Food Allergy Support

http://www.upworthy.com/16-years-ago-a-doctor-published-a-study-it-was-completely-made-up-and-it-made-us-all-sicker?c=huf1 (http://www.upworthy.com/16-years-ago-a-doctor-published-a-study-it-was-completely-made-up-and-it-made-us-all-sicker?c=huf1)

I watched a documentary about this a few years ago about this doctor.  Very eye opening!

Great graphic in the article.  So sad as to how much damage that doctor has done.

I love that graphic. Makes it so easy to see.

Quote from: aggiedog on December 10, 2014, 02:12:34 AM
Great graphic in the article.  So sad as to how much damage that doctor has done.

This.  Just this.

:'(

If there is a karmic scale, we have someone like Salk on ONE side of those scales...

and Wakefield on the other.   :pout:

Would anybody object if this were moved to "main"?

I'd love to link to it from my internet thread.

I'm fine with that- best to ask the others who've posted, though.

Fine with me.

I have sent messages to those who have not said yes or no to moving.

Thanks CM & SL.

"First do no harm."

:disappointed:

whooping cough confirmed in one of our local high schools. seems like there have been several outbreaks in the past couple of years

I had a whooping cough vaccine a couple of weeks ago. 

Thank you for posting this link.  I've forwarded it to my husband who is refusing the flu shot this year (and every year) because his parents have brainwashed him with all the false anti-vaccine information. 

Quote from: spacecanada on December 11, 2014, 08:52:52 AM
Thank you for posting this link.  I've forwarded it to my husband who is refusing the flu shot this year (and every year) because his parents have brainwashed him with all the false anti-vaccine information.

You may find more fuel here.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)

The other myth I have heard circulating is that people who are vaccinated don't have "true immunity" or "real immunity".  Only the people who aren't vaccinated and were exposed to the disease have "real immunity".  It would be nice to see that myth addressed directly.

I think that the only reason why it hasn't been is that it is just so ridiculous that there seems little point, YK? 

ALL of the record-keeping and statistics from the last 70 years or so are proof positive that it's false, if you see what I mean.  If it WERE true, then isolated measles cases, for example, would infect vaccinated persons-- and they simply almost never do, even when those vaccinations are decades old.    IF it were true, then vaccinated children would be the ones to get sick with pertussis (whooping cough) during outbreaks in the community, as well as unvaccinated ones-- but the rates of infection in those two groups are radically different during outbreaks.  Pertussis is a wicked/weird example, also, because infection nor vaccination offers anything like lifetime immunity due to natural drift in the organism and waning immunity to a bacterial infectious agent.  So really, it's impressive that one works at all as a vaccine. 

VIRAL stuff, though-- wow.  Being vaccinated for varicella, for example-- how does that functionally differ from a wild infection?  Well, your later risk of shingles, for one thing. 

The reason why studying immune responses to vaccinations has been studied, and why comparing it to wild-type infections hasn't.... is that you can't get approval for ANY study that includes things like "infect the patients in one study arm with measles."  The reason for that one touches upon ANOTHER myth, however, (that myth being that most of these things are "mild" and pretty much "never" cause severe disease in first world nations where medical care is adequate, and that the risk of pediatric death is vanishingly small to begin with).  Er-- if that WERE true, believe me, this study would already have been done.  It isn't, and it hasn't.  Where on earth would you find a population of parents willing to sign their infants up to get pertussis??  (Oh.  Wait.   :disappointed:  Personally, I think that probably means that those people wouldn't be fit parents, but that is just me.  That group doesn't actually believe that they ARE placing their kids at risk by not vaccinating, so there you go. )





But there is now evidence that a lifetime of flu jabs offers a cumulative sort of protection, and that as the years go by-- your coverage gets better and better if you get one year after year.  My guess is that the poor match of this year's vax for the emergent predominant strain in the northern hemisphere could be a great opportunity to study that one in particular-- that is,


H1N1 was related to the 1918 pandemic strain-- and while "natural immunity" should have protected some elderly persons who experienced the original pandemic, such protection was clearly not universal, nor-- as it happened-- MORE robust than that obtained from a fresh flu vaccine.  Again, indirect evidence, but this kind of myth is one that ONLY a person who is willfully determined to believe, or simply does not understand how SCIENCE works at all could actually continue believing longer than it took them to think about it.

Minor, but important, distinction about the study.  The journal published it, not the doctor.  Had the editor done his or her job the first time around it would have never given this 'study' its weight of credibility.  A retraction was nearly pointless.  The pub brought this out of the realm of unsubstantiated obscurity into the realm of legit science. 

I've heard it said about academic careers the phrase, "Publish or die."  This may have withered off as it should have without the validation of publication in a respected journal giving the appearance of truth to the public before any peer review could do its job.

As a related but separate point: "Dr." Christiakis' op-ed about food allergies published in a journal.  The public had no way of discerning Christiakis was not a medical doctor but an academic scholar from an unrelated field, devoid of any subject-specific expertise or medicine related to the discipline.  Nor could they reasonably be expected to discern an op-ed from a study.  Again, I hold editor decisions responsible and really they should be held accountable for promoting a set of circumstances that had dire consequences.

<grimly>

Agreed.

Quote from: guess on December 14, 2014, 11:30:48 AM
Minor, but important, distinction about the study.  The journal published it, not the doctor.  Had the editor done his or her job the first time around it would have never given this 'study' its weight of credibility.  A retraction was nearly pointless.  The pub brought this out of the realm of unsubstantiated obscurity into the realm of legit science. 

I've heard it said about academic careers the phrase, "Publish or die."  This may have withered off as it should have without the validation of publication in a respected journal giving the appearance of truth to the public before any peer review could do its job.

Bold added by me, as that is what I am referring to.

I disagree with this.  The article was originally published in 1998 and the retraction was in 2010.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield)

Publishing it made it look valid, I agree. But retracting did not bring it out of obscurity. It was well known and being quoted constantly before 2010.  It was a very hot topic when my grandson was born and he's 9 or 10.

I really hate how my OB docs seem too feel like they have to dance around the shot issue - we recommend it, but if you don't want to blah blah blah. 

When I started with the new doc this past week, I told him to skip it, I know that there are ridiculous anti-vaccine people, but that I would like ALL of the needles, thanks. 

SL, can you rephrase because based on what you wrote it doesn't make any sense as to disagreeing with me because you wrote in agreement.

QuoteBut retracting did not bring it out of obscurity.

^This.  I didn't write that.

pub = the publication. retraction is different. So, yeah back to what you bolded.  :yes:

Never mind....I was misunderstanding.

I somehow thought you were saying the retraction brought it forward into the public. As in, the whole thing had died down, and retraction raised it high.

My mistake.

Sadly, a retraction doesn't really make it go away, when you're talking about a peer reviewed study that (truly) should never have hit print to begin with.  This is why peer review is supposed to be VERY rigorous.

Because without it you get crapola like the Wakefield "study" (because really-- that was more than just bad, it was FRAUD, and there's the F-word in scientific circles.  F*** is nothing compared to THAT F-bomb, let me tell ya) and "cold fusion" which I notice nobody is still espousing all these years later.

The sad thing, though, is that if I want to, I can still hit pub-med and dredge that sucker up.  And people DO.

:rant: :paddle:

Quote from: CMdeux on December 14, 2014, 10:27:54 AM
I think that the only reason why it hasn't been is that it is just so ridiculous that there seems little point, YK? 
ALL of the record-keeping and statistics from the last 70 years or so are proof positive that it's false, if you see what I mean.

Oh, yes.  I meant not to suggest a study but I would have liked to see it ("natural immunity") addressed in the various "myth versus fact" sections that circulate on vaccines.  It's an argument that I have heard come up when other arguments have been disproved.

Quote from: CMdeux on December 14, 2014, 10:27:54 AM
ONLY a person who is willfully determined to believe, or simply does not understand how SCIENCE works at all could actually continue believing longer than it took them to think about it.

That really may be the heart of the problem.

Quote from: Linden on December 11, 2014, 11:03:06 AM
The other myth I have heard circulating is that people who are vaccinated don't have "true immunity" or "real immunity".  Only the people who aren't vaccinated and were exposed to the disease have "real immunity".  It would be nice to see that myth addressed directly.

