Diphtheria Returns To Spain For Lack of Vaccination

TuringTest writes: A six-year-old child was admitted to a hospital in Barcelona and diagnosed with diphtheria, which hasn't occurred in Spain since 1986 and was largely unheard of in western Europe. The boy had not been vaccinated despite the vaccine being available in free vaccination programs. Spanish general health secretary called anti-vaccination campaigns "irresponsible" and said: "The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide." The child is in critical condition, though he's now being treated with a serum expressly brought from Russia through an emergency procedure.

Comments

You wouldn't pay to see a Rob Schneider movie...

[Picass0]

... so why are you listening to medical advice from him?

A Public Service Announcement from Get Your Brats Immunized

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[halivar]

No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast. I think it has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with who reads idiot granola mommy and food blogs.

Parents should be liable

[sjbe]

I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

Re:Parents should be liable

[wiggles]

That was the topic of a Law & Order SVU a couple weeks ago.

Re:Parents should be liable

[geekmux]

I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

Good luck going against religious beliefs that curtail vaccinations. That "endangerment" has one hell of an establishment in the community.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It isn't religious exemptions, but the parallel "gosh I duwanna I duwanna" exemption.

The religious exemption is cognizant of the First Amendment; the latter of foolish and scared politicians who don't want Jenny (or Rob as the case may be) lambasting them as elections approach.

Re:Parents should be liable

[ageoffri]

For several reasons. First vaccines are not 100% effective. Second people who can not be vaccinated for medical reasons are put in danger by those who through ignorance refuse to get vaccines.

I'll take it a step further and state that the blonde bimbo should be tried on charges of attempted genocide.

Re:Parents should be liable

[sjbe]

Good luck going against religious beliefs that curtail vaccinations. That "endangerment" has one hell of an establishment in the community.

Several states in the US have done so successfully. No reason why more couldn't. You do have a fair point though. It's amazing how much nonsense we put up with in the name of "respecting religious rights" even when they are clearly crazy and/or self destructive.

Re:Parents should be liable

[bws111]

Not everyone can be vaccinated (allergies, compromised immune systems), and vaccines are not 100% effective.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Diphtheria has a very serious "side effect", and I suspect the percentage of patients who develop it is larger than the percentage that react to the vaccine. Wikipedia says:

"Diphtheria is fatal in between 5% and 10% of cases. In children under five years and adults over 40 years, the fatality rate may be as much as 20%.[17] In 2013 it resulted in 3,300 deaths down from 8,000 deaths in 1990.[6]"

Re:Parents should be liable

[Maritz]

Unless you are ready to pull the trigger of the gun of force.

Fine, don't wanna vaccinate your kids, they shouldn't be allowed in public schools. This is a nice, fair solution. If people want to make their kids a vector for eradicated diseases (hey it's their "right") they should make other arrangements for education.

Re:Parents should be liable

[smooth wombat]

No, don't touch the touch nor the child. By that I mean it was the choice of the parent(s) to not get their children vaccinated, it should not be up to the state (i.e. taxpayers) to foot the bill to take care of the kid.

Let nature take its course since that is what the parents wanted. If the kid survives they got lucky. If the kid survives but is disabled, the parents take care of everything. If they die that's one less we have to worry about and the parents will have to live with their decision for the rest of their life.

Re:Parents should be liable

[bohmt]

And each host that is infected with diphtheria increases the risk that some mutation could lead to a pandemic.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Maritz]

"Herd immunity" is the main reason why it is a public safety issue. Most vaccines are not 100% effective, but they stop disease from spreading through the population because higher than a critical proportion of the population are effectively vaccinated. This protects not only those for whom the vaccine is ineffective, but those who cannot have the vaccine administered for medical reasons (e.g. very young, very old, or immunocompromised). Herd immunity is vital for pertussis (hooping cough), because the newborns to whom it is most dangerous cannot be given the vaccine. I'm not a doctor, but this is my understanding of the issue.

Re:Parents should be liable

[geekmux]

Am I protected if my religious beliefs say I need to sacrifice a virgin? Certainly not..

Well, I suppose that depends on how the virgin was "sacrificed", now wouldn't it...

...so why should I be able to gamble with my child's life based on religious beliefs?

Because your religion says it's not a gamble. At all. It's God's will. The question for the courts is when will they start defining the death of a child as criminal. The risk of non-vaccination is not merely endangerment to the public, but can also be viewed as murder in the case of a child who doesn't know better.

Furthermore, they are MY religious beliefs, not my child's. Who is to say my child is going to give a crap about my religion when he grows up.

Uh, your religion does, by ensuring your child will go to [insert eternal damnation definition here] if they don't.

Sorry, just wanted to clarify exactly how religious zealots justify their stance today, and how that logic perpetuates through generations.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Falos]

Schools?

Personally, I'd expect to see signs on every office, library, store, business, government building, restaurant, laundromat, bowling alley, etc etc etc that say "NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO LEPERS"

Re:Parents should be liable

[geekmux]

Unless you are ready to pull the trigger of the gun of force.

Fine, don't wanna vaccinate your kids, they shouldn't be allowed in public schools. This is a nice, fair solution. If people want to make their kids a vector for eradicated diseases (hey it's their "right") they should make other arrangements for education.

Sure, sounds fair.

Although I'm struggling to understand how a public school ban will do fuck-all to truly protect the masses.

In other words, Disneyland isn't a public school...

Re:Parents should be liable

[Maritz]

It doesn't (and didn't!) help with Disneyland I agree. But it might be able to persuade some of the less-rabid or on-the-fence parents to get their kids vaccinated.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets try an example.

Lets say I am deathly afraid of flying as there is a slight chance the plane will crash and I'll die. So somehow I end up on a plane, when I come to I freak out and run for the plane door, about to open it in mid flight. Possibly causing the very crash I am afraid of. Should other passengers be allowed to "pull the trigger of the gun of force" and prevent me from potentially killing them all? (Ohh and BTW what libertarian blog did you get that gem of a phrase from?)

When you are scared of something that never happen, and your illogical beliefs are actually putting others at danger. Your fear of autism is unfounded, others fears of your walking talking incubator infecting those who cannot be vaccinated is very well founded. I actually believe it is remiss of society to allow you to continue with your delusions. If you wish to opt out then the said incubator should not be allowed in public schools, eating establishments, playgrounds, theme parks, or anywhere else where close contact is routine. If you don't like that then you should bite the bullet and get your kids the shot.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind schools. The unvaccinated should not be allowed in *any* public places.

Re: Parents should be liable

[Jason Levine]

As the parent of a child with autism, the "vaccines cause autism" crowd triply annoys me.

1. They take funding that should go to diagnosis/treatment and send it to Yet Another Study that will yet again show no link. (Or worse: Advocating "treatments" that are a baby step shy of torture.)

2. They fear monger autism such that you'd think your child would be better off dead than autistic. I know plenty of parents of kids on the spectrum. Some with pretty severe issues. None would rather their kids were dead.

3. They make it hard to support autism societies because you need to first weed out the ones dedicated to "proving" an autism-vaccine link.

The sooner these people accept that autism and vaccines have no link, the better for everyone.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Anonymous Coward]

More like if they don't want to vaccinate their children, they ought to emigrate to say, the parts of Africa where there isn't any immunization. That would make their children equal with the locals, and we all want equality, right? And incidentally where those diseases still occur.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Anonymous Coward]

I am 52 years old and was born in England. I had an uncle who I never met because he died of Diphtheria in the post WW2 period when he was just ten. This was not uncommon in England at the time. Vaccines eradicated this. How this blight can possibly come back now is just is beyond belief.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Warhaven]

I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

Good luck going against religious beliefs that curtail vaccinations. That "endangerment" has one hell of an establishment in the community.

There is already precedence in court (US, Canada, and abroad) overruling the objections of Jehova's Witness parents with regard to blood transfusions. A quick Altavista will reveal many cases, as recently as this year (in favor of the child, not the parents). It's not inconceivable that these ruling could extend to cover vaccines as well, if someone (or agency) were to actually bring a lawsuit against the irresponsible parent.

Re:Parents should be liable

[chilenexus]

The problem with that argument is that the "parents" in this case are not qualified to make that decision. They don't have the education nor the data to determine whether or not their child might be susceptible to one of those "serious side effects" that may strike 1/1000 of a percent, at most. When considering that the potential equivalently-bad-or-worse consequences from the diseases themselves have percentages on the left side of the decimal point, they are avoiding a slim chance of something rare by almost guaranteeing a bad outcome if their child gets exposed. And they volunteer their child into the service of exposing other people to that illness.

