If you don't vaccinate your children.

[Kurska]

Last edited Sun Sep 14, 2014, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

And you don't have a valid medical reason to avoid doing it (legitimately compromised immune system)....

You're an idiot. Even worse, you're a selfish idiot. You're risking not only the lives of your children but the lives of people who have legitimate immune system problems and can't receive vaccinations. .



Don't kill ben, get your kids their damn shots.

Quit with the rampant stupidity, a gluten free diet with plenty of exercise and positive chakras will not protect your children from freaking polio. Only vaccines can do that.

[hlthe2b]

1. Exactly...

[MineralMan]

2. Well said!

[Kurska]

4. No, I'm done reading unreliable websites forced to the top of search engines by idiots.

Vaccines are a freaking modern miracle of medicine that have eliminated scores of destructive diseases. We all live longer and better lives because of vaccines.

Get me a recent peer-reviewed medical journal or sod off.

P.S enjoy your pizza.

[etherealtruth]

10. "No, I'm done reading unreliable websites forced to the top of search engines by idiots"

Great statement ... may I steal the perfectly worded response?

[Kurska]

36. Yes spread it far and wide my friend

[joeglow3]

63. Spread it like a disease...

...ripping through an ignorant group of unvaccinated people.

[chrisa]

53. Let me guess - bunk from "Natural News."

Every type a "I CAN TYPEING!1!!" blog is posted as medical evidence, my soul dies a little.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Just please, for the love of God, don't ask her to list her pet peeves about restaurant servers.

Not unless you clear your calendar for the next 150 years.

[1dogleft]

137. lol

had to download it to my Kindle

[SidDithers]

5. Du rec...nt

Sid

[KitSileya]

6. Absolutely! My brother is one of them.

He had an allergic reaction to his first vaccine, and consequently could not get all the vaccines the rest of us got. An un-vaccinated kid can make him sterile. An un-vaccinated kid increases the risk of children born with serious birth defects. The mumps can make grown men infertile, and German measles can seriously harm a fetus if the mother contracts it. And that is in addition to the number of kids that get serious complications because of scarlet fever, measles, chicken pox - all sorts of nasty consequences. An anti-vaxxer is saying that it is worse for a kid to be autistic than it is for that kid to die. And the kicker is that vaccines don't cause autism.

Idiots. No, let me edit that - selfish, unfeeling, un-caring, self-absorbed idiots.

[Kurska]

100. But don't you dare call them idiots.

It gets their poor feelings all hurt.

I mean all they want to do is leave their children as unvaccinated vectors for possible widespread death for themselves and everyone they interact with it.

Is that so wrong?

[KitSileya]

150. I must admit this is one topic in which I give no quarter.

Considering the situation of my brother, I do not accept any non-medical reasons why people don't vaccinate their kids. They are risking other people's lives. They are endangering not only their own kids, but also those like my brother. So I do not mince my words with them. I don't care if you survived every childhood disease ever without any complications, simple numbers should tell you that vaccines save lives. Being autistic is not worse than being a vegetable because you got encephalitis from chicken pox or measles. Being on the autism spectrum is not worse than being deaf, blind, sterile, deformed, having heart defects or any of the other complications from childhood diseases, It certainly isn't worse than being dead, which is a very real alternative when we talk about these diseases.


And yes, I'll call them names, and start with callous idiots who do not care about other human beings, and continue with stupidly self-centered a$$holes.

[SidDithers]

153. "I do not accept any non-medical reasons why people don't vaccinate their kids. "...

I'm with you.

Public health is more important than personal beliefs. If you choose to participate in society, then you shoulder the same burden as the rest of us.

Sid

[KitSileya]

180. Yes, and I should have added the caveat "sound medical reasons"

because the idiots who do not vaccinate their kids think they are doing it to protect them. If a kid has a bad reaction to their first vaccine, or have some condition or a reaction to something else that most likely indicates they will have problems with their vaccines, then they shouldn't get them. The fact that the rest of us get our vaccines will make them safer.

We must also accept that the risk of anything will never be 0%, at the same time as researchers should always strive to make the risk of vaccines as close to 0% as humanly possible. They would be able to do the latter much better if anti-vax idiots didn't force them to keep doing research to show that society is better off with vaccines than without them.

[chervilant]

163. Sadly, there are some who are ultra-religious who are anti-vacine

I know, because my niece is one of them. She got worried when her oldest had "some kind of rash" (measles?), but she will not get her two boys vaccinated.

[Spazito]

7. Well said!

Those who can immunize their children and choose not to endanger not only their own children but endanger many, many others.

[Arugula Latte]

8. The first time I became aware of the anti-vax movement

was when my kids were babies/toddlers (they're teens now) and I flipped through a couple issues of Mothering Magazine. That publication is a hotbed for anti-vax nuttery and extremism. They have done this society a great disservice, and have probably cost several people their very lives.

[Kurska]

118. Thousands of lives actually

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

Yet they'll get all offended if you dare call them names. Least I'm not killing anyone.

[xchrom]

9. du rec.

[TBF]

11. K&R for science. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

12. +A Brazillion! N/T

[eggplant]

14. Ain't that the naked (well, hairless) truth! ;-) n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

20. Better than just waxing over it... n/t

[eggplant]

30. Now don't get crotchety. n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

39. Be honest...

Your real name is Attila the Pun.








I was honestly out of any double entendres that wouldn't get hidden, and I'm on my last leg for the next 5 days.

[riqster]

145. Sounds like a hairy situation.

[TeamPooka]

13. Don't expect altruism from anti-vax idiots. They are selfish and acting selfishly. nt

[kairos12]

16. Well said. To paraphrase Monty Python--anti-vaxers answer to the call

"Bring out Your Dumb."

[TeamPooka]

21. lol

[msanthrope]

88. Sooooo stealing that..... nt

[loyalsister]

22. Conspiracy theories and paranoia stoke that impulse

They are the ideal "evidence" to back up a selfish sense of entitlement. It sounds remarkably like climate change deniers. hmmmm I don't think it's a conspiracy.
Just a natural result of science denial and self centeredness, and something to take advantage of politically.

Right wing progression..
Equating the common good with socialism and communism isn't enough for people who were once hippies.

Therefore, many baby boomers reject the common good in order to distance themselves from stereotypes. Cold war, and anti-communist "values" promote self interest and status at the expense of others. Yuppies get rich and enjoy demonizing poor people.
Still fighting civil rights, they find it particularly useful to equate race with poverty.

Gen Xers, parented by 80s culture are self centered and educated. Their primary objective is to accumulate wealth. In order to distance themselves from their bad behavior they become more entrenched in religion. Education enables influence.

And here we are. Marijuana and personal freedom have become important to millennials the trouble is they grow up and have friends other than white people, discover some friends are gay and still care about them. Communism isn't a concern. There is a history of the effectiveness of promoting and responding to selfishness in class struggles.

I don't think it's a conspiracy. It's just another manifestation of general science denial combined with selfishness and a sense of entitlement. Deny climate science- no need to care about others enough to change my behavior. Deny the common practice of vaccination and save my own kids no interest in concern for other kids. I also see shades of the contradictory popular "non conformist" mentality.

[HockeyMom]

15. My kids are adults now, BUT

I don't vaccinate MYSELF. Do adults have that right? You will have to tie me down to get a flu shot. shingles, boosters, etc. Waiting for the day that they say I need measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox vax, etc., even though I actually HAD those diseases, and SURVIVED, despite what modern medicine now tells you. Very soon they WILL say that having these diseases you still MUST have them, because it is all about medicine controlling the public, and making $$$$ from it.

[groundloop]

17. It's simple, if you're not a part of the solution then you're a part of the problem

The more people who get flu shots, for example, the less chance there will be of a serious flu pandemic (which WILL kill people).

[Reter]

154. So your way is right and that's it?

I got all my shots as a kid. As an adult though, I won't get any shots unless there is something wrong with me (dentist pulling teeth, stuff like that). So I'm part of the problem because I won't ever get a flu shot?

[bhikkhu]

185. The way that results in less people (and especially children) dying pointlessly is the right way

I think people are generally too used to the idea that the flu hits every year, and a bunch of people die, and that's just the way it goes. Its not "scary" like a lot of the childhood diseases, but I still get a shot every year, just because its the smart thing to do, and the right thing to do.

[Reter]

218. "its the smart thing to do, and the right thing to do."

Total elitism. It's your way and the ones who disagree are stupid and wrong.

[bhikkhu]

224. I don't think its elitist to say that a choice that protects oneself and others is a good choice

In reality, in many different circumstances, good choices exist. I don't see what elitism has to do with anything; most people try to do their best, and providing good information is more to the goal than name-calling.

