgery.
So to summarise
Prior to the rotavirus vaccine there were 55,000+ hospitalisations and 20+ deaths per year due to rotavirus. Post vaccine your worst case risk is a minor surgery which occurs 8 to 24 times a year. I think I know which I would prefer.
There is no evidence for risks of clustering that I am aware of. On the other hand not clustering means, at least, more risk of individual children missing shots due to greater complexity, more visits to doctors with more risk of infection with unrelated diseases and more cost, which could be spent on other public health measures that would presumably reduce other risks.
If you do think clustering vaccines adds risk, there is a fairly straightforward, if somewhat lengthy, route to address this.
First get a PhD in virology or some other appropriate discipline and a suitable job.
Next, carefully design a series of experiments that will help answer your question and get relevant approvals for it (ethics, safety,....)
Now apply for an NIH (or your country's equivalent) grant to perform it.
Perform it, analyse the results, publish them.
If they show significant extra risk from clustering, then, after a little bit of bureaucratic inertia while people find out about and understand your study and try and work out what changes to procedures would reflect it without risk elsewhere, the chances are clustering would be reduced.
I am going to have to wait for her expert opinion on this new bill before deciding if it is good or bad.
You are making a classic error of comparing the normal progress of the disease with the rare side-effects of the vaccine. This is the (false) argument against measles vaccination -- "I (or most people, or my kids or my parents) had measles. It was uncomfortable for a while, but it got better. A tiny fraction of children have a bad reaction to the vaccine which is really nasty. It's not worth that tiny fraction getting the bad reaction to save everyone the mild disease". What's missing is the larger but still small fraction of people who have nasty complications of the disease and are left handicapped or dead.
Of course, you are aware that due to medical inability for 6% of people to be vaccinated, and a non-zero vaccine failure rate, and the fact that we do not perform post-vaccination immunoassay to verify that the vaccination has been effective (and then revaccinate the shit out of the person until an immunoassay shows it to be effective), therefore herd immunity for measles and pertussis is mathematically impossible.
Right?
You are aware that herd immunity is not when every member of the herd is immune, but that a sufficient number of members are such that it will be difficult for the disease to transmit between two non-immune members of the herd?
Some of the data was real, just completely useless because it pretended to be the general case instead of the specific. He bussed in autism sufferers from a wide area to skew the results and hoped nobody would notice and that everyone would buy the vaccine preservative that he had patented instead of the one he was pretending had problems.
So kids, it's like looking at the activity in the USA at midnight on a Wednesday night and drawing the conclusion that with so many people sleeping then everyone must be lazy at noon as well.
Post after post i see the same so called intellectuals spouting the same MSNBC, CNN, FOX bullshit. The number of autism in the american populace since the vaccine scheduling system has gone from 1 in over 5000 to 1 in 84 in just 3 decades. 1 in 4 children are on pharmaceuticals. I can go on and on and on for miles. Study after study. International court case after court case proving that vaccinations CAN be the cause for autism. And yet the know it all slashdot so called libertarians are right there with the socialist just hammering on the new laws. Parents have no rights. Children are owned by the state. Just like all you smart guys want it. Its like Vertigo. What do we do knock out the pilot and right up the plane or let the experts crash us into the hills?
((I am an American Airman))
I'm also fairly certain the overall research/trial time for military vaccines is shorter than civilian ones, and the 'concern' for known side effects is less. Consider pyridostigmine bromide as a nerve agent prophylaxis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyridostigmine). It's possibly a causal factor for Gulf War Syndrome; I've worked with two guys that started hallucinating after about 3 months of daily doses and ultimately were medically retired though the process took several years. Pretty much we're "equipment" and need to be protected from environmental damage even if that means our overall 'service life' is reduced.
Not that I'm complaining. Other than the occasional ethical quagmires when protesters block my access to base complaining about missions we don't even do, I'd have to say the Kool-Aid is pretty good.
Very unlikely at this point. Some stuff like TB is even making a comeback.
This statement is false. There is plenty of evidence. Not the least which has come from the very inside of the CDC. If you dont see the obvious harms then you certainly are'nt looking.
Yeah cause you obviously know how awesome it is for children in the custody of the state..Foster parents are so historically dependable!!!
If complications from vaccine are so rare then why do the pharmaceutical companys need protection from lawsuits? See you have what we call double mindedness, Also known as cognitive dissonance. Your so confused by whats happening that information that lead you to a proper understanding of the situation is actually furthering to confuse you. This is similar to vertigo. Where a person feels strongly that upside down is actually the correct orientation. Kills alot of pilots..
What the hell is nsnbc.me? It looks like total junk.
When you ignore the doctors, the terrorists win.
You mean like a meteoric rise in the number of autistic since the introduction of the vaccine scheduling system?
Wow, so because there's a 0.001-0.005% chance of a reaction requiring serious medical treatment? That's really as close to irrelevant as you can get, that sample size is so small that I'd be surprised if the vaccine alone was the only cause of any problems.
Your arguments are based on a premise that I do not automatically accept. Our knowledge of the human body is very rudimentary, and the study of the effectiveness of these vaccines is plagued by ethical constraints and simply gigantic possibly confounding influences (esp. bias amongst doctors when making diagnoses, changing definitions as we learn more about the variety of diseases with similar symptoms, and changing methodology towards administering the vaccines). Just seeing vaccine introduced -> incidence goes down does not qualify as scientific, yet that is what seems to be going on. Just because medical research is hard does not mean we should lower our standards of evidence.
Hello, just wanted to say, I loved this article. It was practical.
Keep on posting!
Kianpi
So, we have two types of students who aren't 'vaccinated' (even though there is no such thing as 'vaccination', because Jenner was a fraud: http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html)
1) Students who allegedly can't have 'vaccines' because they are 'immuno compromised' or allergic to eggs. These are 'good' non-vaccinated students.
2) Students who don't have 'vaccines' because they know they are a fraud and therefore harmful. These are 'bad' non-vaccinated students.
Then we have the majority (the sheep) who are 'vaccinated', and therefore SHOULDN'T CATCH THE DISEASES. (LOL)
Apparently, Group 1 students are 'at risk' because of the Group 2 students, who are a threat to the mythical 'herd immunity' (proved a MYTH here: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/)
But aren't Group 2 students also 'at risk' because of ALL OTHER GROUP 2 STUDENTS?
Why are Group 2 students allegedly a 'threat' but Group 1 students aren't?
You idiots - you can't even understand basic logic. There is no such thing as a 'vaccine', Dr Hadwen proved this over a hundred years ago. The money these scammers make is incredible, of course they're going to berate you and try to guilt trip you into not THINKING about it too much...
When I was a child, EVERYBODY got measles, mumps, etc. EVERYBODY. Every single child had them, and nobody thought anything of it. Nobody's parents were terrified when their child caught measles or mumps. What's changed today?
Those laws do not, in fact, exist. What DOES exist is laws that say if you think your child was injured by a vaccine and the injury is anywhere on a long list of things which we know MIGHT happen, even if they only happen on a one in a billion cases - you don't have to prove your claim, you get paid. No need for lawyers, no need for expensive court cases, no need to deal with the incredible scientific complexity of actually proving causality - you win, guilt by the vaccine producer is ASSUMED.
The reason you get paid from a big fund is so that the vaccine producers can actually afford to pay these "guilty with no chance to prove innocence" claims against them. The reason the claimants get these "assumption that the other guy is guilty" benefits is because vaccines are often mandatory - and like all medicine they do have risks. Those risks may be incredibly minor but they exist and may hit some people - so those people are simply given the benefit of the doubt.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Not quite. If you consider that the chance of transmission isn't 100% and that given a well vaccinated population, 61% of those transmissions are stopped, it greatly reduces the spread of the disease. Note how quickly the last measles outbreak died down, even with a depressingly low vaccination rate where it started.