If we didn't have the anti-vaxxers or the people who think vaccines are a plot for some kind of non-microscopic genocide, we'd probably have a few less diseases in the world to worry about or continue vaccinating against. After all, how many people get a small pox vaccination these days?

Re:Parents should be liable

[CohibaVancouver]

it should not be up to the state (i.e. taxpayers) to foot the bill to take care of the kid.

Man, do I hate these abstract arguments with a passion.

I'll simplify your argument for you: "I'm perfectly fine with innocent children suffering and dying."

You're not punishing parents, you're punishing kids.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Since all you can talk about when people are DYING of PREVENTABLE diseases, is a tired old tone argument, do feel free to eat a bag of infectious ward waste.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Since you're obviously an antivaxxer moron, I'll spell it out.

In almost every other case, the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids.

But in this case, their precious little walking sacks of infection can toddle off outside of home septic home and spread their diseases far and wide.

And if you don't think that's a problem that needs solving, you don't think at all.

Re:Parents should be liable

[sims 2]

just fyi altavista was bought by yahoo which is now powered by bing

Re:Parents should be liable

[matfud]

Add in Measles, mumps and rubella.

All nasty and they do maim and kill. Think chicken pox and how well that spreads. Now try measles and how that spreads (far faster)

I fear that many do not know the harm that these diseases caused. .

Re:Parents should be liable

[Dog-Cow]

I have seen, and heard of other cases, where doctors' offices put up a sign in the waiting area that non-vaccinated children should be kept in a different place (another room or the hall, depending on what's available), so as not to endanger other children who are obviously at the doctor because they are already immuno-compromized (i.e. sick).

Re:Parents should be liable

[Dog-Cow]

If you don't like that then you should bite the bullet and get your kids the shot.

I prefer:

If you don't like that then you should bite the bullet and get your kids shot.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Curunir_wolf]

I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

Would you support also eliminating the immunity from liability that has been granted to pharmaceutical companies for vaccines? Would you include mandates for things like Gardasil even for boys (which Merck & Co have been promoting)? Who do you hold responsible when a mandated vaccine proves to be defective (like happened with RotaShield), or has manufacturing issues that causes problems, which happens with vaccines more than any other drug). If a parent gets a vaccine for their child that causes a problem, and since you can't go after the manufacturer, would you charge the parents for endangerment then, too?

Re:Parents should be liable

[stdarg]

Vaccines aren't 100% effective, otherwise you're right that it wouldn't be an issue.

There are also people who can't use vaccines due to allergies, and the idea is they are protected via "herd immunity" -- basically if enough people are vaccinated, then disease can't get a foothold and spreading it is much harder.

I'm not sure how I feel about that case, because to me if you're allowing people to go to public school without vaccination because they are allergic, then you're admitting it's not a safety issue to have some percentage of unvaccinated people.

I think people should be able to choose to not vaccinate voluntarily, and there should be a lottery system for which unvaccinated kids get into schools.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Dog-Cow]

The GP is a perfect example of his own signature.

Re:Parents should be liable

[stdarg]

For someone who hates abstract arguments, you didn't waste any time abstracting the issue to "children suffering and dying."

And come on.. be honest.. aren't you perfectly fine with innocent children suffering and dying? I think you must be, given that you're wasting your time here on slashdot instead of saving innocent children.

Re:Parents should be liable

[stdarg]

In almost every other case, the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids.

Are you kidding???

1. Badly parented kids can become bad parents themselves, affecting the next generation
2. Your badly parented kids may be in my kid's classroom, seeking negative attention
3. Speaking specifically of health concerns that GP brought up, your badly parented kid who is exposed to second hand smoke makes my health insurance premiums go up

There's very little you do that doesn't affect other people.

But in this case, their precious little walking sacks of infection can toddle off outside of home septic home and spread their diseases far and wide.

And if you don't think that's a problem that needs solving, you don't think at all.

Hmm so how do you propose solving the problem of kids who can't get vaccinated because they are allergic, or have some immunologic disorder?

Are they somehow less of a problem, even though they are also little walking sacks of infection who can spread their diseases far and wide?

Re:Parents should be liable

[smooth wombat]

No, I'm not punishing anyone. The parents are the ones doing the punishing.

Unless of course you're suggesting it's up to everyone to watch out for everyone else in which case I get to yank cigarettes out of people's mouths since I'm footing their medical bills, get to post their faces at bars and liquor stores so the alcoholics can't but more and tie drug users down until they detox since, again, I'm the one footing their insurance and medical bills.

Or are you saying people should be forced to pay for the stupidity of others rather than making the people more responsible for their own actions? In essence, completely abandoning personal responsibility in favor of socialism.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

*yawn* All of which is why I said almost every other case. Do at least try to keep up.

Since you obviously need these things spelled out, none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.

Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.

Got any other nits to pick, or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?

Re:Parents should be liable

[Hognoxious]

then you're admitting it's not a safety issue to have some percentage of unvaccinated people.

I suspect the safe percentage is much higher than the percentage of allergic people, and considerably lower than the percentage who are stupid.

Re:Parents should be liable

[pjt33]

How about parents who smoke in the house? You can prove that by checking conicotine levels in the kid's urine.

Only once you've ruled out consumption of tomatoes and aubergine.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually inbetween. I'm pro-choice, but I think there needs to be conditions.

1. Require that parent and child go see a doctor for each individual vaccination one wishes to opt out of. Get signed off after hearing the risks and benefits.
2. Require daycares and schools to annually post the percent who are vaccinated. Those being staff and children/students.

Re: Parents should be liable

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a guy who is on the autism spectrum (diagnosis of Aspergers - from a registered psychologist, I might add, not just a Doctor Google diagnosis - a couple of years ago): that crowd is, in essence, saying that people like me should not exist. That they would rather see hundreds of thousands dead, and millions crippled for life, than see one person like me exist in the world.

I know that autistic children can be a burden. They demand more care, more attention, more specialist intervention early in life than a neurotypical child. I get that. I understand it. I have two friends who each have one autistic kid (one with a son, one with a daughter), and another who has two (her elder, a son, was vaccinated; her younger, a daughter, was not - not until long after the autism diagnosis was clear. In fairness, this was around the time of the MMR scare. Fuck you very much, Andrew Wakefield.) But as you say, these parents would rather see their kids alive with autism than dead from some vaccine preventable disease. And, for all the problems I've had through my life as a consequence of who I am - so would I.

Seriously. Is autism the best these guys can do as a reason to not vaccinate? Penn and Teller debunked that a long time ago.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Anonymous Coward]

No, don't touch the touch nor the child. By that I mean it was the choice of the parent(s) to not get their children vaccinated, it should not be up to the state (i.e. taxpayers) to foot the bill to take care of the kid.

The cost equation is far more complicated. I live in Finland and my friend and his wife recently got fraternal twins and such pregnancies involve special considerations and may require highly specialized intervention to ensure that both fetuses develop normally. They had therefore been told to keep "bags packed" and check passport expiration dates so that they could leave on 12 hour notice if things developed that way because the specialist would be in the US, if needed. That's right, a transatlantic ambulance flight (+ whatever the specialist costs in the US) is a far cheaper option for Finnish taxpayers when the bigger picture is considered - both twins are born healthy that way and don't need more medical care than other children and they can grow up to become fully contributing taxpayers (instead of non-contributing ones due to medical problems). In my friend's case no trip was needed but his wife got to know some people who had to go via some facebook group for parents expecting twins here. So in the long run and when the bigger picture is considered, it is in society's interest to pay for intervention regardless of who (if anyone) is at fault. Many here would probably also argue the fairness argument that you have a right to see a specialist no matter how rare your condition is and a nation of five million is so small that it's simply infeasible to have every type of specialist available (I believe that adults too are in some cases sent abroad because of that).

Re:Parents should be liable

[KGIII]

I think they should only be held accountable after harm has been proven. Victimless crimes are bad. I also do not think we, as a society, can demand what someone does to their body. Just like we should not be outlawing abortion... Now the parent, by right of parenthood, has the right - obligation really, to do what they see fit concerning their child so long as no harm is being done. I think they should accept accountability, however, and if harm is done they should be penalized. Does this mean that we have to wait until there is a victim? Yes. As cruel as it sounds, I am okay with that.