In any case, its not good to get all bound up in what people think of you. "The universe doesn't care" is a good motto. All the argument over vaccination is trifling in the long run compared to the knots people tie themselves into on climate change. We open our eyes and do the best we can, even if it only makes a little difference.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I got a diptheria/perussis/tetanus booster a year or so ago.

Not a bad idea, after all I do a lot of work outdoors with my hands. But the reason was a pertussis outbreak- if babies under 6 months get it, before they're old enough for the shot, they can die.

Increasing the general herd immunity for something like that is a good way to protect the vulnerable.

Do you have the "right"? Yes. But if you're bargling on about drug companies and conspiracies, you're not helping. The decent thing to do is to make sure you're as immunized as possible, especially if you're around kids.

[Louisiana1976]

26. I've been getting a flu shot every year ever since I moved into the apartment house where I live

(they're given one day here each year) and I've found that the shots do wonders for my immune system. Before I started getting the shots, I had a cold at least once a year--now I can't recall the last time I've had a cold.

[HockeyMom]

27. haven't had the flu in about 30 years

Cold? Maybe 10 or 15 years. I worked in public schools with kids who had colds and flu. Never got sick.

[Kurska]

33. Ergo polio is fake n/t

[GCP]

97. DU rec

[Reter]

156. What exactly is wrong with a cold once a year?

That's not bad at all actually. Sounds like you already had a great immune system.

[HuckleB]

212. What's wrong with not having a cold once a year?

[Reter]

217. Actually, forget I even said that, because you are mistaken

Flu shots do not prevent colds, as the two virus' are entirely different. The fact that you haven't gotten a cold since is just a coincidence.

[HuckleB]

219. I never said they did. Nor did the poster above.

His claim is that the flu vaccine left his immune system in a stronger state to fight off the cold virus.

[Logical]

42. Yet you love smoking!! Makes a lot of sense. LOL! nt

[X_Digger]

43. If you get shingles, you *will* kick yourself for such an attitude. n/t

[Silent3]

50. What does "have that right" have to do with it?

There are plenty of things that all of us have the right to do, and the right not to do, but that doesn't mean doing or not doing those things is beyond criticism.

You have the right not to get vaccines, but no right to be free from criticism about that.

[MohRokTah]

54. Failing to get your boosters makes you part of the problem.

My mother in law just went through double transplant surgery and will be immuno-compromised for the rest of her life.

People like you may end up being what kills her.

BTW, you'll DESPISE Shingles if you ever get it. It's far more painful than the chicken pox and can last months.

[riqster]

146. You have the right to be selfish, and to inflict horrible diseases on your fellow citizens, yes.

But please note: having the "right" to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do.

[gvstn]

18. Here is a short article that is very informative about the statistics.

...it's unsettling to see the effect that a slight dip in vaccination rates can have in places like California, where the percentage of kindergartens in which at least 8% of students are not fully vaccinated has more than doubled in the last seven years. For diseases like measles and whooping cough, the threshold for herd immunity – the phenomena by which a high rate of vaccination in a community protects even those individuals who have not developed an immunity – is 92%.

I believe these means that in some schools in California the herd immunity threshold is no longer being met and is causing the resurgence of measles and whooping cough.

http://io9.com/what-happens-when-you-dont-vaccinate-1631423511/+kellyconaboy

[groundloop]

19. I wasn't aware of that 8% threshold, thanks for sharing the link

And yes, the anti-vax idiots are doing a great disservice to the entire country. What's scary, from the linked article - "We have schools in California where the percent of children who exercise the personal belief exemption is well above 50%." IMO there should be NO personal belief exemption to vaccination, only an exemption for medical reasons. All of these 'personal beliefs' are a distinct threat to the health of all.

[Separation]

25. Interesting

I always thought if your child was not immunized they could not go to school?

[HockeyMom]

28. Not true

Religous exemptions. I worked 1:1 with one. Not "terrified" to either.

[KitSileya]

151. The religilous idiots (and those who do not understand herd immunity)

have managed to whine their way to religious exemptions. They even have supporters on DU - because if I survived it, everyone else can go to hell, apparently.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Agree.

Children are dying because of that nonsense.

[HockeyMom]

29. Yeah, just as we ELDERLY are too

Scapegoats; children and the elderly. Don't get vax? Babies and Grandma will DIE.

[Kurska]

34. " Don't get vax? Babies and Grandma will DIE." Um yes

If people don't get vaccines people will die of diseases we had previously wiped out.

People will die

literally.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Babies do die, babies have died.

http://shotbyshot.org/pertussis/kaliahs-story/



We had a pertussis outbreak here in Oregon, there was a bigger one in CA. Several little babies DID die, because unlike anti-vax idiots and their school-age kids, babies under 6 montht CAN'T get the pertussis vaccination, and as such it is incumbent upon the rest of us to have some herd immunity to the thing.

Thanks, anti-vax people. Babies died. It's not "scapegoating", it's the TRUTH.

[Tumbulu]

76. Perhaps it time that people stop bringing infants out into public places

Last edited Tue Sep 16, 2014, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)

In the old days no one brought infants outside or into the public places until at least a few months of age, if they could avoid it. It might be wise to take that old fashioned safety precaution back again.

[Kurska]

98. Totally right, that is much better solution than giving children vaccinations.

You're screaming about how you're not being taken seriously. Perhaps you could try advocating for a serious position.

[Tumbulu]

102. I am not screaming, you are. And quite in effectively

I presented a way to deal with the current problem. That is all.

[Kurska]

103. There wasn't a problem, before anti-vaxxers created one out of thin air and stupidity.

Drove down the vaccination rates in our country and KILLED PEOPLE.

Oh and in the good old days when we practiced your solution, we had infant mortality rates of 30% in the first 3 years of life. Clearly way better than just vaccinating your kids folks!

[Warren DeMontague]

110. the way to deal with "the current problem" is for people to vaccinate their children.

As kurska notes, the "problem" didn't exist until the woo-woo train pulled through telling people not to vaccinate.

[Kurska]

112. No no you see

As they helpfully pointed out here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025534368#post81

The strong will survive and the weak will die, because as we all know only weak and genetically inferior individuals died of polio or smallpox.

[Kurska]

113. And it is gone.

Juries get it right for once at least.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. The other day I sliced my hand open fixing a rusty gutter downspout.

I knew, fortunately, that my tetanus shots are up to date because 2-3 years ago when we had a pertussis outbreak up here, I went and got a D-P-T booster shot for myself. Figured it was the decent thing to do.

So, there's that, at least.

[Kurska]

115. Good on you

I had to get my shots updated for grad school. I was in and out in 30 minutes tops.

[pnwmom]

139. The problem did exist. The problem was that the old DPT vaccine actually did injure or kill

too many children. One of them was my six month old sister, who developed encephalitis and died the day after her third DPT shot (which the doctor had given in a half-dose because she had had bad reactions to her first two.)

Decades after my sister died, other parents of children injured by the old DPT shot started to band together and fight for a safer vaccine. And they finally succeeded in getting the government to acknowledge the problem and to fund research for a safer vaccine. But by that time, the word was out that a vaccine was risky for some fraction of children, and some parents started to worry that there could be risks with other vaccines, too.

Fortunately, the new DPT vaccine is much safer than the old one, and a safe adult vaccine has also been developed. (Which I myself have had.) But the old vaccine is the one that started the vaccine safety movement (on DU derogatorily referred to as the "anti-vax crowd.&quot And those concerned parents weren't influenced by "woo." They were motivated by the tragedies that were occurring in real families, like mine.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. I think that you're talking about 2 separate movements.

I do not believe the movement for safer vaccines you refer to is the same as, or even related to, Jenny McCarthy's thing about Vaccines and autism, for instance.

I think that the kids who are coming down with pertussis now are direct fallout from the latter; as you note, the vaccine now is much safer.

Yes, medical professionals have fucked up and made mistakes in the past. Shit, my mom was one of the kids who got their thyroids irradiated in the 1940s. I'm certainly aware and respectful of the motivation to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective, and not harmful- and I'm not someone who takes 'authorities' at their word without question.

But the current situation with the current vaccine is directly related to the current anti-vax movement (being in favor of making sure something is safe is NOT the same as being opposed to the thing itself) and is directly responsible for the preventable pertussis deaths in newborns mentioned upthread.

[pnwmom]

164. But DUers often link this organization, founded in 1982, to the "anti-vax crowd."

http://www.nvic.org/about.aspx

The charitable non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) was founded in 1982 by parents whose children were injured or died following DPT vaccine reactions. Located in Vienna, Virginia, this charitable (501c3) organization is totally publicly supported by donations from citizens and foundations and does not receive corporate, federal or state funding. NVIC is funded by annual donor supporters, grants from philanthropic foundations and donations made by individuals for information that NVIC researches, produces and makes available to the public.