I was watching the news and they were talking about the hockey players with mumps. Crosby has now been diagnosed with it. (Sid the Kid getting sick is big news here.)

Anyway, apparently Crosby did get vaccinated and had a booster shot within the last two years. (They said when, I don't remember what they said...before travelling overseas for games.). So, the reporter was talking to an immunologist who said apparently the shots do not offer a "true immunity" like actually contracting the disease would.  :crazy:

This over ONE patient? I have known people who caught chicken pox twice. And with one of my kids, I was warned he could catch it a second time because he caught such a light case. (He got tested rather than re-vaccinated before working in a hospital and they said he was immune.)

Anyway, getting back to Crosby. They also said, he didn't have symptoms. No fever, no pain, just suddenly swollen on one side.

So....sounds like the vaccination may have resulted in a lighter case.

Exactly.  This phenomenon is called "anecdata" for a reason. 

My personal feeling is that those people who cannot develop immunity probably can't do it from a wild-type infection either.  There are also those people who are naturally immune after a very light exposure.    It's a clear spectrum of immune responses.

What is true is that ROI makes a big difference in your risk of severe side effects, however.  This is why mom often gets "sickest" after taking care of the rest of the family through something like the flu or a stomach virus.   That one is known from an immunological standpoint.  On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily result in "superior immune memory" for the pathogen.  It just means more risk for severe complications.   

Tweeted by @Asthma3Ways


"The New Measles"
http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/the-new-measles/384738/ (http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/the-new-measles/384738/)

Quotenewspapers printed matter-of-fact death tolls, tallying high numbers of deaths by measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, and other illnesses of the recent past.

People expected to get measles in those days, but they didn't expect to survive.

QuoteCulturally, measles is rarely seen as a threat anymore in the United States—a misconception that the disease isn't as dangerous as it actually is.

Tweeted by @NPRHealth


"To Protect His Son, A Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/27/381888697/to-protect-his-son-a-father-asks-school-to-bar-unvaccinated-children?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=health&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/27/381888697/to-protect-his-son-a-father-asks-school-to-bar-unvaccinated-children?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=health&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews)

QuoteCarl Krawitt has watched his son, Rhett, now 6, fight leukemia for the past 4 1/2 years.

QuoteHe told me about going to a parent meeting at his daughter's school just before the start of the school year, where a staff member reminded parents not to send peanut products to school, since a child or children had an allergy.

QuoteHe told me he immediately responded, "In the interest of the health and safety of our children, can we have the assurance that all the kids at our school are immunized?"

ok ... warning ... this one is a little graphic & disturbing ....



"This Is What Measles Actually Looks Like"
http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/what-measles-outbreak-actually-looks-like#.ufez8w79l (http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/what-measles-outbreak-actually-looks-like#.ufez8w79l)

SO is this.


http://www.encephalitis.info/images/iPdf/Resources/FactSheets/fs043MeaslesMumps.pdf (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]Roald Dahl.  Seriously-- read that pdf.  And share it.  Please.[/spoiler]

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

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/28/health/measles-antivaxxers/ (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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/us/father-of-boy-with-leukemia-asks-california-school-officials-to-bar-unvaccinated-students.html)

 :disappointed:

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

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.

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.

Tweeted by @Atul_Gawande


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

QuoteThe 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1)

QuoteMembers 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 (http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/health/arizona-measles-vaccination-debate/index.html)

QuoteDr. Jack Wolfson

Quote"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."

  :rant:


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


Tweeted by @greenbergepi

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

QuoteHere'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.

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.

Quote from: lakeswimr on January 31, 2015, 09:21:59 AM
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/ (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/ (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. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14015424)    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.

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

Interesting:

Quote
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.

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.' 

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.

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.

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. 

On that note, I try to stay away from increased legislation at all costs but if what it takes to keep herd immunity up and eradicate the not so unintentional proliferation of disease as well as enforce ADA, I'll support further legislation. 

Just to be clear, I know some people who say their children were 'normal' before certain vaccines and then had a reaction to the vaccine, some seem quite serious including going limp after the vaccine, being very ill, and then from that point on stopped speaking and acted differently and then were diagnosed as autistic.  If that happened to my child I think it would be difficult to not think the vaccine was the cause.

I think it is important to champion disability causes and think it is great you do this, Guess.

Quote from: LinksEtc on January 31, 2015, 11:31:53 AM

"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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1)

QuoteMembers 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."

This is just my own opinion.

I feel a person who chooses not to vaccinate and has an exposure to measles should be required to quarantine. The child and any family members that are not vaccinated or known to have had the illness should be obligated (at risk of being charged). 

Diagnoses change frequently with DSM changes, diagnosticians, medical and educational.  Really, if you want to pinpoint it often you need genetic testing.  No vaccine is going to cause Fragile X because it's genetic.

An adverse reaction may cause symptoms that have an impact that show similarity with developmental disability or somehow alter that developmental path.  But we know what correlation is and we know scientifically the power of belief and I know first hand the desire to want a carefree spontaneous development where I can enjoy seeing my children progress.  You may think I don't know why they feel the way they do.  With all due respect that interpretation is wrong. 

My kids are always with the 'other' group.  They have hard DD diagnoses.  The diagnostic process starts around 18 months because the developmental charting starts to tick at an exponential rate around then.  The depth at which one must submit one's children to a grueling evaluation to compare every last skill to a magical peer group by artificially creating a natural environment borders on insanity.

No one wants to believe that their child could have possibly had this in their genetics, that it had to be something to blame.

You know what my developmentally disabled kids with LTFA don't need?  Measles, Rubella, Mumps, pertussis, flu.  My plate is full.  If this needs to be legislated I'm on board.

Quote from: SilverLining on January 31, 2015, 03:05:44 PM

Quote from: LinksEtc on January 31, 2015, 11:31:53 AM

"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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1)

QuoteMembers 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."

This is just my own opinion.

I feel a person who chooses not to vaccinate and has an exposure to measles should be required to quarantine. The child and any family members that are not vaccinated or known to have had the illness should be obligated (at risk of being charged).

We do have quarantine law in the US.  I'm more familiar with the federal powers for pandemic but these laws do exist as they do for using our postal service to transmit infectious disease, body fluids, etc.

And to all the woo that gets people killed -  :tongue:

Yup-- ironic, isn't it, Lakeswimr?  :grin:


Okay-- here's the chart that ALL parents really-- really-- ought to consider.

https://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/measles-vaccination-and-homeopaths/ (https://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/measles-vaccination-and-homeopaths/)

That truly sums up the comparative risks-- and the info is straight from the UK's official government sites.  The ONLY way that the risks of the disease are lower than that is when everyone around you gives you the GIFT of herd immunity, which reduces your chances of encountering the pathogen to begin with.
The risks of wild-type measles infection stated there are actually somewhat understated-- and I realize that nobody has to take my word for that, but this is kind of what I do for a living these days.  I study health stats and sequelae, and symptoms associated with particular conditions, and I do it based on published, peer reviewed data.  LOTS of data.  I've been working in measles.  Seriously.  The real risk for SSPE is more like 1:3500 for children who contract measles before 1 year of age, and it's as high as 1:5000 across all age groups.  That data is pretty new-- like, last eight years new.  The vaccine carries about ZERO risk of SSPE, which in my personal estimation would make it worthwhile on that basis alone.  SSPE is horrific, and nearly always fatal.





And I disagree with there being "two sides" to this one.  Honestly, maybe there are in human emotional terms, but reality doesn't agree with there being "controversy" or "two sides" to some things.  Gravity, vaccines, and evolution are all pretty much consensus matters among scientists, and there are excellent reasons for that consensus.

So yeah-- I don't know a single physician who didn't follow the CDC and AAP schedule for vaccinating their own children* and of those I know, most are VERY proactive about vaccinating their own kids for the flu each year, too.  * Barring allergy, or other factors that constitute actual contraindication, I mean.