Re:Parents should be liable

[KGIII]

In addition, I suspect that the trivial number of people who choose to not get vaccinated will have little impact due to the afore mentioned herd immunity. We must first prove they are the vector and not the child who was unable to be vaccinated because the vaccine is not made without things like egg-white content.

Re:Parents should be liable

[KGIII]

Parents are not and have never been infallible. Why are you expecting perfection in a imperfect host? You seem to be advocating logic in an illogical manner. Just accept that people are going to die, some for stupid reasons, and do your best with what you have.

Re:Parents should be liable

[KGIII]

Does 'can't' or 'refusal' actually alter the outcome? No, not your opinion, does it actually affect the outcome? Can you prove the vector is 'refusal' and not 'can't?' Do you have any evidence that shows that 'can't' is less dangerous than 'refusal?'

Keep in mind that I am pro-vaccine. I am not pro-draconian or authoritative force being used as a means to "think of the children." It may suck but shit happens. Much of that shit could have been prevented and much of it is the fault of somebody else. We will not achieve perfection even if we use draconian means to try to force our ideals onto other people. As much as I believe we should all be vaccinated I do not see how I can reasonably force someone to do so without being an authoritative ass. I would suggest greater education as well as providing adequate health care as social programs with potentially great benefits.

Re:Parents should be liable

[KGIII]

It is funny how much hypocrisy this subject has. Many of these same people decry the singular premise of their argument. The basis, entirely, is limited to, "Think of the children." It is riddled with appeals to authority, ad hominem, strawmen, correlation and causation errors, and myriad other logical fallacies. However, no argument, however logical, will mean that a single mind was changed. Logic does not change opinions. It is okay to force medical procedures if it is one that they agree with. As much as I utilize and support vaccination I do not support draconian measures or appeals to authority as a way to force other people to conform to my beliefs.

Re:Parents should be liable

[stdarg]

*yawn*

Oh my, do you need a nap? That might explain your nonsensical reply to me.

All of which is why I said almost every other case.

Yes, you did, and that's wrong. That's why I replied to you. Virtually every case has effects that go beyond the kids.

none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.

Oh I get it now. You're an idiot! You should have just said so.

You said "the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids." No mention of preventable death. The person you replied to was talking about demonstrable harm to children... again, not preventable death, just harm.

Now why are you pretending that you meant to narrow it from demonstrable harm to preventable death? Do you think that helps your argument? If you restrict the type of bad parenting we're talking about to "things that kill" then you're getting ludicrously incorrect on two fronts instead of one.

First of all, bad parenting that kills children is far more likely to have effects that go beyond the immediate death of the child. So rather than "almost every other case" not having further effects, it is "almost every other case has tremendous effects on others." I mean you really can't get more wrong that you are now with your historical revision.

Secondly, if we're talking about actual death instead of just harm or "bad effects" then anti-vaxxers pretty much drop off the map. Dying from easily preventable disease is very low on the list of stuff that kills kids. First they have to get the disease, which is still rare. Then they have die from the disease, which is also rare. Even in our rather crazy anti-vaxxer country, how many kids from that big measles outbreak in Disneyland? In the meantime, how many have died from, say, homicide -- which, in children, is often related to bad parenting?

Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.

This is just sad.

You said the problem is little sacks of disease walking around. And I agree.

But you seem to not understand that the reason they aren't vaccinated doesn't actually make a difference in terms of their being out there walking around potentially spreading disease.

You are a demonstrated idiot, so let me spell it out a little more. It doesn't matter if it's a religious objection, an allergy, or a vaccine that just didn't work for that person -- the person is still a little sack of disease walking around, and that's a problem.

Now perhaps what you meant was the moral problem of people who intentionally endanger others. But that's not what you said. Do try to keep up with your own posts.

Got any other nits to pick

I enjoy putting people in their place when they talk a bunch of nonsense while trying to sound clever. So if you want to put forward another stupid comment, I'll be happy to reply!

or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?

I don't get it, is this some type of ironic humor? My post wasn't off topic, but attempting to derail the conversation by claiming that I derail conversations.. it's kind of funny, but also not funny. I think it's probably just you being an idiot again.

Re:Parents should be liable

[penandpaper]

The biggest problem with vaccines was their unbridled success. Because vaccines eliminated those terrible diseases and all that remains are distant memories from a dying generation; you have functional retards that publish crap like this: http://www.amazon.com/Melanies...

Re:Parents should be liable

[penandpaper]

Somehow I doubt this. Homeschooling is a growing trend.

If you don't trust what the government says about vaccines; do you think you would trust the education from the government?

Re:Parents should be liable

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Do you have any evidence that shows that 'can't' is less dangerous than 'refusal?'

Easy, what are the numbers of anti-vaxxer morons vs. the numbers of people who have actual medical reasons not to vaccinate? Dimes to dollars the former is more numerous than the latter.

Even if anti-vaxxers aren't more numerous, they have already had demonstrable negative impact on public health, as shown by the obvious fact that infectious diseases were not recurring in the population prior to the recent rise of anti-vaxxer lunacy.

Re:Parents should be liable

[crbowman]

If your argument is that it won't fix the problem (Disneyland) but it might persuade then you're not trying to be fair you're trying to be punitive towards people that don't do what you want. When their are so many other better arguments you'll have to forgive me if I completely ignore your suggestion if that's the argument you want to make for vaccines.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic might actually have some sort of significance.

Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting, most of the rest of the page is actually managing to talk about about the topic of TFA, the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.

*yawns again* I suppose this is what I get for feeding a troll. No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Your.Master]

Reckless endangerment is not victimless. The victims are those you recklessly endanger.

If we criminalized not having vaccines -- and I don't go that far (yet) -- the victim would be "everybody else" since you're a walking biological weapon.

This is similar to how attempted murder is still a crime even if you miss with your sniper rifle. I absolutely do not think it is always reasonable to wait until actual harm is done.

The problem we have here is that the rights of the child are being represented by two proxies: the government and the parents. It's widely (though not universally) agreed that both these groups have some claim over the child's welfare. The government can take children away from unfit parents, and whether or not that is used overzealously some parents are seriously unfit. On the other hand, parents get to make all kinds of choices for their kids, even at the inconvenience of government institutions.

The government has soundly listened to reason and decided that these vaccines are for everybody, and are so vitally important as to be subsidized. Most parents are in perfect agreement. Some few are taking the opposite path, and that's where the struggle lies.

Re:Parents should be liable

[matfud]

Is that for real? Sometimes I wish I could sensor this kind of trash. Well I do not really A question of what do you chose. Do you let people decide for themselves? . Not an easy question. when it comes to vaccinations.

Re:Parents should be liable

[KGIII]

A willingness to bet is not evidence. It is not that I do not agree that people should be vaccinated. I disagree with the draconian methods proposed here. I suggest education and encouragement. More so than we do now. We simply should not do this by way of force. We should also be certain to prove that it is a problem that justifies intervention.

Re:Parents should be liable

[Maritz]

If your argument is that it won't fix the problem (Disneyland) but it might persuade then you're not trying to be fair you're trying to be punitive towards people that don't do what you want. When their are so many other better arguments you'll have to forgive me if I completely ignore your suggestion if that's the argument you want to make for vaccines.

So if it doesn't fix all problems, ever, it isn't worth doing? Kids mainly transmit diseases at school. Schools are disease incubators. If you don't think it's appropriate to require people to be vaccinated at public schools there isn't much anyone can say to you about it, I suspect.

Re:Parents should be liable

[penandpaper]

It's for real. The author is delusional.

Re: Parents should be liable

[cluemore]

I'm sorry for you and your family. autism is everywhere now. in the last 20 years it's gone from one in hundred thousand to one in fifty. Everybody, myself included, either has asd, has a relative with it, or knows someone with it. They like to say it's genetic, but it's not. It didn't exist in previous generations, and it does not exist presently in countries without pediatric vaccinations.

in the last year a CDC whistleblower has come forward, and is testifying before congress. you must have heard of him. Yes, vaccines cause autism. The CDC said so. Not to mention the vaccine court in the US, and a court in italy, etc, etc. You don't have to look hard to find well referenced articles about this. Follow the links and you'll find Dr Thompson's letter of confession, and tapes of him discussing what exactly the CDC has done.

here's a link for the CDC whistleblower. Dr. William Thompson

also, Dr. William Thompson.

the simpsonwood tapes have been out for years, where big-pharma and the cdc plotted out how to hide the autism connection. The corrupt and venal CDC not only sat on this info for years, but invested your tax dollars in every scheme possible to hide and obfuscate this truth.

it should be simple. mercury is a neurotoxin. we know this. if the vaccine vial falls on the floor and breaks, you bring in the hazmat suits. inject it into small babies - it will damage them, no doubt about it. it's mercury - what do you expect? now, as to whether you diagnose it as autism or minimata disease, that would be a different matter. that's a regulatory capture issue.

