Benjamin Franklin on Vaccines

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I pop in and out of this thread and haven't read it all. But with Facebook and the comments on news articles, there are plenty of people who think calling cps or jailing parents or not allowing unvaccinated individuals to walk freely in public is a perfectly acceptable consequence.

 

I've had this conversation with several people on several different topics in the last few weeks:

 

Stupid people shooting off their mouths on the internet, when they have not been elected to any office and have no power, are not endangering our personal liberties. We are not on the brink of totalitarianism just because the court of public opinion hands down stupid mandates. As long as we have a representative democracy we are not to the end times yet.

 

As to your response about there being no leeway between caution about specific vaccinations due to family history and full-bore government mandates of vaxes for all, with parental permission or not -- that's not true at this time.

 

Will we enter a totalitarian state and find ourselves sending our children to school against our will and having medications forced upon them against our will? Maybe. It's been done all over the world (see 20th century) and I won't be the one to say it'll never happen here. But is it happening now, and can it happen under our current system of government? No.

 

[TranquilMind]

SKL, you are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Neither are you entitled to your own facts, when said facts are from blatantly biased sources with a financial interest.    Do whatever you want.  Vaccinate your kids with 100,000 vaccines at once, which is "perfectly safe" according to Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine company shill, who earns millions from Merck's Rotateq, and pushed his vaccine directly while sitting on the CDC, supposedly "impartially" suggesting "necessary" vaccines.

 

Just understand what you are dealing with here, and then go ahead and do it, if you like, and it makes you more comfortable as a parent.  That's what informed consent is all about.    Make choices for your children and their BODIES, and they will make choices for themselves when they are old enough.   You know, as we should all be able to make our own decisions about our own bodies, as the pro-choice people claim (conveniently overlooking that there is another body there when it comes to abortion, but I digress...)

 

Some people simply prefer more unbiased sources than those who profit financially from pushing vaccines, and some have literally seen horrible reactions with their own eyes, or their kids have many allergies or a family history of autoimmune problems.  It is no accident that THREE BILLION DOLLARS have been paid out in injury/death claims according to the government's own sources (the ones they simply could not ignore, though many were denied), and you can't simply ignore that in a principled way.

 

So, choose.  But leave others free to choose their own risks as well. There is really no place of contention if a parent is fully informed, not partially-informed, and decides to do it anyway, even if a bad result occurs. The parent can only say, "Well, they told me this was a possibility, and I chose to do it anyway."  That's an acceptable position (though sad for the victim, of course).   I think I can safely say that this is all that possibly SKL and most people who advocate independent health decisions and INFORMED consent (not partially informed consent, telling uninformed parents of only a few innocuous risks)  would request (or she can correct me).  No one is demanding that you not give every or certain vaccines, or threatening you with loss of your children,  or attempting to exclude your newly vaccinated kids who actually should stay away from the immunocompromised in public places according to the vaccine inserts (and those who are principled would insist on it), as the Disney crowd and its supporters threatened those who did not yet have a measles vaccine, even if they were perfectly healthy and could not transmit anything they did not have. 

 

Oh, by the way, that 15 day old kid is just fine.  You know, the one whose mother vitriolically excoriated everyone who selectively vaccinated, delayed vaccinations or did not yet get that one, despite the fact that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people caught measles at Disney.  I'm sure you saw that ugly spew all over social media, the worst of which suggested that CPS should remove kids from homes where they didn't get every vaccination on time, no matter what, or the parents and/or their kids should just die.    That mom got the all-clear yesterday, from what I read. Her kid is not sick; he is fine.  And we are STILL at around 58 cases of measles in California, despite a population of what, 73 million people, who have that scary rate of 90 percent vaccinated?  Not quite the drama the anti-choice people were hoping to see.  Thankfully. 

 

I'm done.  I just have a problem when people put blinders on and steadfastly refuse to look at both sides of an issue (not referring to you specifically, but just this recently prevalent train of thought). 

[DesertBlossom]

I've had this conversation with several people on several different topics in the last few weeks:

 

Stupid people shooting off their mouths on the internet, when they have not been elected to any office and have no power, are not endangering our personal liberties. We are not on the brink of totalitarianism just because the court of public opinion hands down stupid mandates. As long as we have a representative democracy we are not to the end times yet.

 

As to your response about there being no leeway between caution about specific vaccinations due to family history and full-bore government mandates of vaxes for all, with parental permission or not -- that's not true at this time.

 

Will we enter a totalitarian state and find ourselves sending our children to school against our will and having medications forced upon them against our will? Maybe. It's been done all over the world (see 20th century) and I won't be the one to say it'll never happen here. But is it happening now, and can it happen under our current system of government? No.

 

Well then, I will go back to living my own life and ignoring everyone else. I can rest assured that our government has never done anything to ingfringe on the rights of another person. Phew.

[SKL]

I believe some states did change the opt-out statement so that a philosophical exemption as well as a religious exemption is allowed.  So you don't have to claim that your religion requires you to refuse vaxes (at least in some states).

 

But you still can't just say (on your school application), "we decided not to vax for the chickenpox by age 5."  You have to either vax for it, get a doctor to say it's dangerous for your kid, or make a blanket statement that you are opposed to vaxes.

 

This is the only reason I decided to go ahead with the chickenpox vax when my kids were in 1st grade.

 

And no, I don't have a link for any of this.

[TranquilMind]

I pop in and out of this thread and haven't read it all. But with Facebook and the comments on news articles, there are plenty of people who think calling cps or jailing parents or not allowing unvaccinated individuals to walk freely in public is a perfectly acceptable consequence.

That is truly evil. 

 

I keep thinking of this movie, but can't remember the name.  All the people had to get a shot in a port in the back of the neck every time a buzzer rang, in order to keep them compliant, and eliminate that pesky independent thought.  Some escaped the government and lived in a decimated area, scrounging for food, but were able to avoid the compliance shot.  I wish I could remember the name.  It was really eye-opening, and frighteningly relevant, listening to the crazy we have heard in social media the last few weeks. 

 

I certainly hope cooler heads prevail.   Do whatever you want; simply extend the same courtesy to others to do what they want, with fully informed consent, in reference to their own bodies. 

[TranquilMind]

Well then, I will go back to living my own life and ignoring everyone else. I can rest assured that our government has never done anything to ingfringe on the rights of another person. Phew.

Yes, I certainly felt absolutely reassured too! 

 

;)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Well then, I will go back to living my own life and ignoring everyone else. I can rest assured that our government has never done anything to ingfringe on the rights of another person. Phew.