To answer your question - because it's more dangerous. A recent study compared incidences of side effects and injuries between those who got the usual schedule and children who had delayed or spread-out schedules - and found 80% more injuries in the latter group. Spreading vaccines out actually INCREASES the risks. They are extremely minor risks, but when spread out - they become much more significant.
Furthermore it increases the risk of actually getting one of the diseases the vaccines are meant to protect against by a huge margin as the delay period extends how long you are vulnerable before being vaccinated.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Actually some people did do what you ask. Their findings were that spreading vaccines out actually INCREASES the risk of negative complications.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Continued ignorance...
Go ahead folks... keep shooting your kids up with that shit.
Measles, mumps - according to research, full vaccination cycle gives immunity for only 3 to 19 (extremely rare) years. So, at any time, almost everybody here is not immune. Are you, as a poster immune? Have you recently got vaccinated? If not, please do, or better - just shut up with your false beliefs.
They need protection because too many will sue at the drop of a hat, without any real support for their claims. Such could and would easily bankrupt these companies or at least seriously impact their ability to research and develop more and or better treatments. Thus we track the very rare vaccination incidents and shield the companies from frivolous suits. Should a real problem be identified by the tracking system the vaccine is pulled. You are confused by what the anti-vaxxers claim that you are failing to have a proper understanding of the purpose of the reporting system and the reason for shielding companies from frivolous suits. I suggest that you are the one experiencing your vertigo type confusion.
Why do so many insist on their being a nefarious purpose behind these systems that are designed to ensure we have safe effective vaccines?
Well, I've been vaccinated as a child, many years ago. Do you mean, that I shouldn't contact with children, because I'm vulnerable to measles? Measles for adults are rather nasty. I'd rather avoid that.
You are aware that herd immunity is not when every member of the herd is immune, but that a sufficient number of members are such that it will be difficult for the disease to transmit between two non-immune members of the herd?
Actually, that's not precisely what it means. What it means is that the herd has an immunity above the HIT, and therefore an infectious disease will burn itself out before it becomes endemic (*en*demic, NOT *epi*demic).
You are aware of what "herd immunity threshold" and "R(0) value" for a disease, mean, right? If not, let me refresh your memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
As you can see from the chart, the R(0) of measles is sufficient for some strains to require a 94% immunity in the population before the disease will burn itself out, rather than transmitting to a susceptible individual.
Since 6% of people can't be immunized (too young, Hep C, bad histamine complex on chromosome 6, immunocompromised by HIV or other infection, organ transplant, and so on), that requires *everyone else* be immunized.
In addition, if you read the text to the left of the R(0) chart, you'll see that the population has to be homogeneous for this to be meaningful. So what this means is that unimmunized people have to be uniformly distributed throughout the population. Which they are not.
Feel free to then drop down to the equations in the next section, and do the math for measles and pertussis.
Then come back, and we can talk more.
I'm also fairly certain the overall research/trial time for military vaccines is shorter than civilian ones
I wonder how improvements in logistics and remotely operated weapons systems change the need for this. The danger of having everyone on a base be incapacitated by illness while surrounded by a hostile enemy was huge 50 years ago and would easily outweigh possible dangers from side effects of a less-tested vaccine. Now, it's far easier to have drone patrols protecting a quarantined base and deliver men and equipment from reserves far away to fill the gaps in an overall strategy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The immunisation compromised child has committed no crime and is absolutely allowed in schools. Stop being a shit.
Not quite. If you consider that the chance of transmission isn't 100% and that given a well vaccinated population, 61% of those transmissions are stopped, it greatly reduces the spread of the disease.
This slows the burn rate.
Read Richard Preston's "The Hot Zone". The reason Ebola is such a non-problem is that it has a very high burn rate: from acquisition of the disease to death is a short path, and therefore, without outside help, it has a hard time traveling very far before all the carriers are either immune (small percentage) or dead (most of them).
Counterintuitively, a slow burn rate is actually a *bad* thing, for an infectious disease, and the more infectious the disease, the *worse* things are, if the disease has a slow burn rate.
As an historical example: Typhoid Mary's burn rate was 0.
Note how quickly the last measles outbreak died down, even with a depressingly low vaccination rate where it started.
That was primarily due to defacto quarantine, not immunization. When someone is home sick, or in the hospital in isolation sick, they are not in contact with people who are susceptible, but have not yet contracted the disease.
This is an incredibly important effect for hyper-virulent diseases like measles.
LOL - there is no such thing as 'herd immunity'.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/
Any answers?
Aren't people whom 'vaccinations' don't work well on ALSO a 'threat' to other people whom 'vaccinations' don't work well on, as well as people who can't have 'vaccinations' because they are allergic to them, or 'immuno compromised'?
But only those who CHOOSE not to have 'vaccines' are a 'threat', apparently. How scientific of you.
What a bunch of idiots - this is embarrassing, you can't even THINK through basic stuff like this.
"Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they?"
There is research in such a stuff, but mostly from public university and as with all orphan disease not very much. The reason that it is not done is because there are so many research point and at the end of the day you have got to limit yourself to what you can find a funding for. The fact that you found a pubmed article belies your claim that nobody would research it. The simple truth, is that sometimes some stuff will simply through bad luck not be researched.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I thing a more accurate statement would be that California is at the fringe of all political spectrums.
Time to offend someone
As a publicly funded research scientist, I agree with you. I wish the right of first refusal didn't exist and that the info was freely accessible and usable by all.
Guess what, a vaccine is meant to trigger an immune response and what you have basically sounds like a very strong immune response. I bet you get over things like the common cold pretty quick, I know I do and have similar responses to vaccines, though not that bad. I feel like shit for a day and then am fine. Also no one ever said that vaccines were 100% safe and without side effects but I'll take feeling like shit for a day over a full blown flu for several days while feeling like shit the whole time and puking.
Time to offend someone
It's a bit more nuanced you have to look at risk of getting the disease + risk of bad outcome vs risk of bad outcome from the vaccine. For measles and most vaccines the math works.
Now take yellow fever my exposure risk is extremely low and the vaccine kills more than 1 in 500k.
No sir I dont like it.
You're suggesting to add expensive testing for every child to detect for some known issues that occur in approximately 1:1,000,000 children and this testing isn't likely to grab known issues. How much do you think that one in a million child receives in compensation for a bad vaccine? Divide that by a million and that tells you how cheap that testing needs to be to be worthwhile.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
And the problem you have isn't that your religion is being broken but that you're not being allowed total power over the child you believe your property because you paid for it.
Your child is not christian. YOU are and you're telling your child they are. They, however, have not chosen it, you made them.
When it comes to freedom of and for religion, you refuse it for your child. Freedom isn't your point, your personal power is.
On the surface this is great and is common sense. However, as with most things the public allows to become law, there is a flip side to this.
What happens if it comes out that a vaccine actually contains components that harm you, either because the company is trying to maximize profits, or intentionally. If I refuse to have my child shot up with that stuff, I could become a criminal.
Lots of stuff has come out about really horrible things happening after kids get vaccines. Rare, but they happen and it's ugly. I don't trust the drug makers because they are trying to maximize a profit, and I certainly don't trust the FDA.
We really need to consider the negatives of these things. After 9/11 everyone lost their minds and allowed (and sometimes begged) or gov't to take away or freedoms. Now a majority is told to be scared of non vaccinated kids, or that its all just to take care of the nice little children.
Go listen to Bill Gates talk these days about his desire for a super vaccine. He specifically says that such a vaccine will allow us to lower birth rates. No kidding. While this could actually help the planet, it does line up a precident whereby the govt can forcibly inject you or your kids with whatever cocktail of shit deemed necessary by the people with all the money and I find that pretty scary.
California is a microcosm of the United States as a whole: liberal around the coasts, except for the south coast; and conservative inland, except near the large body of water on the border.
They also tend to run liberal in federal elections and conservative in state elections.
This split personality is behind a lot of California's budget problems, as one part of the populace with a majority vote has mandated spending on certain programs, and another part of the populace with a majority vote has prohibited raising certain taxes, leaving the legislature tightly bound between the rock of having to spend money and the hard place of not being able to raise it, requiring them to borrow it.
