More and More People Going Without Vaccinations
This is not good. I've paid attention to the growing anti-vaccination fad, but now it's starting to hit home. My son and I go to lots of play dates and kid-friendly activities, so I meet lots of moms. I don't talk to everyone about vaccinations, but when the subject comes up, I'm shocked at how many people either don't plan to vaccinate their children or are planning on a "delayed vaccination schedule."
For many people, the issue is purely emotional. It doesn't matter that there is no solid science behind the vaccinations can cause autism hysteria. It doesn't matter that a resurgence of measles or polio or some other major disease would be an epic tragedy. The reasoning seems to go something like this: "I just can't risk my child getting autism." "But there's no evidence that vaccines cause autism." "Yes, but what if they do? If I had my child vaccinated, and she was later diagnosed with autism, I could never forgive myself."
Will these same parents be able to forgive themselves if their children die or are maimed for life by an easily preventable disease? Hopefully none of them will ever have to find out.
UPDATE: More here. And you can see the attitude I tried to describe in the comments where someone, for example, says that her child developed medical problems at the time that the child received rounds of vaccinations. But no matter the cause of the medical problems, if one developed any medical problems at all during the first year of life, it would be expected that vaccinations would be received near the onset of the medical problems as vaccinations are given several times during the first year. Therefore one cannot assume that vaccinations caused the medical problems simply by virtue of their proximity in time to the onset of the medical problems. Oh well...
... It is sort of maddening.
For many people, the issue is purely emotional. It doesn't matter that there is no solid science behind the vaccinations can cause autism hysteria. It doesn't matter that a resurgence of measles or polio or some other major disease would be an epic tragedy. The reasoning seems to go something like this: "I just can't risk my child getting autism." "But there's no evidence that vaccines cause autism." "Yes, but what if they do? If I had my child vaccinated, and she was later diagnosed with autism, I could never forgive myself."
Will these same parents be able to forgive themselves if their children die or are maimed for life by an easily preventable disease? Hopefully none of them will ever have to find out.
UPDATE: More here. And you can see the attitude I tried to describe in the comments where someone, for example, says that her child developed medical problems at the time that the child received rounds of vaccinations. But no matter the cause of the medical problems, if one developed any medical problems at all during the first year of life, it would be expected that vaccinations would be received near the onset of the medical problems as vaccinations are given several times during the first year. Therefore one cannot assume that vaccinations caused the medical problems simply by virtue of their proximity in time to the onset of the medical problems. Oh well...
... It is sort of maddening.
posted by Freeman Hunt | 11:24 AM
48 Comments:
People really do need to think more clearly about this. As you noted, it's not just their child that will be affected by their decisions.
On the other side of this is the issue of government requiring HPV vaccinations for children. A touch subject for a number of reasons.
Not vaccinating your child is child abuse. You are PURPOSELY and WILLFULLY endangering the life of your child. Children being victimized by such people should be removed from the setting and placed in protective custody. The parents should be charged accordingly.
"Not vaccinating your child is child abuse."
That's a helpful and not at all outrageous comment. I'm sure that it is very convincing and will instantly change the minds of people who are on the fence about vaccinating their children.
Good job.
It is interesting that in a time when doctors are increasingly getting no sympathy from the government, the vaccine producers are at least partially immune to lawsuits. Sort of makes you wonder why they get the good treatment, while your doctor cannot get a break, even in cases where there is no obvious proof that the doctor even screwed something up.
My wife knows a family that has members who are deathly allergic to a number of vaccines. In fact, the mother's little brother died from a reaction to one of them while the mother was growing up. Human physiology is funny like that. It would not surprise me in the least if there isn't a portion of the public that has a physiology which causes a breakdown in thimersol, separating the mercury from the rest of the compound. If regular vaccines can kill certain types of people, why is it so hard to believe that others' bodies might interact in a weird way with the chemical used to store the vaccine?
When my wife and I have children, they will indeed be on a delayed vaccination schedule because there is no reason to take the risk when they aren't going to be public schooled. They can get their shots gradually, as they need them, rather than being pumped full of a chemical cocktail at an early age.
And, speaking of child abuse, I think allowing a child to be raised by a fascistic prick like Lou is definitely child abuse. Anyone who is so quick to interfere in such an authoritarian way with the lives of others is clearly going to be an abusive, domineering parent who will wreck their child's upbringing.
A year or two ago, I read news about an outbreak of measles or whopping cough somewhere in Ohio. When health officials investigated, they noticed that 1) surprise! one kid had gone on a missions trip somewhere in the Third World without his/her vaccines and 2) he/she belongs to a homeschooling family who didn't believe in vaccinations. Some friends of the kid caught it, and the county declared a health emergency.
Now, MikeT, if that's what you want to see happening around you, by all means, be my guest. However, I can guarantee that there will be a few parents (with their lawyers) knocking at YOUR door if any of the little ones gets something because they didn't know your guard was down.
My kid 16 months old and vaccinated. Any less, and I would be neglecting my child's health and needs. No, not child abuse: neglect, which is the operating word here.
"is" Dang! I missed that one!
Thimerosol is a red herring. It hasn't been used in childhood vaccinations in the U.S. since 2001. At the same time, Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnoses have continued to increase. A small portion of the adult population is actually allergic to Thimerosol. But if it's not present in the vaccine, it can't be responsible for autism.
Not attending public schools, however, does not decrease the need for vaccinations - unless one plans to raise one's kids in isolation from other children. I would be curious to know how many of the kids in recent measles outbreaks in the U.S. were unvaccinated because they were home schooled.
In our home, we've determined that the possible risk of vaccination side effects is less important than the known risks of side effects to childhood diseases, like corneal scarring from measles.
Your mileage may vary.
MikeT,
If you can assure us (and yourself) that your children won't come in contact with others at play dates, mothers day out, McDonald's and the mall, then sure, you go right ahead and delay their vaccinations as you won't be risking anyone but them.