NVIC's co-founders worked with Congress on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This historic law acknowledged that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and that the vaccine injured and their families should be financially supported and that vaccine safety protections were needed in the mass vaccination system. The law set up a federal vaccine injury compensation program, as well as included legal requirements for vaccine providers to:

give parents vaccine benefit and risk information before their children are vaccinated;
keep written records of vaccine manufacturer names and lot numbers for each vaccination given;
enter serious health problems following vaccination into a child's permanent medical record; and
report serious health problems following vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
The law preserved the right for vaccine injured persons to bring a lawsuit in the court system if federal compensation is denied or is not sufficient. By 2010, the U.S. Court of Claims had awarded nearly $2 billion dollars to vaccine victims for their catastrophic vaccine injuries, although two out of three applicants have been denied compensation.

NVIC works to raise government standards for vaccine licensure and policymaking. In 1996, NVIC realized a major goal when, after 14 years of public advocacy, the FDA finally licensed a purified pertussis vaccine (DTaP vaccine) for American babies. In 1999, the live virus polio vaccine (OPV) was replaced by the inactivated polio vaccine and vaccine strain paralytic polio cases were eliminated in America.

SNIP

[SidDithers]

213. NVIC is the granddaddy of ant-vax groups...

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a public charity[1] anti-vaccination[2][3] advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines.[4] The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child. Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Information_Center



Sid

[pnwmom]

214. That's the subjective opinion of whoever wrote the WIKI article. But thank you, that is the point

I was making.

It's an organization that fights for vaccine safety, and for compensation to children when the (rare) injuries occur, but it's portrayed as an anti-vax organization by people like you.

[SidDithers]

216. It's the subjective opinion of Michael Specter...

who is a science writer and journalist that I respect.

NVIC is portrayed as an anti-vax organization because it is an anti-vax organization.

Sid

[pnwmom]

221. I respect the organization that worked so hard to get the whole cell DPT vaccine replaced

with the safer split cell vaccine. But for the NVIC, the government wouldn't have begun funding research for a safer vaccine and the FDA wouldn't have approved one, and more children would have suffered needless deaths, just like my sister.

[KitSileya]

174. I'm really sorry for your loss.

If she was having a bad reaction to the first one, her doctor shouldn't have given her the next two. It's kids like your sister we would like to protect by ensuring that those who do not react badly to the vaccines get theirs. That way, those who cannot get them, kids like your sister, is safer too.

The numbers game, however, is stark and brutal. Less kids die of vaccines, or are harmed by them, than die or are harmed by the diseases they protect against, so since we know that 92% is the magical number for herd immunity, it is imperative that at least 92% of kids get vaccines...even if some of them die because of them. I totally agree with your advocacy for safer vaccines, but in the mean time, we cannot have parents opting out their kids without a sound medical reason - even if they are stupid enough to think getting a vaccine is more dangerous than getting chicken pox.

I support the removal of religious exemptions in schools - the only un-vaccinated children allowed in public schools should have documentation of allergies or other sound medical reasons not to get vaccines. At least then, the stupid parents won't be risking hundreds of other kids whose parents are not stupid (and their immuno-compromised relatives.)

[pnwmom]

201. All of us siblings had bad reactions, so we were all getting half doses.

But apparently our reactions weren't bad enough to fully exclude us. And I can see how that could happen, because my son's odd reaction wouldn't have been enough to exclude him if we hadn't in the meantime learned about a family history starting in my mother's generation.

At the time, two of my children (and soon, one of the cousins) were about to get another DPT. I'll always wonder if one of them would have ended up like my sister. Thank goodness we stopped them when we did.

But the disease is terrible, too, so thank goodness the government and the researchers finally moved to produce a safer vaccine. My granddaughter has now had that, and my three children have all successfully had the adult version.

Someday they might be able to test children for genetic conditions, like mitochondrial disorders, that could put them at risk. In that case, everyone would be better off; both the children who were properly excluded from receiving the vaccinations, and those whose parents could confidently bring them in to get all their vaccinations.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. You are kidding, right?

You're blaming the parents of the infant that died of a wholly preventable disease, instead of the Jenny McCarthy listening-asshats who couldn't be bothered to vaccinate against pertussis???

[Sheepshank]

175. and for those working parents...by all means, figure it out...hire a nanny

because everyone makes more that $30/hour....more than enough to hire a live-in.

You really and truly think your statement was a viable, realistic solution in an era where the middle class only survives with 2 incomes and those on minimum wage can afford to stay home for any decent amount of time after giving birth?

[mopinko]

178. cuz there were no diseases back in the day.

really, lets bring back high infant mortality rates. after all, you can always have another baby if this one dies.

[LeftishBrit]

234. First of all, it's never been the case that most parents could isolate their babies completely...

Secondly, even if the baby always stays at home, other family members can bring germs home, especially older siblings who are attending school, or just playing with friends.

Are you really suggesting that the entire family should be in quarantine for the child's first six months?

[3catwoman3]

80. Pertussis immunizations...

...are begun at 2 months of age. Influenza cannot be given prior to 6 months.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Thanks for the correction.

Beyond that, though, the point stands.

[3catwoman3]

149. As a pediatric nurse practitioner...

...I completely agree, and appreciate your advocacy.

[X_Digger]

44. Fuck the elderly, they're old. Babies? Screw em, they're not people yet.

Babies too young to get vaccines, those who are immunocompromised, the elderly- yes, Virginia, those are the ones who suffer most when blithering anti-vax morons don't get their kids vaccinated.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/27/2532651/measles-outbreak-texas-megachurch/

[NuclearDem]

49. Because they do die if people choose not to get vaccinated.

[LeftishBrit]

235. If nobody gets vaccinated, this is indeed what will happen

The occasional non-vaccinator and their family are at present mostly protected by the fact that other people do vaccinate. But if no one vaccinates, then many children and elderly people (and some people outside these categories) will indeed die of preventable diseases!

In developing countries, a million and a half children a year die of preventable diseases. It used to be even more, before vaccines were introduced and provided more widely.

Since 1950, the average life expectancy in the world has risen from about 47 to about 70. There are many reasons for this, but they include vaccinations.

[Ms. Toad]

31. All posts like this do is drive people further into their entrenched positions

This post is not conducive to a productive discussion about the appropriate use of vaccinations, because it insists everyone is either an idiot (if they don't agree with you) or brilliant if they do. The world is not binary on vaccinations, any other than it is binary on anything else. There are reasons, other than the narrow reason you have given, to not blindly follow the current vaccination regime.

How about having a discussion in which the premise is not "you are an idiot," unless your goal really is to force people who are not currently vaccinating their children to be even more resistant?

[Kurska]

32. Vaccines are pretty damn simple.

You give them to your children and they+other people do not die of polio. They then proceed to not give your children autism. The people promoting their anti-vax bs need to be shamed, they are killing people some of which never wanted anything to do with their craziness (the immune system compromised)

I'm sick of science being forced to share a table with lunacy. It is time for people to either step up to the plate with real, evidence based argument or to shut the hell up and let the doctors do the talking.

Anti-vax is the climate change denial of the left. It needs to be shamed, not engaged intellectually.

[Ms. Toad]

35. More of the same - and vaccinations are not as simple, from a scientific standpoint,

as you believe them to be.

Fear of autism is not the only reason individuals choose to follow a vaccine regime other than the generic universal recommendation. Calling people lunatics and idiots merely because their conclusions about vaccinations for themselves or their families differ from yours, and assume - without basis - that they have had their brains sucked in by people who have no clue about science, does not invite people to explore whether the choices they have made are the best for themselves or society.

Of course, your signature line indicates that your mind is closed to any intellectual curiosity or further learning on the matter.

[Kurska]

38. No actually they are astoundingly simple.

Nearly everyone (over 92% at minimum) gets them, society develop herd immunity and we don't die of polio. Including people who can't get vaccines because they are immuno-compromised.

We don't do that and people start dying to diseases we wiped out.

[Ms. Toad]

41. That is one aspect of the issue. It is not the only one.

And it does not dictate the appropriate decision for any specific individual. Name calling, and broad brush denigration is not going to encourage people to explore whether they are making the correct individual decision to achieve the 92% compliance that is needed to protect people who are not vaccinated. Those decisions are based on things you have no insight into, because you are neither them, nor their physician.

Name calling is working against what you hope to achieve.

[Kurska]

45. The only aspect and key part of the issue is if we don't achieve herd immunity people die.

End of discussion. Unless your child has a legitimate medical reason for not being vaccinated, they should be vaccinated.