Which, come to think of it, is another microcosm of the United States as a whole, and the reason for the constant debt crises we keep having. Congress mandates spending, doesn't authorize the necessary taxes, and then blames the president for coming to the unavoidable necessity of borrowing to pay for what they've required him to spend and not allowed him to raise.
If you watch California elections they only borrow money for education and repairing aging infrastructure. They seem to find the money they need for everything else by raiding the schools. If the dumbasses who vote in California would stop approving billions of dollars in school bonds every election, this practice might actually change.
Let me ask you this. As the parent of a child with a transplant, would you prefer that it be really cheap and easy for every other parent who can, to get shots for their kids?
* What free clinics with free shots? I did a web search for my local area and didn't turn any up. Are these secret or something? I finally *did* get my kid her last HepA shot, but I was only able to do it by finding a new pediatrician for her. In practice I had to have health insurance and fork over a co-pay.
* I'm rather well-off, and it took me 3 months to get my kid her last HepA shot. My original health care provider didn't have it. I called 4 pharmacies but they wouldn't give it to a child. None of them informed me about any free clinics either! Finally I found a new pediatrician. How many parents d'you think are determined enough and have the means to get this done? Neither pediatrician informed me about any free clinics either! WHAT FREE CLINICS??
I *bet* you that MOST of the vaccination non-compliance is because of problems LIKE THIS instead of outright anti-vax BS. I got it done, but it took a while AND it was pretty hard! How about we make it REALLY EASY for people to have their kids fully vaccinated? I mean, how many people are going to comb the web, call 4 pharmacies, and finally switch pediatricians to get stuff like this done?
I *fully* support vaccination, how about rather than decrying/prosecuting parents who are having problems, you HELP THEM GET IT DONE? Like actual free clinics that aren't kept secret? Like vaccines offered in schools 2 weeks before classes?
--PeterM
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf
Be careful... that ~2 billion vaccines number is for 2006-2013, seven years. That works out to the around the entire US population being vaccinated each year. The number of administered vaccines is probably orders of magnitude less:
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index
That number is still not clear. How many vaccines are given to each child according to their definition...
> Hammering a small toddler with so much medication at one time seems unnecessary. Vaccinations are not medications. Ye olde Wikipedia says specifically that vaccinations are th, "administration of antigenic material (a vaccine) to stimulate an individual's immune system to develop adaptive immunity to a pathogen." Read the full entry to understand if that is not clear...it is not the same thing as giving someone a cocktail of drugs (medication).
Put this another way:
If measles goes through a small town public school with a thousand kids, three of those kids will die. Several will have life-long aftereffects.
If you vaccinate every human being in a large city, *1* will have *some sort* of adverse effect.
If 'reducing possible harm to children' is actually your end goal, there's no way in hell you'd argue against vaccines.
The problem, really, is that there are entire generations who've never seen a playmate die of measles, or have the polio leg braces, or the like.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
What is the probability of Measles becoming a problem if you get it?
And - the part that many anti-vax folks forget - he fabricated the study to help sell his own version of the MMR. So he wasn't anti-vax, he was just pro-"the vaccine I made which will make me more money." (Of course, he quickly turned anti-vax when he saw dollar signs in that direction.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I was overseas when they made a big push to take a relatively untested Anthrax vaccine. This was after it was determined that the enemies we were fighting weren't using Anthrax, and that the attacks (mailings) had all been to politicians and such. There was a lot of rah rah'ing over how important it was to take the vaccine as military members. I turned it down because they couldn't tell us anything about possible long term side affects. When talking about it with others no one seemed to have opted to take it.
Every study that comes out continues to prove how safe and effective vaccines are. They prove beyond any legitimate doubt that vaccines are so effective that the very small segment of the population that cannot tolerate them are effectively shielded by the herd immunity. There are absolutely no legitimate studies that question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
On the other hand, there is an epidemic of willful ignorance when it comes to vaccinations. A large segment of the population flat out refuses to believe that they've been duped by someone trying to sell something. They refuse to admit that the science is overwhelming and undeniable. They flat out refuse to acknowledge facts staring them in the face. But, sadly, that's a disease that is impossible to overcome.
If you pro-vaccine people keep lying to us all the time I will stop listening to you. This is why I am not getting every vaccine recommended, not because I think there is a autism link. Merck, the company that makes the Mumps vaccine has been caught lying about the effectiveness of its' vaccine so it won't loose its' monopoly making it. They will tell you it is 95% effective, but it is well less that that, perhaps as low as 33%. Of course they tell everybody in the media that the outbreaks were due to vaccinated people, when in reality as many as 77% of the infected in the outbreak were vaccinated.
We also have countries like China where they mandate vaccination. They still have outbreaks of measles there even though 99% of the people are vaccinated. So again, this thing about herd immunity turns out to be a lie. And cigaretts don't cause cancer!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Do you have any links for that study. I found reference to a study done in Oregon regarding this but couldn't actually find the name of the study or anything. The article I read failed to mention any increased risk of complications. The only risks it discussed was what you would obviously expect given that the child goes longer without the vaccination, and that they might not finish the vaccination schedule.
Depending on your lifestyle I think the additional risk from taking longer to accomplish all the vaccinations can largely be negated. For kids who get farmed out to daycares and or travel extensively it is obviously more critical that they be vaccinated as quickly as possible. My own kids though have a stay at home Mom and don't have a lot of contact outside the home until Kindergarten.
Except they give you FDA blacked labeled vaccines. I loved getting multiple rounds of anthrax for no real reason. The reaction rates for anthrax vaccine are 5%-35% , those are good numbers. Also you get booster shots ie multiple shots per year. http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...
What about the anthrax vaccine I was forced to take?
Disagree.
Both sides are guilty of extremism here.
Vaccines do work. The theory is sound. But the implementation leaves a little to be desired.
It is possible to find kids that get the shots) and then develop an allergic reaction and die. In the past few months Tasha Greige and Rachel French died because of this. Look it up.
The problem is greatly exacerbated by giving tylenol for a fever. Reactions can be severe. We no longer give kids aspirin for a fever because of the neurological damage associated with Reye's Syndrome and there is mounting evidence we should be withholding Tylenol under the same conditions.
I'm pro vax and got my kids jabbed, but recognize the immunization program is a little oversold. Anti vax sentiment gets wrapped up with nuttiness like "it's intentional depopulation". Yeah not so much. It's hard to find objective discourse criticizing it without the sme website offering up that nonsense.
Here's what one guy who has expertise pointed out:
My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.
IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.
Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.
The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #2). The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.[1]
(See more: https://alethonews.wordpress.c...)
A real MD (who is also an attorney) points out ascorbate mitigates the side effects:
http://www.peakenergy.com/arti...
"Klenner's paper (Klenner FR. The treatment of poliomyelitis and other virus diseases with vitamin C. J. South. Med. and Surg., 111:210-214, 1949.) on curing 60 cases of polio in the epidemic of 1948 should have changed the way infectious diseases were treated but it did not." - Robert Cathcart
The people telling you there's no problem are The third-leading cause of death in the United States.
Starfield B (July 2000). "Is US health really the best in the world?". JAMA 284 (4): 483–5. doi:10.1001/jama.284.4.483. PMID 10904513.
This was edited
Need Mercedes parts ?
Not all are related to extreme antivaxers (nutbars) .
Whatever your claim is you have to go through the vaccine injury compensation court first but that does not stop you from suing in a civil claims court.
A couple have gone through the civil courts in the US. Mostly to do with vaccines that were not as effective as claimed (the companies were fudging the numbers) and contamination of vaccines with another virus.
From the site itself:
The International Medical Council on Vaccination is an association of medical doctors, registered nurses and other qualified medical professionals whose purpose is to counter the messages asserted by pharmaceutical companies, the government and medical agencies that vaccines are safe, effective and harmless. Our conclusions have been reached individually by each member of the Council, after thousands of hours of personal research, study and observation
So it is a bunch of quacks relying on at best anecdotal data. You are the one that needs to think through this.