Re: Parents should be liable

[cluemore]

here's a better link about simpsonwood. This has the simpsonwood transcript.

http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html

i challenge you to read that and not come away with the conclusion that the CDC is corrupt and venal.

Re: Parents should be liable

[Jason Levine]

There is no mercury in US vaccines except for very few such as the flu vaccine. And the mercury that is in those is different than the kind of mercury that injures people. The mercury that goes into vaccines (again, a very small group) gets processed by a person's body and removed in a matter of days. It is such a small amount and leaves so fast that it doesn't have time to accumulate.

As for the hazmat suit claim: One year, while getting our flu vaccines, my son flinched, the needle came out of his arm, and the vaccine squirted across the office instead of into my son. There were no hazmat suits. No special calls to people to clean it up. They just moved on to try again with him.

There have been tons of studies looking into an autism-vaccine link and they all have shown that there is none. The people that claim there are tend to be clinging to the discredited and disproven Wakefield study. I know I'm not going to convince you (just like you won't convince me). You've probably made up your mind because you read a few blogs touting the "evils" of vaccines. Hard science shows that vaccines don't cause autism, though, and their risks are much smaller than the risks of the diseases they prevent.

Re:Parents should be liable

[frank_adrian314159]

It would be almost impossible to prove murder. The best you might get is negligent homicide, but even that's a tough sell. It's hard tying a direct causal line between non-vaccination and death, when so many other non-vaccinated children do not die. Yeah, from a medical point of view, it's negligence. From a legal viewpoint? Whole 'nother can o'worms.

Re: Parents should be liable

[cluemore]

thanks for those points.

re hazmat suits - i was talking about a 10 dose vial falling on the floor and breaking, not a squirt on a shirt.

up until 2002 or so, most if not all vaccines had mercury in them. the form of mercury is thimerosol, which is a disinfectant used in the manufacturing of vaccines. This is extremely toxic. I read of cases where there was an improper application of thimerosol to disinfect a new born umbilical are and it killed the child.

here's a table of mercury content in (some) vaccines, from 2013. more or less current. follow this link: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm. You'll notice that, yes, the flu vaccine has mercury in it, but it is not the only one. Also showing up is a meningococcal vaccine.

presently, mercury (thimerosol) is used in any multidose vial. the flu shots are usually packaged in 10 dose vials. those have mercury in them. if you can get a flu shot in a one dose vial, then it probably won't have any mercury in it. just aluminum salts and all the other toxins they use to really rev up the vaccine.

there is no form of mercury that is not harmful. i understand the relationship to be linear with quantity. mercury does not just pass through the body, not thimerosol and not any of the other kinds of mercury that cause mad hatter disease, minimata disease, grassy narrows disease, and so on.

the links i posted are good, well referenced and not hard to read. there is no reference there to the wakefield study. however, wakefield is one of the people quoted or commenting in the links I posted. I've probably read more about the wakefield thing than most. i wouldn't say his theory has been discounted so much as it's been smeared. You'd never know there were other names on the study, but wakefield was the only one without insurance to defend himself.

if you were to read up on the simpsonwood thread, you would find how the cdc and big-pharma hacked at the data until the autism link disappeared. read up on thompson and find out how big-pharma used tobacco science to make it look like there's no link. they funded a lot of bad science and meta studies.

we've all seen bad science before made in the service of profits. the tobacco companies got by for years saying smoking wasn't bad for you, in fact they'd tell you it was even good for you. they had lots of (paid for) studies published to prove it too, but it was all lies.

independent science is what's needed.

evils of vaccines, eh? I didn't say that. the thing that really gets me is the simpsonwood conference. now that was evil, and it was done by evil people, not a vat of some snake oil.

Re:Parents should be liable

[stdarg]

It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic

You should reflect more.

Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting

Selective quoting.. ahh.. the bane of idiots who say one thing, mean something else, stick fervently to it, and pretend that's what they originally said. Oh no, now he quoted me! The bastard!

the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.

You're seriously an idiot. You can't distinguish between what the article is about, what the "whole page" is about, and what an individual thread is about.

No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.

Ohhhh burn!

You sound so stupid it's unbelievable. The weirdest part though is how you're pretending that you know me.

But anyway, I'm glad you're not going to "feed" me any more dumb comments. Hopefully.

Oh shit here comes another reply accusing me of quoting you, and changing the topic!

How is the virus even still around?

[NotDrWho]

The only way I even know the name is because George Bailey saved the pharmacist from poisoning a kid with it in "It's a Wonderful Life." And the last recorded case of it in Europe was decades ago. So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

Re:How is the virus even still around?

[ArcadeMan]

Maybe the virus has access to a NotTardis.

Re:How is the virus even still around?

[koan]

How is it around?

The existing vaccine does not protect against infection, but against the effects of the toxin that the bacterium produces.

Appears people get infected, but do not suffer if they have been vaccinated, so the bacterium continues to exist and infect humans, and possibly other vectors as well.

Re: How is the virus even still around?

[jstomel]

Diphtheria is a bacteria, not a virus. When it isn't in people it can just go live in the environment.

Re:How is the virus even still around?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The only way I even know the name is because George Bailey saved the pharmacist from poisoning a kid with it in "It's a Wonderful Life." And the last recorded case of it in Europe was decades ago. So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

George: Tell that poster to eff off.

Clarence: But that poster never posted! You weren't there to stop Mr. Gower and that kid died, and nobody ever made a movie because you weren't there to be a subject, so the poster never saw it and had nothing clever to say!

Re:How is the virus even still around?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

Many diseases that were rare or unknown in developed European nations twenty years ago have been making a comeback lately. The reasons are obvious, but no-one is allowed to talk about them in SJW^H^H^Hpolite society.

"With so many Africans in Greece, at least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!"
That joke about the West Nile virus posted on twitter by the Greek triple jumper athlete Voula Papachristou few days before the 2012 Olympics was the reason to be expelled from the games...

Re: How is the virus even still around?

[jonnythan]

I don't think it survives in the environment, and it doesn't seem to have any animal hosts. There are places in the world where it's endemic and somewhat common, and it can live in the pharynx of vaccinated or asymptomatic humans. So it probably comes into a country from an immigrant or traveler with some frequency, it just doesn't spread because of vaccination.

Then there's this kid.

Re:How is the virus even still around?

[Maritz]

The reasons are obvious, but no-one is allowed to talk about them in SJW^H^H^Hpolite society.

Something to do with gaming journalism?

Re: How is the virus even still around?

[jstomel]

I don't think it survives in the environment, and it doesn't seem to have any animal hosts. There are places in the world where it's endemic and somewhat common, and it can live in the pharynx of vaccinated or asymptomatic humans. So it probably comes into a country from an immigrant or traveler with some frequency, it just doesn't spread because of vaccination.

Then there's this kid.

From microbewiki (emphasis added): "C. diphtheriae is a Gram-positive, aerobic, nonmotile, toxin-producing, rod-shaped bacteria belonging to the order Actinomycetales, which are typically found in soil, but also have pathogenic members such as streptomyces and mycobacteria."

Re:How is the virus even still around?

[Khashishi]

seems to be in Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re:How is the virus even still around?

[gweihir]

There are a quite a few pathogens that can exist outside of the human body and hence will never be exterminated. Some are deadly, like tetanus. For others, like the case at hand, the vaccination does not prevent the infection, but its grave effects.

Not being vaccinated is asking for serious consequences, frequently including death.

Re:How is the virus even still around?

[jandrese]

Many diseases have animal reservoirs they can keep a population in if there are no available human hosts around. Sometimes the animal is the preferred host and the human infections/deaths are a side effect. In cases like those, immunization alone won't eradicate the disease, not unless we figure out a way to start immunizing wild animals/insects. For diseases that are human specific like smallpox, there is a chance to eradicate the disease entirely with a global immunization campaign.