It is indeed gross idiocy to not do so and I refuse to call it by any other name. It is irresponsible, dangerous and ultimately selfish given the harmful effects it can have on someone not involved in your decision.

[Ms. Toad]

47. "legitimate medical reason" is not as well defined

as you like to pretend. And, to repeat, name calling and broad brush denigration does not encourage families who are trying to make responsible decisions about vaccinations to be open to the possibility of vaccinating. to consider at least selective vaccination - for example. The only place such families who have legitimate concerns about vaccinations find anything but universal condemnation and name calling is from people who truly ignore all scientific evidence. Your (and others') condemnation - and insistence that there is only good and evil with respect to vaccinations drives with legitimate concerns about vaccinations to reject vaccinations entirely - rather than, for example, at least selectively vaccinating for the most harmful illnesses.

In other words, simplistically insisting there are only two options, makes matters worse.

[Kurska]

48. The responsible decision on immunization is to get your kids their shots.

Unless specifically told not to by a medical authority working within the guidelines of commonly understood evidence based medicine.

There is no reason to "selectively" vaccinate, unless your child has a real and immediate medical concern that makes immunization dangerous and impractical (which is a truly tiny percent of the population).

[Ms. Toad]

55. Frankly, I expect this kind of binary thinking

from right wing yahoos, who are incapable of understanding that very little in the world - including vaccination - is binary.

[MohRokTah]

57. The binary thinking is only coming from the anti-vaxxer idiots.

I have a solution, let's find a remote island. If you are a parent who has a child who has no medical necessity keeping that child from receiving the vaccinations, you and your entire family MOVE TO THE FUCKING ISLAND AND RENOUNCE HUMANITY if you are unwilling to vaccinate your child.

Best solution to anti-vaxxer nonsense.

[Ms. Toad]

60. You are also demonstrating a logic deficiency.

Dividing the world into anti-vaxxer idiots and everyone else IS binary thinking. That binary thinking is not coming from the folks you have labeled anti-vaxxers, it is coming from you.

The world, and the immune system in particular, is much more complex than that. It is not a binary question. There are children for whom some vaccines outweigh the risks - and other vaccines don't. Unfortunately, medical science has not yet sorted all that out - but parents can't put their children in suspended animation until it does. So parents of such children have to make the best decisions they can with the evidence available about vaccinating their children. The concerns are based on sound scientific/medical theory but may not yet be supported by evidence that rises to your view of medical necessity.

Educate yourself, for example, about auto-immune disorders, the current disease etiology theories, and the use of adjuvants in vaccines. That is only one example, the one with which I am most familiar, which is a scientifically valid concern which falls between your two binary poles.

[MohRokTah]

69. No, it is not binary thinking.

If you oppose vaccinations, you are an idiot. You are selfish and you despise humanity as a whole.

In fact, you would prefer to see the end of the species.

Yes, this is about survival of the species and those opposed to vaccinations are opposed to the continued existence of the species.

End of story.

[Ms. Toad]

71. You are creating two positions:

opposing vaccinations v. support vaccinations. That is binary, by definition.

My entire point has been that there are a range of positions, not two. No self-respecting progressive, who knows even a smidgen about current medical research in immunology, would insist we know everything there is to know and that you are either for vaccines or against them.

[MohRokTah]

73. No, in this case there is NOT a range of positions.

There never has been and there never will be with regards to vaccinations.

There is a single position, continued existence of the species. There is no other position.

This is a unitary issue.

[Ms. Toad]

74. And ulcers are caused by stress.

Always were, and always will be.

Oh, wait - the doctors who believed that turned out to be wrong, didn't they? And the earth is round, and the sun doesn't revolve around it.

Medical knowledge is always evolving and is rapidly growing in two areas which are relevant to this discussion: individualized medicine and autoimmune disorders. There may very well be others, but these are two I am familiar with. Currently we have a one size fits all vaccine regime. For the majority of people, it is a reasonable regime, does not harm them, and is beneficial for the community. Unfortunately, there are those it does harm - and people with a predisposition to auto-immune disorders are among those. Until good systemic sorting tools are developed, some of those who know they fall into this category (or other at risk categories) are making informed selective decisions about which immunizations to have.

Closed minds are a sign of a lack of intellectual curiosity, not normally a characteristic I associate with progressive thinking.

[Tumbulu]

82. Again, very well spoken

Thank you!

[Kurska]

107. ....

I'm done

I'm out

See ya

[alp227]

116. And that post was hidden.

I was #2.

Mail Message
On Sun Sep 14, 2014, 10:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

No, if you wanted to see the species survive, you would eliminate them altogether
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5537346

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

People who got polio were not weak or holding back the strong of our species. This is just offensive.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 14, 2014, 10:45 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Stupid stuff.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: YUCK. Crazy classist talk.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I would love to hide this post, as a passionate supporter of vaccination, who LOATHES the anti-vaccine movement - but I don't think it reaches the standard of hideability. The poster is, at least explicitly, not *advocating* a 'survival of the fittest' approach.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No it is not offensive, it is an opinion.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Kurska]

117. Thank you for your service in keeping that kind of insanity off DU.

[Tumbulu]

79. Your dictatorial attitude is an absolute turn off

And the name calling would just make most anyone ignore your points.

The challenge is to communicate with people, not bully or boss them. This is what you are doing on he this site in all discussions re vaccination. It does not help, it hinders understanding.

If you want to see change, I'd suggest you learn some new communication skills on the subject.

[Ms. Toad]

84. Thank you.

That is the most significant point I have been trying to get across.

[Kurska]

85. We're seeing previously eliminated diseases spread like wildfire.

Innocent people who can't get a needed vaccine, because of legit medical problems are dying because IDIOTS, yes idiots, are not vaccinating their children. Massive misinformation is being spread about life saving medical treatments that have massively driven down infant morality.

You lose the right to be respectfully engaged with in conversation when your crazed bs starts killing people.

[Tumbulu]

92. You lose your audience when you write crazed posts

No one can respect the rude things that you are posting.

If your goal is to insult and turn off, you have achieved it. If your goal is to get everyone over 6 months of age to get the TDap, then you should use a different approach.

Yours current approach is guaranteed to fail.

[Kurska]

94. People dying from anti-vax BS isn't crazed it is fact.

You can't deal with the consequences of such a position, don't advocate for it. Oh but you're right I am being oh so horribly offensive to those poor innocent souls who simply want to leave their children vulnerable to polio. It so really so bad if you make your child an infection vector for a crippling and life threatening disease?

[Tumbulu]

99. No, your posts are crazed

And the effect it has is to turn off people to any message that you are trying to communicate.

And you right away accuse anyone who even engages with you of being anti- vac. Why would you assume such a thing?

I am anti rude.

You want people to stop dying of these diseases? Well you better do a better job of communicating, and not dictating and name calling. Want to protect your infants? stop taking them out in public where all sorts of people ( the ones that you like to call idiots) can expose them to things they have not developed immunity against yet.

The rude binary verbal attacks only turn a person off, especially an intelligent person.

[Kurska]

101. Well lets see

"And you right away accuse anyone who even engages with you of being anti- vac. Why would you assume such a thing? "

The first one immediately started posting anti-vax links as soon as they could and you have been cheering him/her on all thread.

Yeah, I wonder.

[Tumbulu]

104. Again, I repeat, if you cannot stop the name calling and offensive language

You will persuade no one. But maybe your entire point is to vent.

[Kurska]

105. So would you give your child all the recommended vaccinations if you had one?

You seem so offended that you're getting lumped in with them, despite your cheering on someone spewing that exact nonsense in this thread. So consider me deathly curious.