Hell look at the author of this particular piece:
Advertisements selling the 'Blaylock Wellness Report' at newsmax.com contain claims of additional health dangers, including fluoridated drinking water, fluoridated toothpaste, vaccines, dental amalgam, cholesterol drugs, pesticides, and aluminum cookware.[23] In April 2013, Dr. Blaylock entered his endorsement of the chemtrails conspiracy theory on an internet radio program called Linderman Unleashed Radio Show where he cited increased levels of aluminum in water bodies and nature with his common sense observations of the skies. He proposed the conspiratorial and criminal aircraft spraying by governments of nano toxins for some supposed global, emergency purpose.[24]
He believes in a chemtrails conspiracy. the man is a loon, and so are you for following him faithfully with no critical thinking on your own.
If I understand this proposed law, that is in fact the idea. Children can go to public schools only if they're vaccinated; but unvaccinated children can go to private schools or be homeschooled. Except, sometimes, when the state sends armed agents to seize homeschooled children because the state doesn't like the curriculum ( http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/police-seize-10-children-from-off-grid-family-because-theyre-homeschooled/ ).
Personally, I don't see how this proposal could survive a freedom of religion challenge. But as far as eliminating the "personal belief" exemption that California's had for decades, I believe it's perfectly Constitutional although a little out of character for the state. Five years from now, I expect that you'll only be able to opt out of vaccinations if you claim that it affects your eternal salvation.
>And don't compare the shots you get for basic training as an adult with the different vaccinations given to children. They aren't the same things.
Thanks for explaining, fellow AC. Just keep making those claims.
Due to Democracy, you must take the good with the bad or go live on a deserted island.
If the majority wants everyone to be vaccinated, then that will be the future.
If the majority decided all men should be castrated at age 28, unless they have a degree and career path lined up, then that will be the future.
Democracy does not discriminate between good and bad, morality or ethics; it simply enforces the majority's will upon all people under the Democracy.
The key to a good future is educate the hell out of the kids and hope the adults don't fuck everything up too much before we all die off. That education, however, will also tailor how the future thinks and must not be filled with our own bias and corrupted truth.
That's a real challenge. Where is Darth Vader when you need him?
The intersection of people who don't want to follow the CDC's vaccination schedule (for whatever reason, legitimate or otherwise) and people with some resources has got to be somewhat reasonably sized (eg: look at all the wealthy areas with well-informed people who don't buy into the "everything is safe" propaganda). That says growth industry in servicing the desire to avoid public school to me...
You had a lot of interesting points, and yes, some vaccines like tetanus (the second most deadly toxin known) are for preventing infections which are not transmitted human to human.
You had to toss in that worthless "cure everything with Vitamin C" quack and his friend the Orthopedic surgeon Cathcart though..
http://scienceblogs.com/insole...
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Key facts
Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.
In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.
During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre...
Agreed. My wife may have an MTHFR mutation, which would give any potential future children serious risks to vaccination. Not having enough medical exceptions is what scares me about laws like this. We would have to rely on herd immunity, which of course this law would help with if it weren't for the fact that it would mandate vaccines to people who may be at risk from them.
Not entirely. There are some genetic metabolic disorders for which antibodies resulting from vaccines potentially present a serious risk. Not just ASD, but a few other risks. Can't find the journal articles at the moment, but they are out there.
And some bacterial diseases will never ever go away such as tetanus (lockjaw). So no matter what happens some vaccinations are here to stay.
So who decides which vaccines? The CDC? They are hopelessly corrupt, as are most government agencies (FDA, EPA, USDA). Their "landmark" study on autism and the MMR vaccine in 2004 now has one of the 3 scientists who authored it getting whistleblower status and claiming the numbers were "fixed" to show no problem when there was a serious problem.
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/william-thompson-statement-27-august-2014-3.pdf
And the quotes from Simpsonwood and Puerto Rico Conferences (vaccines &metal toxicity) about how "my grandson isn't going to get it" but it's fine for everyone else!
http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm
I'm not anti-vaccine. I was vaccinated and so are my kids. I view it as a good tool in the medical arsenal but the profit motive is perverting science on all fronts and that includes vaccines.
So how do we prevent corruption from demanding more vaccines including ones that just don't work (influenza see below)? Do we have polygraphs for all policy makers and scientists? We need
If you think that the seasonal influenza vaccine is a good one please read these views on it. Not worth the risk and better (safer and more effective) protocols are available like vitamin D3. What is to stop them from demanding the influenza vaccine despite huge questions to its effectiveness?
- Cochrane Review - Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults & children
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults-
http://www.cochrane.org/CD004879/ARI_vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-in-healthy-children
- Dr Lisa Jackson's out of season influenza vaccine research
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/337.short
It's hard to find objective discourse criticizing it without the sme website offering up that nonsense.
Is it fair to paraphrase that as "The only people critiquing vaccines are utter kooks and I spend my time trying to find something said by the kooks that I can agree with"?
Why would you try so hard to believe things said by kooks? If you can't find any nonkooks saying the same thing, then maybe you shouldn't be motivated to believe it.
It is my understanding that herd immunity is something that occurs over time naturally through generational multiplication, a Darwinian-style removal of the organisms less suitable to survive and that evolving state provides an incubator for the adapted immune systems to become more potent.
To start with your understanding is wrong. Herd immunity is a state where the percentage of members in the herd who are immune to a disease is high enough that when an outbreak occurs, the outbreak ends and the disease becomes no longer present in the herd again.
Secondly for your natural Darwinian system to work, the disease would have to have to become the dominant selective pressure that determines which individuals are able to pass on their genes. In practice that would involve a close to 100% mortality rate on the unprotected population, because genetically inherited resistance to the disease has to become the most important selective pressure. Do you really think it's good idea to let the majority of the human population (probably including you) die from a disease over and over again over multiple generations to get "natural herd immunity" because you aren't a fan of the "artificial" process?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I feel that we should ban the use of insurance (other people's money) to pay for treatment of a condition that could and should have been avoided by vaccination, when vaccination was avoided for a non-medical reason (e.g. personal belief, religion). Why should everyone else pay for a conscious, prolonged choice (not a mistake or accident)?
I would say a quarantine after showing symptoms is less invasive than a preventative injection.
When I do my cost-benefit analysis, "invasiveness" is on the cost side and it carries small weight; on the benefit side are "preventiveness" and "health", and they carry large weight.
And yet still, I don't agree that quarantine is less invasive that injection. An injection is over in three seconds. Quarantine for, say, 41 days is more than one million times longer than that.
The cost-benefit analysis for vaccines is so unfathomably overwhelmingly in favor of the benefit that all reasonable people are aghast that we have to waste time arguing about it. Can't we argue about things where the costs and benefits are less obviously unbalanced?
People just need to read history. Vaccinations, while all might not be good and are purely 100% for greed (Gardasil), do provide herd immunity. Some people will get sick from them. But I've rather live in a world where a very, very tiny percentage of people are affected by vaccines than in a world where large swaths of the population die. Treating 100s or 1000s of people is much easier than treating millions or billions.
Now if only the government had the balls to de-capitalize big pharma, and take all of that research under their wing (much like government funded research used to be) then maybe we'd actually be developing CURES for stuff like cancer (cough cough CUBA) instead of just mostly ineffective treatments that are only designed to fatten the pockets of big pharma. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most or all of the big pharma companies have already developed vaccinations and cures for cancer and aids. But it wouldn't be cost effective for them to cure the diseases since they'd stop getting money once all of the diseases are cured. They just need to find vaccines that are only partially effective to keep repeat customers coming back. But we have the same problem with law enforcement and our privatized prison system with the war on drugs. If that "war" ever comes to an end they are out of jobs, so they lobby to the government to keep the war going.
the anti-vax movement has made anybody who does easily lose credibility, because the anti-vax movement repeatedly and often makes very stupid claims (autism? are you fucking kidding me?) that cause everybody else to come down hard on anybody who speaks honestly about any potential down sides of it.