That said, mass vaccinations for diseases with animal hosts can still make a huge difference. It's a lot easier to fight a disease when it only shows up in sporadic cases where people live near wild animals. It does mean that we won't be free of Malaria or West Nile for a long time sadly.

Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[sjbe]

So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

Completely eradicating a pathogen from the globe is absurdly difficult. So far as I know we've only actually managed to do it once for a pathogen in the wild (smallpox) and even then we still have small stores of it in bio-weapons labs. You have to basically vaccinate the entire human population which is a logistical nightmare to accomplish. It's not too hard in wealthier countries with robust healthcare systems but in poor remote areas with low levels of education it can be extremely difficult to get to every last village and town and person.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[morgauxo]

I'm skeptical it can even be done at all. So it's said that smallpox is gone. But.. it's just too big of a big world.

Besides the know laboratories there has to be somewhere that some viri have somehow managed to be preserved. Maybe a vial that has long since lost it's label, now stuck in an attic or basement waiting to be sold with a pile of antiques. Maybe it's in a body that has managed to be burried in just the perfect environment to preserve it. Maybe it's in a stain on some old antique, totally not obvious by site after decades of just sitting there that it's source was a bodily fluid.

Wherever it is it's only a matter of time before someone wakes it up.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[Gilgaron]

Viruses generally are not as stable as your story posits. Spores maybe, but that's a whole different thing.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[Maritz]

While you could well be right, every year that passes would seem to make it less likely that smallpox is going to make a comeback (at least from natural reservoirs).

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[Triklyn]

no other natural reservoirs. this thing has been killing us for what, 12 millenia. They're pretty specific to the human animal.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[morgauxo]

That's pretty dumb. Comparing a virus to macroscopic animals.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[Curunir_wolf]

Smallpox is still maintained in US and Russian laboratories. It was declared eradicated in 1980. The WHO wanted the last of the laboratory samples destroyed, but it has so far been delayed. Interesting history in that link.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[morgauxo]

Most will die quickly without a host to reproduce in. I do know that.

But... a small number will not. I certainly don't believe that every place a smallpox victim has been or every gravesite where one was buried still contains viri. But there were a lot of hosts before it was 'exterminated'. I do think it's probably out there somewhere.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[pjt33]

And who knows how many more forgotten samples are out there?

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[ceoyoyo]

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Smallpox virus is reasonably stable when dried. There probably are graves where it still exists. We're pretty careful when opening graves, particularly old ones, though.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[KGIII]

If I had to make a wild, uneducated, and completely from the hip guess about this, and I do not have to but I will anyhow because that is how it is done around here, then I would suggest the most likely host would be an animal that carries the virus without them being negatively impacted by the virus. If smallpox still exists (outside of labs) then I would guess that as the most likely place to find it.

Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated

[morgauxo]

Exactly!

Surely there is a body somewhere that will one day be discovered by someone who isn't careful. Maybe somebody died in a strange place and hasn't been found yet. Or a sick murder victim. Or maybe somebody will dig up a grave that just doesn't know any better.

If we assume the virus is extinct forever and so don't immunize against it how far will it spread when this happens?

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Anonymous Coward]

In The Netherlands, the Bible Belt is the only place where the vaccination rate is not very close too 100%. Some orthodox protestants believe prevention of infectious disease is an unaccaptable interference with divine plans, so they choose to deny their children vaccines that could save their lives.

Odd comment

[koan]

"The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide."

Is he saying the kid gets to decide?

Re:Odd comment

[SuiteSisterMary]

No, he's saying that the kid's right to not be exposed to a deadly disease trumps the parent's right to force their religion/philosophy/stupidity onto the child.

Re:Odd comment

[IcyWolfy]

We had the choice to get vaccines growing up (2nd grade, 6 y/o).
They explained it to us, and most took it because of the dire warnings and videos of people with diseases.
They showed us filmstrips from the 40s and 50s about measels, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, ..., and that pretty much scared people more than the needles (which I would say didn't really bother half the class).
For the few who didn't want to, they were just goaded into it by peer pressure of all their friends and classmates (either by comforting or mocking, depending on gender). Kids are cruel, and also don't want to be excluded for chickening out / being afraid (and then teased). It's pretty effective.

Re:Odd comment

[gweihir]

And he is right.

Re:Odd comment

[strikethree]

When I was growing up, we had no choice...

I dislike being forced to do anything, even if it is in my best interests, but I am genuinely GLAD that I was given vaccinations against polio, mumps, etc.

Look at this for polio: https://www.google.com/search?...

Why would ANYONE let their children risk this, no matter how minuscule the chance?

Take your vaccines. Takes your vaccines. Take you fucking vaccines!

If you want to skip on the yearly flu shot and do not work around vulnerable people, fine; but, take your vaccines!

Just require the vaccines to be admitted to school

[Karmashock]

Why is this rocket science. Next issue.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[halivar]

I didn't know there WAS a Bible Belt in Europe, especially the Netherlands. Here in the US, non-abortion-related medicine is usually without any religious controversy, save for the Christian Scientists (who are, depending on what angle you view them from, neither Christian nor scientific), a relatively small, fringe sect that believes that all medical care represents faithlessness.

Here in the deep-south, there's a modern-day parable that goes around Christian circles that demonstrates the general philosophy in this regard: A man goes over a cliff overlooking treacherous waters and manages to grab hold of a thin root half-way down. In desperation he cries out to God, "Save me! Send me deliverence!" Having thus prayed, he resolves to place his trust in God. A man walks by the cliff and lowers a rope. "Grab the rope!" he says. The hanging man replies, "I cannot! I have placed my trust in the Lord, and I will await His deliverance." Next a boat drives by under the cliff. The man in the boat says, "Jump! I'll catch you!" The hanging man replies as he did to the first. Next, a rescue helicopter hovers nearby, and a man lowers a ladder. "Grab the ladder!" he says. Again the hanging man replies as he did to the previous two. Slowly, the hanging man loses his grip, falls into the swirling waters, and drowns. He arrives at heaven, meets God, and cries, "Why did you never answer my prayer?" To which God replies, "What are you talking about? I sent you a man with a rope, a boat, a helicopter..."

You might want to check that data again...

[denzacar]

Bible Belt states have some of the highest AND the lowest vaccination rates.

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

And as usual, it is probably a combination of factors which influence the anti-vaccination attitudes.
Though one factor does seem to be common - clustering.
I.e. It's social. Where there's one anti-vaxxer, there's more anti-vaxxer.

Overall, national vaccination rates seem high: The median rate of coverage for the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, administered to most before entry into kindergarten, was 94.7 percent for the 2013-14 school year. But, as Schuchat points out, the rate is lower in communities where unvaccinated families tend to cluster. In some areas, low rates might have more to do with access to clinics than with beliefs about vaccinations.

"The national estimates hide what's going on state to state. The state estimates hide what's going on community to community. And within communities there may be pockets," Schuchat said. "It's one thing if you have a year where a number of people are not vaccinating, but year after year in terms of the kids that are exempting, you do start to accumulate."

Re:You might want to check that data again...

[Calydor]

Where there's one anti-vaxxer, there's more anti-vaxxer.

Just like infectious diseases.

Re:You might want to check that data again...

[TechyImmigrant]

Where there's one anti-vaxxer, there's more anti-vaxxer.

Just like infectious diseases.

And rats.

Re:You might want to check that data again...

[Citizen of Earth]

Memetic engineering.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, religious people are rarely very rational. If they were, they wouldn't be religious.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not rocket science. It's political science. To dismiss that is missing the point. In free societies, you cannot sweep stupid under the rug. You have to work around it.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Maritz]

"Christian Scientists" are trying to punch a hole in time with sheer fucking irony, given what they believe, and their goddamn name.

Re:And sure enough Jenny McCarthy is involved

[OrangeTide]

Just because Jenny's child has a serious condition doesn't mean she has the right to give thousands of other children a different serious condition.

Yes it is a public health and safety issue

[sjbe]

how is it a public safety issue, the ones who do get vaccinated aren't at risk... so they only endanger themselves and likeminded folks

Wrong. Not everyone can get vaccinated because some people legitimate medical conditions making it inadvisable. Sometimes they are too young. Sometimes they have allergy or other medical conditions that prevent their vaccination. These people depend on herd immunity to avoid the illness. If people start avoiding vaccines for non-medical reasons then these people who cannot be vaccinated are endangered by those who recklessly decide to avoid vaccination for no good reason.