 

 Is there any point to conversing with you? Nobody is ignoring everyone else or resting assured that governments never mess up rights issues! Good grief.

 

I vaxed delayed-selectively, homeschool, and stay on top of what's going on at the city, state, local, and international levels. I care very much about personal liberty, and about the decline of the citizenry in their ability to manage their own affairs, which brings on more state control.

 

One can care deeply about these issues and even be an activist toward various causes of personal freedom while still remaining objective regarding fact v. hype, threat v. paranoia.

 

Neither you, nor anyone else cringing in fear on the internet, will convince me that the government is at the door waiting to steal my kids and shoot them full of pharmaceuticals for fun and profit. The thing that would convince me is legislation permitting it, which will happen after some sort of political or military coup or overthrow that none of us will accidentally miss hearing about.

 

In the meantime, we all have options, and all vaccinations of children (in non-emergent situations) require a parental signature on the dotted line. Fact.

[TranquilMind]

I believe some states did change the opt-out statement so that a philosophical exemption as well as a religious exemption is allowed.  So you don't have to claim that your religion requires you to refuse vaxes (at least in some states).

 

But you still can't just say (on your school application), "we decided not to vax for the chickenpox by age 5."  You have to either vax for it, get a doctor to say it's dangerous for your kid, or make a blanket statement that you are opposed to vaxes.

 

This is the only reason I decided to go ahead with the chickenpox vax when my kids were in 1st grade.

 

And no, I don't have a link for any of this.

Not in all states.  In several you can choose which vaccines you wish to decline under the exemption, as there are many religious people (or areligious) who decline vaccines grown in aborted fetal cells, for example. 

[TranquilMind]

 Is there any point to conversing with you? Nobody is ignoring everyone else or resting assured that governments never mess up rights issues! Good grief.

 

I vaxed delayed-selectively, homeschool, and stay on top of what's going on at the city, state, local, and international levels. I care very much about personal liberty, and about the decline of the citizenry in their ability to manage their own affairs, which brings on more state control.

 

One can care deeply about these issues and even be an activist toward various causes of personal freedom while still remaining objective regarding fact v. hype, threat v. paranoia.

 

Neither you, nor anyone else cringing in fear on the internet, will convince me that the government is at the door waiting to steal my kids and shoot them full of pharmaceuticals for fun and profit. The thing that would convince me is legislation permitting it, which will happen after some sort of political or military coup or overthrow that none of us will accidentally miss hearing about.

 

In the meantime, we all have options, and all vaccinations of children (in non-emergent situations) require a parental signature on the dotted line. Fact.

No one said the government is doing that (yet).  There are people lobbying for it in legislatures and on social media,  They also feel free to opine that death to children of non/delayed/selective parents is acceptable, as well as removal by CPS, and imprisonment of parents if some other kid happens to catch measles, as even if he caught it from a vaccinated person.  The under-vaccinated child's parents are merely a convenient target. 

 

So long as it is just the uninformed blathering on, so be it.  But it is particularly vitriolic, which is troublesome. 

[TranquilMind]

Hey, I'd stand in line for a small pox vaccine if there was an outbreak. But remember that there is a rather lengthy list of vaccines our children are given. And not all diseases are spread the same way. And some of them aren't very scary. I am not going to use the threat of a smallpox outbreak to allow the government to decide what is injected into my body.

 

The only way we can have any kind of helpful conversation is to talk about specific vaccines. I have not heard any pro-vaxxers (specifically those that think they should be mandated) talk about specific vaccines. It appears to be all or nothing in their minds. I think it's rather telling to compare the infant's schedule to an unvaccinated adult's "catch up" schedule. Not only do adults require fewer doses, they require fewer vaccines.

 

From what I have read about vaccines and auto-immune disease and the fact that we have a history of auto-immune disease in my family, I am very selective about the vaccines I am willing to put into my children's bodies. And while I feel there is plenty of research to support me, I know that public opinion seems to be that all people should be vaccinated no matter what. Unless of course they have a medical reason that they can't be vaccinated. Which means they are immuno-compromised or they have already suffered a severe reaction. There appears to be no leeway for people who are looking at their medical history and the vaccine research and deciding to take a more cautious approach to vaccines. And quite frankly, THAT scares me more than measles or smallpox. The idea that the government can decide what to inject in our bodies is disturbing. Not long ago, Texas tried to make gardasil required for school and people went nuts over that. So to say that our government is going to make very limited decisions about what is "mandatory" is not a risk I am willing to take.

This.  1000%. 

 

You ABSOLUTELY have to take medical/family history into account. 

[albeto.]

Is there any point to conversing with you? Nobody is ignoring everyone else or resting assured that governments never mess up rights issues! Good grief.

.

.

. 

Neither you, nor anyone else cringing in fear on the internet, will convince me that the government is at the door waiting to steal my kids and shoot them full of pharmaceuticals for fun and profit. The thing that would convince me is legislation permitting it, which will happen after some sort of political or military coup or overthrow that none of us will accidentally miss hearing about.

 

This is why people ask for evidence. One person's fear and worry is hardly evidence that the thing they fear and worry is reality. I recall one conversation on another homsechool forum back when my kids were young. Homeschooling parents who did "research" were sure within the next two weeks there would be armed military personnel busting into homes, forcefully vaccinating children in certain neighborhoods. Before that, people worried that vaccines caused autism. Before that, people worried that certain books and music invited demonic armies into the home, and that's what caused inappropriate and problematic behavior. Before that, people worried about other things that turned out to be patently untrue. People worry. It's what we do. We're wired to do it. It's an evolutionary advantage to be hyper alert to situations for which we may not have time to rationally, clearly think through. But worry and fear are not evidence that the thing worried about is real. Worry about mandated vaccines is not evidence that mandated vaccines are on the horizon.

 

So, in a way Tibbie, I agree with you. Without the common language of objective evidence and rational analysis, the point of conversation is different for each person. Those looking for information will appreciate the information. Those looking for reasons to validate their feelings will continue to feel persecuted by those who ask for clarification. I'd be interested in arguments for mandated vaccines, but a vague, nebulous, "it seems to me" is hardly helpful.

[SKL]

If people don't argue against mandatory vaccines, on the logic that the gov't hasn't done that *yet*, then how will the legislators know there are more than a few people who don't want that?

 

Have you never been surprised and dismayed upon hearing of a law that has been passed?

[albeto.]

the under-vaccinated child's parents are a convenient target. 