This is it. We won't hear it from kooks. The kooks lost all credibility in the past, it already happened, so it is not possible for them to convince me or anybody reasonable of anything ever again. True or not, the kooks simply cannot be trusted. If you will excuse the Godwin, Nazis had good taste in art but nobody cites Nazi art critiques because, alas, other things done by Nazis.
So, somebody else will have to write art critiques, and someone else will have to convince us that there is something wrong with a particular vaccine.
A baby from the same birth group as my daughter got measles from the measles vaccination.
The Hepatic B vaccine killed a 28 day old baby. You should look and see the photos of a baby swelling up and dying before it's brave parents holding hands. It was a severe reaction to the vaccine. Vaccines unfortunately are never completely safe and until a method arrives to find out a way to test for allergies or sensitivity, we are just gambling with children's lives. (go to www.iansvoice.org)
Try to look at their baby killed in front of their eyes and try not to shed a tear. Then ask yourself if you would gamble with your own child's life because they tell you it's perfectly safe.
The data from the VAERS website indicates that vaccines will consistently hurt and kill children at a consistent rate. It's not even a question. The data tells the real story.
So it's not an easy answer. It's very troubling though how self righteous some people are about vaccinating everyone. The vaccine debate has as many lies and Half truths as any other institutions of Americans government. Most of the lies are painting a rosy picture of how safe vaccines are and not being realistic. Seriously, it's like they want to ignore their own websites data.
I wish I was still so optimistic, it wasn't so long ago. Then I spot checked the evidence for vaccines by checking it (I mean going through tons of literature, plotting data for myself, etc) for measles and came away very disappointed. I recommend everyone with scientific training choose some "well accepted" area of medical claims and really really look into something specific to see how they come to their conclusions.
Your theory might hold water if vaccines were the same as natural immunity, they aren't.
this is the kind of response i've seen a lot of from the pro-vax group.
adhominem name calling, high on hysterics, low on facts.
the pro-choice side from what i've seen is the opposite. lots of facts, citations, indexes. for a layman like myself, it's much less stressing to read. reading all this name calling and hysterics i'm seeing here just makes me want to toss.
you didn't name the doctor, but i believe you're talking about Andrew Wakefield. if you want to read about it, look at this book, science for sale, http://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/book/?GCOI=60239104128420. wakefields paper may have been retracted, probably under extreme pressure from big pharma, but it has been replicated independently 28 times. http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again/
wrt autism, now, i know, and have heard it over and over that mercury is bad for the brain. you eat it, breath it, rub it on your skin, enough of it and you get minimata disease, mad hatters disease, or grassy narrows disease. it stands to reason that injecting it will definitely do something to your brain and nervous system. this should be a no-brainer for anybody.
to me, autism is just a diagnosis. inject mercury into a baby, and something bad is going to happen. whether you want to diagnose it as autism, add, adhd, whatever, there is going to be something bad happen.
factoid. autism disorders used to be 1 in 50,000 children. that's prior to 1990. now the incidence is 1 in 50, and the incidence chart follows very closely the pediatric vaccination chart.
factoid. top scientist at CDC blows the whistle on fraud and coverup at the CDC. the cdc has been sitting on a mountain of data showing that yes, vaccinations do cause autism. check out this letter: http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/
vaccination is a medical treatment. it should be choice. read the product monographs and make your own choice. if you do, you will find there are a lot of side effects, and they are not rare. that is - unless you think 1 in 50 is rare.
you'll also find out about all the amazing ingredients they're willing to publish (pharma doesn't have to disclose all ingredients). human aborted fetal cells. formaldehyde. aluminum. mercury. cancer cells from various species, monkeys, pigs, cows. sounds to me like they're fracking your veins.
ever hear of tobacco science? remember all those years the tobacco companies said tobacco wasn't bad for you? remember they even had science (paid for by them) to say that not only wasn't smoking bad for you, it would even improve your health? It worked for 70 years. Why in the world would you think big-pharma wouldn't take lessons from big-tobacco and try to one up them?
fake science. tobacco science. when there's money to be made, and no liabilities to be had, you can bet the tobacco science will flow.
Not quite. The 'burn rate' is a measure of how quickly an infected person ceases to be a vector of infection (by getting better or dying). I'm talking about probability of getting infected at all. Technically, an immune individual shows a burn rate of infinity since they never carry the infection in spite of exposure.
So mass vaccination increases the effective burn rate as measured over the population.
i'm sorry, but i just have to say, measles is not the plague.
most of us born before 1990 had the real measles, the one that gives us life time immunity. not this crappy watered down snake oil that gives you at best 3 years of immunity. the vaccine monograph even says one of the risks of the mmr is getting measles. the vaccine can cause the disease it's supposed to prevent. moreover, people recently vaccinated can be contagious, shedding the virus every time they sneeze.
i find it striking that most of the people in these little epidemics of measles these days are actually vaccinated. how bout that? there was a mother in toronto whos child was in a doctor's office exposed to measles. she went on an online rant about the unvaccinated, risking her child. good lord i thought. you should get the measles when you're a child, then it's no problem and you're immune for life. anyways, it turns out the person she was ranting about - was up to date with his shots. maybe that was his mistake.
in the last 10 years more people have died of the measles vaccine than have died of measles. something like 36 vs 15. wrt the mmr, i think we've passed the tipping point. time to back up.
Raise your hand if you think you are equipped to make decisions for me. That child left the hospital long ago..
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.
A good compromise might be to require people to get signed off by a doctor for each individual required vaccine. Pamphlet and education about the risks of not getting vaccinated. A person or religious exemption box would be checked... for each individual vaccine. It would be done by the parents, not the child. But the child would be present when the doctor is explaining it to the parent.
Also, require all k-12 schools and daycare facilities to post their states on an annual basic. This would include the number of students vaccinated for required vaccines, and staff. This would be posted at the main entrance to the building, or within 15 feet of the entrance if inside the building. It would have to be dated. This way, people are aware of the situation.
No but they did a mediocre job of stopping Ebola in the US. Good enough.
There are many people with compromised immune systems and the vast majority do not need to live in sterile environments. Their immune system just does not work as well as it should or is overly sensitive. In both cases this has no real effect on virulent diseases as such. However it often means that they can not be vaccinated for those diseases.
It often means they are the ones who suffer and die when they catch them
The link was shared with me on social media several months ago, I didn't save it unfortunately. But google found it really quickly: http://www.scientificamerican....
Quoting the article in Scientific American: "The risk of a febrile seizure following the MMR is approximately one case in 3,000 doses for children aged 12 to 15 months but one case in 1,500 doses for children aged 16 to 23 months"
Double the risk of the most common side effect.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Thank you for answering my question.
I've seen timelines on vaccines and the decline of many diseases they are designed for. What I see is the diseases start to decline a few years prior to vaccinations, and then continue to drop. Also around the same time as the beginning of the decline, new sanitation guidelines came out and people started washing their hands more, taking showers, cleaning dishes better, etc... So, what's to say that improved sanitation hasn't done more to prevent diseases than vaccinations?
Thanks for the link.
I wish they had studied more than just MMR. At least the Febrile Seizures are essentially just an extra expense since they don't cause any long term issues and aren't damaging on their own. But that is an important thing to know and be aware of.
There is an evolutionary tendency for diseases to become less lethal and less incapacitating, since people do slowly adapt through evolution, and disease strains that keep their host functional longer tend to spread better. (There are exceptions; the malaria plasmodium depends heavily on healthy mosquitoes to spread, not healthy people.) This is one reason it's really hard to tell what caused ancient epidemics.
Chicken pox is a good example of a disease that appears to have become more harmless. I still hated having it, and I'm still vulnerable to shingles (I got a shot for it, but was told that only lowers my chances of getting shingles by half).