Furthermore diseases have a substantial and measurable cost to society. We have finite resources both financial and time to devote to treating diseases and if we waste them on something that could be solved with a cheap and safe vaccine then we necessarily cannot spend those medical and financial resources on something else. Should we spend a few dollars for a vaccine or thousands on a treatment. THAT is a public health issue.

Re:Yes it is a public health and safety issue

[KGIII]

My kids were vaccinated and I think we should all get them vaccinated and maintain our own vaccines throughout our lives but I do not think you are an authoritative source to decide such things as "no good reason." Who are we to judge what is and is not good without an absolute knowledge of the future?

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know there WAS a Bible Belt in Europe, especially the Netherlands. Here in the US, non-abortion-related medicine is usually without any religious controversy, save for the Christian Scientists (who are, depending on what angle you view them from, neither Christian nor scientific), a relatively small, fringe sect that believes that all medical care represents faithlessness.

In general, religion does not play a major role in The Netherlands anymore, since the majority is not religious and most of those who are tend to be relatively liberal. Legalising euthanasia, for example, was also supported by a majority of christians in The Netherlands.

There is, however, a 'slice' that runs from the southwest to the east where a significant fraction of the population are orthodox protestants. This area is commonly referred to as the Bible Belt (probably after the region with the same name in the U.S.). It largely follows the historical boundary between the part of the country that used to have a catholic majority and the part that had a protestant majority. Somehow the large-scale secularisation that happened in the rest of the country in the decades following World War II never happened in the Bible Belt. Many people still attend church twice on a Sunday, they adhere strictly to specific readings of the Bible, they do no do any non-religious activities on Sundays, etc. It is one of the few regions in Western Europe where new churches are being built regularly.

It doesn't just endanger the idiots

[sjbe]

Let nature take its course since that is what the parents wanted.

Stupid argument because the consequences go beyond the idiots who avoid getting vaccinated. There are people cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. There are people who are too young for a particular vaccine. No vaccine is 100% effective either and sometimes the protection disappears over time. By not getting vaccinated people are not only endangering their own family but the families of others.

Re:It doesn't just endanger the idiots

[KGIII]

While I think vaccination is a wonderful thing (and would never avoid it) it seems that the argument against disallowing the choice is premised on, "Think of the children!" Your post is, well, exactly that. Forcing any physical act on another is, well, force. As much as I personally disagree with it, and I am aware of the potential ramifications, I am not comfortable forcing any medical procedure on anyone much like I am not comfortable disallowing medical procedures. I personally, for example, dislike abortion but I would never have the temerity to tell someone that they could not have one. My body, my rights. Their child, their rights - until said child reaches majority. I would probably support a law that allows unvaccinated children to punch their parents in the face, repeatedly - until tired, when they reach the age of majority.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Jawnn]

No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast.

[citation needed]
We keep hearing this. Please substantiate your assertion.

Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection,

[IcyWolfy]

The Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, it only immunizes against the effects of the toxin the bacteria produce.

Thus, it's still around and kicking, it just doesn't kill people anymore as most people can fight off the infection on their own without the toxin wreaking havoc on their body. And most people won't even notice anything other than "flu-like symptoms" as all the effects of Diptheria are caused by the toxin, rather than the presence of the bacterial infection.

The poor kid probably just got coughed on, or touched something and then cross-contaminated something he put in his mouth.

Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection,

[jandrese]

The Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, it only immunizes against the effects of the toxin the bacteria produce.

That's not how vaccines work.

Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection,

[Gilgaron]

I actually don't know much about the diphtheria vaccine and am feeling too lazy to look it up, but yes, some vaccines only have you make antibodies that inactivate the bacterial toxins, which lets you stay alive long enough for the rest of your immune system to clear the bacteria via more conventional means. This makes extra sense in circumstances where the toxin is highly conserved but the bacterial cell wall is highly variable.

Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection,

[Anonymous Coward]

Tetanus vaccine, I believe is also against the toxin rather than the organism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanus

"Unlike many infectious diseases, recovery from naturally acquired tetanus does not usually result in immunity to tetanus. This is due to the extreme potency of the tetanospasmin toxin. Even a lethal dose of tetanospasmin is insufficient to provoke an immune response.

Tetanus can be prevented by vaccination with tetanus toxoid.[19] The CDC recommends that adults receive a booster vaccine every ten years,[20] and standard care practice in many places is to give the booster to any patient with a puncture wound who is uncertain of when he or she was last vaccinated, or if he or she has had fewer than three lifetime doses of the vaccine. The booster may not prevent a potentially fatal case of tetanus from the current wound, however, as it can take up to two weeks for tetanus antibodies to form.[21]"

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

Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection,

[cluemore]

here's a table of vaccine's and the inserts as pdf. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

I see Diptheria toxoid all over the place in this table. other references seem to confirm that the 4 or 5 way vaccine contains the toxin and not components of the bacteria.

The vaccine coverage rate for barcelona is 95%

That would seem to be a nail in the coffin for this herd immunity theory. Where is patient zero?

Other literature indicates that whatever immunity the vaccine confers dissipates after a few years. here: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/2/11-0987_article

also in there, it says the largest cofactors for diptheria are: #1 war; #2 unemployment. Spain has a really high unemployment rate now. Also, note that eastern europe has high vaccination rates but a persistent diptheria problem. Seems to me eastern europe has a persistent war problem too.

also in there, it says 75% of the people getting diptheria have already had the vaccine. Sounds like this vaccine has got snake oil as it's active ingredient. reading the product insert i see more than 50% of the people getting the vaccine suffer from side effects, with around 10% having very unpleasant consequences. safe? effective? strike out on both counts.

the numbers there say that the vaccine reduces symptoms, but I suspect they put some lipstick on those stats.

Most (75%) case-patients reported in the European Region were at least partially vaccinated, but most (74%) case-patients and (93%) infants who died were unvaccinated).

they don't appear to have factored for the most vulnerable groups, who are also least likely to be vaccinated - the very old, the very young, and the very sick.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[halivar]

/sigh... and as I do in every single thread this comes up in: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

Further data: 7 of the 8 most vaccinated states went to Romney in '12.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Maritz]

Compared to bringing eradicated diseases back in a big way, it's the lesser evil.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Karmashock]

I actually did. I pointed out that the home schoolers make up a relatively tiny portion of the population and are therefore not relevant to herd immunity.

Pay attention next time.

As to mandatory vaccinations, I said they were fine for people that go to school. Require it when they show up. Getting snippy with me about home schoolers is idiotic since there aren't enough of them to be relevant. You might as well bitch about the Amish not getting vaccinated.

Does that sound rational to you or fucking stupid?

That's a rhetorical question. Its fucking stupid.

Re:This could be fun

[Maritz]

A more generous interpretation of what he's saying is that children have the right to be protected from disease. I agree with him.

Anti Vaxxers unite!

[Ol Olsoc]

Move to your own island, where you mab be around others with your insights.

Pass around those lollipops so your kids all get those diseases

Avoid all modern medicine.

And let Darwin take care of it all.

p.s. Take Jenny McCarthy with you.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[chilenexus]

Don't forget the Jehova's Witnesses, who believe blood transfusions are against their faith. And celebrating birthdays or other holidays.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[ImprovOmega]

Now you're just being a pedantic assclown.

I hope this movment dies out.

[IgnitusBoyone]

Curious if they vaccinate there next child. Its easy to sit above everyone when you have never seen the issue, because its been almost entirely eradicated, but at the turn of the 20th century people were ready to stand in line for the mere chance that they could prevent permanent disability or death from a number of childhood disease.

Re:at least he doesn't have autism

[gweihir]

None of which is going to happen with vaccinations. The Autism legend was caused by scientific fraud, perpetrated to promote some new vaccine. The one perpetrating it has by now been stripped of his PhD for gross scientific misconduct. But stupid people will believe whatever fits their messed-up world-view, no matter what evidence is presented to them. One of the reasons why stupid people have a higher risk of killing themselves or dependents by entirely avoidable problems.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Triklyn]

oh, we got those too, that's different. We've got the ones on the right that have always done it for religious reasons.

what he's talking about is the newer movement that says vaccines are bad for you and cause disease.

the religious exemption has never been a big issue, not enough to make a dent in herd immunity. It's the dirty hippies that are causing the big problems in the US.

