16 years ago, a doctor published a study

[CMdeux]

SO is this.


http://www.encephalitis.info/images/iPdf/Resources/FactSheets/fs043MeaslesMumps.pdf

But well worth a read.

You know who one of the most tireless, and vocal celebrity advocates of childhood vaccination was within the past 50 years? 

Here's a hint-- the irony means you'll never think about James and the Giant Peach without thinking about Disneyland and measles.  I can almost guarantee it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Roald Dahl.  Seriously-- read that pdf.  And share it.  Please.

[hedgehog]

I just came across this.  Nothing graphic, but some of the numbers are surprising, even for those of us who are vehemently pro-vaccine.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2BKsCk/brainz.org/great-vaccination-debate/?ref_src=email

[CMdeux]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/28/health/measles-antivaxxers/


I just keep thinking-- what if this child's parents had unsalaried, minimum-wage jobs??

What then?

What if they didn't have the means to turn their daughter over to a trusted friend/family member?  What then?

I mean, a 28 day quarantine could be devastating for many families.  I think, quite honestly, that Jennifer Simon is putting it far more politely than I would.

The other thing-- I realize that she is catching some heat in the media because she was so worried about their healthy 6m old catching measles, but really?  Even "uncomplicated" measles in a child this age?  That flirts with about a 1:3500 chance of of a later neurological complication that can neither be prevented nor cured-- and is invariably fatal.  It's SSPE, and it is far more common in children who catch measles under 2 years of age.  It also lurks for as long as 8-10 years before killing in a matter of weeks or months.  Think mad cow and you've got some idea what a gruesome thing that is.

Truly, this ties into food allergy and the psychology/social dynamics of accommodation--

it's wrong to make choices that impact* people who don't GET A CHOICE.

* and by impact, here, I mean have potentially life-altering or life-ending consequences for them.



More along those lines-- and my hat tip to my (CA) friend who had a comment called out by the NYT, for pointing my attention to this article in the first place:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/us/father-of-boy-with-leukemia-asks-california-school-officials-to-bar-unvaccinated-students.html

[hedgehog]

 

[SilverLining]

I typed up a big response, then lost it.

Found this article, which actually says what I expected would happen IS happening.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/anti-vaccine-parents-dropped-by-some-u-s-doctors-1.2937681?cmp=rss

[lakeswimr]

Kind of side topic.  I see the media dismissing worries about vaccines as worries about them causing autism.  They keep repeating that vaccines do not cause autism, which I think is good in case there are some who still think that.  But they are not addressing the main concerns of people who do not vaccinate which are that vaccines can cause side effects.  I have seen it addressed only very briefly in one story in a way that would not satisfy someone who is concerned about vaccine side effects.  So, I see a big disconnect in what I hear from my friends who do not vaccinate or selectively vaccinate and what those who support vaccines fully and the media is saying.  If the media wants to convince people to vaccinate fully they should address those concerns better. 

I also think another big concern that has not been addressed is a distrust of big-pharma and what the government tells people by many anti-vaxers.  Many say that there is $ involved and that is what is behind the push to vax. 

Another common thing I hear among people who don't vax is the idea that if vaccines do what they are supposed to do, then what is the worry if they don't vaccinate their children.  I saw one report on the news that addressed that well but most are not talking about it.

[SilverLining]

The media don't really investigate or think any more. They pretty much act like bloggers. Restate whatever everyone else already said, and add a shocking headline.

[LinksEtc]

Tweeted by @Atul_Gawande


"I Don’t Want to Be Right"
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right

The first leaflet—focussed on a lack of evidence connecting vaccines and autism—seemed to reduce misperceptions about the link, but it did nothing to affect intentions to vaccinate. It even decreased intent among parents who held the most negative attitudes toward vaccines, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect. The other two interventions fared even worse: the images of sick children increased the belief that vaccines cause autism, while the dramatic narrative somehow managed to increase beliefs about the dangers of vaccines. “It’s depressing,” Nyhan said. “We were definitely depressed,” he repeated, after a pause.

----------------------------------------


Tweeted by @eliza68


"Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1

Members of the anti-vaccine movement said the public backlash had terrified many parents. “People are now afraid they’re going to be jailed,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center, a clearinghouse for resisters. “I can’t believe what I’m seeing. It’s gotten so out of hand, and it’s gotten so vicious.”

----------------------------------------


Tweeted by @skepticonn

"Arizona measles exposure worries parents of at-risk kids"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/health/arizona-measles-vaccination-debate/index.html

Dr. Jack Wolfson

"It's not my responsibility to inject my child with chemicals in order for [a child like Maggie] to be supposedly healthy," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, it's very likely that her leukemia is from vaccinations in the first place."