 

There's reason for that. Parents who opt out of vaccinations because they research at the School of Google with Professor Jenny McCarthy are putting others at needless risk. Same thing with people who drink and drive. And we infringe on their rights and liberties all the time, despite the huge outcry and uproar and personal mandates to defy authority when drinking and driving became a legal issue. Good intentions don't overcome bad behavior. Until vaccines are mandated (and I seriously don't expect that conversation to happen in Congress any time soon), the option the public has is to publicly call out dangerous behavior. The clever ones do it with humor.

[SKL]

There's reason for that. Parents who opt out of vaccinations because they research at the School of Google with Professor Jenny McCarthy are putting others at needless risk. Same thing with people who drink and drive. And we infringe on their rights and liberties all the time, despite the huge outcry and uproar and personal mandates to defy authority when drinking and driving became a legal issue. Good intentions don't overcome bad behavior. Until vaccines are mandated (and I seriously don't expect that conversation to happen in Congress any time soon), the option the public has is to publicly call out dangerous behavior. The clever ones do it with humor.

 

You frequently connect Jenny McCarthy with people against mandatory vaccines on the CDC's arbitrary schedule.  Do you have a scientific source you can link to prove that such people all got their beliefs from Jenny McCarthy?  If so, please provide your linked sources.  If not, I am sure you will agree that bringing up Jenny McCarthy on this thread is unscientific at best.

 

I also would like your links proving the correlation between people in favor of vaccine choice and people who publish all the sorts of extreme fears and conspiracy theories you have listed in several posts above.  Because if you don't have a scientific source for these statements, then I guess they are worth about what you say my comments are worth.

 

[TranquilMind]

There's reason for that. Parents who opt out of vaccinations because they research at the School of Google with Professor Jenny McCarthy are putting others at needless risk. Same thing with people who drink and drive. And we infringe on their rights and liberties all the time, despite the huge outcry and uproar and personal mandates to defy authority when drinking and driving became a legal issue. Good intentions don't overcome bad behavior. Until vaccines are mandated (and I seriously don't expect that conversation to happen in Congress any time soon), the option the public has is to publicly call out dangerous behavior. The clever ones do it with humor.

No one cares about Jenny McCarthy and most have no idea who she even is (I'm old, so I have heard of her, from years back). 

 

Stop trotting that distracting nonsense out, as if it is a legitimate factor.  It isn't. 

 

People that drink and drive are an actual and current danger and are driving unsafely under the influence endangering all others in their vicinity on the road.  Their reactions ARE affected and they are impaired. 

 

Conversely, people who have not yet been vaccinated but are perfectly healthy are not an actual danger, like the shedders to the immunocompromised. They are not sick or shedding.  They are only a potential danger if they come into contact and get the disease - well, they and all the uselessly vaccinated because it didn't work,

 

If you want to do something useful, do something about getting those maniacs off the road who cause 150 car pileups with their dangerous tailgating and texting, who assume they should drive full speed on ice.  Truly  save lives.   

[TranquilMind]

You frequently connect Jenny McCarthy with people against mandatory vaccines on the CDC's arbitrary schedule.  Do you have a scientific source you can link to prove that such people all got their beliefs from Jenny McCarthy?  If so, please provide your linked sources.  If not, I am sure you will agree that bringing up Jenny McCarthy on this thread is unscientific at best.

 

I also would like your links proving the correlation between people in favor of vaccine choice and people who publish all the sorts of extreme fears and conspiracy theories you have listed in several posts above.  Because if you don't have a scientific source for these statements, then I guess they are worth about what you say my comments are worth.

 

Exactly.  It is merely an inflammatory red herring.  No one even knows or cares who she is. 

[EmseB]

as there are many religious people (or areligious) who decline vaccines grown in aborted fetal cells, for example. 

 

Which vaccines are those again?

[albeto.]

Exactly.  It is merely an inflammatory red herring.  No one even knows or cares who she is. 

 

I could have mentioned Google Medical School under Doctor Oz, but sadly, my age betrays me and I didn't think of him. McCarthy is cited precisely because she is a well known celebrity who is a vocal proponent of the vaccine-autism scare, and advocate of using alternative medicine to "cure" autism. She is the president and spokesperson for Generation Rescue, a nonprofit organization that advocates the incorrect view that autism and related disorders are primarily caused by environmental factors, particularly vaccines.These claims are biologically implausible and are disproven by scientific evidence.The organization gained attention through use of a media campaign, including full page ads in the New York Times and USA Today. McCarthy has appeared on Oprah, Larry King Live, and Frontline, as well as many organization fund raisers, many in southern California. Your lack of familiarity with her doesn't negate the correlation. You can read more of her history with advocacy here.

 

 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Which vaccines are those again?

Excuse me..."derived from", as I recall is the exact wording.

Here is one document but some moronic clinic is forcing me back out into the cold instead of utilizing common sense and treating me, so I don't have time to find it specifically yet. 

 

In this document: 

Journal of Immunotoxicology, 2011; 8(1): 68–79  

 

Will have to find exact location.  Harder now that we can't post stuff here. 

[SKL]

I could have mentioned Google Medical School under Doctor Oz, but sadly, my age betrays me and I didn't think of him. McCarthy is sited precisely because she is a well known celebrity who is a vocal proponent of the vaccine-autism scare, and advocate of using alternative medicine to "cure" autism. She is the president and spokesperson for Generation Rescue, a nonprofit organization that advocates the incorrect view that autism and related disorders are primarily caused by environmental factors, particularly vaccines.These claims are biologically implausible and are disproven by scientific evidence.The organization gained attention through use of a media campaign, including full page ads in the New York Times and USA Today. McCarthy has appeared on Oprah, Larry King Live, and Frontline, as well as many organization fund raisers, many in southern California. Your lack of familiarity with her doesn't negate the correlation. You can read more of her history with advocacy here.

 

 

 

So I guess what you're saying is that you don't have links to the sources I requested, to prove your comments' relevance to the topic at hand.  How disappointing.

[TranquilMind]

I could have mentioned Google Medical School under Doctor Oz, but sadly, my age betrays me and I didn't think of him. McCarthy is sited precisely because she is a well known celebrity who is a vocal proponent of the vaccine-autism scare, and advocate of using alternative medicine to "cure" autism. She is the president and spokesperson for Generation Rescue, a nonprofit organization that advocates the incorrect view that autism and related disorders are primarily caused by environmental factors, particularly vaccines.These claims are biologically implausible and are disproven by scientific evidence.The organization gained attention through use of a media campaign, including full page ads in the New York Times and USA Today. McCarthy has appeared on Oprah, Larry King Live, and Frontline, as well as many organization fund raisers, many in southern California. Your lack of familiarity with her doesn't negate the correlation. You can read more of her history with advocacy here.