Dr. Cox says:

[GameboyRMH]

Dr. Cox would call the side effect a major case of "deadness."

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Curunir_wolf]

and by county? i think you have lots of dems in the cities driving up rates bro.

Cognitive dissonance.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Karmashock]

So... sarcasm is your way of showing you're superior to me?

How is that working out for you?

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[517714]

No, you don't. You have been shown the facts and simply choose not to accept them.

Them damn commies? Really?

[denzacar]

MotherJones used to have journalists, but they are now nothing but a pro-progressive propaganda rag, fond of running hit pieces on anyone to the right of Mao Zedong.

You do realize you just replied with a "god damn commies" ad hominem to an article citing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on the topic of... well... diseases and vaccination?

Re:Them damn commies? Really?

[denzacar]

Check those links.

Article cites and quotes CDC for all the relevant information. Then it quotes itself quoting and citing CDC.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Karmashock]

A good deal of working around stupid if figuring out what is relevant and what is not... and ignoring what is not relevant.

Home schoolers are not relevant to herd immunity. There aren't enough of them.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Hognoxious]

Shit reading comprehension, perhaps?

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Karmashock]

I live in southern california... lets look at the stats.

Okay:
http://a2zhomeschooling.com/th...

California 6,757,361 / 190,911

So that's your ratio... about 2.8 percent of the student body is home schooled.

Alright... are you saying 2.8 percent breaks herd immunity? Because it doesn't.

Also, just because someone is home schooled doesn't mean that they don't have their vaccinations and just because someone is in public school doesn't mean they do.

That's an abtirary variable that doesn't control for whether you are vaccinated or not.

Might you be more inclined to be vaccinated one way or the other? Sure. But then people with sniffles tend to have colds. It doesn't mean that because you have the sniffles you have the cold.

Causation and correlation. I think if I were dictator of planet earth... I'd execute people for not appreciating the distinction between causation and correlation... past a certain age. Instant summery execution. The line has to be drawn somewhere. No offense.

Seriously though... you can't control for it on that basis and 2.8 which is the ceiling number is a lot higher than the number of home schoolers that don't have vaccines. Lets say half of them don't... you're then talking about 1.4 percent.

That's a fucking joke.

Blaming the outbreak on home schoolers when there is literally no evidence to back that up is fucking retarded.

there is no way that ALL the home schoolers are without vaccinations. And even 2.8 percent is a tiny portion of the population.... If you assume that half are without basic vaccinations which is likely too high, you're then talking about something less than 1.4 percent of the student body. And that is just of the students. We're not even talking about as opposed to the total population.

This is officially unsupportable.

Now, on the other side, I'd point out that we have an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration coming into this country. They're not vaccinated. They're permitted into the PUBLIC schools without vaccinations. So everyone else that goes to the school... we have to show documentation to prove we got our kids vaccinated. But they don't have to do that.

The kids are classified as "homeless" and they're just let into the system with no vaccinations at all.

Now... what are the numbers? No one actually knows. Most people cite Census numbers from TEN YEARS AGO that are of course utterly useless for figuring out what is going on today.

All that said... outbreaks happen. Even if everyone gets their shots people are going to get sick. It just happens. You have to accept that. But to blame the fucking home schoolers? Fucking astounding.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Karmashock]

I couldn't find any link between that and home schoolers.

Can you provide a link? From what I could see they had no idea where the disease came from and the people infected were mostly not home schoolers.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Pubstar]

I wish I could find it, but there was a vaccination map for Southern California. You live in a poor part of LA? Really high vaccination rates. Live in a Rich and/or Hippie infested area? Vaccination rates MUCH lower than the surrounding areas.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Karmashock]

... Did you have a rational comment or does the intellectual basis of your argument boil down to the sort of shit I would expect to hear from a six year old?

Make a rational point or suck on a pacifier with the rest of the babies.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[KGIII]

Every day is a reason to celebrate Jesus thus no need for holidays and a line in the Bible that there will be an accounting for the blood. Yes, I did try to listen to them before outright dismissing them. It was amusing for a time. I would not have listened at all but I had answered the door naked (just out of the shower) and they waited outside patiently while I dressed so I was willing to listen for a while.

Re:Let the full retard, pro vaccinator's, rejoice!

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, it's very difficult to find side effect rates. In fact, nobody even keeps track of them! Oh, wait, no it's not:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

The risk from vaccine side effects is very carefully measured against the risk of not being vaccinated and the vaccines are approved only if the benefit very much outweighs the risk.

Re:This will end well.

[Cederic]

Interpret it differently: The right of a child to be vaccinated takes precedent over the right of the parents to decide whether to vaccinate.

It's endemic in some populations; also: a bacteria

[tlambert]

The only way I even know the name is because George Bailey saved the pharmacist from poisoning a kid with it in "It's a Wonderful Life." And the last recorded case of it in Europe was decades ago. So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

It's endemic in some populations; also: a bacteria, Corynebacterium diphtheriae, not a virus, FWIW.

Yes. There are large reservoirs of the bacteria in many North African countries, as well as Pakistan. What's only noted in a couple of places is that while the kid was "a resident of Olot (Girona)", the kids origin was as an adoption of an immigrant child.

To see the reservoirs, here is the World Health Organization data on reported cases by country through 2014:

http://apps.who.int/immunizati...

If you care, you can also look at diseases other than Diphtheria, across the top of the chart. For example, there were 52'628 cases of measles in China in 2014, and there are rather large reservoirs in the Philippines as well (which is whre the person who was pation zero in the Disneyland measles outbreak had just travelled into the U.S. from, presumably infectious at the time they travelled. Somalia, India, Ethiopia, Viet Nam, and China also have significant measles reservoirs.

http://apps.who.int/immunizati...

Of course, we don't perform health examinations or quarantines on people traveling from these hot zones into the U.S.

P.S. India, the U.S., and Australia are the top reservoirs for pertussis (whooping cough), so it'd be a good idea to check those people too, if they happen to be coming into your country.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[tlambert]

can you give me an example of a home school kid infecting anyone because of lack of vaccines?

Measles at Disneyland.

Patient 0 for the Disneyland outbreak had just returned from the Philippines, which is a measles hot zone, and did not self-quarantine for a couple of weeks before mixing with the public, and so did not know he was sick.

Here are the WHO statistics on the number of cases of various diseases reported for various countries, through 2014:

http://apps.who.int/immunizati...

The Philippines has the highest incidence of measles of any country (but China, with a vastly larger population, is not that far behind).

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[slew]

I didn't know there WAS a Bible Belt in Europe, especially the Netherlands.

FWIW, there's even a "church-tax" (fees collected by the government on behalf of a church) in many European countries including the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) and Austria, Italy and Germany. Rules vary, but participation of the population in state affiliated churches is north of 67% in some countries, although there has been a recent trend of people leaving churches in European countries if it allows them to avoid paying these "taxes".

Of course paying the tax and actual active membership in a church are two different things. Apparently in Europe, there are lots of passive members that continue to simply just pay the tax (presumably for traditional reasons) inflating the membership rolls of the churches and overstating their influence...

As for vaccines, I don't think there is much different underlying sentiment in European vs the USA-ans. is primarily an issue where there is a big push to be current on vaccines when entering school in the USA, where in most European countries the focus is in the (public) healthcare system. Perhaps both the USA and Europe, attendance to school is still more universal than attendance to healthcare (even if both are "free") and the resulting diseases bear this out.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Ol Olsoc]

In the U.S. the anti-vaxxers are largely those who go around calling people Deniers because they don't drive a Prius.

GIven that much edepends on the framing ot the questions, it appears that between liberals, moderates, and conservatives, it's all about the same.

http://blogs.discovermagazine....

As in so many aspects of life, it depends on your own political views. If you are conservative - the liberals are the bogeyman. If you are liberal, it's conservative bugaboos.

People like myself, in the middle, recognize that one's politics, left or right, does not prevent them from being a flaming asshole, which any anti-vaxxer most certainly is.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Ol Olsoc]

Which diseases does a bday party protect one from?

Depends on the age - that 18th birthday party has been know to cause internal parasites that take the better part of a year to get over.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[mjwx]

No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast. I think it has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with who reads idiot granola mommy and food blogs.

This. In Australia the only significant anti-vaxxer crowd are the nutbar organic and/or anti-government conspiracy crowds. Strangely enough these two groups tend to be so similar it's pointless to even try to separate them a venn diagram.