There are really NOT 'two sides' to this one.  There is reality.  And then there is fantasy.  Reality really doesn't care what people believe.  I think that the media giving a platform to ignoramuses like Jenny McCarthy are partially responsible for the current state of affairs on this subject, and NO, no, no there are NOT obligations to be "balanced" in reporting on stuff like this.  Dear lord, why on earth is that even a thing here??  This is why parents are confused and thinking that there is anything TO be "considered" carefully.  Um-- not really, there isn't.  And honestly, if you don't trust the AMA, the CDC, the WHO, and the AAP, then are you seriously thinking that you know better than all of them about relative risks after a few afternoons with Google??  That is simply crazy.  Even though I have an advanced degree and work with medical statistics-- in other words, I have no problem reading medical literature, and I (unlike Jenny) understand the science behind every word of it, there are things that I take the word of genuine experts for.  This is like there being "two sides" to the use of epinephrine during anaphylaxis.  Nope-- not really.  Now, I can look up PLENTY of stuff that says epinephrine is dangerous, etc, and bleating on about how it's not really needed, etc. etc.  But if one considers the expertise of various sources, then the evidence suddenly condenses into CRYSTAL clear directives.  Anaphylaxis = epinephrine.  At least if you want to have the best odds of survival.

There is another reason why I'm willing to go with naming and shaming here.



The problem with "education" and other soft methods is that while they convince people whose minds are OPEN to hearing that message, and those who are rational enough to be listening to data rather than narrative and hyperbole... and while logically, they should have an impact on those who are leaning toward relying upon herd immunity rather than vaccinations for their own children-- that isn't what investigations demonstrate.

Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial, 2014, Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365)


And yes, this seems SO blatantly, jaw-droppingly counterintuitive that it has only been in the past four to six years that it's been seriously investigated at all.  It's mind-boggling that providing facts and detailed, patient information should WORSEN the chances that a person will follow medical best practices on a subject, that is precisely what is happening, apparently.  It's like an allergist explaining the reasons why wearing a Medic-Alert bracelet is a good idea, showing pictures, etc. and having parents decide that it's a terribly idea, and have it make them LESS likely to follow that advice than they were in the first place.   :insane:

So I have to respectfully disagree with the AMA and AAP when they urge physicians to not drop those people as patients.  Frankly, if efforts to educate them are failing, they do present a clear enhancement of risk for the rest of that physician's patients.  I'm not sure that there is a good solution for those physicians.  KWIM?


The other thing is that people are MOST influenced by what they think others in their social circle are doing, what they approve of, etc. etc.  So as long as people who are highly PRO-vaccine stay quiet, the people who are uncertain wind up not KNOWING just how we feel about it.  I'm done leaving "room for personal decision-making."  People like Barbara Loe Fisher have no ethical qualms about telling people what they should do.  So neither should people like me, who know that she is an ill-informed crank without an ounce of conscience for the public health dangers that her position is placing ALL of us in.

I'm calling bs on this anti-vaccine nonsense.  Pay attention-- because this is measles, and it's BACK.  It was once non-endemic in the UK, and it's now endemic again thanks to the shenanigans of these wackos who think there is something wrong with 'tampering with mother nature.'  And yeah-- you want to find the hotbeds of unvaccinated people in your community-- look to the nearest Waldorf/Steiner school.  Our local one has a vaccination rate that hovers about 20-30% in any given year.  Not joking.  They do this as a matter of anthroposophic BELIEF, not "concern" for vaccination side effects.  That's right.  They genuinely think that children SHOULD get measles because it's better for them.  As a spriritual matter.  My disgust for this kind of thinking on a matter of public health-- is boundless, thank-you-very-much.

Those kind of people do NOT have the right to take actions which have a de facto impact on those in the community who are MOST vulnerable-- those who are fighting for their lives already, and desperately wanting tiny slices of normalcy.  I know people whose children take immunosuppressant cocktails.  I know people whose children have (and continue to) undergo radiation and chemo.  I know people who are PARENTS and do-- and they want unvaccinated kids vaccinated.  For everyone's safety.

From within the communities of ASD and ADA advocacy there's a portion of this that many who don't live with it consider secondary.  In my other disability community without LTFA the deaths that rock us are parents who kill their children out of fear of what Autism is (but mainly is not), children on the spectrum who kill themselves, and increasingly have dangerous interaction with law enforcement because they don't know how to comply or read social-emotional signs.

There's orgs that speak of ASD as a curse.  Do they not think that kids with ASD can read that garbage?  This notion that they burden us unfairly?  It's for this reason that I prefer organizations run by and for individuals on the spectrum who DO NOT feel they need 'fixing'.  I work in a network of advocates and attorneys who must constantly assail public entities for compliance and support.  None of us do it because we feel good or we get pats on the back for it.  We do it because they are people and they have rights, they shouldn't be shunned or excluded.

I read Jenny McCarthy's book when it first came out.  I read Special Kids, Special Diets when I was new to food allergies and developmental disability.  I wanted to believe they were all part of something that took my child and changed him. 

The only thing that I have done between that time and now is hard, everyday grind in the type of perpetual around the clock caregiving that parents whose children have such disabilities require.   They are not a burden to me and I'm not going to teach them that either they're something broken that needs to be fixed or that something is to blame and they would have otherwise been just like some definition of normal that does not exist. 

Families need support.  They need support in services and that includes schools.  I do no less for any child regardless of the disability, or otherwise abled, and I am far from alone.

But sure, just for grins and giggles let's go with vaccines cause Autism because you feel they do.  Screw proof or any sort of scientific indication.

What then?  What do we do then for the segment that will always be afraid of any vaccine by doing 'research' by Googling? 

Exactly.

The lives of those whose children are outliers are hard.

But I don't differentiate between how hard it is to have a child on the spectrum, versus one with a genetic error of metabolism, versus one who develops childhood leukemia. It's all hard.

What I do not have sympathy for is developing a system of personal beliefs around one's life which then impacts those other groups of parents (who, recall, ALSO have hard, hard lives already) when that system of beliefs is irrational and not based in reality.   I respect the reasons why people develop such anecdotal beliefs in the first place.  Personal narrative is a rather postmodern concept, though, when you get right down to it, and it should NOT have the power to compel anything at all in others.

I also reject that they have the right to expose others to harm just to make it possible for them to avoid moments of cognitive dissonance that threaten their personal narratives.   Human beings are more important than a person's internal personal narrative.  IMO.

On that note, it's entirely plausible to me that there are parents in the FA community who ask for accommodations that their children in NO way have demonstrated any need for.  I also object to that on the same principles.  Demonstrated individual need is when you get to make requests of others, assuming that you are not causing them HARM in so doing.  The bar rises higher still if what you need causes others potential harm-- so if you need to deprive an entire classroom of children of the nutrients in milk/cheese, for example.  Or need to become a potential disease vector as a result of being severely allergic to a vaccine component.   Those are situations where there are very real NEEDS that have nothing to do with beliefs that cannot be backed with evidence and data that isn't merely correlative and speculative.  If you happen to be that person with the severe allergy to gelatin, however, you really don't want people who just have a sense that vaccines are "unnatural" opting out, too, because you are vulnerable whether you want to be or not.

Too many people claim "vaccine injury" for very many of them to be telling the evidence-backed, unvarnished truth about it.  That's simply health statistics.

  My daughter did have a reaction to an early DPT that could have exempted her medically from additional pertussis doses.  She was seen at an emergent care facility for that response.  We opted IN on additional vaccination in that series, based on what we could see as very real risks of being underimmunised for pertussis, given her life as a faculty brat.  We did think about it-- once we had a reason to wonder if she was a special case.   Her subsequent doses were entirely unremarkable and we've since concluded that there was probably no causation behind the correlation, as striking as it seemed at the time.    She was also clearly (genetically) atopic from birth.  No connection.

Now there is the sort of narrative that anti-vaxxers don't want making the news. 
   

Quote from: lakeswimr on January 31, 2015, 02:28:07 PM
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.) 

This also reminded me of this other thread ...



Choosing a 2014-2015 flu vaccine (http://foodallergysupport.olicentral.com/index.php/topic,9488.msg155307.html#msg155307)

Quote from: CMdeux on October 09, 2014, 11:26:19 AM
That is what led me to perform this research.


With all due respect, reading a few things on the internet is NOT research.  Why not?

Well, because there is no way to refute the hypothesis that one is formulating with all of that reading, and one may quite easily ignore or discredit-- or perhaps simply never FIND-- material that doesn't support our presuppositions.  Genuine research involves being willing to TEST whether or not a hypothesis is plausible by allowing for conditions* in which the hypothesis would be proven incorrect. 