Oh, and make sure they don't come in contact with any immigrants (legal or otherwise) or foreign visitors who may or not be fully immunized.
However, if your possibly measles-incubating child comes up to my granddaughter in her stroller - too young to have had all her vaccinations yet - pushed by my pregnant daughter and EITHER or BOTH of them get the measles, I'll be rather ticked.
Surely I'm not the only one old enough to remember the horror of birth defects, stillbirths, or miscarriages due to measles, am I? Am I the only one old enough to have had a friend stricken with polio?
HPV and flu vaccinations have no place in the discussion. With regard to the rest of the field, point is the anti vac crowd is playing fast and loose with public health. Their kids are walking pollution, if there's an outbreak they should be rounded up forthwith. MikeTville we shall dub it. Grow up, smarten up and get your shots. Time to pull medical licenses from the MD's playing ball with these infantilized lemmings.
I support the right of parents to withhold vaccinations from their children. And I support their concurrent responsibility to keep their little two-legged vectors the hell away from me and anybody I care about. PJ O'Rourke said it best: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." The consequences, in this case, being physical isolation. Heinlein's "Coventry" is looking like a better idea all the time ...
TO: Freeman Hunt, et al.
RE: Fear and Loathing in Vaccinationville
I'm curious to know if anyone has traced this 'attitude' to any particular event? It might be an interesting indicator that could help educate people as to the wisdom.
Then again it might prove that the problem lies in something the government and/or medical industry fouled up royally and people might just have reason to be worried about what they get in a shot.
Case in point....Gulf War I and Gulf War Syndrome.
I have an acquaintance who was in the Naval Reserve Fleet during that conflict. He reported some interesting goings on about shots administered to naval personnel.
[1] The doctor in charge would not enter the shot in the famous yellow WHO booklet.
[2] When my acquaintance asked about that, he was told to shut-up and take the shot.
[3] As he was not under the UCMJ he, being the careful sort, told the doctor where to get off and did not take the shot.
[4] After the shots, he reports that several crew members of his ship who took the shots developed interesting symptoms.
Later, I met a vet from that conflict. He took the shot, as ordered. He is now as hairless as a new-born baby. He had a full head of hair, eyebrows, and hair in other places too. Now it's all gone. Fell out within weeks of the shot.
There just might be something rational in this concern about what we're told to take. I say that based on personal experiences with my GP over the last few years.
Every time I've been prescribed some medication by him, it has ALWAYS had some adverse affect.
[1] Glucophage - Insomnia
[2] Lipitor - Severe loss of cognitive skills [You can't remember common words. You forget peoples names. You can't write computer code.]
[3] Prevacid - Central Sleep Apnea [You go to bed at night and your brain forgets to tell your lungs to BREATH! You could wake up dead the next moring.]
We are not all 'round' pegs to go into their lowest common denominator busy-boards. Personally? I think I'm a hexagonal.
So there might be justification for the concern. Or it might be laziness. Or it might be too expensive; as the medical industry is no longer run by charitable organizations, but money-making non-profit organizations; talk about your oxymoronics.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The reputation of a doctor is based on the people who die under his care.]
I wonder if they could forgive themselves if their child was fine but a friend's newborn got the measles , or their elderly parents did, and died from it. Because that is exactly what has happened recently and will continue to happen.
I hate to invade parent's rights, but not vaccinating children affects other children too. But indirectly, and it's not seen right away. I don't know what to do, the best solution is to keep hammering away at them with science, and keep telling them the dangers they are putting not just their own but other's children as well.
I am really getting depressed about the lack of scientific education that adults are displaying lately. I thought once the "power crystal" fads of the 70s died down this pseudo-science mumbo jumbo was gone for good, but now it's resurging in different forms. Anti-vaccines, people believing in ghosts, witchcraft, etc. Where did this come from?
As a former public health epidemiologist, I am most definitely biased in favor of vaccinations. Assuming the alleged rates of autism and vaccination are accurate (and I believe they are totally bogus) all you have to do is look at the rates of encephalitis resulting from measles (about 1 in a thousand) to make a comparison.
I know in the extreme cases, the anti-vaccination crowd takes their kids to measle and mumps parties--again look at the rates of side effects and see if thats a good idea; but I am most interested in knowing if these same parents plan to get the pneumovax at age 65 to protect them from pneumonia--a major killer of the elderly.
Or does their enthusiasm for anti-vaccinations apply only to their children. Just askin.
The pro-vaccination crowd needs better marketing. We need to focus on how not vaccinating your kid is selfish, just like driving an SUV or puffing on a cee-gar while enjoying a beer or four before your drive home. Anti-scientific foolishness is socially acceptable where selfishness is not.
Another more insidious tactic could be low-grade harassment. Perhaps if you want to fly on an airplane with a child under age X you need to either show a vaccination certificate or a blood test in the past 15 days proving Johnny ain't sick. Perhaps health insurers could be permitted to sue for cost of care resulting from an unvaccinated child.
Measles parties are probably illegal in many states and should be prosecuted as such. Here in Massachusetts, a guy can marry his boyfriend, but he can't spank him for fun because there is no such thing as consensual assault, and those are adults? Bad laws, in my pseudo-libertarian-libertine view, but so long as they're there....
Also, breakouts of any vaccinatable (?) disease need to be publicized to the max. No one young enough to have young children remembers the pre-vaccination horrors so there is room in their brain to be filled with new and different terrors. The child who has autism (for whatever reason) will always garner more attention than the thousands who decades ago would have died but suffered nothing worse than the chicken pox before reaching their teenage years.
TO: Yunkndatwunk
RE: The 'Kidz' Next Door
"I wonder if they could forgive themselves if their child was fine but a friend's newborn got the measles , or their elderly parents did, and died from it. Because that is exactly what has happened recently and will continue to happen." -- Yunkndatwunk
Maybe, based on some arguments here, the people 'next door' should have got THEIR shots.