 


----------------------------------------


Tweeted by @greenbergepi

"The biggest myth about vaccine deniers: That they’re all a bunch of hippie liberals"
http://linkis.com/washingtonpost.com/IgDbU

Here’s the thing, though: We shouldn’t leap from this evidence to the assumption that refusing vaccinations is a special phenomenon driven by the ideology of the political left. There are also religious groups with low vaccination rates that have seen measles outbreaks, for instance, such as the Amish in Ohio and Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn – not groups that you could reasonably call “left wing.” And then, there’s rejection of the HPV vaccine in particular, which tends to be associated with the religious right.

[guess]

Not for not vaccinating their children but for actions that intentionally proliferate the spread of a disease like using USPS to deliver tainted items for the purpose of intentionally infecting their child with the wild virus in lieu of attenuated vaccine.  That element of pox parties or mailing tainted items as the alternative - that has nothing to do with refusing a vaccination.  Not all do this but it is an associated practice that the term "alternatives" may be code for. 

As an aside the comments the parents who know nothing about Autism make are extremely ignorant for a population who prides themselves on how much more they supposedly know than the rest of us sheeple.

[CMdeux]

Kind of side topic.  I see the media dismissing worries about vaccines as worries about them causing autism.  They keep repeating that vaccines do not cause autism, which I think is good in case there are some who still think that.  But they are not addressing the main concerns of people who do not vaccinate which are that vaccines can cause side effects.  I have seen it addressed only very briefly in one story in a way that would not satisfy someone who is concerned about vaccine side effects.  So, I see a big disconnect in what I hear from my friends who do not vaccinate or selectively vaccinate and what those who support vaccines fully and the media is saying.  If the media wants to convince people to vaccinate fully they should address those concerns better. 

I also think another big concern that has not been addressed is a distrust of big-pharma and what the government tells people by many anti-vaxers.  Many say that there is $ involved and that is what is behind the push to vax. 

Another common thing I hear among people who don't vax is the idea that if vaccines do what they are supposed to do, then what is the worry if they don't vaccinate their children.  I saw one report on the news that addressed that well but most are not talking about it.

Those things have been addressed, though-- and no, not necessarily by the media (though it is there if one looks), but by the CDC, by WHO, by the AAP, etc. etc.

This is surprisingly accurate, actually--

http://groundedparents.com/2015/01/24/9-things-i-wish-the-anti-vaccine-parents-would-admit/

It addresses all of those points.  Concisely.  The risk of measles even in THIS country is far in excess of the risks of vaccination for it.  By an order of magnitude.  I realize that many Americans are stunningly bad at mathematics, and even worse at understanding statistics, but this is kind of incomprehensible to me personally. 



So why are the parents of vaccinated children correct to be concerned?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/hot-zone-schools-and-children-at-risk-shedding-light-on-outbreak-prone-schools/


I also saw just yesterday that a news report from the state of California termed the 50% increase in cases in just ONE WEEK to be "shocking."

Well, it's disheartening.  Worrisome, yes.  Shocking?  Hardly.    This is what undervaccination looks like in a disease with this kind of ROI.  SHOCKING it is not.  It's statistics and epidemiology in action.  Consider it an object lesson-- because this is nothing compared to what a vaccination rate under 80% would look like.  For that, check out the Marshall Islands in 2003.

The relative risks of vaccination for 99.9% of the population are simply WAY, WAY lower than they are for-- drinking a glass of water, riding a city bus, or walking out the front door in springtime. 


Also-- vaccines are not a money-maker for the pharmaceutical industry.  They lose money making and distributing them.  Truly.  Thank you, Viagra, for paying for flu vaccine production. 

Frankly, I am happy that some physicians are booting parents with "philosophical" exemptions out of their pediatrics practices.  They SHOULD.  Because they know that those people pose a risk to the most vulnerable of their patients, and knowing-- I'd consider it unethical.  What I really think ought to happen here is that parents of those vulnerable children ought to start asking HARD questions of those in their lives-- pediatricians, schools, etc. and start voting with their feet and wallets.  Because if one parent in fifteen in a pediatrics practice is anti-vax, then the other 14 might want to consider what THEY are adopting as a personal risk by hanging out there.

If people deliberately choose to keep a child unvaccinated, that IS their choice.  Granted.  But no way do I think that they are given a pass for the consequences of that choice.  NO way.  If your unvaccinated child infects others, that's ON YOU.  You get a pass if your child is unable to be given vaccine-conferred immunity.  In that case, however, you're moving into a "vulnerable population" position where you don't HAVE choices about your risks.  Others are doing the choosing FOR you. 

Sound familiar?  Yeah-- I would think that as a population, FA parents in particular ought to have a great framework for understanding the nature of such callous indifference and its consequences for others who are already vulnerable.  Is it right for one parent to decide that not sending an allergen is an infringement upon his/her "rights?" Even when that makes little difference either way to most of the population (vaccinated children) and can have life-or-death consequences for ONE of those other classmates (the allergic child)? 