I'm not patient, really. Given natural selection, which will do a half-assed job of partly mitigating disease effects over a millennium or so, or vaccination, I'm siding with vaccination.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Some people who are wary of scientists, confused or terrified by the modern tech world, etc are easy prey for charlatans and are afraid that some component of the vaccines, or the combination of the vaccines are dangerous.
Some other people opposed mandatory vaccines for entirely different reasons that have nothing to do with fear of science; they instead oppose this on grounds that it constitutes government asserting its absolute right to inject substances of its choice into your body as though government owns you.
These two extremely different sets of opponents of this public policy need to be understood separately and addressed separately. They are miles apart intellectually (one is simple people in a scary complex world, the other is wary people suspicious of a government whose history makes such concerns rational). In the former case, a gentle education properly presented by trusted people can do the trick, in the latter case legislative safeguards are probably a better approach with the spin-off benefit of possibly improving things for everybody.
He literally wrote the book that kicked-off a lot of this anti-vaccine stuff, which is why the vaccination levels are so low in so many left-wing democrat communities rather than supposedly anti-science republican areas. In fact, the Democrats in Sacramento put a clause into this that grand-fathers-in the kids of the current anti-vaccine activists, just to get them off their backs in their heavily liberal districts (the idea being that in a few years they'll not have any more young kids and will not care that the next generation of young kids won't get the exception)
The certainty of current harm is worse than the possibility of future harm. Let them be fostered by same-sex couples if you want the best assurance for their safety.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The number sounds about right - you have all the kids, plus a whole slew mandatory for military personnel, plus travelers, plus booster shots, plus the biggie - annual flu shots.
Since manufacturers have to pay a levy to the government fund for every dose they distribute for a disease (The MMR vaccine, since it covers 3 diseases, has to pay 3 levies per dose), it doesn't make economic sense to over-produce and over-distribute.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Thanks - same figures, but you expressed it much better than I did :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Not quite. The 'burn rate' is a measure of how quickly an infected person ceases to be a vector of infection (by getting better or dying). I'm talking about probability of getting infected at all. Technically, an immune individual shows a burn rate of infinity since they never carry the infection in spite of exposure.
So mass vaccination increases the effective burn rate as measured over the population.
Only after you hit the HIT (Herd Immunity Threshold); below that, pretty much everyone who can get the disease, will, if it has a long contagious period prior to onset of symptoms, is contagious after symptoms remit and the person is not educated that they need to stay home longer, even if they "feel better", or the disease has asymptomatic carriers. Or some jerk decides to "work through it", and exposes their coworkers.
And as the math proves, measles and pertussis have an HIT too high to be able to pop over the top of the HIT to get to that saddle point. Their only saving grace is that people isolate themselves when they feel ill.
NB: measles is infectious 4 days before onset of symptoms, and up to 4 days after symptoms remit; pertussis, at least, is only infectious after onset of symptoms, and remains infectious for only 3 weeks (but symptoms last longer, if untreated with antibiotics); if treated with antibiotics, pertussis is no longer infectious after about a week. Measles is pretty insidious.
You underestimate the difficulty of doing good science and distinguishing good science from bad by such a degree it is offensive. Most people who do all those steps you mention do not end up producing anything that's of lasting value or even reproducible by others.
I'll wait for actual numbers on vaccines administered per child associated with a methodology. I think you are engaging in wild speculation. Further that this is yielding results that are implausible on their face but it is not slowing you down one bit because your conclusions support your preconceived notions.
This is a good point. What is this tipping point? That is the kind of research that needs to be done. People need to formulate their theories regarding how vaccines work in such a way that it makes falsifiable predictions. Until then the theory remains untested.
Yep, this whole politicization of science thing has been degrading the quality for decades now. I sense we are near a tipping point regarding that. Eventually a critical mass of people will just ignore all scientific advice and the funding will slowly dwindle to nothing.
Until one day you realize the people populating these universities and industry labs are mostly kooks as well. I mean, a large percentage of them think that if they get a significant p-value it means their theory is true. Total nonsense. Then what?
If you will excuse the Godwin, Nazis had good taste in art but nobody cites Nazi art critiques because, alas, other things done by Nazis.
There's actually a lot of things I found interesting about Nazis that is never mentioned in high school or college history books. For example, part of their ideology was...strangely...staunchly in favor of animal rights. Also, Jew genocide wasn't one of their initial goals; at first they were either putting Jews into forced labor camps (to build the German economy, but it wasn't only Jews that ended up there) or just simply deporting them out of Europe. That is, until Hitler came up with his final solution, then instead of pushing them out of Europe they suddenly started bringing them in en masse to send them to the death camps.
Another interesting thing is that a lot of gays don't seem to understand where the pink triangle came from. It was actually a marking that gay males were required to wear (like how Jews were required to wear a double yellow triangle; lesbians were to wear black triangles) and initially gay men were sent to camps where it was believed that they could be converted to being straight, and they were forced to have sex with women, among other things, but initially being executed wasn't one of those things.
Also interestingly, pink was considered to be a very masculine color prior to that era, and switched around that time. Related? Maybe...Maybe not.
Oh, and the 1942 era stealth bomber...
but we can keep their kids from suffering for it.
And keep *our* kids/family members from getting sick of it as epidemy spreads.
Anti-vaxx lowers herd immunity, and thus increases risks of epidemy. Once the fraction of immune people drops bellow a critical threshold, a virus can freely spread among the population. That will not only affect anti-vaxx-ers, their kids, but also anyone else unlicky enough to not have immunity.
(Kids who didn't get the shot yet, people who CAN'T get shot because of allergy to some compound, people with lower/compromised immunity, people who had health problems at that specific time making them more weak and prone to additional diseases, etc.) these people aren't immune because of some weird believe. But they'll suffer too, just because there was a big enough amount of people with weird believe.
That's exactly the kind of situation where "One's freedom stop where the others' freedom starts".
People have the freedom to have any bat-shit crazy religion or other weird believe they want, as long as they don't pose a threat to the society. Anti-vaxx are a big biological danger to the society.
How would you react if a religious group claimed that they have a sacred ritual consisting of juggling with armed explosives in the middle of mall that needs to be explicitly crowded? Would you allow them on religious grounds? Or would you suggest that these peculiar weird ritual is too dangerous for the public and they'll have to skip?
Well anti-vaxx-er pose a similar risk.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Disclaimer: I*A*AMD, but just not in this field (I'm doing research).
I suspect that because I have a familial history of {Ce}liacs disease, which is suspected by some to be related to IgA Nephropathy, and the timeline of when I developed IgAn coincides perfectly with the progression of the disease and the time that I received those inoculations.
That would sound plausible.
Note that technically, it's not exactly the vaccine's fault. It's your genetic tendency to develop auto-immune disease that runs in your family that caused your nephropathy, and that *happens* to have been triggered by the vaccine. But had it not been the vaccine, it could have been any other trigger that disturbs your immunological system. One susceptible person could trigger an autoimmune disease after a cold. (In fact, Diabetes Type I, the one that more frequently in youth - is strongly suspected that the auto-immune disease is triggered most often by the immune response to infection). In fact that might also have been your case: the trigger might have been some virus you caught while serving, but you overlooked because it's frequent (even more so with lots of people packed in the same place like barracks) and thus forgot about it, but when thinking back you remember the vaccine.
(Same as psychedelic drugs:
Smoking pot doesn't force people to become psychotic. But there are a few people who have a genetic predisposition to psychosis and the joints happened to be the trigger that started it. But the guy could have just as likely gone bonkers after experiencing an intense emotional experience, etc.).
Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they?
Well, you might be surprised but actually *there is* research into these kind of stuff. There is a whole branch called "personalized medicine" which tries to gather *which exact* risk factors, variations, etc. you have, and adapt treatment to your specific needs.
(example which are already in production:
- analyse a collection of liver enzymes which play an important role in the destruction of chemicals, and thus influence critically the dosage of some meds.
example currently in study:
- for some cancer (like breast) it might make more sense not to do the same control regularly (currently, mammary X-rays, every 2 years for all susceptible women) but to adapt it (women with certain variant of BRCA genes should get yearly or every 2 year, the general female population might as well do the X-ray only every 5 years).