The problem with doing this kind of "research" one's self is that selection and perception biases are huge to begin with unless one has already had the kind of training that generally comes along with a terminal degree in a physical science or in medicine, and made even worse by the fact that we as parents are deeply emotionally invested and come to the process with what we WANT to believe must be so (that there must be a "reason" for "X" to have happened to us/our child). 

* Suppose that I believe that, just for example, lunar eclipses are caused by unseasonable temperatures.  How would my doing a lot of "internet research" allow me to DISprove such a hypothesis?  It probably wouldn't-- because think about how I would go about searching that hypothesis and supporting materials out to begin with-- I'd be LOOKING for evidence that supported my hypothesis.  Also, "unseasonable" is a pretty relative term.  The mechanism is plausibly connected, at least if I didn't know a lot about climate and astronomical observations, so I might not really see any NEED to hunt down material that directly contradicts my personal beliefs in any way. 

This is why scientists don't necessarily have much respect for laypersons doing "research" by the way-- it's not that we think that people are dumb, exactly, so much as that they consistently overestimate their own objectivity and metacognition, and fail to appreciate that a willingness to be catastrophically WRONG-WRONG-WRONG is part of the process.  An essential part of the process.

The injection-adjuvant theory of allergen sensitization went out of fashion in a pretty big way in the 1970's, btw.    Yes, there are particular mechanisms which can be used to sensitize laboratory animals in known ways, but those are NOT typical situations, any more than some other particular lines of laboratory animals (those bred to develop seizure disorders, or tumors) reflect the general human immune system. 

Silver has helpfully already provided a direct counter-example for the "hypothesis" proposed.  That's all that is necessary, unless you can determine some refinement that accounts for the fact that a great many people-- even highly atopic people-- safely receive vaccinations (and have for decades) which contain less and less of the allergens in question, while at the same time, rates of food allergy have RISEN, rather than falling (which should be the case if your hypothesis here were correct).


Also-- tropomyosin is not a thing-- it's a CLASS of things.  One tropomyosin does not necessarily cross-react (at all) with any others.  This is particularly true when considering arachnid/crustacean tropomyosins and those from mammalian sources.  Just so you know.  This is, again, where layperson "research" can get into trouble.  Research articles may fail to note that it's important to note the SOURCE of the tropomyosin in question.  This is not much different than claiming that eating "protein" causes allergic sensitization.  Well, sure it does-- but clearly some proteins are more equal than others there, and it is still not at all clear what causes some atopic people to never sensitize to some highly potent food sensitizers (like nuts or shellfish), while others do so upon their first exposures.

I'm VERY sure that my daughter had no known exposures to peanuts prior to nearly dying from her first taste of peanut butter.  I'm also very sure that I routinely ate all manner of shellfish without ill effect until I was in my 30's.  We have similarly atopic profiles, she and I-- so why did she get unlucky?  Nobody really knows right now.  But what I do know is that it didn't have any correlation with vaccination history.  Period.

Wasn't looking, but just stumbled onto this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/30/amid-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-doctor-revels-in-his-notoriety/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/30/amid-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-doctor-revels-in-his-notoriety/)

QuoteThen in 2002, Wolfson, originally from Chicago, moved to Arizona where he met his wife, a chiropractor, who "opened my eyes."

He's a cardiologist. I wouldn't see a "cardiologist" who can have his mind changed by a "chiropractor".

(Read the article and you may understand why I use quote-unquote.)

Yes, that is what I was referencing when I said 'I 100% agree with what you wrote about research.' 

Quote from: LinksEtc on January 31, 2015, 04:53:09 PM

Quote from: lakeswimr on January 31, 2015, 02:28:07 PM
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.) 

This also reminded me of this other thread ...



Choosing a 2014-2015 flu vaccine (http://foodallergysupport.olicentral.com/index.php/topic,9488.msg155307.html#msg155307)

Quote from: CMdeux on October 09, 2014, 11:26:19 AM
That is what led me to perform this research.


With all due respect, reading a few things on the internet is NOT research.  Why not?

Well, because there is no way to refute the hypothesis that one is formulating with all of that reading, and one may quite easily ignore or discredit-- or perhaps simply never FIND-- material that doesn't support our presuppositions.  Genuine research involves being willing to TEST whether or not a hypothesis is plausible by allowing for conditions* in which the hypothesis would be proven incorrect. 

The problem with doing this kind of "research" one's self is that selection and perception biases are huge to begin with unless one has already had the kind of training that generally comes along with a terminal degree in a physical science or in medicine, and made even worse by the fact that we as parents are deeply emotionally invested and come to the process with what we WANT to believe must be so (that there must be a "reason" for "X" to have happened to us/our child). 

* Suppose that I believe that, just for example, lunar eclipses are caused by unseasonable temperatures.  How would my doing a lot of "internet research" allow me to DISprove such a hypothesis?  It probably wouldn't-- because think about how I would go about searching that hypothesis and supporting materials out to begin with-- I'd be LOOKING for evidence that supported my hypothesis.  Also, "unseasonable" is a pretty relative term.  The mechanism is plausibly connected, at least if I didn't know a lot about climate and astronomical observations, so I might not really see any NEED to hunt down material that directly contradicts my personal beliefs in any way. 

This is why scientists don't necessarily have much respect for laypersons doing "research" by the way-- it's not that we think that people are dumb, exactly, so much as that they consistently overestimate their own objectivity and metacognition, and fail to appreciate that a willingness to be catastrophically WRONG-WRONG-WRONG is part of the process.  An essential part of the process.

The injection-adjuvant theory of allergen sensitization went out of fashion in a pretty big way in the 1970's, btw.    Yes, there are particular mechanisms which can be used to sensitize laboratory animals in known ways, but those are NOT typical situations, any more than some other particular lines of laboratory animals (those bred to develop seizure disorders, or tumors) reflect the general human immune system. 

Silver has helpfully already provided a direct counter-example for the "hypothesis" proposed.  That's all that is necessary, unless you can determine some refinement that accounts for the fact that a great many people-- even highly atopic people-- safely receive vaccinations (and have for decades) which contain less and less of the allergens in question, while at the same time, rates of food allergy have RISEN, rather than falling (which should be the case if your hypothesis here were correct).


Also-- tropomyosin is not a thing-- it's a CLASS of things.  One tropomyosin does not necessarily cross-react (at all) with any others.  This is particularly true when considering arachnid/crustacean tropomyosins and those from mammalian sources.  Just so you know.  This is, again, where layperson "research" can get into trouble.  Research articles may fail to note that it's important to note the SOURCE of the tropomyosin in question.  This is not much different than claiming that eating "protein" causes allergic sensitization.  Well, sure it does-- but clearly some proteins are more equal than others there, and it is still not at all clear what causes some atopic people to never sensitize to some highly potent food sensitizers (like nuts or shellfish), while others do so upon their first exposures.

I'm VERY sure that my daughter had no known exposures to peanuts prior to nearly dying from her first taste of peanut butter.  I'm also very sure that I routinely ate all manner of shellfish without ill effect until I was in my 30's.  We have similarly atopic profiles, she and I-- so why did she get unlucky?  Nobody really knows right now.  But what I do know is that it didn't have any correlation with vaccination history.  Period.

I respect what you wrote about ASD, Guess.  I have students who have autism who I think are very dear.  I like all my students but have have a special soft spot for those on the spectrum.  What I worry about with those kids is that by not fully understanding social cues of others they can be teased or bullied.   I don't allow it in my classroom but it can still happen any time.  I wish there were an easy way to give those kids skills to cope with that stuff.  I think that once they make it to adulthood they will be a lot happier.  I hope I help make their time in high school easier.  I do not look at them as broken.  I do see that they can become targets of bullying, though, and that worries me.

Again, I think most of the people afraid of vaccines that I know didn't just google.  Most did what I did and read multiple books, the CDC website and more.  And most of them do not think vaccines cause autism.  The ones I know who do have autistic children who they feel became autistic because of vaccines because they changed behavior drastically after getting vaccines.  I do not think fear of autism is the driving force behind the anti vax movement for the most part.  If I were going to try to convince those people to vaccinate, I would first figure out what their concerns are and address them.  I do not see that done well by mainstream medicine, by many pro vax doctors, or right now by the media.  Contrary to CM, I think that if the message were put out in a way that understood their concerns and addressed them well, that it would make a big difference.  CM's link above titled, 'Measles, Vaccinations, and Homeopaths' is excellent and I really wish I had seen it back when I was pregnant and first reading about vaccines.  I think it is compelling and addresses many of the concerns those who worry about vaccinations have.  It says what I eventually decided was true from my reading by I read a lot of different things before I got to that point.