 

 

No one is interested in your distraction, trotted out to derail a legitimate conversation about who should have authority to decide the risks.  Detailing this ex-actress further doesn't make her a persuasive source for anyone. 

 

Information is fairly widely available today, and not just to doctors anymore. 

[JeanM]

You frequently connect Jenny McCarthy with people against mandatory vaccines on the CDC's arbitrary schedule.  Do you have a scientific source you can link to prove that such people all got their beliefs from Jenny McCarthy?

 

 

 

Parents who opt out of vaccinations because they research at the School of Google with Professor Jenny McCarthy are putting others at needless risk.

 

I'm (obviously) not albeto, but if you look at the statement above, it does not say that all (or even many) people who opt out of vaccination get their beliefs from Jenny McCarthy. To paraphrase her statement: if parents get their beliefs from Jenny, then they are putting others at risk.

[SKL]

I'm (obviously) not albeto, but if you look at the statement above, it does not say that all (or even many) people who opt out of vaccination get their beliefs from Jenny McCarthy. To paraphrase her statement: if parents get their beliefs from Jenny, then they are putting others at risk.

 

She frequently brings up extreme viewpoints as "parallels" and not-so-popular sources as the "basis" for every comment that isn't pro-universal-baby vaccination (except where an MD says an individual is at risk of serious harm).  She insists that if I don't produce an internet link to a source she considers scientific, I'm talking crazy (or lying).

 

So to respond to the above quote - does it follow that if parents DO NOT get their beliefs from Jenny, but still believe differently than albeto, they are NOT putting others at risk?  Logic fails me.

[albeto.]

I'm (obviously) not albeto, but if you look at the statement above, it does not say that all (or even many) people who opt out of vaccination get their beliefs from Jenny McCarthy. To paraphrase her statement: if parents get their beliefs from Jenny, then they are putting others at risk.

 

Yes. When people appeal to fear, rumors, and are limited to what they can imagine rather than relying on objective, factual information, conversation is stunted. I can't address someone's fears, but I can address their information. In context, if DesertRose is going to cite public worry as evidence there is need to worry, the conversation has stopped before Tibbie can contribute.

[JeanM]

If parents get their beliefs from Jenny, then they are putting others at risk.

 

 

 

So to respond to the above quote - does it follow that if parents DO NOT get their beliefs from Jenny, but still believe differently than albeto, they are NOT putting others at risk?  Logic fails me.

 

No, you cannot logically conclude from the above if p then q statement that if not p then not q. That is a logically fallacy called "denying the antecedent."

 

Edited to add: I didn't mean to be harsh about it. I'm agreeing with you that it doesn't work logically.

[albeto.]

She frequently brings up extreme viewpoints as "parallels" and not-so-popular sources as the "basis" for every comment that isn't pro-universal-baby vaccination (except where an MD says an individual is at risk of serious harm).

Anti-vax fear isn't an extreme viewpoint. It's common enough to inspire real health risks in society. This thread was started shortly after the Disney measles outbreak, if I'm remembering right. Jenny McCarthy is simply a public advocate of this viewpoint. She uses her celebrity status to bring attention to these issues. Citing her makes the point quick because she is, generally speaking, synonymous with the public fear of vaccines causing autism. I get that TM doesn't recognize that. No big deal there. I won't pursue it for that reason, but others will certainly understand. Nevertheless, the arguments about vaccines being more dangerous than the diseases they prevent is solidly in line with the kinds of things McCarthy routinely has publicly advocated. It's a natural correlation to make (big name advocates argument, population picks up argument).

 

She insists that if I don't produce an internet link to a source she considers scientific, I'm talking crazy.

You're confused. I insist on facts being different from, and not interchangeable with opinion, and that if an opinion is offered qua fact, there should be evidence to support it. Further, I insist that it isn't "bullying" or "attacking" to request these. The more extraordinary the claim, the more reason to request support.

 

So to respond to the above quote - does it follow that if parents DO NOT get their beliefs from Jenny, but still believe differently than albeto, they are NOT putting others at risk?

Parents who don't vaccinate for known health risks aren't included in any of this. [ETA: I know you didn't ask this, I presumed it was a natural follow-up, but I could be wrong. JeanM answered your question directly, but I'll leave my comment up because I do think it's pertinent to the discussion] Throughout this entire thread, they have not been included by me or anyone (that I'm aware of, anyway). Parents who put neighbors and bystanders at risk because they believe autism is caused by vaccines (not such a popular belief any more because people keep calling it out), or that vaccines are more risky than the diseases they prevent (still popular, and if I recall correctly, argued in this thread), they are putting their children, and other children (including those with health risks) at unnecessary risk, whether or not they heard it directly from Jenny, or indirectly down the pike.

 

[ETA: Part of why I speak up is because this forum is part of that "pike" where ideas come down. People putting kids at rusk unnecessarily is a big deal for me, and I feel like to ignore a dangerous rumor is to neglect the health of children. That bothers me greatly. It goes against my moral code to ignore potential danger to children when it can be avoided. One of the reasons Jenny McCarthy is so important to conversations like this is because she is heard by millions of young parents, she is a celebrity with a face and personality that sells. She's a huge reason, along with Dr. Oz, who I didn't think of before, that fears like this are so popular and accepted without due skepticism. The only way to combat dangerous rumors is to call them out when they come up. I can do that much. It's just a tiny blip in the great scheme of things, but along with countless other blips, there's a noise being heard. And for that, I'm glad, because I think the noise needs to be heard. I think we owe it to our children - mine, yours, everyone's - to give them the best possible environment we can with the technology we have. It's inconceivable to me to deny health because of rumors and general fear-mongering.]

 

Logic fails me.

Try and focus on what I'm saying, and not what you presume I mean. I'm not hiding any intention or opinion here. When I comment in these posts, I do my best to keep my words and my comments neutral. In another thread, Jasperstone implied I try to make her feel stupid with my posts. That's not my intent with her, nor with you (don't know if you feel that way, but you suggest I call you "crazy," and your words suggest to me some frustration along these lines, most particularly your focus on "scientific links"). I can't control what anyone feels, I can only control what I write. To the best of my ability, I write in a more formal tone than I speak offline, and I try to offer only that which is either factual, or an opinion I believe is well supported by facts.