[proverbialwisdom]

196. Not familiar with the promising comprehensive approach described in the Mumper study? Check it out.

http://najms.net/wp-content/uploads/v06i03.pdf#page=34

North American Journal of Medicine and Science
Vol. 6, Issue 3
July 2013

ADVANCES IN AUTISM 2013
A Special Issue of NAJMS

http://najms.net/wp-content/uploads/v06i03.pdf#page=34

[img][/img]

Editors-in-Chief: Xuejun Kong, MD
Guest Editor: Christopher J. McDougle, MD ( http://www.massgeneral.org/about/pressrelease.aspx?id=1402 )
Published: Boston, MA, USA
Distribute: Worldwide


Editors-in-Chief
Xuejun Kong, MD Harvard Medical School, Boston

Advisory Editors
Richard E. Frye, MD, PhD University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
John Halamka, MD Harvard Medical School, Boston
Ursula Kaiser, MD Harvard Medical School, Boston
Kenneth K. Kidd, PhD Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven
John Tomaszewski, MD State University of New York, Buffalo

Associate Editors
Mitchell Albert, PhD University of Massachusetts, Worcester
Robit Arora, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI, FACP Chicago Medical School, North Chicago
Frank Chen, MD, PhD State University of New York, Buffalo
Jason Chen, PhD University of Massachusetts, Worcester
Ke-Qin Hu, MD University of California, Irvine
Edmond Kabagambe, DVM, PhD University of Alabama, Birmingham
Tamara Kalir, MD, PhD Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York
David Lee, PhD Harvard Medical School, Boston
Calvin Pan, MD Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York
Yiqing Song, MD, ScD Harvard Medical School, Boston
George C. Tsokos, MD Harvard Medical School, Boston

Specialty Editors
See PDF

OVERVIEW: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101672031

Strategies Utilized at Advocates for Children that Might Impact Autism Prevention

1) Minimizing environmental toxicant exposures...
2) Maximizing breastfeeding prevalence...
3) Recommending probiotics...
4) Nutritional counseling...
5) Antibiotic stewardship...
6) Minimizing use of acetaminophen...
7) Allowing/implementing a modified vaccine schedule

[proverbialwisdom]

236. Top people HERE. (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

130. If the audience comes into these threads suggesting "people should just keep their newborns at home

instead", immediately, desperately flailing around for some justification for anti-vax silliness, then the audience is quite likely "lost" no matter what he says.

Rational medical experts have already explained this, patiently and repeatedly. Anyone who doesn't get it, still, is willfully not listening and in denial.

[JTFrog]

173. "then the audience is quite likely "lost" no matter what he says."

Glad to see you get this concept. I wasn't sure some folks here actually understood what it was like to get the tone argument thrown in their faces.

[Warren DeMontague]

182. well, facts is facts.

deliberately not vaccinating for fully preventable diseases = deaths that fully could have been prevented. There is a linear- and fairly easily correlated- relationship.

It's not really a point of subjective debate, unlike other debates which may or may not be subjective.

...the manner of presentation does not inherently validate or invalidate the core proposition, and neither does the rebuttal. As for understanding 'what it is like', I suspect the OP honestly doesn't care if his manner of presentation pisses off people who refuse to vaccinate.

[JTFrog]

183. Lol.

"unlike other debates which may or may not be subjective".

So tone be damned if it's your pet issue, but tone should be considered when it comes to other posters and issues they are passionate about.

Just seems like a bunch of twisted logic to me. Not that I really expected any different. As for honestly not caring if the manner of presentation pisses people off... trust me, we've found some common ground.

I just hope I don't see some of the same folks using the tone argument again against others. That would appear rather hypocritical.

[Warren DeMontague]

199. No, it has nothing to do with pet issues, it has to do with objective reality.

And if someone is abrasive across-the-board, continually getting into fights over ludicrously silly things (like, say, spiderwoman's butt to toss out a randomly picked example) and others point that out, it's a bit specious to go "tone argument!"

But that said, I don't think I'm personally someone who tosses the "tone argument" bit around a lot.

[JTFrog]

200. It's impossible to take you seriously anymore. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

203. I can live with that.

Just don't anger the bonuskungen.

[Kurska]

190. Bingo

Anyone refusing to vaccinate their children isn't going to have their mind changed by a discussion forum post. They have already been destroyed by the medical misinformation permeating the internet.

What we need to do is build a loud and vocal societal consensus that these people are crazy, not silently tolerate it and respect differences of opinions, because that imbues these points with validity they don't deserve. They need to be isolated, shamed and laughed at by everyone. "I don't vaccinate my children" needs to be met with the same kinds of confused and unhappy stares that "Diseases are generally caused by demons" would illicit.

[JTFrog]

202. I feel the same way about misogynists.

What we need to do is build a loud and vocal societal consensus that these people are crazy, not silently tolerate it and respect differences of opinions, because that imbues these points with validity they don't deserve. They need to be isolated, shamed and laughed at by everyone.

Silence is deadly.

[Bettie]

152. The only communication that the anti-vaccination crowd would accept

Is "you are right...vaccines ARE the cause of everything".

So, what is the point of walking on eggshells there?

[GoneOffShore]

225. Exactly - No more eggshell walking to soothe the stupid.

[Tumbulu]

78. So well stated, it is a real problem on is site

Thank you!

[randome]

159. So what are these other aspects you keep talking about?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ms. Toad]

170. The current trend in medical thinking - particularly among rare diseases

is that medicine will become more and more individualized as we move forward.

We already know that vaccines are not universally safe or effective - but we don't have good predictive tools for the small group who should not have vaccines until after the harm is done. Ultimately we will, and there will be an individualized assessment of the vaccine regime for individuals who are likely to be at risk for vaccine harm. But until we have good predictive tools, parents of children whose general characteristics make it likely they are at risk are not being irresponsible (idiotic, negligent, lunatics)when they evaluate the science and what limited evidence is currently available and choose to reject all, or some,vaccines.

Children with one or more autoimmune diseases (or with a strong family history of autoimmune vaccines) fall into this category. The currently accepted disease etiology for most autoimmune disorders is genetic predisposition + environmental trigger. Adjuvants are added to vaccines for the express purpose of strengthening the immune response to increase the body's ability to create immunity. Unfortunately, when a body already has an overactive immune system that doesn't recognize the boundaries between self and other, artificially kicking the immune system into high gear is not necessarily a good thing. That is a concern I have had for years and, more recently, it is being documented in the medical literature.

But my larger point is that this is one situation I am aware of, in which parents have responsibly evaluated scientific theory, and available research, and have reached a medically supportable conclusion that for their child the standard vaccination regime carries more risk than benefit. My child has had most of her vaccines - but has skipped those for diseases that carry minimal risk - or were intended to protect children in situations she was never in.

I won't presume to judge that our family's situation is the only exception to the rule that children should be vaccinated - because I don't know all of the reasons that vaccination might not be appropriate. What I do know is that name calling and insisting that there is only one right way is not helpful.

[Drahthaardogs]

64. the autism link was proven to be fudged research

It was bullshit and has been removed. I am a toxicologist and epidemiology is part of my job. I vaccinate my kids.

[Ms. Toad]

65. Did I say ANYTHNG about autism? n/t

[Drahthaardogs]

209. YES

You sure did

[Ms. Toad]

227. Only in the same way I used the word to respond to you -

To tell both of you to stop assuming that everyone who raises concerns about vaccines is concerned about autism.

If I don't express concern about autism as an issue, don't assume that is a concern of mine and tell me an idiot because of a false assumption you have made about my concerns.

[Kurska]

67. If you don't vaccinate your child you are being negligent.

Bottom
line

[Ms. Toad]

72. More binary thinking - and name calling. n/t

[Kurska]

75. The world isn't flat either, demons don't cause illnesses and vaccines are safe.

Sorry for the binary thinking.

[Ms. Toad]

83. That kinda proves my point.

Vaccines are the best defense we have against infectious diseases; however, no vaccine is 100% safe or effective. Differences in the way individual immune systems react to a vaccine account for rare occasions when people are not protected following immunization or when they experience side effects.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccine_monitoring/history.html

When you insist that people are negligent, or lunatics, or idiots if they don't vaccinate, you are insisting on a binary which does not match the reality that no vaccine is 100% safe or effective.

[Kurska]

87. No medical treatment is 100% safe or effective.

You know what isn't 100% safe or effective. When medicine says safe, it means safe for 99.999999999% of people. It is hilarious you would quote the CDC when their recommendation is exactly the one I've given in this thread and the one you have found so offensive.

Smallpox or polio isn't 100% safe, which is what is going to start ravaging our nation if we stop vaccinating people.

I'm glad you're finally showing your true colors and revealing yourself as an anti-vaxxer. The "you need to show concern and respect for the other side of the debate" was so transparent of an act. You're totally not against vaccines, you just have a plethora of cherry picked studies that fly in the face of massive and overwhelming scientific consensus.

[3catwoman3]

155. Your point about no medical regimen being risk free...

...is important. I am always mindful that every prescription I write comes with a potentially fatal risk. A child who has tolerated an antibiotic well on previous occasions could have an anaphylactic reaction the next time.

It intrigues me that parents will be upset with me for not prescribing an antibiotic when they think the child needs one but my findings on physical exam do not support their desire. "What's the harm with a little Amoxicillin?" is the question I've been asked many times. I have a list of good answers to that question, especially if an antibiotic is being requested by phone without me being able to examine the child.

Perceived risk is a big part of the situation. Strep throat and ear infections are regarded as urgent situations that must be dealt with immediately. Most people raising children today have never seen a child seriously ill with a vaccine preventable illness, so their level of alarm is low. During the first swine flu outbreak just a few years ago, the level of perceived risk was so high that most parents did not even ask about the side effects of the flu vaccine, nor even asked if it had preservatives in it. Perceived risk was through the roof. They just wanted their kids to get the protection, and they were pissed when supples ran out.