Or are you suggesting that the child of the first part is a 'Typhoid Mary', or Larry? Or are you suggesting they are a non-symptomatic carrier, spreading 'joy' to everyone he/she meets?
"I hate to invade parent's rights...." -- Yunkndatwunk
No you don't. Otherwise, you would not have prefaced your following comment with that line. [Note: I'm reminded of my days as an Army officer. We always prefaced our disagreements with senior officers we didn't think much of with the phrase, "With all due respect, sir....." When we meant, we think you're out of your freak'n gourd.]
"...but not vaccinating children affects other children too. But indirectly, and it's not seen right away." -- Yunkndatwunk
Not if those children have had THEIR vaccinations.
RE: What To Do?
"I don't know what to do...." -- Yunkndatwunk
Glad you said that, as opposed to what I've noticed in the comments by others in this thread. At least you're not coming across as the neo-fascists I'm seeing here.
"....the best solution is to keep hammering away at them with science, and keep telling them the dangers they are putting not just their own but other's children as well." -- Yunkndatwunk
Therein lies PART of the REAL answer. However, redevelopment of confidence in the medical industry is probably a more important part. That will take a LOT of time.
And I don't have a ready answer either. But I do have an idea. But currently, based on the past 18 years of personal experience, is to be VERY cautious about what so-called medical 'professionals' tell me.
"I am really getting depressed about the lack of scientific education that adults are displaying lately." -- Yunkndatwunk
There ARE serious problems with this. But not all of them rest where you probably think.
In the local government oversight commission I sit on, I am continually being reminded of what a lousy job the K-12 education system is doing with thinks like math and the other sciences. But that's just ONE aspect.
Other aspects include thinks like, should you REALLY trust what you're hearing/reading about some form of medicine?
Seriously, the drug companies are not doing what they do for altruistic reasons. They're doing it for the money. And where money is the pre-eminent factor, truth and safety and concern for others may take a seat at the back of the business bus.
And, unfortunately, the FDA is nothing more than a political football.
"I thought once the "power crystal" fads of the 70s died down this pseudo-science mumbo jumbo was gone for good, but now it's resurging in different forms. Anti-vaccines, people believing in ghosts, witchcraft, etc. Where did this come from?" -- Yunkndatwunk
I'll bet you that in the early 80s, you'd have said the same thing about [1] chiropractie and [2] acupuncture. Now they are legitimately practiced in the US.
RE: Ghosts
Next time you're in town, stop by my place. Maybe our resident ghost will come and sit on the guest room bed while you're in it.
I explained my experiences to a visitor one morning over coffee while fixing breakfast.
Later, as they were driving home, his wife said she had the strangest experience. It was exactly as if someone had come and sat on the bed next to her while she lay there dozing. This, while her husband was downstairs with me, talking.
There IS more to this place than your normal senses, biased by 'rational scientific thought' can account for.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You are only limited by the limits you impose upon yourself.]
Not being vaccinated effectively means a person has negligently left their body open to becoming a biological weapons manufacturing plant. I think we should respond to this negligence in two ways.
(1) We should require the voluntarily unvaccinated to visually distinguish themselves so that others can avoid close contact with them. They should be legally prevented from coming within 10ft of an infant.
(2) We have the technology to determine if person A infected person B. If someone foregoes vaccination without cause, they should be held liable if they harm another by doing so.
Personally, I think the best way to educate people about vaccinations is to make everyone set through a little movie about the effects of contagious diseases. Five minutes of listening to a child struggling to gasp air between long jags of brutal coughing (the whopping for which whopping cough is named) and these idiots would be begging for vaccinations
TO: Roger J.
RE: Those Other People
"Or does their enthusiasm for anti-vaccinations apply only to their children. Just askin." -- Roger J.
I don't see people who refuse to get their children vaccinated calling on all others to adopt their philosophy.
However, in this thread, I'm noticing a trend of thought that says their will to vaccinate ALL children—even those whose parents object—should prevail.
Which do you think is the more fascistic approach?
RE: Assumptions
"Assuming the alleged rates of autism and vaccination are accurate ..." Roger J.
Sorry. I don't care to 'assume'. Something my first First Sergeant taught me.
I want the facts. And, I'm not particularly inclined to accept what the FDA passes out as 'facts'. As I said (above), the FDA is nothing more than a political football that the drug and other industries play with.
Don't believe me on that?
Okay, please explain why it is that the FDA was given information that alcohol consumption, in moderation, was actually GOOD for one's health? And that in the 1970s.
Thirty years later we discover the truth of the matter, vis-a-vis investigation into the Mediterranean Paradox.
The FDA suppresses politically incorrect information.
'nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When you ASSUME something, you make an 'ASS' out of 'U' and 'ME'. -- Army First Sergeants]
Here is a youtube video of an infant with whooping cough. Listen to all three minutes of it. Realize that this goes on for hours at time. Children die of trauma to their lungs and from sheer exhaustion.
Autism is nothing as bad and the retardation and neurological damage caused by measles.
Please note that it's likely this "MikeT" is the same anti-vaccine MikeT who snided all over Megan McCardle's post on the same subject. Beware that the "Troll/Worthy Opponent" meter for MikeT is dangerously to the left.
One of my sisters-in-law, who has an advanced degree in biology and a JD, is working for the anti-vac "information" crowd in Washington. I can't even begin to be rational about this, as she also uses the same specious thimerosal argument. I can understand the argument against wanting vaccines based on aborted children, but the others--specious in my opinion.
On the other hand, the pro-vaccination crowd, as valid as their moral dudgeon is, needs to calm the heck down. The complexity of the vaccination schedule IS a real complaint, and responding at the top of their lungs from the soapbox at the slightest provocation isn't helping. (Yes, correlation doesn't equal cause. Yes, anti-scientism is raising its faddish head again. But screaming isn't going to help.)