 

As this is a forum for adults, educators, it should come as no surprise that there will be differences of opinion. As educators, we should naturally expect reason and support for these opinions. As adults, we should be able to explore these opinions without deferring to personal jabs or accusations of nefarious intent.

[SKL]

As adults, we should be able to explore these opinions without deferring to personal jabs or accusations of nefarious intent.

 

I agree.  I don't honestly see you trying very hard though.

 

Maybe if you could stick to scientific statements yourself, I could take you seriously.

 

Meanwhile know that unscientific and unkind jabs are not saving any children whatsoever.  The only people who like seeing that are people who already agree with you.

[SKL]

Example of not helpful, not scientific, not saving any children.

 

No doubt, but your free choice gives the appearance of one who wants to repeat interesting rumors, or talk just to hear herself talk. You might as well state aliens brought the measles from the other side of the moon, Illuminati is trying to ferret out who is loyal to Obama, or that you have the cure but just don't want to be bothered stirring big vats of medicine over a hot stove. You could say anything, and then claim the freedom to not say anything more, but why? What's the point of doing that on an education board?
 

In what way has anyone here treated anyone "as a lunatic for having an opinion or an honest question about vaccinations"? What does it look like to treat someone as a lunatic? Which opinions were targeted for such treatment? Which questions? Can you share examples, or is this more vague accusations that should simply be believed by others because you believe them?

I ask because otherwise I get the impression you're simply sharing the rumors and beliefs you've picked up along the way, and when someone asks for clarification, you quickly retreat. There's no rule against that, no law certainly, but this is a forum dedicated to education. We share information here, we learn from each other, we expose new ideas and mull them over, pick them apart and see if they have merit. It shouldn't be surprising to see rumors, pseudo-science, and false beliefs regarding information to met with skepticism and requests for accuracy.

 

PS, I am supposed to be working and I really truly do not have time to search the net for every word I recall reading in the past.  You don't have to agree with me.  You don't have to believe what I believe.  You don't even have to keep quiet.  But accusing me of any or all of the above, just because I stated that I've read xyz in the past and don't have time to go find it again?  How does that save children?  Are you really worried that the comments I have posted on this thread are going to cause a massive measles outbreak?  Because I have not posted against the measles vax, if you recall.  My comments have been quite mild compared to the backlash I've received.

[albeto.]

Meanwhile know that unscientific and unkind jabs are not saving any children whatsoever.  The only people who like seeing that are people who already agree with you.

 

So long as you assume requests for information are "unkind jabs," I suspect you and I will never come to a mutual understanding about the differences between fact and opinion.

 

Example of not helpful, not scientific, not saving any children.

 

 

PS, I am supposed to be working and I really truly do not have time to search the net for every word I recall reading in the past.  You don't have to agree with me.  You don't have to believe what I believe.  You don't even have to keep quiet.  But accusing me of any or all of the above, just because I stated that I've read xyz in the past and don't have time to go find it again?  How does that save children?  Are you really worried that the comments I have posted on this thread are going to cause a massive measles outbreak?  Because I have not posted against the measles vax, if you recall.  My comments have been quite mild compared to the backlash I've received.

 

These are not accusations, these are impressions I'm getting from your posts. In other words, these are my opinions. Opinions are not interchangeable with facts, not even mine. The whole point of asking for more information is to correct these impressions if they are incorrect.

 

Naturally, I'm curious as to what comment I made that inspired you to think that I could possibly think your comments would cause massive measles outbreaks. This is such an absurd image in my head, I can't imagine how you connected the dots to come up with it, and so I am quite curious. I won't ask, though. So consider yourself off the hook. ;)

 

 

[Reefgazer]

I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative here, but there is a precedent where vaccines were forced on children in the United States, against their parents' will. I'm on my iPad and it's difficult quote and cut-and-paste a quote, but if you Google Philadelphia Tabernacle Church and vaccines, The first several links you come to are articles where a judge forced the vaccination of children in the a church during a measles outbreak years ago. so there is precedent for this kind of government overstepping in recent US history, and it's not out of the question that it could happen again. Parent should have the to reject vaccines for any reason, even if that reason is just "because".

 

I've had this conversation with several people on several different topics in the last few weeks:

 

Stupid people shooting off their mouths on the internet, when they have not been elected to any office and have no power, are not endangering our personal liberties. We are not on the brink of totalitarianism just because the court of public opinion hands down stupid mandates. As long as we have a representative democracy we are not to the end times yet.

 

As to your response about there being no leeway between caution about specific vaccinations due to family history and full-bore government mandates of vaxes for all, with parental permission or not -- that's not true at this time.

 

Will we enter a totalitarian state and find ourselves sending our children to school against our will and having medications forced upon them against our will? Maybe. It's been done all over the world (see 20th century) and I won't be the one to say it'll never happen here. But is it happening now, and can it happen under our current system of government? No.

 

[Haiku]

 

Why A Court Once Ordered Kids Vaccinated Against Their Parents' Will

 

[albeto.]

I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative here, but there is a precedent where vaccines were forced on children in the United States, against their parents' will. I'm on my iPad and it's difficult quote and cut-and-paste a quote, but if you Google Philadelphia Tabernacle Church and vaccines, The first several links you come to are articles where a judge forced the vaccination of children in the a church during a measles outbreak years ago. so there is precedent for this kind of government overstepping in recent US history, and it's not out of the question that it could happen again. Parent should have the to reject vaccines for any reason, even if that reason is just "because".

In the spirit of conversation (not being argumentative, either, I mean), brehon introduced this practice into the thread back here. The article linked by TaraTheLiberator (thanks, TaraTheLiberator), mentioned the story that explained this situation. This happened back in 1991. This event further supports Tibbie's comment, that regardless of the general fear of some of the public, the government is not at the door waiting to steal our kids and shoot them full of pharmaceuticals for fun and profit. In the 24 years since this event, the government hasn't taken the right away from parents to not vaccinate their children.

 

But for the sake of argument, in this case, I don't agree with your reason that parents should be able to choose not to vaccine for any reason, even if that reason is "just because," simply because I do not agree that exemptions to law should be based on belief, religious, superstitious, in the power of dreams, psychics, or otherwise, regardless of how sincere they may be. When dealing with the public health, certain liberties can and should be suspended (like the case of the church community and the measles outbreak), regardless of one's personal beliefs.