Quote from: guess on January 31, 2015, 04:01:33 PM


But sure, just for grins and giggles let's go with vaccines cause Autism because you feel they do.  Screw proof or any sort of scientific indication.

What then?  What do we do then for the segment that will always be afraid of any vaccine by doing 'research' by Googling?

Need to read this thread in depth, but wanted to add that there are some in our county who are trying to get just numbers / data as to how many and where the unvaccinated are so far as public school students.

I think they are making FOIA requests.

CM, That is a great link!  Really good!  I agree with it.  I think it did a good job of naming and addressing many of the anti vax ideas.

Yes, there is also that idea that getting the illness naturally is better and provides life long immunity while vaccines do not work as well and require boosters and that getting the illness is good for one's immune system. 

I think it is legitimate for parents to come to the issue of vaccines and have questions.  I think blowing that off and not addressing the concerns of people who have those questions will backfire and push those people away from vaccines.  I see very little that really addresses the concerns of people who worry about vaccines well but that article is one very good example.  :) 

The facts listed in that article are different than the claims made by anti vax doctors and alternative practitioners and other anti-vaxers.  When someone is trying to figure out what is really true regarding vaccines they are going to read things that claim two different things.  They can't both be true.  So, yes, there are not really 'two sides'.  You are right about that and I was not claiming otherwise.  However, to not address the scary claims made by anti vaxers is a big mistake.  To not understand what people who are afraid of vaccines or who choose not to vax believe and why they believe these things is another big mistake.  To write them all off as nutty is not going to make positive change among those people.  I think an article that compared claims in anti vax books, etc to facts would be very compelling, especially if written in a way that doesn't insult or talk down to people.  As I said, I found pro vax books to be overly simplistic.  It was a 'we know best so just do it' attitude.  That is going to be off-putting to those who doubt vaccine safety. 

The idea that the risks of disease are much greater than the risks of vaxes is not something you would think if you believed the claims of anti-vax material.  And when pro vax books make this claim they do so in a way that isn't convincing to many, unlike the article above which goes into enough detail to be convincing. 

I also like that the article pointed out logic flaws in homeopaths arguments such as not taking into consideration that a much, much greater % of the population is vaccinated.  That is one type of thing I could see when I read anti-vax stuff that bothered me. 

Also, some of the most well-known anti-vaxers are pediatricians.  So, back when I was reading and thinking about this topic, there were books written by actual MDs that were anti-vax that I read.  Having actual MD's who are anti-vax does give the impression that there are two sides and debate among doctors.  The fact is that they are a very small %.

I think your second link sounds like a poorly designed study made by people who do not truly understand the concerns or thinking of those who question or oppose vaccinations.  I disagree that giving them access to more detailed information would not help.  I think it certainly would.  I know a big group of people who do not vax and the are voracious readers who tend to question most things. 

I do think you are right that what people in one's social circle are doing has a big influence. 

I don't know Barbara Loe Fisher. 

What do you think is going to happen with the measles?  I mean, how bad do you think the spread will get?

What I am seeing among anti-vax friends is that none of the things in the media are making them change their thinking.  The people I know do not seem to be going out to vax because of this.  Maybe some will. 

Lakeswimr-- I thought it must have been a poorly designed one-off, as well-- except that there have been four or five of them now and they all show the same thing.  The problem is that this tends to be a decision that people make based on fear and a LACK of comprehension of very large and very small numerical values.  At least that is my hypothesis.

So comparing an 0.00002% risk to a 0.001% one, they just don't see one as being WAY more likely than the other, though it is undeniably so.  I've talked to a fair number of these people myself over the years-- and the major problem is that they don't want the information, really.   Information actually makes people LESS likely to get vaccinated for influenza, too-- I know of two studies that looked at that one, as well.  One was an emotional appeal, and the other was dry and fact-based, and EITHER ONE made people in the experimental group less likely to follow through than the control group!! 

So it really isn't just one bad study.  I know it seems impossible that people who are sort of undecided-leaning-no would respond that way, but they do.




Honestly, the arguments made by those who are vaccine-reluctant or just solidly anti-vax remind me VERY much of those put forth by smokers or drunk drivers.

It's MY choice to do this.

Nobody else should have the right to dictate to me...

And truthfully, the relative RISKS of their choices often seem eerily like the rationalizations that I heard as a kid when adults thought little of driving while "just a little bit drunk."   :disappointed:

Well, I can't very well just leave my car there-- it might get hit! (Which totally ignores the risk that they'll pose if they are behind the wheel.)

I won't drive if I know that I've had too many-- I know when I am okay to drive.  (in spite of evidence that they didn't, and that their inability to distinguish impairment was dangerous-- much like the antivaxxer statement that they'll self-isolate if they KNOW that they're contagious...)

What?  WALK home??  Are you crazy?  Do you know how dangerous that is?  (bizarre assessment of relative risks-- their risk of being hit by a car is far lower in reality than their risk of harm to themselves OR to others if they're behind the wheel)

It's always been fine.  It's not like I've ever had a problem.  (until you DO.)

---

It wasn't until social initiatives created a HUGE stigma around drinking and driving that drunk-driving fatalities started to decrease.  It's only my generation that has internalized the message that if you have even ONE drink-- you're a danger to yourself and to others behind the wheel, and that the only safe amount to drink before driving is nothing.

But it took SHAMING people who used those mind-bogglingly irrational statements in order to make that happen.  It took prosecuting them and RUINING them for the harm they caused others to make the average person think twice about running the risk.  It took pointing out that EVERY fatality caused by drunk driving was ultimately preventable.

It's still not perfect-- there are idiots that still don't buy in, and there are still fatalities.  But we no longer talk about "two sides" to this one.  Because there isn't another side, in spite of one or two drunks who have no doubt been harmed by not getting themselves behind the wheel.  Those narratives in no way overwrite the reality of the statistics on the subject, and thankfully, rather than listening to the emotional appeal, we've quit living in a Mad Men world and woken up enough to sternly say "NONSENSE," when someone tries.

This is why I (and a few researchers who have looked at the psychology behind this) are starting to think that vilifying those who are dangerous and loud may be the ONLY way to get the message across that this is a public health nightmare that a vocal and stupid few are foisting on us all.  Education alone may not do it-- it didn't with chronic drunk drivers, either.  They only stop the behavior when they actually kill someone (often themselves, but occasionally people who were just unlucky enough to cross their paths).

I don't even want to IMAGINE the tremendous-- and pointless-- waste of public health dollars that have been spent on this already in California alone.  That is money that could have been spent improving the lives of a lot of low-income people, and keeping other threats (like MDR-TB) in check.  This just feels stupid because it's entirely preventable.  It's awful that a handful of people can cause such a thing without remorse or repercussions. 

Jan 8-- there were ~20 cases of measles in CA
Jan 11-- the number is hard to know for sure, but about 28-32
Jan 19-- 38 (? again, this is approximate, as county versus state numbers reflect some differences)
Jan 21-- 53
Jan 28-- 78
Jan 30--91


That's not linear, you'll notice.  What do I expect will happen?  I think that this epidemic has hit dry tinder in Sonoma and Marin counties, that's what I think.  Orange county was another enclave, and that has proven to be another hot spot.  My real fear is that in some of the places in WA and OR which also have extraordinarily low vaccination rates, we also have parents that lean libertarian-crunchy, which means that they will do what they can to AVOID identification via the health departments, on the theory that measles is so wonderful and mild that everyone ought to quit freaking out over it... and we may see what it looks like when ZERO efforts at prodromal quarantine happen in a susceptible population.  I was shocked that the case in Eugene didn't apparently result in additional cases, to be perfectly honest. 

I expect that in another week, the case numbers in CA may hit 150.  That's my prediction.  With just single cases elsewhere, there are too many variables at work to really say for sure.

THIS is a personal narrative about measles--

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/ow-ow-ow-childs-bout-measles-makes-parents-glad-vaccine-n297236 (http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/ow-ow-ow-childs-bout-measles-makes-parents-glad-vaccine-n297236)

Ugh.  A children's museum.  Daycare.  Church.  From a public health standpoint-- ugh, ugh, ugh.  All. those. contacts.

