Measles: To Disneyland and Beyond

[MyBelle]

So a three year old safety study bad, but a 100+ year old supreme court case from long before children had40+ shots is good.

:facepalm:

A Supreme Court case from over 100 years ago still stands as a matter of law. If you aren't happy with abiding by laws, move to another country. It's your choice.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

http://www.funnyjunk.com/Vaccines+cause+autism/funny-gifs/5216011

Good example of Darwinism. LOL

 

[nrdsb4]

A Supreme Court case from over 100 years ago still stands as a matter of law. If you aren't happy with abiding by laws, move to another country. It's your choice.

JMO

Yeah, last I knew, laws don't just decompose. If no new laws are passed to the contrary or no new SC judgments are made to cancel out a previous decision, that decision stands as precedent.

 

[nrdsb4]

It's funny that you would post this, and no one has responded to the FACT- that the one major study that was used to base numerous other studies was 100% inaccurate. Thorsen is on the run and in another country waiting on extradition for ripping off 2 milllion in grant funds.

There are actually something like 28 studies that show the same link that Dr. Wakefield showed. Also, the Italian court has found a link....

So while it's funny to mock the other side, mocking with truth is always a better bet than using falsified data.

Correlation is NOT causation. A "link" does not prove causation.

 

[gitana1]

I think one adult who doesn't work at KinderCare exposed all those babies. What an incredibly irresponsible thing to do. They should be prosecuted.

Criminal exposure of a potentially deadly virus. It happened during the AIDS epidemic and it could happen again.

JMO

Irresponisibility and criminality are two different things. People with AIDS have been prosecuted for KNOWINGLY transmitting the disease by having unprotected sex while refusing to tell the person they were having sex with about their disease.

Big difference.

The equivalence would be if someone with the measles coughed in an unvaccinated person's face after getting that person to be close to them and not telling that person they are ill.

Refusing to get one's child vaccinated doesn't come close to anything that could be prosecuted at present.

I had trouble getting to that article as well, and had to mess around with different browsers but I eventually was able to read it. I consider this opinion piece to be "screaming." Part of screaming is wanting your voice heard and no one else's. And that is what this author wants. Thats not helpful. There are several reasons people are not getting vaccinated. Ignoring those reasons doesn't get them vaccinated. In part because so many articles are directing their ire at the wrong people. This article partly blames religious leaders for not doing more, but acknowledges that organized religions aren't anti-vaccine. There are lots of comments about people that are "anti-science" not getting vaccinated. Yet it appears that the largest group of anti-vacc folks are the well educated, those in the Silicon Valley for example. I am very much in favor of vaccinations. But demonizing people, especially the wrong people, doesn't help us get to a safer more immunized country.

I'm 100% in agreement with you. I believe in vaccines and I believe that the vitriol toward those who don't is having the opposite effect as to what is intended.

 

[nrdsb4]

Irresponisibility and criminality are two different things. People with AIDS have been prosecuted for KNOWINGLY transmitting the disease by having unprotected sex while refusing to tell the person they were having sex with about their disease.

Big difference.

The equivalence would be if someone with the measles coughed in someone's face after getting that person to be close to them and not telling that person they are ill.

Refusing to get one's child vaccinated doesn't come close to anything that could be prosecuted at present.



I'm 100% in agreement with you. I believe in vaccines and I believe that the vitriol toward goes who don't is having the opposite effect as to what is intended.

That sounds really reasonable, but the fact is that far less caustic tactics have had no better results. That's how we ended up in this position to begin with. They were rarely if ever challenged. Just sign a "personal belief" form and off you go.

It's going to take legal action to move some of these folks (such as making them ineligible to attend public school or mommy's beloved Harvard, or dance classes, or any other number of similar consequences), but many of them will continue to dig in, because saving face or sticking it to the man is more important to them. Often the only thing that sways them is when one of their children becomes ill and suffers severe complications. At that point it's hard to argue against the evidence that they were actually not so hot at risk assessment, and only then do some of these parents haul butt to their pediatricians to vaccinate their other children.

 

[gitana1]

Patients have the right to not consent to medical treatment, this is true. However, in certain situations and in certain cases, it is ethically and legally correct for a doctor to make medical decisions on behalf of a patient, in a time of crisis, even if it is in conflict with the patient's belief system.

For example, let's say a patient doesn't accept blood products during surgery and for whatever reason winds up in surgery and let's say this person consented to surgery and banked his own blood beforehand for use during surgery. A complication happens and the patient needs additional blood. It is acceptable for the doctor to use outside blood products in a life saving decision, knowing that decision conflicts with the patient's belief system.

(I dont know what religion you want to use in the above case as several who dont allow blood products also wouldnt have the surgery in the first place, but im trying to present an example so go with it)

True but there is a big difference between: "Am I liable or using life saving measures in an emergency without the patient's permission and against their will?" And: "We are lining you up and forcing you to receive a foreign substance via a medical procedure, against your will."

One has to do with the doctor's potential liability if they render treatment without permission and the other has to do with criminal repercussions for failing to undergo a medical procedure.

 

[CoolJ]

Yes, you've said several times in essence that you'd prefer to throw the baby out with bath water. If there is corruption within big pharma it must ALL be wrong and the fact that millions of people used to die or suffer greatly every year before the advent of vaccines and that death and morbidity rates have gone down significantly since the advent of vaccines is no rationale for vaccinating one's children.