[JeanM]

Why A Court Once Ordered Kids Vaccinated Against Their Parents' Will

 

I think this comes under the presumption that children should be protected from imminent danger, even if their parents think otherwise. There have been lots of court cases where medical treatment has been forced to save children's lives. In my opinion the court went too far here, but that is just my opinion.

 

And to address the potential issue that measles isn't "imminent danger," the article sadly says, "In the end, nine kids across Philadelphia died, including six from Faith Tabernacle."

 

And I agree with albeto in that this case was a long time ago, and it does not seem to have started a precedent where more children have been forced to be vaccinated.

[Haiku]

When dealing with the public health, certain liberties can and should be suspended (like the case of the church community and the measles outbreak), regardless of one's personal beliefs.

 

Although I 100% support fully vaccinating all children except those with medical contraindications, I am not yet sure how far I am willing to go. I have a child with two chronic diseases, once of which has her on a county medical board's surveillance list and one of which has been the subject of calls for quarantine (as in, life-long concentration-style segregation) from the more hysterical fringes of society. I do agree that public health takes precedence over private fears in certain instances, but I also know that public officials have wrongly suspended people's rights in the past. Although I see vaccination as different from forced segregation, I do have some sympathies with people who fear that the government would force them to do something to their kids that they believe is wrong. It's a tough subject.

 

The above-referenced child had to go through an experimental immune globulin treatment after she was exposed to the chicken pox (and it was an unvaccinated-by-choice child who exposed her). She cannot get the vaccine due to medical contraindications, and we had a few tense weeks while we wondered whether she would develop the disease and, if so, how it would affect her. Due to her two chronic illnesses and associated other health issues, it could have been very serious for her. And as I mentioned, one of my kids has hearing loss and other associated health issues that possibly stem from having chicken pox as a toddler, so I don't see chicken pox as a harmless illness.

[Reefgazer]

I posted this info with the intent of demonstrating the government has indeed set a precedent for forcing medication or treatment person. The reason doesn't really matter; it happened. We will have to agree to disagree and on the government having the right to force medical treatment/procedures on the person. Well I understand some aspects of public health, such as quarantine, need to come under for government authority, invasion of the body proper should not.

 

In the spirit of conversation (not being argumentative, either, I mean), brehon introduced this practice into the thread back here. The article linked by TaraTheLiberator (thanks, TaraTheLiberator), mentioned the story that explained this situation. This happened back in 1991. This event further supports Tibbie's comment, that regardless of the general fear of some of the public, the government is not at the door waiting to steal our kids and shoot them full of pharmaceuticals for fun and profit. In the 24 years since this event, the government hasn't taken the right away from parents to not vaccinate their children.

 

But for the sake of argument, in this case, I don't agree with your reason that parents should be able to choose not to vaccine for any reason, even if that reason is "just because," simply because I do not agree that exemptions to law should be based on belief, religious, superstitious, in the power of dreams, psychics, or otherwise, regardless of how sincere they may be. When dealing with the public health, certain liberties can and should be suspended (like the case of the church community and the measles outbreak), regardless of one's personal beliefs.

[flyingiguana]

 

 

And to address the potential issue that measles isn't "imminent danger," the article sadly says, "In the end, nine kids across Philadelphia died, including six from Faith Tabernacle."

 

This does seem to be the tipping point when government steps in -- if kids are dying, health officials don't want to be the person criticized for not doing enough,  Regardless of the fact that most health officials really do have kids/community well being at heart.

 

This brings up what I see as the biggest point of contention in the vaccine debate -- the cost-benefit ratio.

 

Pro-vaxxers see the benefits as hugely outweighing the costs.  They have scientific evidence on their side.  On the benefit side: many, many studies showing the decrease in lethal diseases and decreases in lifetime disability from those diseases.  On the cost side: VERY rare complications from vaccines (and yes, they're rarer than they used to be).

 

Anti-vaxxers see the benefits as minimal.  They've never seen anyone with measles or whatever the disease being discussed is.  They've never known anyone to die of it or be disabled.  But on the cost side, they point to non-evidence that is all over the internet.  They don't know how to separate the actual evidence from the pseudo-science.  The problem with their side is that they don't understand a scientific argument and do not understand statistical evidence.  So they don't understand why people keep throwing corrected figures at them.  They've already thrown figures so that should have "won" the argument, right?  Problem is, actual science doesn't work that way.

 

These tend to be mutually exclusive views, which is why this conversation is getting nowhere.  The science side keeps pointing to the science, and the pseudo-science side keeps pointing to the pseudo-science.  Neither side can convince the other because they KNOW their facts and figures are correct.  However, they're coming from opposite world views.

 

Having been trained as a scientist, I find it hard to understand why anyone falls for the pseudo-science.  I assume it has to do with the poor quality of our educational system in this country.  Science is rarely taught well.

 

However, this thread has done a good job of explaining why a lot of the pseudo-science arguments don't hold water, why a lot of the pseudo-science data is just plain wrong, and yet this doesn't change the minds of those arguing for the pseudo-science.  If anything, they come up with even sillier arguments.  Some of the ones on page 12 are so odd that I don't even know where to begin in debunking them.  It seems to be more about yelling louder and longer than anyone else.  Setting up the scientific views as straw men, knock them down with non arguments and then, hey, you've won!

 

Problem is, the actual truth doesn't work like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[flyingiguana]

Here's one explanation of pseudo-science:  "Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that are the marks of true science. Although pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, it lacks any of the substance of science.

Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as theories or laws, often providing supposed evidence from observation, expert testimonials, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no real honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments. Pseudoscientists often use the tactic of cheating the scientific method."

From: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

 

The problem, though, is that the proponents of the pseudo-science arguments in this thread probably don't realize that that's where they're arguing from.  They believe they're citing science.

 

And if they do realize they're spouting pseudo science then it's even worse.

[flyingiguana]

From that same page:

Characteristics of pseudoscience

• 2.1 Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous language
• 2.2 Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies
• 2.3 No attempts or interest in replication or outside verification
• 2.4 Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the idea
• 2.5 Frequent changes in methodology without changing the conclusions
• 2.6 Refusal to use the scientific method, or the claim that it can not be used
• 2.7 Misuse of scientific terms
• 2.8 Misrepresentation of terms
• 2.9 Poor standards of evidence
• 2.10 Reliance on negative proofs
• 2.11 Reliance on outside or unrelated fields for results
• 2.12 Reliance on outdated or later refuted scholarly works
• 2.13 Ideas are unfalsifiable
• 2.14 Political and/or religious motivation

It would be interesting to do a study of a lot of the arguments in this thread to see which category they fall under.