[pnwmom]

168. Between 1986 and 2010 nearly $2 billion dollars were awarded to victims of vaccine injuries

by the U.S. Court of Claims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5538329

[SidDithers]

56. Righteous!...

Sid

[alp227]

121. "Anti-vax is the climate change denial of the left."

YES. Some opinions are just too STUPID to reason with. Period. I hate modern people with their anti-intellectual "every opinion goes" attitude that ironically makes 'em feel smart about themselves.

[X_Digger]

46. Do you have productive discussions with idiots who think the world is flat? Demons cause disease?

How about the morons who think that drilling holes in people's skulls will 'release the bad humours'?

When do you stop pandering to dangerous idiotic ideas based on some 'both sides' bullshit?

[Ms. Toad]

58. Those questions are well settled.

There are questions surrounding vaccinations which are not.

The basic mechanisms by which vaccines work are settled. The concept of herd immunity is well understood, and parameters reasonably well defined. In most people, vaccines create immunity (although it is not - as many represent - identical to what happens when you are exposed to the disease). In most people, vaccines are relatively harmless. One of the things that is not well understood yet is the population for which vaccines are not relatively harmless.

The fact that you believe there are only two sides of the vaccine issue is partly the product of individuals like you, and the OP, who stomp your feet and call anyone an idiot or lunatic who has done enough research and independent analysis to understand there is more to the picture - and that they (or their children) are likely to be in the population for which vaccines are not relatively harmless.

Educate yourself, for example, about auto-immune disorders, disease etiology, and the use of adjuvants in vaccines.

That is just the example I am most well versed in, because it is the one that impacts my family.

The use of vaccines is not a binary issue - and your insistence that it is (and that only idiots are on the other side) suggests to me that you are seriously ignorant about the complexity of the human immune system.

[X_Digger]

59. No, they are not 'not settled'. No more than Ken Ham's beliefs about young earth are 'not settled'.

That's it, from now on, anti-vaxers are hereby dubbed the 'Ken Ham Answers in Genesis of Medicine' (KHAIGOM for short.)

Don't vaccinate your kids and you have no legitimate medical reason? You're a fucking idiot, in line with the moron who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

[Ms. Toad]

61. Hmm...did you even bother to educate yourself, as I suggested?

Or did you just follow your knee jerk reaction because I suggested that there might be shades of gray you don't want to see? I expect more of progressive thinkers.

[X_Digger]

62. <-- former nurse, public health worker, oncology unit staff, and medical equipment engineer.

Do feel free to "educate" me.

[Ms. Toad]

70. I pointed you in the direction of one concern.

Your response was to engage in more name calling, without even bothering to respond to it.

Since you can't be bothered to do more than toss insults, here's a couple of articles to get you started:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25042822
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24774584

[X_Digger]

208. Umm, being immunocompromised qualifies as 'legitimate medical reason'.

I stand by my previous statement. No vaccines for your kids and no legitimate medical reason?

You're a fucking moron a la Ken Ham.

[Ms. Toad]

228. An autoimmune diease

is the opposite of immunocompromised, which confirms my suspicion about your level of knowledge about vaccines, and concerns about them.

[Tumbulu]

86. You are a rude poster

And no one with half a brain finds any of this name calling antics of you and the other typical group raging on impressive or informative.

And your attitude is not in sync with progressive or liberal thought which abhors binary thinking.

Your approach is very wrong wing like.

[liberal_at_heart]

66. I agree and am done responding to any of them. I have an autistic son and he has had all of his

vaccinations, but I do understand why some would be hesitant to get their child vaccinated. I am so tired of people thinking they have the right to bully people and call people names. Some people have to call other people names in order to feel better about themselves.

[Ms. Toad]

68. Agreed.

My issue is with auto-immune disorders - via a mechanism I suggested before there was any scientific literature I was aware of, but for which there is now a growing body of research.

The current thinking is that auto-immune disorders are manifested because of a combination of genetic predisposition + environmental trigger. Adjuvants are intentionally added to most vaccines in order to provoke a stronger immune response in order to create more effective/longer lasting immunity to the disease. In someone with a normal immune system this is generally not a problem. In someone with a genetic predisposition to one or more autoimmune disorders, the deliberate beefing up of an already overactive immune response can be the environmental trigger that precipitates disease activity.

But even though it is an area in which there is a sound theory and a growing body of evidence, it is probably not enough yet to convince those who believe anyone who questions the current vaccine regime is a lunatic anti-science whack job. And, beyond that, we are not yet able to sort out those predisposed to auto-immune disorders prior to vaccination (aside from familial diseases - which is, at least, a place to start).

Anyone with experience with an autoimmune disorder knows how costly (emotionally, physically, and in many other ways) they can be - as well as how little solid evidence there is about much of anything associated with autoimmune disorders. The diseases are often devastating - and medical decisions often have to be based less than a satisfying quantity of evidence. Vaccines are no exception.

Our daughter is vaccinated against most things, but not against a few of the things which are less deadly, and not against things which her exposure risk was minimal (things primarily associated with very early day care - for example).

[FlaGranny]

147. I grew up in polio times.

I can't tell you the fear I had as a child and my parents also. We lived in fear in those years, afraid to go out in public, afraid to go swimming. Afraid of those iron lung machines. I have a friend with post-polio syndrome. She has a shrunken leg and is now in severe pain, many years later. There are thousands like her. They survived but there are severe consequences to live with. I had the childhood diseases before there were vaccines. I nearly died when I was 9 years old. My oldest child nearly died from measles at age 5. Soon after that the vaccines became available and my youngest never had any of those horrible diseases.

My mother nearly died from Spanish flu in the 1912 pandemic. No vaccines back then.

There will be a tiny percentage of children who have reactions to vaccines and some will die. Truth. But, another truth is that chances are good that if no one had vaccinations, those children would have died anyway. Millions of people are alive today (or would have never existed) who would be dead if there were no vaccinations. Many anti-vaccination parents would not be here today without the benefits of vaccination. Those Ebola victims are praying for a vaccination to be developed.

People who are against vaccinations don't understand what life AND DEATH are like without them. It's a shame they do not have the experience we older people have with the diseases they chance their children becoming infected with.

[Lee-Lee]

176. People who ignore widespread scientific evidence deserve mockery

Be they anti-vaxxers or the fundamentalist Christians who insist the world is just 5000 years old.

[Tumbulu]

77. Excellent point

This has been a problem on DU for at least 6 years now and running. Further polarization is detrimental to all of us.

[Barack_America]

140. Actually, it is binary.

Given the entirety of the evidence is on one side. If there were one shred of real, non-anecdotal evidence to support your position, you would have an argument. But there is not, so the position becomes:

Rational vs. irrational
Logical vs. illogical

Binary.

[Ms. Toad]

161. First of all - it is not a side - it is a point on a continuum -

That's sort of the point of not being binary. There are not two, but many positions.

As for a shred of evidence:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24774584
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24607449
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24238833
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23902317

And that's only the particular aspect I've been concerned about before the first scientific article was written on on it, because I understand how vaccines work - and I understand (as well as can be understood at this point) the disease etiology for autoimmune disorders and put two and two together before the research into it even started.

While most people should get the full range of vaccines, there are some who should not - or should selectively vaccinate based on individualized risk balancing. Those who insist it is binary, rather than a continuum should return to your caves - since you are rejecting the reality that medical knowledge is continually growing. And, when it grows, those in the trenches often have enough information to responsibly act on that information before it is absolutely confirmed by research - because waiting for absolute confirmation risks the lives of real children, as anyone caring for a child with a rare disease knows.

[Barack_America]

215. As an MD and a PhD, those "studies" are incredibly weak...

...and suspicious. I say "studies" because most appear to be nothing more than case studies providing weak correlation to some sort of vaccine. Three patients in that so-called POF study? Please. Sjogren's disease caused by vaccines? Why don't you go ahead and look up the incidence of that disease in children. He should just go ahead and link Islamic extremism with vaccinations in the mid-east. Why not?

This Schoenfeld guy is quite a bit of work. It is beyond me why any of these "studies" ended up in peer-review journals.

[GoneOffShore]

226. I knew you'd get crickets on that.

[pnwmom]

141. As usual, yours is a calm and reasonable voice.

Too bad everyone here isn't like you.

[Ms. Toad]

172. Thanks. n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

165. with you Ms. Toad

I support parents and caretakers and individuals doing their own research, asking questions. We on the left used to praise free and independent thinking, I like to think some of us still do. We consented to vaccination for our child, for all standard vacc's except Hep-B, my wifes and my research uncovered enough data that made us uncomfortable, having our baby girl get it at such a young age. We may consider it at some other time.