In a moment of sad irony, she and my brother aren't being allowed to adopt a child because of their stance against vaccinations. They are great parents, otherwise; the moral calculus of whether an adopted kid would be better off with them as parents (including the late/low/no vaccine pattern) vs. said kid staying in the orphanarium is complex.
But I'm with Freeman--the whole thing ticks me off.
--Alex Pournelle
Chuck Pelto, vaccination does not address the risk posed to others by non-vaccination. Babies too young to be vaccinated yet are the ones most at risk. (See the 12-month-old who caught measles in the recent outbreak in San Diego caused by a non-vaccinated child who picked it up in Switzerland.) Also at risk are people with AIDS or other immune disorders, the elderly (especially from chicken pox) and pregnant women. In the last category, as today's unvaccinated and unexposed children grow up, the pool of pregnant women whose fetuses are exposed to the devastation of Congenital Rubella Syndrome will enlarge dramatically. If today's trend of non-vaccination continues, so will the pool of potential kids with rubella who can infect those lucky pregnant women. (See descriptions of the 1960s rubella epidemic for the results for affected newborns, including deafness, blindness, profound mental retardation, heart defects, and other fun stuff.)
Even isolating a child from other children won't address the risks. The child still needs to go to the doctor, for instance. (Four of those who caught measles in San Diego were infected in a doctor's waiting room.) I completely agree with those who say that failure to vaccinate a child is child neglect. It is also criminally irresponsible toward the rest of society.
My daughter was born out in Colorado and had to have Hepatitis shots, one at birth and one or two follow-up at certain intervals. This is the same in New Jersey where we now live. Want to know why? Because Hepatitis is common in poor neighborhoods. I am solidly middle class so why should we be bothered with that? Well the government can not say you poor people need to have these shots because the disease is rampant in your neighborhood. No, it has to be politically correct and say that everyone has to have them. I had mine when I accepted a job in Jersey City, NJ because there was a risk of exposure. Same with HPV, supposedly by the time a girl gets to be of “normal” sexually active age the protection will have worn off. But again because of such activity at a much earlier age being common in poor neighborhoods the government wants every girl to have it.
In discussions with pediatricians they would recommend getting the shot in mid-teens depending on the patient, not just blanket everyone.
Basically, we know that drug companies do not release all the bad stuff about their drugs, it comes out many years later. We also know that many in the government educational and drug establishments have their own agendas and so personally I do not trust them as far as I can throw them. I talk to my daughters doctor, evaluate the risk with her and then make a decision. I do not trust the government to make that decision for me and I sure as hell don’t trust half the people responding to make a rationale decision about my child either.
By the way as a comment, my daughter has had her vaccinations, the ones here doctor and her parents felt were appropriate. I also hold a PhD in Information Systems from a Major East Coast University and yes we do home school.
Rich
TO: mrs whatsit
RE: So....
"...vaccination does not address the risk posed to others by non-vaccination." -- mrs whatsit
....get vaccinated.
Vaccination [allegedly] protects those who get it. [Note: Odd thing is that a lot of people who get the annual flavor of flu vaccination still seem to come down with the flu.]
There's nothing preventing you or your children from getting vaccinated. Is there?
If these latter-day Luddites don't care to get themselves or their children protected, what does it matter to you? You're protected.
Or, would you please show me the evidence that vaccines DON'T work.
As for people at risk for other reasons, i.e., deficient immunological systems. Can't they be vaccinated too?
RE: Rubella
"See descriptions of the 1960s rubella epidemic for the results for affected newborns, including deafness, blindness, profound mental retardation, heart defects, and other fun stuff." -- mrs whatist
You're addressing one who had it. I was 12 at the time.
What's your point here? That there is no vaccine available today?
Face it.
Vaccines ARE available. And, for the most part, they work. If you're concerned for yourself or your children. Get vaccinated.
Nobody is stopping you.
RE: Fascism At It's Finest
"I completely agree with those who say that failure to vaccinate a child is child neglect. It is also criminally irresponsible toward the rest of society." mrs whatsit
When do you start ripping children from their parents arms, oh latter day Janet Reno, a la the Cuban kid.
Will you have it done at gunpoint, i.e., an MP5?
I'm sure it will all be 'for the greater good'. Depending upon who gets to define it.
What will you say when someone decides what you believe is not for the greater good?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
chuck, if you aren't going to read people's comments, why bother responding, unless you are intentionally trying to make yourself look silly? Once again, one of the biggest risks posed by the non-vaccinated is to babies TOO YOUNG TO BE VACCINATED. (Can you read it when it's in caps?) The immune-compromised and the elderly are also vulnerable without regard to their immunization status. As to rubella exposure of fetuses of unvaccinated pregnant women, find me a way to vaccinate a fetus or an already-pregnant woman before you claim that ex post facto vaccination will solve that problem. If you're arguing that childhood vaccination is the best solution, then we're in agreement, and I can't imagine why you're arguing both sides of the fence at once.
I did, in fact, vaccinate my children. And that's one reason why I resent people like you, who are more than brave enough to accept the protection of the risks my family took on your behalf but too scared to take any such risk yourselves. If you don't like being called neglectful, maybe you'd prefer cowardly. It fits just as well.
And one more comment, on your reference to Janet Reno and the "Cuban kid" allegedly ripped from his parents' arms. You really do need to improve your grasp of facts. That child was not ripped from his parents' arms -- quite the opposite. His mother was dead. She died trying to emigrate from Cuba to this country with the child. The child made it; she didn't. Once she was dead, his father, in Cuba, wanted him back. The child was in the custody of Florida relatives who wanted to raise him in this country and refused to give him back to his father. Government intervened to PROTECT the child's relationship with his father. If somebody took your child away from you and wouldn't give him back in the face of all non-violent appeals, are you sure you'd object to the use of guns by government officials to help you get him back? Or does that objection apply only to other people's kids? Or only to Janet Reno??