[CaffeineDiary]

Flyingiguana hits the nail on the head.  The reason the topic is so important here is that the question science tries to answer -- "How do we know that we know something?" is the apotheosis of classical education, the end result of thousands of years of logic, reasoning, and striving.  The meta-problem with the anti-vaxx movement is not that some people might not vaccinate (as has been mentioned continuously in this thread, any one person might have a valid reason to not vaccinate, such as a known anaphylactic reaction), but rather that it displays (depending on the non-vaxxer) either a complete failure to understand what the word "knowledge" means, or else a troubling descent into what can only be described as paranoia, where the default position is "Any words said by a doctor are by definition lies."

 

[flyingiguana]

Also note that the discussions that go on between actual scientists are generally not pseudo science just because they're disagreeing.  There may be genuine disagreements about interpretation of data.  That does not give legitimacy to pseudo science arguments, which tend to use outdated or false data.

 

Actual scientists dispute and discuss, but they should all be coming from the same worldview that an idea has to be backed up by real evidence. 

 

The "appeal to authority" argument is a particularly popular one in pseudo-science, which can get wildly silly at times: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/appeal-to-brady-bunch-vaccine-fallacy/

In this case, the author points out that a number of anti-vaxxers appeal to the data presented in The Brady Bunch.  Which is a TV sit com.

[flyingiguana]

- "How do we know that we know something?" is the apotheosis of classical education, the end result of thousands of years of logic, reasoning, and striving. 

 

This is one reason we started homeschooling.  Because we didn't want our kids educated by people who didn't understand the difference between science and pseudo science.

 

So it's even more disheartening to see people getting sucked in by the world view in a community of homeschoolers who I would *hope* were doing a better job than the ps we decided to avoid.

 

I will admit that teaching a person how to think scientifically is NOT an easy task.  Just getting oneself to do it often isn't easy.  Pseudo science and conspiracies can suck even the smartest people in.  That's just how the human mind works (for good evolutionary reasons).  The challenge in education is to overcome these thinking biases that don't lead us to an actual truth. 

 

That would be why the scientific method was invented.

 

[flyingiguana]

But, running off an another topic,  does anyone have support for this idea: "here’s a little known fact about the benefit of vaccination. The measles vaccine doesn’t only protect against measles. Because it contains a small amount of a live virus, the immune system must rev up to fight it, which in turn reduces mortality from other infectious disease—including pneumonia, sepsis and others—by 50 percent.This protective effect [of the a live vaccine] lasts until a vaccine is administered with a killed rather than a live virus, such as the one for diphtheria and tetanus. So do you want to protect your kids? Give them the measles vaccine."

From this article: http://www.thenation.com/article/198609/what-anti-vax-movement-doesnt-tell-you-about-measles?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

a) I'd never heard of this and

b ) it lasts until a dead virus injection?  um, what is the mechanism for that?

[beaners]

See, I know there are pro-vaccine people bringing up scientific reasoning for their stance. The problem is that they are also talking about Jenny McCarthy (Who is she? The only people I have ever heard talk about her are people who are pro-vaccine trying to discredit people who disagree with them.) and that the data for a particular MMR study showing a link to autism was faked. I constantly hear those two things attributed to the reasoning behind everyone who questions the benefit of certain vaccination trends, when I don't think I know *anyone* who bases their anti-vacc or vacc-questioning stance on either.

 

My husband's family medical history includes an autoimmune condition that is influenced by environmental factors. Vaccination is only one small factor out of many factors the doctors have mentioned showing possible links. I have concerns. I also see the benefit of the availability of vaccines. When I see concern attributed to some ridiculous things that have never been part of my personal decision-making or anyone else's that I know, it makes me dismissive of the rest of the argument. So many on the pro-vacc side who claim to know why the other side is making their decisions clearly don't.

 

My kids have a wide assortment of vaccines they have and haven't received based on where they were born and particular risk factors at the time those vaccines would be given.

[EmseB]

See, I know there are pro-vaccine people bringing up scientific reasoning for their stance. The problem is that they are also talking about Jenny McCarthy (Who is she? The only people I have ever heard talk about her are people who are pro-vaccine trying to discredit people who disagree with them.) and that the data for a particular MMR study showing a link to autism was faked. I constantly hear those two things attributed to the reasoning behind everyone who questions the benefit of certain vaccination trends, when I don't think I know *anyone* who bases their anti-vacc or vacc-questioning stance on either.

 

My husband's family medical history includes an autoimmune condition that is influenced by environmental factors. Vaccination is only one small factor out of many factors the doctors have mentioned showing possible links. I have concerns. I also see the benefit of the availability of vaccines. When I see concern attributed to some ridiculous things that have never been part of my personal decision-making or anyone else's that I know, it makes me dismissive of the rest of the argument. So many on the pro-vacc side who claim to know why the other side is making their decisions clearly don't.

I think because when you look at the anti vax movement, those two things inform much of the movement today whether people realize that or not.

 

JM got a lot of time in the mainstream media and so did Wakefield's study. Also, Mercola, healthimpactnews, naturalnews, whale.to, and Sears plus others are the source of much of the misinformation being put out. It's all derived from many of the same people, and those people capitalized on or grew out of the big stink raised by JM and Wakefield's study. Those two things popularized the movement and made many parents scared and helped the pseudo science industry grow in a way it hadn't before.

 

Also, it must be said again, I guess, but no one here is talking about people who don't get vaccines because of medical contraindications or family history.

[JeanM]

But, running off an another topic,  does anyone have support for this idea: "here’s a little known fact about the benefit of vaccination. The measles vaccine doesn’t only protect against measles. Because it contains a small amount of a live virus, the immune system must rev up to fight it, which in turn reduces mortality from other infectious disease—including pneumonia, sepsis and others—by 50 percent.This protective effect [of the a live vaccine] lasts until a vaccine is administered with a killed rather than a live virus, such as the one for diphtheria and tetanus. So do you want to protect your kids? Give them the measles vaccine."

From this article: http://www.thenation.com/article/198609/what-anti-vax-movement-doesnt-tell-you-about-measles?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

a) I'd never heard of this and

b ) it lasts until a dead virus injection?  um, what is the mechanism for that?

 

I had never heard of this myself. This paper addresses the issue:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12598383

 

It's interesting, but I think more studies would have to be done in order to reach any conclusions.