[Ms. Toad]

171. Hep B is one we delayed.

Our daughter may have had it as an adult (she had some hepatitis vaccines as a late teen - because the balance of risks changed).

The thinking on the left, in a lot of areas recently, has gotten nearly as rigid as the thinking on the right. This is one of those areas and - pretty obviously - I find it really offensive.

[astral]

179. thank you. I must speak now.

if a 70ish year old in good health gets a flu shot, the next day is sick with bronchitis, five days later paralyzed on one side, it it a coincidence? doctor hollered it can't be from the shot because the symptoms would be completely different. so they refused to even see if they needed to treat for that. there was no recovery. it is my family and I will cry for the rest of my life whenever I think about it which is practically every day. I don't care to discuss it much here bc of all the rabid people who don't allow there to be another side of the story. julienne barre syndrome however you spell it matched the symptoms and it was treatable. it just tears my guts out to know I could not make the doctors do the right thing. I won't be going on with any arguing about it because it is hard to talk about and I don't particularly want anyone to know all about my personal life. prior to this, yes I was just opposed to shots but now I know firsthand it is not worth the risk for me. I don't get the flu and don't want to make anyone else sick but getting the shot and risk ruining my life a second time will not be an option for me. btw if you feel tingly and weird like you had a mini stroke after a flu shot, not necessarily the same day, I have also heard that story before, you probably were lucky it wasn't worse.

[Ms. Toad]

181. Thank you for sharing -

For anyone who doesn't know, here (generally) is what you are talking about: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm

One of the non-innocuous side effects of the flu vaccine - in some vaccines and some people.

The reality is that we don't know what we don't know. But what we do know is that there are some people for whom the vaccine is more dangerous than the illness it is used to prevent. We don't yet know how to sort that out well. And until we do, this "you must follow the standard regimen, no exceptions, and if you don't you are a lunatic idiot committing negligence" does not serve the populations likely to be harmed by that regimen (or by particular vaccines within the regimen). All the foot stomping in the world that there is only one responsible position on vaccinations does not make it so for the individual at risk from both the vaccines and the diseases they seek to prevent.

[Live and Learn]

37. Is the name calling necessary?

I agree with the premise of the post but abhor name calling.

[Kurska]

106. Sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade n/t

[Live and Learn]

122. You have a much better chance of getting your point across better

and being taken seriously when you do it without name calling. Surely you can understand the desperation these parents feel in finding an answer. Calling them idiots is neither accurate or helpful.

[Kurska]

123. There is a plethora of valid scientific literature.

And an overwhelming scientific consensus that you could be informed of via a visit to any doctor in this country.

It is not a lack of information, it is a willingness to believe or inability to screen out bad information. If not the individual people, we need to start shaming and shunning the spreaders of this deadly misinformation before we lose more innocent people.

[Live and Learn]

124. Sorry, shaming and shunning are deplorable tactics. nt

[Kurska]

191. Murder by means of bad information ought to be shame-able. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

157. +1.

Exactly. It might feel fun to call people names, but it doesn't actually do anything to achieve the desired goal. It's like 'fat shaming'. Calling people 'fat' or making fun of them does not make them skinny, even if there are reams of scientific studies about the damage to the body caused by obesity. Being supportive and teaching people to help themselves has a far better chance of achieving the goal. Whether that goal is an individual losing weight, or parents vaccinating their kids.

[Lost In America]

51. For the greater good, let them die.

This was once said in the initial stages of AIDS.

Let their ignorance pay the price.

[Kurska]

52. If only that were the case.

Immuno-compromised individuals, babies who can't get vaccines yet and innocent spawns of these fools will carry the burden for the idiocy of anti-vaxxers. Especially since anti-vaxxers tend to have had their shots, because their parents were far more responsible parents than they are.

[Tumbulu]

89. Name calling like you persist in only erodes your case

Your OP and responses are quite toxic and disruptive on any discussion board, let alone a liberal one

[Kurska]

91. Anti-vaxxers are killing people

Sorry, you find that truth so offensive. It is killing people, people have died, more people are dying and far more people will die if we don't stamp this craziness out.

http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

[Tumbulu]

93. And you think name calling is going to persuade anyone?

Have you taken any courses in this area? Even a little kid learns that name calling is a big fail.

[Kurska]

95. Killing

people

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but they are.

Killing
people.

Death, dying, removed from this planet by anti-science idiocy.

But you're totally right, I'm just being ever so rude about it aren't I?

[beam me up scottie]

90. I regret that I only have one rec to give.

Someone had to say it, and you did it magnificently!

[Tumbulu]

96. Your rude responses for the past 6+ years have not been helpful either

The rude DU group wins a great big F in this area.

You all need to take some courses in communication.

The name calling and shaming only turns people off to any idea you are trying to present.

[Scootaloo]

120. This is a poor argument

The science on the subject is well-documented. Vaccines are a major, incredible boost to disease prevention. A hundreds and fifty years of practice and documentation. Numerous viral diseases driven almost to eradication. even animals are benefiting - rabies, rinderpest, anthrax, so many others are fading away from vaccinated populations because vaccines work.

if you have decided to reject documented reality, spurned reams of evidence and proofs and obvious results, well... no amount of mollycoddling, sugar-coating, and ass-kissing is going to bring you over to the side of reality. Why waste time attempting it? You can accept reality or you can be called a dumbass for rejecting it.

[beam me up scottie]

125. Oh brother. You rudely respond to my post to accuse me of being rude.

This is what I'd expect from someone who believes scientific facts should be discussed and debated like christians who think evolution is still a "theory".

Not to mention one of the worst hypocrites I've ever met on DU.

Cry me a fucking river.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Oh, and I haven't been rude for 6+ years.

I've been rude to scientific ignoramuses on DU since October of 2004.

If you're going to insult someone at least get your facts straight.

[HuckleB]

220. Pushing anti-science fictions is quite rude, too. And you've done that plenty.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. I'll be the second on that.

For fucking serious.

[beam me up scottie]

126. Can you believe that person thinks I'm rude?

Moi?

I think I'm going to cry, Warren.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. no no no, don't cry.

just, you know, rather than suggest people vaccinate their kids, which is crazy talk--- keep babies in the house and, in fact, separate from the entire rest of humanity (because of course no caregiver should ever have need to leave the house for the first 6 months of a baby's life, everyone has handy childcare to leave their infants with when they take other kids to preschool for drop off and pick up--- and no newborn has siblings who play with other kids who might be sick, either) that's how you 'solve this problem' of newborns dying of entirely preventable diseases.

....because that's what they did in the good old days, before big pharma fucked everything UP, maaaaan!



...

[beam me up scottie]

131. I never realized how insensitive science could be.

I completely understand why some people are so offended by facts, logic and reason.

It's dreadfully unfair of us to exclude the chronically clueless from any and all discussion, of course they should have a say in public health policy.

I'm glad we had this talk.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Science threads on DU are always fun.

I think they're even more fun than they used to be, if such a thing is possible.

[Scootaloo]

119. Kurska, i have this policy...

Where if I bump into a poster who is always wrong about everything - as I generally hold you to be - saying something that I actually agree with... well, our shared position must be the most unimpeachable thing out there.

Either that or my position is completely wrong

But that's not possible.



What I'm saying is, good post, and I agree 100%

[SunSeeker]

127. THANK YOU!! nt

[Veganhealedme]

134. I am a vegan. Mostly raw..

I try to live a chemical-free, naturalistic lifestyle. I avoid artificial flavorings, seasonings, preservatives, scents, chemmed-up soaps, cleaners, toothpastes and deodorants etc.

Yet, I am still pro-vaccine..

Imagine society with epidemics run a muck..
Mumps
Measles
Small pox
Rubella
Tuburculosis
Syphilis(its a penicillin shot, not a vaccine but still..)

just to name a few. Yikes.

Our society would be repeatedly bombarded with deadly epidemics. Small pox can leave its survivors horribly scarred etc.

I'm for societal vaccinations(meaning everyone that is able to be vaccinated,medical exceptions excluded) for these major and potentially pandemic type diseases. Anti-vaxxers are insane.

I am also for safer vaccines and vaccines are safer now than ever before.

[beam me up scottie]

136. Hello Veganhealedme!

Outstanding first post, welcome to DU!

[Veganhealedme]

138. Thanks!

Outstanding welcome message!

[Kurska]

189. I don't eat red meat and many of my friends are vegetarians or vegans.

I agree that nothing about being a vegan needs conflict with modern medical approaches. Way too often I heard "I'm a vegan" used as a reason to not vaccinate, which is just beyond insane.