I'm just curious as to how many of the "I can't vaccinate my kids" crowd are willing, hell, eager to give their kids antibiotics if they get infections.
Since the antibiotics have all kinds of side effects, including in extreme cases, death.....how do you justify refusing a treatment that has lower risks in total of side effects?
--The pro-vaccination crowd needs better marketing. We need to focus on how not vaccinating your kid is selfish, just like driving an SUV or puffing on a cee-gar while enjoying a beer or four before your drive home. Anti-scientific foolishness is socially acceptable where selfishness is not.
I totally agree. But I think the medical community deserves some of the blame. They haven't tried to do better marketing for serious illness diseases, and have instead hyped flu vaccines when flu vaccination is nothing like DPT or MMR vaccines (one major difference: the influenza virus changes every year, and the flu vaccine makers have to "guess" which strains are the ones that will be active in the next few months)
They've pushed flu vaccines even in years that the flu vaccine doesn't match the major strains. All this does is create more Cry Wolf kinds of statements, and reduce people's trust in the medical establishment.
It's been a long time since the most trustworthy person in your little town was the family doctor. But the more they squander that trust, the worse it gets.
So it's time to start marketing what polio, measles, rubella, and pertussis can do. How terrible they really are, and how sick people can get.
My concern isn't just the statistical possibility that my kids' vaccines didn't work. It's that my infants can't be vaccinated at birth, and therefore, they aren't immune to pertussis or measles, and can die from such things.
This is the inevitable backlash from the culture of forcing non-essential vaccinations on children (see HPV vaccine). It starts to feel awfully creepy when the government forces and even-expanding cocktail of drugs on your children.
Mind you, I agree with you, Freeman. There's no reason to stop giving your kids vaccines for known killer diseases because of some loose connections to other conditions. But it's the way we've been playing fast and loose with the whole process that's created this paranoid response.
TO: mrs whatsit
RE: The Too Young and the Too Restless
"Once again, one of the biggest risks posed by the non-vaccinated is to babies TOO YOUNG TO BE VACCINATED." -- mrs whatsit
I didn't miss that.
Tell me, what vaccinations are too dangerous to give to the 'too young'?
I ask because I, like Rich used to, live in Colorado. And my daughter, born at Fitzsimmons AMC was getting vaccinations within weeks of her birth.
On the other hand, babies—especially those being breast fed—are known for having an incredibly powerful immunological system. Indeed, God, in His wisdom, seems to have provided the most innocent of us with powers that are the envy of anyone who is paying ANY attention. They can take falls that would ruin most of us. They have thermal controls that defy understanding. Along with a plethora of other talents.
If it were not so, then when Columbus showed up here, this continent would have been devoid of human life. But it wasn't.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: mrs whatsit
RE: Cuban Kid
"And one more comment, on your reference to Janet Reno and the "Cuban kid" allegedly ripped from his parents' arms." -- mrs whatsit
Where did I say that he was ripped from HIS parents arms?
Better stop projecting about reading skills, madam.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: KoryO / Joey's Mom
RE: Vaccination vs. Anti-Biotics
"I'm just curious as to how many of the "I can't vaccinate my kids" crowd are willing, hell, eager to give their kids antibiotics if they get infections." -- KoryO / Joey's Mom
This is an excellent question. And I suspect that the majority of parents, faced with a serious disease in their child, WOULD opt for antibiotics.
I think the distinction between the two is a matter of their 'risk analysis'. I.e., what are the chances of my child getting a horrible problem from a vaccine when there is little chance of his contracting the disease that the vaccine is designed to protect him from. However, if he gets the vaccine, there is a perceived chance that he'll have some other very serious—possibly life-long—side affect?
On the other hand, confronted with the disease IN the child, they know there is a clear and present danger. That without the vaccine there IS the stronger likelihood that the child will suffer life-long impairment and even immediate death.
As was mentioned (above) education and rebuilding confidence in the 'system' is essential.
However, all these people here seem interested in doing is bashing the parents who are interested ONLY in protecting their children.
Seems to me there is a problem with what researchers would call 'root cause analysis'.
WHY are these people doing this?
And no one addresses THAT. All they do is demand the parents turn their children over to THEIR 'loving care'. THEIR 'understanding' of modern medical 'science', which I suspect is very much flawed.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Oh, Chuck, you are really reaching now. If children ripped from "their" parents' arms, "a la the Cuban kid," doesn't mean the Cuban kid's parents' arms, then it doesn't mean anything at all. Though in fact, from what I can see, it doesn't.
I'll leave it to the doctors to explain why kids get some vaccinations early in infancy and others later. It's not relevant, and as an argument, it's too silly and too obvious an attempt to distract attention from the actual point of the discussion taking place here to deserve my time in response.
TO: mrs whatsit
RE: Reaching & Grasping....
"...you are really reaching now. If children ripped from "their" parents' arms, "a la the Cuban kid," doesn't mean the Cuban kid's parents' arms, then it doesn't mean anything at all. Though in fact, from what I can see, it doesn't." -- mrs whatsit
...there IS a difference.
I did not say it was his parents arms. I said, a la. [Note: Please pardon my French.] That translates from French into English as "in the manner of".
Getting it yet?
RE: Obfuscation, Anyone?
"I'll leave it to the doctors to explain why kids get some vaccinations early in infancy and others later. It's not relevant, and as an argument, it's too silly and too obvious an attempt to distract attention from the actual point of the discussion taking place here to deserve my time in response." -- mrs whatsit
Typical ploy. No knowledge therefore not constructive discussion.
Thanks for playing.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The field of rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation.]
TO: mrs whatsit
RE: ERRATA
The statement....
"Typical ploy. No knowledge therefore not constructive discussion."
...should read....
Typical ploy. No knowledge therefore NO constructive discussion.
RE: ADDENDUM
You're having a Monty Python Moment, as in Run awaaaay!
It's understandable. You have no facts to back up your claim of kids are 'too young'. Therefore, you leave the field.