Re:Why is slashdot promoting this topic?

[OrangeTide]

The modern era began approximately in the 16th century.

So vaccines are modern technology that enough people regard are evil magic voodoo to impact the effectiveness of herd immunity in our "modern" communities.

Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch

[Karmashock]

I know what herd immunity is, fool.

I asked you to make an argument.

You responded with ignorance and evasions.

Re:There is only one group of people worth hearing

[TheRealLifeboy]

Really?

Dear AC Troll, of course you are a medical doctor and know what they are being taught, right?

Being a historian qualifies me to tell you that, since you clearly don't know history (study Rockefeller & Carnegie and their funding/destruction/rebuilding of US medical training), you don't know that doctors are not educated. They are trained. Trained to sell, promote and perpetuate the chemical industry that David and Dale have built and nothing else.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Applehu Akbar]

Yes, Virginia, there is even an anti-evolution movement in Europe.
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
The claim is made that 20% of Germans believe in creation.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Applehu Akbar]

In today's society, European church taxes are deemed to be an expression of cultural identification in countries that have 'official' churches (Church of England, Dutch Reformed Church, et. al.) The tax for maintaining that church is supposed to be a minor element of cultural identity, not, as in medieval times, a requirement to follow the faith.

Official churches of this type are what is explicitly forbidden in our First Amendment.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Applehu Akbar]

Anti-vax sentiment on the right is a vestigial part of the fad diet movement, like Dr. Mercola. It doesn't even have fundie megabucks behind it, let alone Hollywood gigabucks.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[stoatwblr]

JWs are fine with plasma, it's whole blood they don't like.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[stoatwblr]

> FWIW, there's even a "church-tax" ... in many European countries. here has been a recent trend of people leaving churches in European countries if it allows them to avoid paying these "taxes"

It gets odder than that. In the UK, if you live in a parish then you're liable for costs resulting from the upkeep of the parish church, no matter what your religion (or lack of) is, or if you attend another one somewhere else.

Then again a lot of people identify as "christian" despite never having set foot in a church in their life (The "my parents were so I am" model - this happens with other religions too. I know a bunch of very secular people who say they won't come out as such because it'd upset their muslim or sikh parents)

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[lsatenstein]

No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast. I think it has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with who reads idiot granola mommy and food blogs.

So, God or Jesus will protect them, when the next measles or pox or polio epidemic returns.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[halivar]

Uh, no, their high vaccination rate will protect them.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[cluemore]

maybe this?

http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/look-vaccination-rates-california-child-care-cente/

or this? http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/immunization-levels-california/

I've read that the more educated you are the less likely you are to have your family vaccinated. Specifically, the reference was that Lawrence Livermore Lab has an extremely low vaccination rate.

Also, somewhat anecdotally, doctors don't get vaccinated either. Doctors will not go to get the flu vaccine, and nurses will get it only if forced to.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[cluemore]

most people think the government is lying to them. does that make them conspiracy nuts? I don't think so, unless for some unknown reason they think the government's lying has a purpose.

So, if you think the government lies randomly, like some kind of quota system, then you're normal, but if you think the government lies purposefully, then you're a conspiracy theorist? Are you anti-government, or just anti-bad-government?

Dubya: Hey, Dick, what are we going to lie about today?

Dick: Well, George, we're halfway through the B's. Bin Laden's at the top. Let's do something with that.

there you have it. the 911 truth is out.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[Pubstar]

As someone who has worked in a hospital (Win XP to Win 7 Migration... dear god the special software never wanted to work on Win7, and half of the shit was still 16 bit), I would like to counter that. Everyone in the hospital I was in was vaccinated for the flu. Well, not EVERYONE, but majority. If you did not get vaccinated, you had to wear a mask and gloves at all times. Those that were vaccinated had a tag attached to their badge so you knew.

Also, my mom (BSN) is head of Infection Control for a rather large medical center out here. Majority of the nurses get the flu shot there as well. She has to do all the paperwork and processing for those that dont and make sure that they are wearing at least a mask.

She even doubts the effectiveness of them (due to the flu being something that mutates rapidly), but she does get them.

No, it's not found in the soil

[Pav]

From Wikipedia : "Diphtheria is usually spread between people by direct contact or through the air. It may also be spread by contaminated objects." There's no mention of it being soil-bourne, so I would assume it's one of the few from that bacterial order that isn't able to live in soil.

Re:Deniers on the Left?

[cluemore]

ok, fair enough.

my somewhat anecdotally comes from my wife being a nurse, my step-daughter being a nurse, and we have another nurse in the house. i have a lot of doctors in the family, but i myself am not one. the word i hear from the nurses is that the doctors don't get the vaccines. i've read stats in newspapers that seem to confirm this.

regarding the flu vaccine specifically, most people i know have read about the lack of effectiveness of the flu vaccine, and that it makes you more susceptible to next years flu. they aren't against vaccines generally, just against useless ones like the flu vaccine.

one person i know never got the flu - until she got the flu vaccine, came down with a bad case right away. she says she'll never get the flu vaccine again. a good friend of the family got the flu vaccine in the morning one day a few years ago, and he died that afternoon. Sure, he was older, but he was in good health. Sure, he could have passed away from some undiagnosed illness, but that scared most of my family away from the flu vaccine.

up until a couple years ago, i was on the fence wrt vaccines. the first connection i made with bad stuff happening to this generation is allergies. I've been aware for some time now that most countries don't have extreme allergy problems among their children. My wife is from the Philippines, and this allergy thing is completely unknown there. Especially the peanut allergy. Peanut allergy is unknown in most third world countries, but here in my child's school there's a safety wall in the teacher's room filled with 30 pictures of children with serious allergies, mostly to peanuts. Here, one in fifty children have a life threatening allergy to something, and this simply did not exist in previous generations and it does not exist in other parts of the world. Then i found out that peanut oil is a GRAS unlisted adjuvant ingredient in all vaccines, and has been since the cotton seed oil problem with vaccines back in the 1940's. Researching the origin of allergy, i find that everything points back to the hypodermic needle. The word allergy was coined by von pirquet, an austrian doctor studying serum sickness in the 19th century (serum sickness was what they called a bad reaction to vaccines in the 19th century). The reaction my child has to peanuts is called anaphylaxis. This word was also coined by a researcher into negative reactions to vaccines. It was the french doctor Charles Richet who coined the word for this deadly reaction to vaccines, and he got a nobel prize for his work in 1913. Richet was able to give dogs an anaphylactic reaction to raw meat by injecting them with raw meat proteins. To this day, the easiest way to create a severe allergy to something is by injection.

Richet was not a humanitarian. This is what he has to say about people like my child.

Anaphylaxis is thus necessary to the species, often to the detriment of the individual. The individual may perish, but this does not matter. The species must at all times retain it's organic integrity. Anaphylaxis defends the species against the peril of adulteration.

Well, that's breathtaking. and if anaphylaxis isn't quick enough, we always have the gas chambers.

Family history

[Loie Ramone]

First, my apologies for a long post, but it’s an important message. This isn’t a copy and paste deal, I wrote it. If you wish to educate yourself, this will be helpful. Please feel free to share. A few weeks ago, I researched diphtheria and discovered a great deal about it. My Mom’s youngest sister died at 12:00 a.m. December 26, 1940 at 4 years of age after a bout with diphtheria. It is a terrible disease, spread by mucus particulates (sneezing, coughing), primarily affecting young children. It resembles the common cold in the early stages, which inhibits diagnosis. Initial symptoms are a sore throat, swollen glands, weakness, fever, and cough. An extremely potent toxin, deadly at a very minimal level, is released into the respiratory system. A membrane develops in the throat that restricts breathing and swallowing and causes palate and throat paralysis, nerve damage, congestive heart failure, necrosis of the heart and liver, and finally death over a short period of 2-3 weeks. It was not common at that time to vaccinate children for this disease, although the vaccine was developed in 1890. Mom’s whole family was quarantined and given toxin anti-toxin as a preventive measure, and 7 children and their parents watched their little sister and youngest child die. Had she survived, she would have developed spinal meningitis and been paralyzed the rest of her life. Fortunately, no one else in the family developed diphtheria. I know vaccinating children (or the lack thereof) is a hot topic, but I seriously doubt anyone would want to see a loved one succumb to this easily preventable illness. If this isn’t an argument in support of vaccination, I don’t know what is. Thanks for reading.