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the prominent anti-vax loudmouths who are now whining that public opinion has turned against them.  I say-- good. It's about time that everyone pointed out that the Emperor is buck naked.

Also-- can we quit throwing scarce research dollars down a sucking black hole that most people who understood the basic hypothesis never seriously thought would pan out in the first place??  And maybe-- just maybe-- start investing that money in ways that will actually HELP people?  You know, science involves-- before anything else-- a willingness to accept "no" for an answer, no matter how much you hoped that it would be "yes" in some way.  Anti-vax true believers really flunk the basic test there.    Also-- anecdote is not data, no matter how much people rely upon it. 

The problem with "educating" and dispelling anti-vax mythology rather than SHAMING and OSTRACISING?  It does. not. work.    That is a nearly insurmountable obstacle as long as people like that have a "choice" that impacts public health.  KWIM?  Frankly, I'm okay with shaming them if that's what it takes.  I'm okay with it because others kids' lives are at stake.  Other families' entire lifestyles are at stake.  I see clear, clear parallels with people who flout FA restrictions out of sheer ignorance.

Seriously consider the impact to a low-income family to have some upper-middle-class nutter expose their infant to Measles at Costco tomorrow morning.  SERIOUSLY think about it.  Which one of those working parents gets to stay at home for the 21 day quarantine that follows, hmm?  Who will be paying for their child's hospital stay when the child contracts pneumonia?  All because someone else exercised the "choice" to keep their own child vaccine-free.  This could WIPE OUT many families financially-- even if they never contract the illness.  It would wipe out many MORE of them if they do and require hospital care (and about 25% of the cases so far have required it).

I'm outraged that there are wacko media-jockey types who are still calling this "no big deal" or "just a rash."  I'm even MORE outraged that the media is giving those blowhards a platform to spout such nonsense.  That is simply unconscionable.  An infant's risk of death from measles is about 1:1000, and the risk of permanent injury is far, far higher than that.  That is WITH good medical care.  Those are simply what the numbers very baldly state.

[CMdeux]

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=193407

Interesting:

Schools with pertussis outbreaks had more exemptors (mean, 4.3% of students) than schools without outbreaks (1.5% of students; P = .001). At least 11% of vaccinated children in measles outbreaks acquired infection through contact with an exemptor.

So yeah-- the "personal choices" of those who eschew vaccination for their OWN children do impact risk for those who are not making those choices.

I think that makes it everyone's business whether or not some parents choose personal belief exemptions.

[lakeswimr]

Thanks for the replies.

I have been thinking this is like FAs where some people feel their freedom is being trampled by the needs of others.  It is very similar in that regard.  I agree.

I do find this outbreak surprising because I didn't realize some areas had such low vaccination rates.  Some places have under 50%.  One school had something like 20%. 

I did not know vaccines were not a money maker.  That would be a good message to get out to the public.  A good # of people do feel that big pharma is pushing fear of the flu each year to make $ off the flu vax. 

You are right about the low income families if someone gets the measles.  How could they take that much time off from work? 

I admittedly am not a TV person so I'm sure I'm missing some of the response but on the internet what I'm seeing is the media nearly 100% pro vax and pushing them hard.  Any time given to anti-vax positions is overshadowed by a pro-vax doctor or someone along with the news casters themselves pushing hard for vaxing. 

I think that if someone wants to get people who are not vaxing to vax, addressing their concerns in a convincing way with facts would go a long way.  Their concerns tend to be vaccine safety, that big pharma is making $ off all this, the other things in vaccines and their toxicity/safety, that they don't think the government always tells the truth, etc.  Shaming might work on some but I don't think it is going to do a thing for those who are already convinced or who have serious concerns about the above.

When I was pregnant I read up on vaccines and expected to be convinced they were not safe but the more I read the more I felt vaccination was important and that the risks of vaccines were less than the risks of the diseases themselves.  The things I read that people recommended me for the most part fell into two groups.  The anti vax stuff had mostly anecdotal stories.  I found most of these books terribly biased and unconvincing, although some of what was in them did make me feel concerned.  The pro vax books were even more simplistic in a way and basically said, "vaxes are safe.  Doctors know best.  Just do it."  I think people who tend to question things would tend to be turned off by the pro vax books because of their oversimplification of things.   Back then the Wakefield study was not yet debunked.  I knew people who claimed vaccines made their kids autistic, that before the vaccine their kid was normal and after they were never the same again, never talked again.  One person I knew from when I was a child and my parents always told me that it was because of a vaccine this happened to my dad's friend's child.  For me it was an issue to read about before deciding because I realized I didn't know much about it.   