However, until you [or some others here] CAN answer the question, vis-a-vis childhood ailment vaccines and the age at which they can be administered, I suggest you 'put a sock in it'. All you're doing is calling for the State doing to children what the State wants...irregardless of what parents want.
And THAT is a VERY dark path.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it. -- Albert Einstein]
Current AAP recommended vaccination schedule can be found here:
http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule_Childhood.pdf
Note that most are not administered until 2 months of age and that measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) has a minimum age of 12 months.
TO: Freeman Hunt
RE: Vaccination Schedule
"Note that most are not administered until 2 months of age and that measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) has a minimum age of 12 months." -- Freeman Hunt
Thanks for the information.
So....
....it looks like most vaccinations can be administered in a matter of weeks. And others, just after 52 weeks.
Interesting to know. Furthermore, it looks, to me, as if it puts a serious 'hole' in the claims some people are espousing here.
RE: Feminists Beware!
Seems to me that this information supports the idea that breast-feeding of children is important to their health and development. Therefore, if feminists want your children to survive and thrive, maybe they should rethink what has been pawned off on us these last nigh-on forty years.
Otherwise, they tend to look rather 'selfish', vis-a-vis children.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Children, n., Messages we send to a future we shall never see.]
Unfortunately the schedule shows that children under a year old are very much as risk of exposure to measles, mumps, or rubella. Breastfeeding is definitely important, but I wouldn't count on it to prevent measles, mumps, or rubella.
The flaw in the moral reasoning of the anti-vaccination crowd is nicely illustrated by Chuck's response to the question about antibiotics. As he points out, he makes his vaccination decisions based on his belief that there is "little chance" that his child will contract the diseases that vaccines are designed to protect against. That's true, of course, only as long as most of the rest of us don't make the same decision that he does. In other words, not only does he depend on the rest of us to protect his superior children for him by taking risks on their behalf with our inferior kids, but, when called on it, he points at everybody else's moral responsibility to justify his own lack thereof.
As long as the Chucks of the world can count on most of the rest of us to be, as he implicitly admits, more responsible than they are, they'll be fine. But once a critical mass of Chucks decide that their children are superior to the rest, the whole thing falls apart. It's happening right now, as anti-vaccination becomes the new chic thing in parenting and outbreaks of measles increase. It's too bad it's the kids who have to suffer the consequences of their parents' indefensibly dopey decisions.
I do agree, however, with those who've suggested that the government has aggravated the paranoid suspicions of the anti-vaccination crowd by pressing too hard for too many vaccinations that aren't clearly essential. (HPV, I'm lookin' at you.) At the same time, government fosters an inability to evaluate risks by ridiculous acts of anti-risk enforcement -- such as the recent government removals of children from a mother, in one recent case, who left her sleeping toddler in a locked car while she and her other children walked a few steps across a parking lot to put coins in a Salvation Army kettle and then came right back, or a father in another recent case who accidentally bought his son a bottle of hard lemonade at a ball park.
Combine understandable resentment with rampant scientific illiteracy and inability to make intelligent evaluations of risk and you get a kind of perfect storm of anti-science hysteria. I blame this, in part, on too much exposure to "Question Authority" bumper stickers that never mention what people are supposed to do with the answers to their questions. Those who lack the critical thinking skills required to distinguish the reasonable from the absurd have, basically, flung up their hands and decided that all answers from authority should be rejected. In the case of childhood vaccinations, sadly these folks end up throwing out ACTUAL babies with the proverbial bathwater.
Breastfeeding is great, and it does help pass antibodies from the mother to the child, but let's be realistic - breastfeeding isn't a real alternative to vaccination.
Children have been breastfed since the dawn of man, yet look at the number of diseases that have ravaged mankind in that time.
The risk of vaccinating your child is infinitely less than the risk of not vaccinating them - unless of course the vaccine was produced in China. In that case, it's 50/50.
TO: Anthony
RE: Breastfeeding vs. Vaccinations
"Breastfeeding is great, and it does help pass antibodies from the mother to the child, but let's be realistic - breastfeeding isn't a real alternative to vaccination." -- Anthony
Please allow me to expand on this thought.
I'm not saying that breastfeeding is the solution to vaccination. Rather, if you put my train of thought, as expressed in this thread, together....
....women should breastfeed their children to the point that vaccinations can be taken.
Furthermore, we should continue to improve vaccinations to the point they can be given at earlier ages. Even BETTER.....
.....eliminate the fears people have of getting vaccinations because of things like Gulf War Syndrome and other items reported. I.e., CLEAN UP THE SYSTEM and EDUCATE PEOPLE.
However, I am adamantly opposed to the fascistic thoughts expressed by some people in this thread.
Hope that helps....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Freeman Hunt
RE: The Breastfeeding vs. the Biggies
"Breastfeeding is definitely important, but I wouldn't count on it to prevent measles, mumps, or rubella." -- Freeman Hunt
Maybe we could come up with a 'booster' that would trigger the mother's immunological system to produce antibodies for those monsters. Antibodies that would be transfered to the new-born.
BUT....
...the booster, itself, should be as clean and harmless as 'mothers milk'.
Don't you think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I think we're onto something here.....
P.P.S. IS THERE A PHARMACOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE???!?!?!?
TO: mrs whatsit
RE: The 'Chucks' of the World vs.....
"As long as the Chucks of the world can count on most of the rest of us to be, as he implicitly admits, more responsible than they are, they'll be fine."" -- mrs whatsit
And, indeed we will.
"But once a critical mass of Chucks decide that their children are superior to the rest..." -- mrs whatsit
You're 'projecting' here, madam. I'm not the one manifesting the fascistic tendencies that I know what is best for everyone else. To include calling parents 'criminals' for doing what they honestly think is best for their children.
Do you work for social services in some capacity?