Makes this a whole lot less funny:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-to,37839/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-to,37839/)

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to ask this. Point me elsewhere if not. :)

This outbreak started in Disney.  The first few articles referred to the outbreak being blamed on anti-vaxxers in Disneyland.  Was there a group trip of people who were anti-vaxxers there together? (I'm guessing home schoolers, but don't want to imply all home schoolers are anti-vaxxers.)

Was it one person with measles that infected strangers, or infected part of their own group (or both).

The strain has been typed-- it's a strain that is common in parts of the middle east, and in parts of southeast Asia.  Odds are that it was someone who had traveled from the Philippines, Egypt, or Dubai/UAE.


Some less hardcore parents are still concerned (which, as noted, I think that Lakeswimr and I disagree on, since I firmly believe that vaccine safety is something that is so far down the list of things to be "concerned" over at that level that probably it doesn't merit more than about 5 minutes of thought in most children) enough to want to "delay" or "spread out" vaccinations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19117838 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19117838)

I really cannot recommend that article highly enough-- I picked it because the full text is completely free.  In this Pediatrics review, Dr. Offitt goes through Bob Sears' "recommendations" one by one and lays out very thorough reasoning about why most of them are bad ideas or based on garbage science.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17523694 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17523694)

This is very definitely still a problem.  The longer you extend that vulnerability, the greater the size of the vector population in childhood-- and NOTHING is a disease vector quite like a preschooler.  Nothing-- they are highly mobile, they lack fine/gross motor skills to prevent the spread of body fluids during coughs/sneezing, they are socially inappropriate in terms of contact with others, and they mouth things, etc. etc.  A more perfect spreader of something like measles or pertussis is difficult to imagine.  I mean-- we all know this here by virtue of FEARING those peers in some pretty unique and PTSD-related ways after living through that phase with food allergic kiddos, no?

Also, the reality is that a fair number of parents who have "concerns" (well, this is what they admit to, anyway) about vaccination wind up simply wasting a lot of physician time because nothing that the physician can say will ultimately sway them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21812165 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21812165)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900266 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900266)

(but consider how much TIME this takes physicians when they are dealing with a parent who has been drinking at the Jenny McCarthy fount of dubious wisdom-- and every time they go home to "think about" it more, they keep drinking the KoolAid. )

So the very basic problem is in thinking that there are "two sides" to things to begin with.  I mean, here's the part that I don't get-- if you don't trust your medical provider, then why do you go to that person?  And if you kind-of-do-and-kind-of-don't, well, that I can understand, but why not be looking at highly credible sources like CDC, WHO, AMA, AAP, AAFP, etc. for that kind of information?  Practice parameters?  That kind of thing?

WHY does a parent who innately believes in allopathic medicine wind up diving into the kind of rathole that whale-dot-whatever is in the first place??

I mean, I know what happens once they do-- but what starts that process to begin with?  Why does a parent THINK about whether or not vaccines are safe to start with? 

That is the part that mystifies me.  Because if they aren't, then pretty much 99% of the allopathic medical establishment is in on the vast conspiracy.  Why on earth would an HMO want people to be vaccinated (to the point that they make it FREE!!) if it came with high risks of lifelong medical problems, hmmm?  Those blood-sucking-leeches are out to make money-- hand-over-fist, PILES of money.  Believe me, if vaccinating children COST them more than it SAVED them, they wouldn't be for it.

Thanks for the reply, CM.  :)

How bad do you think the outbreak will get long term, CM?  Do you think we are back to the days of it just being something some kids get like before the vax was widely used?

I would have to see the other studies but the one you posted is not addressing the concerns of people who do not vax or who question vaxes in a way I think would be effective.  It doesn't not read to me as thought it was designed by people who understand what those concerns are or how those people think or what those people are reading that is making them concerned in the first place.  If I had just seen the design of the study, my prediction would have been that it would not be very effective so I'm not surprised to hear it wasn't.

You could be right that more information does not help but I don't think that would be the case.  The people I know who do not vax are in a group where a newer but well respected member is a vaccine expert, at least as expert as you.  I am seeing him politely point out things to people in the group and people really do listen to him.  He has changed people's long, long held opinions.  He is able to do this because he listens to what they say and does not talk down to them and he has their respect (that counts a lot) and he explains things with facts.  He is good at explaining things clearly but not simplistically as most pro-vax stuff tends to do. 

Recently someone shared an article that was anti vax and he went through it point by point and explained why the article was wrong.  people listened to him.  Treating people this way would be effective in my opinion.  first one would have to know what it is that people who are anti vax or concerned about vaxes are reading and what they think and then they would have to address those things. 

I do not think that mainstream docs have done a good job of this.  As I said, I would have to see the other studies but my guess is they were also designed by people who do not know in detail what people who don't vax read and what and how they think and what their concerns really are. 

I do not think the comparison to drunk driving is a good one.  These are for the most part not irrational people.  These are people who are reading information that I personally think is not always accurate, some of which is from doctors (as you know a small % of doctors are anti-vax), some are patients of these doctors.  They believe what they do for a reason and to not recognize that and dismiss them as like drunk drivers or idiots is going to polarize them and make them defensive and closed off to anything being said to them. 

What I would think before I had thought it all through, when I heard pro vax doctors talk about things (via reading books, websites, hearing DS's doc) was, 'well, I heard/read such and such and this person isn't addressing that at all.  This person must be minimizing the risks.'  It made me feel they were talking down to me.  Had the addressed the things I had hear that were supposed to be risks by saying, 'I know you heard (specific examples) but actually (facts)' that would have been very effective with a person like me.  People can also explain the difference in risk.  If they are good at explaining things they can explain the difference clearly in a way people can understand and relate it to other examples of things in life. 

Ahhhh-- but (and I say this recalling many people in the generation older than us) those people who drove drunk back when it was socially just a "personal choice" weren't irrational either.  Not really.

They really believed that they were being rational in what they were basing their decisions upon.

And while I agree that in a perfect world, a physician should be able to take a fifteen page manifesto (which may include everything from fairly nuanced statistical risk modelling to out-and-out bizarre and clearly impossible things) and calmly, patiently address each item one by one, the simple reality is that there is NO TIME for that in modern medicine.

SO yeah-- I'm fine with that solution, but pragmatically, I have to say, okay, but even ONE of those people in a day puts my physician at a place where s/he can't see three other patients.  At least.  What if I have to wait another two MONTHS for an appointment because there are a bunch of those people?

That, too, has costs for others.  Besides, not all physicians are great educators, when you get right down to it, and many of THEM aren't vaccine experts by any means-- but they do read practice parameters and the like.  So can they answer EVERY off-the-wall thing that a patient reads on the internet?  Most certainly NOT-- and even if they go and look it up, or ask an expert, that's yet more time devoted to it.

  So I'm a bit impatient with this nonsense-- because that is what it is. If they have "concerns" after reading at the CDC, etc. then I'm not sure what to say to that.  I guess that I do sort of think they aren't all that bright.  I'm sorry, and I know that seems mean.  But at that point, I do have to sort of shrug and point out that they ought to listen to people who are, and hopefully not waste SO much time in the process that those people spend their entire lives patiently explaining and explaining things that are really fairly obvious.

NONE of the "vaccines are not safe" rhetoric has any backing to it.  So it is a waste of time, when you get right down to it. :-/




Well, darn!  That Pediatrics paper is behind a paywall now, which is a bummer.  Library access, that'd be my recommendation on that one.

I really want to read the article going through Dr. Bob's ideas but it won't let me see the full text.  I registered but still can't see it.  What can I do to read it?

Quote from: CMdeux on January 31, 2015, 08:06:49 PM
Ahhhh-- but (and I say this recalling many people in the generation older than us) those people who drove drunk back when it was socially just a "personal choice" weren't irrational either.  Not really.

They really believed that they were being rational in what they were basing their decisions upon.

I don't think those people had books from doctors (MDs) saying why it was good to drive drunk and books and articles claiming statistics showed it made them better drivers.  I do not think the comparison is a good one.  I think even back then if you asked people they knew on some level that driving drunk was not a smart idea.  I think as a whole people did not realize just how dangerous it was just like driving without a seat belt and loads of other things people used to do.