I don't happen to know where exactly is the research about genetic predisposition to autoimmune disease.
But that exactly the kind of stuff personalised medicine and the "your whole genome for less than a few k $" are for.
There may very well be good reasons to not vaccinate in some cases, but those reasons will be hard to find when idiots keep crying wolf for no reason other than they happen to be Jenny McCarthy fans.
Still though, and I do myself admit, I still accept that it's better to have practically zero cases of polio in exchange for a few cases of IgA Nephropathy, even though I happened to get the shitty end of the stick (dialisys, which is where I'll probably end up very soon, is a lot better than an iron lung.) That said, even if it is proven that vaccination is the cause of my condition, I'll still support it anyways.
Indeed there's a huge difference between:
- Must skip the vaccine for medical grounds (e.g.: known allergy to some compound inside the vaccine)
- Want to avoid so because it says so in a magical book that is always true and contains the true word of some beardy deity sitting on a cloud, and was written down by a bum who basically spent a year in the desert completely high on mushroom while seeking for divine inspiration).
The former is a valid reason to skip the vaccine for a given person, the latter is a good reason why I agree with Rch
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You're trying to turn a fairly bumpy curve into a cliff and it doesn't really fit.
Our current vaccination rate for measles is not really adequate which allowed an introduced infection to spread a bit and even find a second epicenter due to travel. However, we do have a sufficient immunization rate that it died out fairly quickly. The empirical evidence proves that.
If you are correct, why isn't measles spreading in a big wave across the country right now? Most of the population has never had the measles.
There is a point where the immunization rate isn't adequate to significantly change the course of an epidemic, but there is no point where a low but existent rate of effective immunization makes matters worse through slowing the burn rate.
The autism claims are entirely discredited now.
Yes, but everyone is ignoring the fact that the DPT shot has been proven to be the cause of SIDS. An adverse physiological response of shallow breathing occurs 7-14 days after administering the shot. When's the last time you heard anyone advertise a stern warning about that?
Where did you read that? At some anti-vaxx site no doubt, read this instead.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...
Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
Are you the jackass who keeps yelling about how the NAb assays and the ELISAs don't always reach the same values? That's because they aren't measuring the same thing...
I've looked through some of the measles literature. I know people who have looked through all of it, and they're smarter than I am. It's pretty convincing - at least as convincing as we can possibly be with ethical human research.
The neutralizing antibody titer assays and the ELISA values don't measure the same thing. NT measures the ability of the antibody to inhibit the virus; ELISA measures how much antibody is there, without as much emphasis on functional activity. For some viruses, it's a good proxy, because they are easier to block; for others, they don't correlate as well, but that's not evidence against the vaccine.
Seroconversion is also pretty expensive on large-scale populations, and is a more recently-developed technique.
Lastly, measles cases were reduced by much more than 99%. Measles parties definitely helped it spread, but since it's already extremely contagious, I doubt it's enough to reduce it from half a million cases/year to ~100. That being said, I acknowledge that the measles vaccine isn't perfect - no vaccine is - but in aggregate I think the evidence is fairly convincing. No health agency around the world will let you do a RCT at this point - intentionally not vaccinating children with something there is a lot of evidence for is unethical. It's not ideal science, but it's the best you can do with human populations in this case.
That depends on the vaccine. Sometimes vaccines (like the inactivated polio vaccine) don't contribute to herd immunity. Usually (like the measles vaccine, or chickenpox, or most of the others) they do. Sometimes they aren't as good at inducing an immune response compared to natural infection; sometimes they're better. It's really a case-by-case basis, because the mechanisms behind each disease are so different.
I realize I'm going to be attacked for this (maybe not, it's already 5 days old). Add that anyone searching for my name will see I'm vegan too and think I'm double-crazy and I should just not make this comment, but here it goes anyway.
Vaccines are good. Yes. They have prevented a lot of disease and saved lots of lives. Yes. Yet no one can explain to me why we need this bill.
1) Most cases of diseases on the vaccination schedule appearing in the U.S. come from travel to foreign lands (there are sources, I'm too lazy, use Google), 80% or so for measles, if I'm not mistaken. Why is this law so important while foreign travel is completely ignored? Okay, fine, do both, whatever, but the actual impact of this bill is going to be pretty small (point 2 below feeds this as well).
2) What of our current vaccine practices is failing so badly that requires this law? Vaccine rates are currently pretty darn high in California. Should we really sacrifice an education for underprivileged children for this relatively minor threat? Deaths from measles is at exactly 0 for the last 10 years. I think the status quo is okay, at least as far as school-aged children are concerned.
3) Yes, underprivileged children are the ones who will suffer. Everyone bandies about the personal belief exemption and Jenny McCarthy (McCarthyism irony?), but if you look at the California state data, conditional enrollees are the biggest unvaccinated population, twice that of personal belief. Conditional enrollees are ones who haven't provided records, but swear they will (but usually don't). Where are these conditional enrollees concentrated? In underprivileged areas (see http://www.cdph.ca.gov/program... for data, though you'll need to know your california neighborhoods to make sense of the info), at least that's the case in Los Angeles County. Malibu isn't the problem; south, central and east L.A. are. And if you think this law will actually make those conditional enrollees get vaccinated to go to school, you don't know Angelenos, at least not the ones I know who are underprivileged.
Also, I'm surprised that such an open-source happy community isn't requesting that government-required vaccines be open-sourced. If the government is going to force something upon me, I'd at least like to know the profit motive is removed. Senator Pan's most relied-upon person during all the hearings has been a paid Merck lobbyist after all. If this is really about public health, make Mr. Rotavirus-vaccine charge less than $500 a pop or at least discover there's a good reason it's so expensive.
however, the broader point is most instances of a vaccine-preventable disease in the u.s. is due to international travel (sorry, don't have time to look up the links right now, but they're out there; over 80% for measles iirc). so maybe it's not south and central america. who cares? shouldn't we be more focused on citizens who travel abroad and incoming visitors?
Have you looked at the conditional enrollment data for California schools? Infectious disease also doesn't pay attention to whether you signed a "Personal Belief Exemption" form, so why is there so much obsession over it? Twice as many kids are conditionally enrolled as are attending with a signed PBE form.
If it's everyone else, as you say, why does this law completely ignore the conditionally enrolled? There are at least twice as many, if not three times, as there are using the Personal Belief Exemption.
There's a serious flaw here. Those 2.2B doses were not administered to 2.2B distinct individuals. I'd venture to guess it's more like 150M distinct individuals. So, we're looking at about 1 in 100,000 experience an adverse reaction.
While the death rate of measles is about 3 per 1000 (actually I think it's closer to 1, but I'll let it slide), what's the rate of contracting measles under the status quo in the U.S.? Let's take 2014 data as a worst-case, 668 cases. That's about 1 in 500,000. So, the chance of dying from measles in the status quo is about 1 in 150M. That's only for a single year, so multiply by 80 to cover a lifetime, 1 in 2M or so.
So, you're about 20x more likely to get an adverse reaction from a vaccine than die from measles. OK, maybe death is worse than "adverse reaction" on average. All I'm asking is what is the benefit of this specific law? It's not like not passing it means suddenly no one in California ever gets vaccinated.
Being against this law is not about being against vaccines. You need to look at the incremental benefit of capturing the Personal Belief Exemptions (PBE). It's very small, 2.7% of kids. Contrast that with about 7% conditionally enrolled (that basically means, there's no paperwork, but they get to go to school anyway). In other words, immunization rates will go from 90% to 93% with this law.
The benefit is actually not even that great. You need a PBE even if you're only opting out of one vaccination. So it's more like going from 91.5% to 93%. For that incremental benefit, it's worth asking whether things like what's the rate of kids that will simply not go to school and is this worth our freedom. Obviously, if this law meant going from 0% to 93%, then it's a no-brainer; but that's not what this law is about.