"...the whole thing falls apart." -- mrs whatsit
It doesn't, if you look at it from multiple perspectives. [Note: Something I learned in 27 years in the Army. Look at ALL perspectives and evaluate the information in as dispassionate a manner as humanly possible. Then make your decision.
I recommend you contact that US Army Command and General Staff College and ask them about non-credit courses in Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield, a.k.a., IPB. I think you'll find the education useful. Along with a strong dose of Staff Puke Planning Principles.]
"It's happening right now, as anti-vaccination becomes the new chic thing in parenting and outbreaks of measles increase." -- mrs whatsit
Personally? I'm looking forward to the local arrival of mumps. NOT! So....you see....my very life [at this age] hangs in the balance here. Never having had it. But I don't mind if parents don't get their children vaccinated against it.
So. Are you going to say I'm an 'idiot'? Despite all you've read here to date?
Well....it's STILL a 'free country'. And you're entitled to your opinion.
"It's too bad it's the kids who have to suffer the consequences of their parents' indefensibly dopey decisions." -- mrs whatsit
Your kids won't suffer, if you get them vaccinated. Or that's the current theory.
Personally? Have have serious doubts to the efficacy of modern drug company claims....after all....I've encountered them myself.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What they are telling you could be important. What they are NOT telling you could be VITAL. -- CBPelto]
P.S. When I asked the makers of Prevacid if Central Sleep Apnea was a possible side-effect, they would only say, "Some people do experience sleep disorders."
What they told me was 'true'. But it was 'incomplete'. Well trained and diligent intel staff pukes look out for such obfuscations. When they show up they are termed as 'key indicators'.
Are we learning yet?
Mr Pelto;
While I can usually swallow your arguments in other places and other areas, I am afraid that in this case, I am unable to agree with you to any significant degree.
You must understand that there are certain diseases (notably, viral ones) that are impervious to most of our medical arsenal; Western, Eastern, wacko or otherwise. In such instances, only two (2) methods of dealing with such diseases are possible - preventive (better hygiene for instance), and prayer.
Vaccines are, in many instances, the most easy and effective method to prevent such diseases that used to be dreaded all over the world; rubella (German measles), smallpox, polio, etc.
True, vaccines are not without their problems. They have to be renewed, for instance. Not all vaccinated people are equally protected. Flu vaccines, for instance, are meant to protect against the most prevalent strains projected for the year, and not for the others. There may even be idiosyncratic reactions. However, this does not mean that we should abandon them.
Even libertarians agree that the government's coercive power is to be used in two circumstances; to protect rights (especially property rights) and for national defence. Diseases, especially life-threatening epidemic-type ones, too, are enemies that the government has the responsibility to protect its citizens against. Hence, the use of coercive power to compel vaccination is not without its rationale or justification.
One of the things about vaccination is that it is almost a public good, which brings about a free-rider problem. Few unvaccinated children amongst a crowd of vaccinated children are not at much higher risk of contracting diseases the vaccines protect against than the vaccinated ones, something that is implicitly taken into account when their parents refuse to vaccinate. You have to admit this is true. Because, if you are unvaccinated, and you are amongst a sea of unvaccinated children, a single exposure to smallpox would decimate four or five times over that population of children. If parents understood the reality, they would most likely be less resistant to the idea. IOW, they are relying on other parents NOT to do the same thing they did. Which is hypocrisy of the highest order, and all of us know it.
In the Roman army, the legions had a particular formation they called the 'turtle'. This formation was fairly effective in protecting against ranged attacks *because* every legionnaire played his part with his shield. You can probably do without one or two shields right in the middle of that formation, and hope that the arrows don't get you, but if a larger number of shields went missing, the formation would become useless and you *will* get hit.
Mr Pelto, the plural of anecdote is not data, a principle I am sure both of us can agree on. You will note that I am not digging up any emotional stories or hypothetical situations. However, I will conclude by saying: that hysterical parents who refuse to provide their children with the most basic vaccinations (even we in benighted Malaysia receive for free) should be shot. And their children vaccinated anyway.
Don't like my attitude? I am fairly certain that 100% of this blog's readership agree with you. But I view such parents as no better than those who pimp their children out.
First time commenter and new reader, by the way. Great blog Freeman!
To my comment: I was just reminded of a conversation I had with a good friend just last week. We were talking about her daughter with special needs and her immune system, which is compromised because of the genetic syndrome.
I was reminded of the scene in the recent John Adams mini-series of Abigail Adams scrubbing her floor with a brick during the small-pox outbreak and the subsequent inoculation scene.
My friend then told me about another friend of hers who didn't vaccinate because of the autism scare, but who also travelled extensively with her children to Central America, Mexico and Asia. I was horrified at the danger she was placing her children in, but my friend said she was completely dismissive when warned about the dangers.
So the point of this (very long, sorry!) post is this: We don't know how good we have it. Throughout human history, people lost children routinely. It was the rule. They didn't just have the challenge of raising a child with a developmental disorder; their children were dead! Please get that through your head. Imaging losing multiple precious children to disease before they reached the age of five. This was not uncommon and still is not uncommon in other parts of the world. Vaccines are some of the most effective tools in turning that tide. To forget the real cost of not vaccinating because you live in a safe bubble is self-centered and small-minded.
“While I can usually swallow your arguments in other places and other areas, I am afraid that in this case, I am unable to agree with you to any significant degree.” -- Gregory Kong
‘Swallow’ what you will. Regurge what you will. Either way, it is not my problem. Rather, it is yours.
“You must understand that there are certain diseases (notably, viral ones) that are impervious to most of our medical arsenal; Western, Eastern, wacko or otherwise. In such instances, only two (2) methods of dealing with such diseases are possible - preventive (better hygiene for instance), and prayer.” -- Gregory Kong
As my undergrad work was microbiology, emphasis on pathogens, I’m well aware of what you’re trying to express about the AMA’s capabilities of dealing with viral infections.
What’s your point here?
By the by....