It would not be reasonable for all physicians to address this issue in that much detail but books on the subject and articles should be able to fully address the concerns of those who are not vaxing and the people writing those things should know what those concerns are.  My son's first pediatrician did a great job addressing my concerns with me.  He told me that he had read about the issue widely, that he felt vaccines were safe, that the benefits greatly outweighed the risks, that he used to not push people that hard to vax but changed after one of his patients or maybe just a child in our state died or nearly died (it is a long time ago now so I forget) of a disease preventable by vaccines.  He did not spend a lot of time talking about this with me but enough that I felt heard and I appreciated his answer.  It is common around here for people to interview perspective pediatricians and that is when this type of conversation would often take place.

There are books by MDs that say that some vaccines have more risk than the disease they are designed to prevent so if a lay person reads that and believes it I don't think that makes them an idiot.  I think that attitude will not be helpful in trying to get more people to vaccinate. 

Quote from: CMdeux on January 31, 2015, 08:06:49 PM]
And while I agree that in a perfect world, a physician should be able to take a fifteen page manifesto (which may include everything from fairly nuanced statistical risk modelling to out-and-out bizarre and clearly impossible things) and calmly, patiently address each item one by one, the simple reality is that there is NO TIME for that in modern medicine.

SO yeah-- I'm fine with that solution, but pragmatically, I have to say, okay, but even ONE of those people in a day puts my physician at a place where s/he can't see three other patients.  At least.  What if I have to wait another two MONTHS for an appointment because there are a bunch of those people?

That, too, has costs for others.  Besides, not all physicians are great educators, when you get right down to it, and many of THEM aren't vaccine experts by any means-- but they do read practice parameters and the like.  So can they answer EVERY off-the-wall thing that a patient reads on the internet?  Most certainly NOT-- and even if they go and look it up, or ask an expert, that's yet more time devoted to it.

  So I'm a bit impatient with this nonsense-- because that is what it is. If they have "concerns" after reading at the CDC, etc. then I'm not sure what to say to that.  I guess that I do sort of think they aren't all that bright.  I'm sorry, and I know that seems mean.  But at that point, I do have to sort of shrug and point out that they ought to listen to people who are, and hopefully not waste SO much time in the process that those people spend their entire lives patiently explaining and explaining things that are really fairly obvious.

NONE of the "vaccines are not safe" rhetoric has any backing to it.  So it is a waste of time, when you get right down to it. :-/




Well, darn!  That Pediatrics paper is behind a paywall now, which is a bummer.  Library access, that'd be my recommendation on that one.

I heard this on NPR the other day and I was waiting for the dad tinsay his child with leukemia (I think it's leukemia) has a right to FAPE as part of his argument that unvaxed kids should not be allowed at school.

It's a very interesting story and doesn't take long. What an amazing dad he is.

via npr: To Protect His Son, Father Pushes School To Bar Unimmunized Kids http://n.pr/1yFXlcd (http://n.pr/1yFXlcd)

This is a really interesting story-- the comments, though-- that is what was truly a fascinating look.   :watch:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html)

I read that article yesterday.  Honestly, I think they went out of their way to find people who have very poor reasons for not vaccinating.  I do not think M. Foster is representative of the reason people don't vax.  And nearly all anti-vaxers get tetnus from what I know.  Many who don't vax are not into natural foods or essential oils.  Certainly some are but those things do not all go hand in hand.

I think that article will make anti-vax people feel they have been stereotyped as idiots and painted by wide brush and turned off.

Well, possibly-- but do understand that at some locations in the west-- in the locations where measles cases are out in the community, these people DO exist, and they really are that wacky.

They seem to be not entirely unrepresentative of the typical variety out west, actually. (http://skeweddistribution.com/2015/01/30/jack-wolfson-the-latest-anti-vax-whack-a-mole/)  I wish that I could say otherwise, but that's also my impression, living where I do.   :-/  My DH is already trying to figure out if he can tell a coworker who often has his child with him at work to keep that (unvaccinated, Waldorf) child the hell away from him in the event that we have measles cases in our community...  and we've concluded that such a thing is probably going to be a no-win situation for my spouse, who has an underlying medical condition.    The entire thing is making us EXTREMELY nervous. 


Costs of containment:

Whoahhhhhhh.... ouchie-ouchie-ouchie. (http://skeweddistribution.com/2015/01/31/the-economic-cost-of-measles/)

Vaccines just plain work.  And they are actually really, really safe, too.   (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/naturopathy-vs-science-vaccination-edition/)  Repeating this one here.

Okay, okay-- along with the fun cartoon.  I love married to the sea:

(http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evil-mr-vaccine-1-480x425.png)

In all seriousness, though-- please read that very well-referenced blog post written in April by Scott Gavura, who is a Canadian pharmacist. 


An interesting previous blog post (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/improving-our-response-to-anti-vaccine-sentiment/) by Scott notes:

Quote
Are the anti-vaccine tactics effective?

If we accept that decisions to vaccinate are based on an evaluation of the risks of both commission and omission, then we should ask if exposure to anti-vaccine information has a meaningful impact on perceptions of the safety of vaccines. There is some literature that has studied this question. An interesting paper published earlier this year by Betsch and colleagues set out to prospectively measure the impact of anti-vaccination websites. They recruited 517 internet users (from sites for parents or those interested in medical information) and compared risk judgment and vaccination intentions before and after viewing different websites. (The evaluation was in German and used German websites. ) Users were directed to view a vaccine-critical website, or a neutral website, and then evaluated again.  The authors found that viewing anti-vaccine material for only five to ten minutes increased the perception of risk of vaccination, and decreased the perception of risk of omitting vaccines, compared to viewing neutral websites. It also lowered vaccination intentions.

Overwhelmingly, policy analyses of the anti-vaccine movement have centered on the need to address fears by providing reliable, accurate understandable information. But if H1N1 taught us anything, it's that traditional public health advocacy and messaging is probably insufficient to deal with anti-vaccine tactics used today. We believe that providing the facts alone will be effective, but this tactic is probably ineffective when responding to unfounded fears. Providing factual information, and correcting misinformation needs to be at the core of our advocacy, but it alone does not address the strategies used by anti-vaccine advocates.  It's the reality we need to accept if we're going to effectively counter these messages.

Conclusion

One of the biggest drivers of health behaviors is risk perceptions. Anti-vaccine information effectively shapes this, and science advocates need more effective responses. The opportunity to get a real-time understanding of popular anti-vaccine sentiment could help us improve our responsiveness. But unless we focus on prospectively influencing the key factors that drive decisions about vaccination, we'll continue to struggle.

Evidence of peanut proteins in vaccines (http://foodallergysupport.olicentral.com/index.php/topic,10001.0.html)

Quote from: CMdeux on February 02, 2015, 12:37:27 AM
TO anyone reading:  this is what is SO dangerous about looking for information about vaccination on the web-- people like this ABOUND, and most of them have exactly no self-awareness when it comes to the limitations in their ability to accurately read and understand professional literature in proper context.    They fail to understand that just because something is in writing, just because that writing exists within an archive-- does not make it currently the best available explanation.  Sorry, but you really do have to have all that advanced education when you play in the deep end of the pool.  That's a bummer for laypersons wanting to challenge paradigms, I realize-- but there are people who have a few decades invested (who are probably smarter than you), and who regularly invest 50 to 80 hours each week on this stuff, and they do NOT get the same thing out of reading those references.  In fact, they shake their heads over this kind of thing. 

It certainly gives ME a headache.  It's whack-a-mole.    And really, this 2008 blog post about the exact same phenomenon is a good demonstration of the kinds of tactics used here. (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-jay-gordon-anti-vaccination/)  While it never gets old for those moles, it sure gets old for those of us holding the mallet.   :pout:

Please stop this.  A community whose children are at elevated risk from respiratory diseases, some of which are vaccine-preventable-- a community which has one member who has lost a child to such an agent-- this is just rude. 

I love Scott the Pharmacist. I follow him on twitter.

Tweeted by @ScienceBasedMed



Warning - some language in this one ...