While I was reading up on this topic, I found was people talked about 'researching vaccines' and 'researching which vaccines to give their kid' and this really seemed to me to amount to reading books (many written by actual MDs) that gave the impression a person was actually considering the pros and cons of each vaccine individually but came out with the same conclusion on nearly all or all vaccines--better not give it (or get it), almost entirely or entirely based on case studies.  This is not actual 'research' (I 100% agree with what you wrote about research somewhere in this or the other thread recently.)  For me this was a big turn off and I ended up on the CDC site and etc.  In the end I felt the risks of diseases outweighed the risks of vaccines and that playing our part in herd immunity was important, but honestly, that info was not so easy for me to see when I started reading because of all the many different things written on the topic.  I think if the pro vax material I had read had better addressed those two points in more depth with facts it would have been more convincing to me sooner and I would have spent a lot less time reading on this topic.  The pro vax books did not go into depth and so to me they did not make it clear that vaxing had less risks than not vaxing. 

Also, there is a big belief that these diseases are harmless for most people, esp if they are healthy.  That was not that well addressed in the pro vax material I read.

In the process of all this I talked with people who do and people who don't vaccinate.  For the most part those who vaccinate never questioned whether or not to vaccinate and had little reason for why they did beyond that they trust their doctors.  Most were not very convincing to me as to why I should vaccinate.  Those who did not vaccinate or who delayed or selectively vaxed mostly had thoughtful reasons for why they did not that are not being reflected in the media I'm seeing on this issue.  Whether I agreed with them or not (and for the most part I do not), most are intelligent people who are simply reading different sources of info than most mainstream people read.  Those sources make claims that if true would make people seriously question whether or not to vax, or at least scare people about vaxing.  I didn't feel those sources were convincing.  But many who read them do.  And so it isn't simply a matter of not understanding statistics or not being so good at math but also that I think the info they get says something very, very different than what mainstream medicine is putting out.  It reminds me of people on different sides politically, each side seeing the same event or issue with opposing views, each convinced the other side are idiots because the info they get is so totally different.  That said, I do think there are cases where the understanding of math and statistics comes into play as well. 

What I would have liked to have found back when I was reading about vaccines was something that addressed the concerns I had and gave more detailed info than what I found anywhere (with few exceptions like the CDC website.)  Maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places.  The concerns I had were about vaccine safety primarily.  I heard all sorts of wild claims.  What was I to believe?  I thought about herd immunity and our family's part of that.  I didn't think vax rates would drop so low in certain areas of the country.  Most of the anti vax books I read back then I think probably were assuming a constant high rate of vaccination and good herd immunity.

I do not think the first link you posted, CM, is going to convince someone who thinks their first child's autism was caused by a vaccine so is not vaccinating their younger children or the one with autism any longer or people who don't trust vaccine safety or big pharma or the government.  It isn't going to convince most people who are not already convinced.  I know a lot of people who don't vaccinate and things like that are like white noise to them because those types of articles do not recognize the reasons those people aren't vaccinating so they shut those types of things out.  It might work on people who are on the fence on this issue.  I think many people will now vax because the measles outbreak is happening who might not have otherwise. 

By the way, did you notice that the second link said this?   
'If every small, private school in my region can be declared “nut-free”, despite little evidence that this drastic policy is necessary to protect nut-allergic children, then surely at least revealing vaccination rates should be acceptable.' 

[guess]

There is no proof that vaccines don't cause Autism only that there is no correlation.  This is consistent with the theories that vaccines cause Autism because they are based on non-disciplined correlation.  So one would have to both understand and accept that disciplined correlation is proof absent causation.

In other words there's no proof that's going to help pierce that belief because it's not based on impartial consideration of evidence or lack thereof.

Also worthy of note is vaccines have nothing to do with ADA compliance.  Although all come under the umbrella of public health, food allergy like ASD is a disability as would a vaccination effect that ended in damage that would substantially limit a major life activity.  The ADA AA doesn't differentiate.  Spreading disease is not ADA protected, though we most certainly have law that speaks directly about quarantine authority.

We don't spread disability, our disability does not cause harm in another, nor do disability protections confer special rights.  Only equal opportunity.

[lakeswimr]

I'm talking about people who had their own children end up autistic and who feel the cause was from vaccines.  That is not something about which most who had the experience of having their child change just after getting a vax will change their mind.  It is just a case study but a case study when it involves one's own kid is quite different.  I'm not talking about the general population but those people and people who know them in particular. 

Most anti vaxers I know are not focused on autism.  Some are but most I know believed the debunking of the Wakefield study so do not think there is a link.

[guess]

Emphasis "people who feel..."

There's a lot of feels when you're dealing with ASD.  I'm one of that community twice over.  In no way did it make me abandon science or think the light in my children's eyes went away.  I promote the acceptance of biodiversity and do what I can to champion disability causes within the community.