...there are other alternatives besides the two you limit yourself to. And, again, that is a personal decision; that you should limit yourself. And AGAIN, it’s not MY problem. [Note; Guess whose problem it is?]
“Vaccines are, in many instances, the most easy and effective method to prevent such diseases that used to be dreaded all over the world; rubella (German measles), smallpox, polio, etc.” -- Gregory Kong
Vaccines have their place in the arsenal. But they are not, in my candid and honestly held opinion, the ONLY weapons. If you wish to limit your capabilities, that is hardly MY problem now....is it?
“True, vaccines are not without their problems. They have to be renewed, for instance. Not all vaccinated people are equally protected. Flu vaccines, for instance, are meant to protect against the most prevalent strains projected for the year, and not for the others. There may even be idiosyncratic reactions. However, this does not mean that we should abandon them.” -- Gregory Kong
Vaccines ONLY, based on what I’ve observed, have a ‘problem’ when someone substitutes good materials for not-so-good. Sort of like the Chinese Communists have been accused of using ethylene glycol in their ‘tooth paste’; it was cheaper, improving their bottom line.
Whose to say some ‘American’ drug-merchant wouldn’t try something similar?
“Even libertarians agree that the government's coercive power is to be used in two circumstances; to protect rights (especially property rights) and for national defence. Diseases, especially life-threatening epidemic-type ones, too, are enemies that the government has the responsibility to protect its citizens against. Hence, the use of coercive power to compel vaccination is not without its rationale or justification.” -- Gregory Kong
Oh. Great! Libertarians WILL support governmental decisions overriding their own choices.
Why is it you sound to me like a classic ‘hypocrite’? What party are you registered as with your County Recorder?
“One of the things about vaccination is that it is almost a public good, which brings about a free-rider problem. Few unvaccinated children amongst a crowd of vaccinated children are not at much higher risk of contracting diseases the vaccines protect against than the vaccinated ones, something that is implicitly taken into account when their parents refuse to vaccinate.” -- Gregory Kong
‘Public Good’?
Who died and made YOU the arbiter of the ‘Public Good’? Are you channeling some other dictator of the 20th Century? And you call yourself a ‘libertarian’???!??!?!
“You have to admit this is true.” -- Gregory Kong
Hardly. Or are you ‘dictating’ to me, again? Looks like it.
Is this the way ‘libertarians’ REALLY think? If so, you’re a VERY DIFFERENT sort than I’ve known and associated with the last 20+ years.
Are you sure you’re not a ‘Democrat’/Socialist? You certainly sound like one.
“Because, if you are unvaccinated, and you are amongst a sea of unvaccinated children, a single exposure to smallpox would decimate four or five times over that population of children. If parents understood the reality, they would most likely be less resistant to the idea. IOW, they are relying on other parents NOT to do the same thing they did. Which is hypocrisy of the highest order, and all of us know it.” -- Gregory Kong
So what? If I’m unvaccinated while you ARE, supposedly MY life is at risk. Not yours.
“In the Roman army, the legions had a particular formation they called the 'turtle'. This formation was fairly effective in protecting against ranged attacks *because* every legionnaire played his part with his shield. You can probably do without one or two shields right in the middle of that formation, and hope that the arrows don't get you, but if a larger number of shields went missing, the formation would become useless and you *will* get hit.” -- Gregory Kong
Poor analogy, that.
For one thing. A ‘vaccinated’ soldier is [supposedly] impervious to the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous [viral] fortune’. Therefore, in your analogy, every legionaire is his own ‘turtle’.
You forget my undergrad work. Not to mention my life ‘major’ of military history. [Note: Comes with 27 years in the US Army as an infantryman.]
“Mr Pelto, the plural of anecdote is not data, a principle I am sure both of us can agree on. You will note that I am not digging up any emotional stories or hypothetical situations. However, I will conclude by saying: that hysterical parents who refuse to provide their children with the most basic vaccinations (even we in benighted Malaysia receive for free) should be shot. And their children vaccinated anyway.” -- Gregory Kong
I can’t help it if ‘authorities’ refuse to listen to people. I watched it as Denver built DIA in ‘tornado alley’, despite the ‘anecdotal’ warnings of people who lived in the area. Took NOAA and their experimental Doppler Radar to prove it, AFTER the city bought the property and began construction.
Who knew those old folk knew what they were talking about?
“Don't like my attitude? I am fairly certain that 100% of this blog's readership agree with you. But I view such parents as no better than those who pimp their children out.” -- Gregory Kong
I could hardly care less about your ‘attitude’. However, I’m even more confident than you are that if one of these parents meets you on the street, they’ll beat the ever-lov’n c--- out of you for alleging they are putting their children up for prostitution.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I recommend you cut down on the ‘sauce’, buckie....
....as up to your last paragraph, you were fairly lucid.
TO: Eilish
RE: Ever...
"Vaccines are some of the most effective tools in turning that tide. To forget the real cost of not vaccinating because you live in a safe bubble is self-centered and small-minded." -- Eilish
....read Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six?
You'd fit right in in 'Jonestown'. Drink the 'kool-aid', just becuse 'Brother Jones' told you it was 'good for you'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: All
RE: Hmmmmm....
....awfully quiet around here.
Do 'libertarians' suffer from short attention deficit syndrome?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. This is what the "(le)" stands for....
I totally agree with you. I only skimmed your comments here, but this is a *highly* controversial subject among homeschooling moms. I find much of the thinking on the anti- side conspiracy- and fear- based. Emotional thinking, as you said. Nobody likes taking their baby for shots, least of all me. But I'd far rather face the relatively small risk of possible side effects from the vaccine than the far greater risks posed by whooping cough or any of the other dread diseases that used to kill children. I've read too much history/lit. from the 1800's (some of it written by my own ancestors) to want to revisit that time.
OTOH, I do believe very strongly in parents being able to direct medical choices for their children. Nevertheless, the anti-vax movement is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home