[JDPriestly]

135. Thank you. We had/have a whooping cough epidemic in California.

My tiny, barely born granddaughter caught it. She was too young to be vaccinated. What a scare. She recovered, but that was entirely unnecessary. Balance the risks against the benefits. The benefits from vaccinations outweigh the risks many times.

I remember the polio epidemic.

I would not want to relive that.

[GoneOffShore]

143. Well done, thanks! And to those who feel you are being rude....

The anti-vax dumb ass crowd just proves that we progressives have idiots amongst us.

And calling out a stupid idea is hardly rude.

[Kurska]

188. Especially when a stupid idea has blood on their hands, such as anti-vaxx.

People have died because of this crap. Calling harmless idiocy stupid might be a little rude. Calling deadly stupidity stupid is an imperative of any decent person.

[blackspade]

144. We have a winner.

[mwooldri]

148. Don't vaccinate... don't go to school.

At least that's the law around here. Of course there's medical and religious exceptions but just being anti vaccine will get your kids excluded from school. This leaves the choice of homeschool but that has its own controversies too.

[HockeyMom]

160. NYC Measles Outbreak

How about airports, employment, etc.? You do know that they traced the above, not to an unvaccinated child in school, but to a 22 year old woman who WAS vaccinated and came back from overseas? You do also know that many of the people who caught measles from her were also vaccinated, including her own family. How could this possibly be? All they could say was that these people were very young or very old and had "compromised immune systems", BUT they were still VACCINATED against Measles. Put doctors at airports,supermarkets, street corners (like they do with those flu shots), acost people and say come get your BOOSTER shots? Apparently, only ONE vax is not good enough!!!!! Need them over and over again?

Did "herd immunity" work in this instance?

[NYC_SKP]

162. Many who disbelieve in vaccines also distrust schools so homeschool.

Those characteristics seem to run together.

The herd immunity, or community immunity rate requires 92% or higher participation to take effect.

http://www.vaccines.gov/basics/protection/

Some communities of like minded parents thus create pockets of high-risk, like Trinity, Humboldt, Sierra, and Yuba counties in California.



http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2014/may/16/vaccine-paranoia-rise-humboldt/

[HockeyMom]

169. So WHY did a vaccinated woman get measles

and spread it to others? What would you propose to do about something like that? Require testing every single year for every person in the US? Again, the vax did not WORK for her, and she spread the measles.

[Sheepshank]

184. It snowed yesterday in Canada...ergo there is no climate change

Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2014, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

you really are trying to prove a stance by pointing out an exception? Did you fail to read up thread where NOTHING is 100% fool proof.

Given your one example, no one should get immunized ever for anything.

I tried to understand you stand through all of the previous posts and tried to give you some wiggle room...even though I did not agree with your stand. But this new line of thought sort of pushed the whole thing into the absured, ands it appears there was a good assumption upthread that it's difficult to have rational discussion with anyone that will not 'see' and instead insists on throwing out red herrings.

[HockeyMom]

192. NYC didn't think was no big deal

This small outbreak. Apparently, they tried enough out of millions of people to track down who caused it. Again, 100% Vaccination isn't going to give you 100% immunity. The only thing in life that is 100% certain is death for every single living being on this earth. People today do not want to accept sickness and death as a fact of life. MEDICINE will prevent it.

[NuclearDem]

193. Combo naturalistic/nirvana fallacy.

[Sheepshank]

194. You're still touting the fallacy that if not 100% effective, it's not worth it al all

that's terrible thinking.

[Kurska]

187. I don't know if I should even waste my time.

But vaccines aren't perfect immunity for any single individual. They work by providing immunity to the group as whole, so that if any single person does get sick they won't come in contact with any more potential people who can act as vectors for the disease spreading. A single breakdown isn't catastrophic as long as they vaccine as a whole is widely used.

[tammywammy]

195. Don't waste your time.

She's anti-vaccine. Since damnit she lived so vaccines are unnecessary...or something stupid like that.

[HockeyMom]

197. My kids lived too

back in the 70s and 80s, without all the VAX available today. Oh, yeah, they suffered miserably with Chicken Pox and because my "QUACK doctor" didn't recommend that new vax then, they are now DOOMED to get Shingles too.

Why are you people so afraid of getting sick, and DYING? As an old woman I just don't get it.

[Lars39]

205. At what age would it have been acceptable for one of your kids to die from a preventable disease?

3 weeks? 2.5 years? How about 14 years old? Or how about 38 years old?

[tammywammy]

206. Are you against all preventative medicine?

Heart medication? Chemo? Insulin? I mean why are they so scared of getting sick and dying? Why have doctors at all really?

[Peacetrain]

158. If a parent refuses to vaccinate a healthy child than it is

than it is on that parents shoulders to keep that child out of school, away from areas such as malls etc to protect those who cannot be vaccinated, or have aged out of their immunizations

[Puzzledtraveller]

166. I have a question.

Is this part of our unofficial platform? I'm being serious.

[Kurska]

186. DU is heavily pro-vaccine. Vaccine truthers do and should have a hard time on this forum.

I think this ought to be a core issue to any scientifically literate person in america, left or right.

[HockeyMom]

198. Do we have a right to our own bodies?

Isn't that a KEY Democratic view, especially for women? What medical science has done is to make YOUR BODY is Everybody's elses HEALTH. You will kill somebody else if you don't follow what they tell you to do. I object to that. All they want to do is make money. How much does all this stupid wellness care cost? THAT is driving up health care costs. Apparently, fearful people just don't get how they are being USED.

[Puzzledtraveller]

207. I contend

that the pro-vacc side purchases their beliefs wholesale, meaning that they are the one who believe exactly what they are told, without question. I do not know anyone who wants to evaluate information for their own decision making who buys the anti-vacc arguments wholesale, completely, without question. In fact, it is the very nature of being skeptic, to question everything. One theory I have is that people are afraid of being labeled anti-science, a curmudgeon. This has them firmly on the side of corporate medicine, Big Pharma, a position I thought we used to rail against.

[FlaGranny]

210. Belief?

Just read a little history of communicable diseases. This isn't a belief. It is historical fact. Look up the death rates from childhood diseases before vaccination.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

"Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 122 000 people died from measles in 2012 – mostly children under the age of five."

[beam me up scottie]

222. Or it could be that the anti-vaccine idiots are actually anti-science idiots.

the pro-vacc side purchases their beliefs wholesale, meaning that they are the one who believe exactly what they are told, without question.

No, it's because those on the "pro-vacc" side have reviewed the information and used their grey matter to come to the only logical conclusion.

Do you question the theory of evolution too?

[Puzzledtraveller]

223. You are so smart, damn, I wish I could have just a snippet of your grey matter.

Please, please Mr. Smarty, please, I am so dumb, I'm just a cave man scared of the sun and moon. You won't change anything, you may impress yourself but you do not impress me. Thank you for playing.

[mountain grammy]

167. Huge rec!

[freebrew]

177. Another problem to describe...

doctors here are vaccinating kids at their(doctors) schedule. If the vaccines aren't given at the 'correct' age per the school system, the kid has to get another one. So, some kids end up with too many vaccinations. While that might not hurt them, who knows? But it's uncalled for, adds more expense to the parents and takes them from their necessary minimum wage job.

I know it doesn't shift the outcome, all kids need these vaccines. This problem needs to be addressed as well.
Doctors need to work within the same systems as the parents. They are supposed to know when these vaccines are to be administered.

I see this every year as parents are forced to re-vaccinate the kids because they missed the 'right' time by a month.

[Bettie]

204. I'm disorganized and never get appointments scheduled on time

And never once have I had to get one of my three kids vaccinated again because the vaccine was given a month early or late.

[freebrew]

230. maybe it's just my district...

I live in MO, pretty stupid politicians here, maybe that's what it is.
I know the district is run by the R's and baptists.

Nuts. Who knows.

[HuckleB]

211. That's not going to happen unless parents fail to have records transferred.

[freebrew]

229. It happens all the time...

doctors either aren't aware of the laws, the parents don't really know them and I'm not sure that the deadlines set by the law affect the vaccination's effectiveness. But the school personnel must follow strict rules set by the state.

If the child is vaccinated a week too early, the school rules make the parents have it done again.
It's insane. But it happens in my district every year.

[HuckleB]

231. No, it doesn't.

Clinics are very careful about these things. Please don't push fictions on the Internet. Thank you.

[freebrew]

232. Okay,

I'll just let you live in your perfect world where doctors and clinics never screw up.

[HuckleB]

233. "All the time." Vs. "Never."

Your perception of the world is a bit off. It has happened, but it's not some frequent concern as you have tried to portray it.

Intellectual honesty in discussion is helpful. Please utilize it next time. Thank you.