"Antivaccine cardiologist Jack Wolfson and the resurrection of false balance about vaccines...again!"
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/02/02/antivaccine-cardiologist-jack-wolfson-and-the-resurrection-of-false-balance-about-vaccines-again/ (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/02/02/antivaccine-cardiologist-jack-wolfson-and-the-resurrection-of-false-balance-about-vaccines-again/)

QuoteOoops, CNN did it again. Yesterday. In a story by Elizabeth Cohen and Debra Goldschmidt entitled Arizona measles exposure worries parents of at-risk kids CNN couldn't resist giving the vile Dr. Wolfson more national exposure.

Tweeted by @drJoshS

QuoteFor the best science on vaccines, you can't beat @theIOM goo.gl/lFIVug

Links to the
Institute of Medicine's Vaccine Safety Reports
sorted by Vaccine

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/IOM-Reports.htm (http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/IOM-Reports.htm)


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



Tweeted by @FiveThirtyEight

"Your Brain Is Primed To Reach False Conclusions"
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/)

QuotePaul Offit likes to tell a story about how his wife, pediatrician Bonnie Offit, was about to give a child a vaccination when the kid was struck by a seizure. Had she given the injection a minute sooner, Paul Offit says, it would surely have appeared as though the vaccine had caused the seizure and probably no study in the world would have convinced the parent otherwise.

QuotePsychologists have a name for the cognitive bias that makes us prone to assigning a causal relationship to two events simply because they happened one after the other: the "illusion of causality."

Tweeted by @medskep

"Vilifying Parents Who Don't Vaccinate Their Kids Is Counterproductive"
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2015/02/02/vilifying-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-their-kids-is-counterproductive/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2015/02/02/vilifying-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-their-kids-is-counterproductive/)

QuoteThe study of the psychology of risk perception has established that our judgments and decisions about any possible danger are the product of both the facts and an emotional assessment of how those facts feel.

QuoteBut before the vitriol toward vaccine refusers and hesitants grows too shrill, those of us who criticize vaccine refusal and hesitancy as a selfish emotion-driven denial of the evidence and a threat to public health, need to consider how we level that criticism. Dismissing such fears as irrational and vilifying vaccine refusal and hesitancy as ignorant and anti-social may be factually accurate, and understandable as the fear of a resurgent disease spreads, but it is emotionally arrogant and combative, and could make the problem, and public health, worse rather than better.

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



Tweeted by @aaronecarroll


"Could we stop asking politicians "gotcha" questions about measles please? And anyone else for that matter?"
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/could-we-stop-asking-politicians-gotcha-questions-about-measles-please-and-anyone-else-for-that-matter/ (http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/could-we-stop-asking-politicians-gotcha-questions-about-measles-please-and-anyone-else-for-that-matter/)

Quotewhat we're really asking politicians about is whether they think it's a good idea to force a parent to do something to their child that might run counter to their beliefs

QuoteYou have the right to refuse the vaccine. You don't have the right to put other kids at risk during an outbreak.

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



Tweeted by @NPRHealth

"Once A Vaccine Skeptic, This Mom Changed Her Mind"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/04/383567862/once-a-vaccine-skeptic-this-mom-changed-her-mind?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=health&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/04/383567862/once-a-vaccine-skeptic-this-mom-changed-her-mind?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=health&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews)

Quote"I know what it's like to be scared and just want to protect your children, and make the wrong decisions," Russo says.

Quote"Fear, or the perception of risk, is subjective," Ropeik says. "It's a matter of how we feel about the facts we have, not just what the facts say.

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



Tweeted by @eliza68

"How one vaccine skeptic became a vaccine supporter"
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/6/7992071/how-one-vaccine-skeptic-became-a-vaccine-supporter (http://www.vox.com/2015/2/6/7992071/how-one-vaccine-skeptic-became-a-vaccine-supporter)

Quoteempathetic toward mothers who fear vaccination while persuasively arguing for the morality of vaccines

Quotethe question of what is the relationship between the individual and the collective

QuoteI think the other way into empathy is to look at how scared people are, and to think about why they're scared, and what's happening culturally to support and encourage that fear.

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



Tweeted by @DrLeanaWen

"To Get Parents To Vaccinate Their Kids, Don't Ask. Just Tell"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/06/384322665/to-get-parents-to-vaccinate-their-kids-dont-ask-just-tell (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/06/384322665/to-get-parents-to-vaccinate-their-kids-dont-ask-just-tell)

QuoteThe study's surprising results: When doctors assumed parents would be OK with vaccines, they were. More than 70 percent had their child vaccinated.

On the other hand, when physicians were more flexible and allowed for discussion, most of the parents — 83 percent — decided against vaccination.

Tweeted by @Skepticscalpel

"Kearny mom speaks out about measles"
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/02/26/kearny-mom-speaks-measles/24041541/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/02/26/kearny-mom-speaks-measles/24041541/)

QuoteYslas-Roach says she "feels horrible" that his daughter was exposed to the measles, adding, "it completely broke my heart. We didn't do this intentionally." If Christian had been tested Jan. 11, Yslas-Roach says, the results would have been back in time to prevent the exposure to Maggie and others. "Our family has gone through hell, dealing with the commentary on social media and from the regular media over the fact that people think we were running around exposing people."

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


Tweeted by @Clippo

QuoteI'm offended. Are you? "Cartoon Compares School Allergy Accommodations to Anti-Vax" shar.es/1oS3lx #foodallergy

http://www.yummymummyclub.ca/blogs/alexandria-durrell-irritated-by-allergies/20150213/offensive-cartoon-compares-food-bans-to-0 (http://www.yummymummyclub.ca/blogs/alexandria-durrell-irritated-by-allergies/20150213/offensive-cartoon-compares-food-bans-to-0)


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


Tweeted by @IgECPD


"Toddler dies as measles outbreak hits German capital"
http://news.yahoo.com/toddler-dies-measles-germany-says-health-official-002917361.html (http://news.yahoo.com/toddler-dies-measles-germany-says-health-official-002917361.html)

QuoteThe 18-month-old boy died on February 18 -- the first known fatality among more than 570 recorded measles cases since October in the German capital -- a Berlin health department official told AFP.

"Measles kills first patient in 12 years"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/02/measles-death-washington-state/29624385/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/02/measles-death-washington-state/29624385/)

QuoteThe USA has suffered its first measles death in 12 years, according to Washington state health officials.

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



Tweeted by @AliceDreger

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/boy-dies-diphtheria-spain-parents-rejected-vaccine-32069410 (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/boy-dies-diphtheria-spain-parents-rejected-vaccine-32069410)


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



Tweeted by @sethmnookin

"First Measles Death in US Since 2003 Highlights the Unknown Vulnerables"
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/02/measles-death-us/ (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/02/measles-death-us/)

QuoteThose unknown vulnerables represent a lot of people: cancer patients undergoing treatment, transplant recipients taking anti-rejection drugs, people living with HIV, anyone with an inborn immune deficiency, anyone getting high doses of steroids—and the 4 million children in the United States who at any point are less than 12 months old, the recommended age for the first dose of measles vaccine.

&


"This Mom Is Mad At Jim Carrey For Tweeting A Photo Of Her Son With Autism"
http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/jim-carrey-tweeted-this-kids-photo (http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/jim-carrey-tweeted-this-kids-photo)

Quotethe boy has a genetic autism syndrome that has nothing to do with vaccines, his mom told BuzzFeed News.

QuoteOn Tuesday night, actor and comedian Jim Carrey began tweeting a string of messages expressing his dismay at California's new law that eliminates vaccine exemptions for personal or religious reasons.

Tweeted by @DrJenGunter


"Andrew Wakefield is apparently a legimate source of vaccine info at University of Toronto"
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/andrew-wakefield-is-apparently-a-legimite-source-of-vaccine-info-at-university-of-toronto/ (https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/andrew-wakefield-is-apparently-a-legimite-source-of-vaccine-info-at-university-of-toronto/)

QuoteIf ignoring the concerns of scientists about the abuse of Quantum Mechanics wasn't bad enough, to conclude that the teachings about vaccines as represented by the curriculum are not "unbalanced" from a "scholarly" perspective simply renders one speechless.

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


Tweeted by @DShaywitz


"California, Camelot and Vaccines"
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-california-camelot-and-vaccines.html?referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-california-camelot-and-vaccines.html?referrer=)

QuoteI had sided with the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

QuoteThis is erudition in the age of cyberspace: You surf until you reach the conclusion you're after. You click your way to validation, confusing the presence of a website with the plausibility of an argument.