 

 

I think the phrase, "it lasts until a dead virus injection," is poorly worded. It seems like the author is trying to say that the protective effect of a live vaccine will no longer exist if they move to an acellular vaccine, like they did for dtp. Thus he's not saying that it lasts in an individual until the dead virus is injected, he's saying the effect in the population will only last until they switch to a dead virus. I could be off-base here, this is only my interpretation.

[flyingiguana]

See, I know there are pro-vaccine people bringing up scientific reasoning for their stance. The problem is that they are also talking about Jenny McCarthy (Who is she? The only people I have ever heard talk about her are people who are pro-vaccine trying to discredit people who disagree with them.) and that the data for a particular MMR study showing a link to autism was faked. I constantly hear those two things attributed to the reasoning behind everyone who questions the benefit of certain vaccination trends, when I don't think I know *anyone* who bases their anti-vacc or vacc-questioning stance on either.

 

My husband's family medical history includes an autoimmune condition that is influenced by environmental factors. Vaccination is only one small factor out of many factors the doctors have mentioned showing possible links. I have concerns. I also see the benefit of the availability of vaccines. When I see concern attributed to some ridiculous things that have never been part of my personal decision-making or anyone else's that I know, it makes me dismissive of the rest of the argument. So many on the pro-vacc side who claim to know why the other side is making their decisions clearly don't.

 

My kids have a wide assortment of vaccines they have and haven't received based on where they were born and particular risk factors at the time those vaccines would be given.

 

Because Jenny McCarthy and Wakefield were likely responsible for many people not getting their kids vaccinated.  Wakefield was probably more influential -- http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/22/the-legacy-of-andrew-wakefield-continues/

Their influence continues today -- both in the fact that many kids from those cohorts still haven't been vaccinated for no very good reason, and because the supposed autism link is still floating around and causing many people today to avoid vaccination.  Even though the "science" was long ago discredited.  A lot of times, I think people may have heard "something" about how vaccination is "bad" and don't even know that the thing they heard was long ago disproved (actually there was no evidence for it in the first place, except that Wakefield stood to make a ton of money by saying that there was)

 

McCarthy just jumped on the Wakefield band wagon and spread the false information around some more.  Perhaps without even realizing where she'd got it from.

 

Medical reasons for not getting vaccinated are not what people here have been discussing.  They've been discussing discredited medical reasons for not getting vaccinated.  There are WAY more discredited, superstitious reasons for not doing it than there are real reasons.  And many of those are bopping about the web convincing a bunch of people who don't understand the actual science and/or choose not to understand.

 

There are a lot of people who shouldn't get vaccinated.  My husband is one -- has never been vaccinated against smallpox and is never supposed to be -- as a result *I* probably shouldn't be either as I live in the same house.  I'm not sure how that would go down if smallpox ever did get released again.

 

[flyingiguana]

I had never heard of this myself. This paper addresses the issue:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12598383

 

It's interesting, but I think more studies would have to be done in order to reach any conclusions.

 

 

I think the phrase, "it lasts until a dead virus injection," is poorly worded. It seems like the author is trying to say that the protective effect of a live vaccine will no longer exist if they move to an acellular vaccine, like they did for dtp. Thus he's not saying that it lasts in an individual until the dead virus is injected, he's saying the effect in the population will only last until they switch to a dead virus. I could be off-base here, this is only my interpretation.

 

Thanks -- that's much more in line with what might be a reasonable conclusion.

 

The original editorial that mentioned this is just prove that scientists and doctors can be dead wrong too.  And why part of thinking critically is being able to see when authority figures aren't making sense or are making stuff up.

 

Course, one has to be sure, then, not to just transfer all trust to an authority figure with even less knowledge.

 

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

B

 

Medical reasons for not getting vaccinated are not what people here have been discussing.  They've been discussing discredited medical reasons for not getting vaccinated.  There are WAY more discredited, superstitious reasons for not doing it than there are real reasons.  And many of those are bopping about the web convincing a bunch of people who don't understand the actual science and/or choose not to understand.

 

There are a lot of people who shouldn't get vaccinated.  My husband is one -- has never been vaccinated against smallpox and is never supposed to be -- as a result *I* probably shouldn't be either as I live in the same house.  I'm not sure how that would go down if smallpox ever did get released again.

 

 

Yes.

 

We have autoimmune disease in our family, including all of my children, and several other medical conditions in the extended family that force a closer look at all meds including vaccines. That's why I became a selective-delayed type vaxer in the first place. Right this very minute, we have a quandary over whether one son should receive an MMR booster -- he is not immune, if he caught measles it wouldn't be a mild case because of an existing health decision, but the (rare) complications possible with the vax include a potentially devastating event that he is at very high risk for (again, existing health condition).

 

It's not true that those of us who are arguing against junk science and hysteria have had no reason to question vaccinations or to make alternative decisions within our very own families. It's not true that we patently trust everything and don't care about people who shouldn't receive vaxes. What IS true is that we learned more about the safety, effectiveness, and necessity of vaxes THROUGH our study of how our kids or ourselves might be the exception.

 

[flyingiguana]

Here's the big thing with the vaccine debate --

 

Everyone should be making their vaccination decision from an INFORMED position. 

 

In other words, all this garbage that Wakefield and McCarthy and Mercola and Sears and all of them put out there should be banned from the internet.  And it's that information (and it's derivatives) that's got everyone upset.

 

That's the real issue.  All that we've been arguing about here is the right to be informed and make a decision based on correct information.  EVERYONE should have access to that information -- including the people in this discussion who clearly don't want it. 

 

Everyone should be making decisions based on well researched information, not something that some liar put out there (I'm talking Wakefield here and his ilk, so keep the panties in position, everyone)

 

Unfortunately, there's a lot of bad information out there.  Some of it is outright lies that someone made up.  (Maybe a lot of it is?)  It does no one any good to make health decisions based on lies or cooked statistics.

 

I guess what is so staggering, though, is that there are a certain number of people who refuse to be educated on this issue.  The information is out there.  Much of it has been posted in one form or another on this thread.  Admittedly, it's hard to find if you google and only look at the first page of hits, because the anti-vaccine people have been promoting their misinformation very well. 

 

But... just because more of that stuff comes up on the first page of google doesn't make it right.  It just means that someone running those web pages is making money off of stoking the hysteria.

 

Trust me, it ain't Big Pharma.  They're making plenty off of Advair and Viagra, thank you very much.  If vaccines were any sort of moneymaker, we'd be inundated with TV ads for them.  And they wouldn't be badly produced PSA's.

[SKL]

There is hysteria on both sides of this issue.  Inevitably the discussion ends with people arguing about who's most hysterical.