No, we shouldn't be more focused on travelling citizens and incoming visitors.
Would you rather be fireproof or a tinderbox afraid of ANY possible source of ignition? Because someday, sometime, lightning is going to strike, and that fire is going to be set. When, not if, that happens, d'you want an uncontrollable conflagration or a fizzle?
Immunizing travellers is all well and good, but in a small fraction of those, even if you immunize them all, they're still going to be affected. Measles incubates for up to 12 days. D'you want to hold all travellers for that long? What about subclinical cases? Contagious but not showing symptoms?
Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea to require all travellers get their shots, but the right thing to do is defence in depth and have a resistant population here as well as immunized travellers.
--PM
I'd support a bill like this if it also included provisions for criminal charges against parents who 'opt out' and their child winds up having long-term effects, or dying, of preventable diseases.
Say, do you also believe that, say, seatbelts are a matter of personal choice?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
California's kids are already at 90% full immunization. When you already are more or less fireproof, why fireproof more?
If you want to come into the country, get your shots some safe amount of time ahead of traveling. Visas will not be granted unless. Simple. I'm sure there's a similar mechanism for returning citizens as well. I certainly wouldn't immunize at the time of entry, if that's what you're implying, as nice a straw man as that makes.
Again, over 80% of measles outbreaks in the U.S. in recent years originated from outside the United States. With this law, you get a slight increase in coverage (from 91% to 93%) of the other 20%, so optimistically, you're reducing outbreaks by 0.2%. Why bother when there's an huge, gigantic 80% chunk there for the taking?
To explain the 91%, about 3% of kids have a personal belief exemption (PBE). This law only targets them. It disappears the PBE. A PBE could mean a kid has no vaccines, it could mean they have all but one. So, I'm approximating that of the vaccines you'd want kids to have, PBE kids actually have about a third of them. The actual number is probably much higher and could be extracted from the cdph.ca.gov website. And, just for completeness, the other 7% of unvaccinated kids are not addressed by this law at all.
Are you talking about CA SB277? It doesn't have any criminal component at all, even for schools and parents that willfully disobey it. It doesn't have any enforcement mechanism. In fact, they gutted the mandatory reporting of individual schools' vaccine rates from the bill because that would cost the state money and force it to go through an extra committee.
I'm saying I'm against this law because its public health impact is very small. As stated before, you'll increase the immunization rate optimistically from 90% to 93% and more realistically from 92% to 93%. For that small of an improvement, it becomes important to ask what the downsides are. Again, if we were going from 0% to 93%, then, by all means, pass the bill. But that's not the situation.
I don't think there's any downside. But there are all sorts of upsides to working towards eliminating preventable, fatal diseases.
No child should have to risk death because their parents are stupid.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Like I said, I'm in favor of requiring travellers to be fully immunized, but it's actually not really possible to stop *all* imported cases unless you're willing to put all incoming people in quarantine for a couple of weeks, whether they've been immunized or not.
90% isn't really good enough when we're talking about measles, which is about the most contagious of the serious diseases. You have a good point about the PBEs being of little significance to increasing immunization rates overall, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing (see below).
Given my difficulties getting my own kid fully immunized (which I finally succeed in doing), I think we can boost immunization rates far higher simply by making it easier for people to get their shots than going after PBEs. Free clinics operated out of schools, well advertised, would be a good way, as well as permanently open walk-in immunization clinics.
Arguably, then, it's misplaced zeal to go after PBEs at all rather than just improving immunization availability. However, one way in which PBEs are more dangerous than simply lower overall immunization rates is that PBEs concentrate geographically, leading to local communities with, say, 70% or lower vaccination rates. These local communities are capable of supporting an epidemic, which, in the case of measles, could lead to a lot of infections in the surrounding 90% immunized population. Suppressing these *local* fires, which are a threat to the surrounding community, is a good rationale for going after PBEs. (Remember, immunizations don't always work, so an epidemic in a localized population can lead to lots of infections in the surrounding population.)
--PM
Our current vaccination rate for measles is not really adequate which allowed an introduced infection to spread a bit and even find a second epicenter due to travel. However, we do have a sufficient immunization rate that it died out fairly quickly. The empirical evidence proves that.
If you are correct, why isn't measles spreading in a big wave across the country right now? Most of the population has never had the measles.
It's not spreading all over because infected people from hot zones like the Philippines are not really doing a lot of traveling to the U.S., and, as I said, after onset of symptoms, people self-quarantine, and after an outbreak, people avoid other people they don't personally know, and avoid large gatherings of people where transmission is more likely.
Vaccination is not 100% effective, but strong border controls on people traveling from hot zones and strict quarantine rules are 100% effective.
Can't have an outbreak without a patient zero...
Yet we DID have a patient zero not long ago and the spread was very limited and died out quickly in spite of your claim that there is no herd immunity at our current level of vaccination.
There is a downside. "Stupid" parents will pull their kids from school. Do you really want "anti-science" parents home-schooling?
There's another downside. This particular bill puts the entire onus of enforcement on the school districts. That means they have three choices: accept unvaccinated kids conditionally, expel students or administer the shots. The first option naturally defeats the entire purpose of the bill. Either remaining option costs the school districts. They get federal money based on how many kids are actually in attendance and they don't currently have to administer the shots on any kind of scale this bill demands. That means that less education money is spent on education.
I'd love to hold society to the standard that no child should have to risk death due to parental stupidity. That's just not California. If you really want to uphold this ideal, you'll have to crusade for myriad causes, including gun control, obesity-fighting measures, tighter distribution of driver's licenses, promotion of breastfeeding, etc, etc. On the list of annual deaths in California caused by parental stupidity, lack of vaccination is near the bottom of the list.
Right, we can't stop ALL imports, just like we can't vaccinate EVERY local child. I'd suspect fairly simple measures, like requiring shots in a time-effective fashion as a condition of a visa, would stop at least 90% of that 80% though.
So, I ran the numbers. Here they are for the individual vaccines CDPH tracks: DTP 92.4%, Polio 93.1%, MMR 92.6%, HepB 94.9%, Varicella 95.5%. These are numbers for the incoming 2014 kindergarten class. That 90% number is kids that are up-to-date on all five.
The real elephant in the room is conditional enrollees. They make up 6.8%. Like PBE kids, it's not clear if they are vaccinated or not. There simply aren't records for these kids. If school districts would grow a set and not let these kids enter school, that would be far more effective than SB277 (bill in the OP article). The conflict is most conditional enrollees are in underprivileged areas where getting a kid to school is considered a victory. If we start throwing them out of school, equal access to education becomes an issue.
Your point about making vaccines more available and publicized I agree with completely.
Conditional enrollees has the same issue regarding geographic concentration. Because of this alone, I still find targeting PBEs a near complete waste of time. According to CDPH data, about 118 schools (out of 7464) have a PBE rate >=30%, representing 0.4% of incoming kindergartners. 388 schools have a conditional enrollment rate >=30%, representing 2.4% of incoming kindergartners (3x and 6x of PBE respectively). Getting all the PBE schools counts for something, but very little.
I certainly recognize that SB277 has benefits to public health. I just hope people realize that those benefits are really, really, really small and the hit to civil liberties and public education that we're taking to get those benefits is not.
All of this is true. However, lack of vaccination will rapidly climb the lists if America's current anti-science, anti-education and anti-logic trends are allowed to continue.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
If you have data to back that up, I'd love to see it. This year's kindergarten vaccination rates are up across the board. Despite increasingly stringent standards as to what "up-to-date" means, vaccination rates have never been below 92% for each vaccine in the last 10 years. Also remember this law does nothing about conditional enrollees, which I already mentioned make up 6.8% of the incoming kindergarten population. Even if this law were 100% effective for kids under the Personal Belief Exemption, you still have a lot of unvaxed kids.
Again, with the overall benefits of this bill being so, so, so small, the hit to public education and civil liberties is worth considering. For me, it's not worth it for the tiny, incremental improvement to public health despite the fact that I very much support vaccination in general.