You do realize that Merck(manufacturer of MMR vaccine) is currently embroiled in two lawsuits brought by two of THEIR OWN SCIENTISTS because they were doctoring, falsifying reports and manipulating data with regards to the mumps vaccine.

I am not just making this stuff up. Research it for yourself. You won't hear it reported on CNN and the like but it is very real.

 

[Hiandmighty]

A person with measles went all over southern calif and now there is a list of places where people could have been infected:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/12/several-ventura-county-restaurants-stores-exposed-to-measles/#.VN1HK7IUkY4.twitter

 

[MyBelle]

Have you ever checked into the fact that the measles was already in decline?
The non-vaccinating public really hasn't increased in size, it's still roughly 5% - so the outbreaks aren't just the unvaccinated catching the wild and passing it on, it's the vaccinated not having the immunity they thought they did. The answer is not simply more vaccinations.

Yes, the answer is to increase the vaccination rate. Measles is throughout the world and people travel. The un-vaccinated rate for school children has increased substantially in the U.S. because of laws allowing for personal belief exemptions.

Another example is measles, which has become rare in the United States: U.S. outbreaks of the disease have occurred when Americans traveling to countries where measles remains widespread brought the disease back with them. With adequate vaccination rates, most of these types of outbreaks can be prevented. But if vaccination rates drop, “imported” cases of preventable diseases can begin to spread again. In the early 2000s, for example, low vaccination rates in England allowed measles to become endemic once again after earlier vaccination rates had halted its continuous transmission in the country.

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/misconceptions-about-vaccines

 

[MyBelle]

That sounds really reasonable, but the fact is that far less caustic tactics have had no better results. That's how we ended up in this position to begin with. They were rarely if ever challenged. Just sign a "personal belief" form and off you go.

It's going to take legal action to move some of these folks (such as making them ineligible to attend public school or mommy's beloved Harvard, or dance classes, or any other number of similar consequences), but many of them will continue to dig in, because saving face or sticking it to the man is more important to them. Often the only thing that sways them is when one of their children becomes ill and suffers severe complications. At that point it's hard to argue against the evidence that they were actually not so hot at risk assessment, and only then do some of these parents haul butt to their pediatricians to vaccinate their other children.

ITA. I couldn't care any less if they endanger their own children but it's when their actions endanger other children they should be prosecuted for it. I am astounded that the KinderCare center allowed an un-vaccinated adult anywhere near infants. Measles is so contagious it doesn't have to be blown in the face of an infant to get it.

KinderCare, a nationwide chain of about 1,500 daycare centers, said it will begin requiring measles vaccines for all staff working with babies under 15 months old. The chain also will collect records of measles immunizations for all workers. The move came as eight infants at a KinderCare in a Chicago suburb fell ill with the measles.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-adults-20150212-story.html#page=1

 

[CoolJ]

ITA. I couldn't care any less if they endanger their own children but it's when their actions endanger other children they should be prosecuted for it. I am astounded that the KinderCare center allowed an un-vaccinated adult anywhere near infants. Measles is so contagious it doesn't have to be blown in the face of an infant to get it.

KinderCare, a nationwide chain of about 1,500 daycare centers, said it will begin requiring measles vaccines for all staff working with babies under 15 months old. The chain also will collect records of measles immunizations for all workers. The move came as eight infants at a KinderCare in a Chicago suburb fell ill with the measles.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-adults-20150212-story.html#page=1

You could care less be about their children?? It's only the vaccinated children you care about?
I care about all children. That's why I am worried about what these vaccines are actually doing to us.

 

[Hiandmighty]

"Vaccines don’t cause autism. But even if they did, is being like me really a fate worse than death?"

"I'm autistic, and believe me, it's a lot better than measles"

https://medium.com/the-archipelago/im-autistic-and-believe-me-its-a-lot-better-than-measles-78cb039f4bea

 

[K_Z]

medical Ethicist Arthur Caplan: there is no other side to the vaccine debate:

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82801828/

I don't think this is helpful. Screaming at people and saying there "is no debate" doesn't increase vaccination rates. In fact it probably does more harm than good.

I can't access this article without registering, which I don't want to do.

Who is "screaming"?

I had trouble getting to that article as well, and had to mess around with different browsers but I eventually was able to read it. I consider this opinion piece to be "screaming." Part of screaming is wanting your voice heard and no one else's. And that is what this author wants. Thats not helpful. There are several reasons people are not getting vaccinated. Ignoring those reasons doesn't get them vaccinated. In part because so many articles are directing their ire at the wrong people. This article partly blames religious leaders for not doing more, but acknowledges that organized religions aren't anti-vaccine. There are lots of comments about people that are "anti-science" not getting vaccinated. Yet it appears that the largest group of anti-vacc folks are the well educated, those in the Silicon Valley for example. I am very much in favor of vaccinations. But demonizing people, especially the wrong people, doesn't help us get to a safer more immunized country.

He said the arizona doc is a "lunatic" who should be left in the corner to rant and called some people "knuckleheads". It was written in a very colloquial tone.

I just want to point out "who" the author of that article is. It's Arthur L. Caplan, one of the most highly respected and honored bio-ethicists in the world, and also one of the most prolific writers on the issues. He is not just a ranting nobody. He really is "the voice" of medical ethics around the world. This article is actually somewhat out of character for him-- he seldom rants like this, so I have to conclude that he is immensely frustrated with the whole "anti-vax movement", as well as the infinitesimally small number of unethical physicians who have joined in that "movement".

Arthur L. Caplan is director of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center's Department of Population Health.

Caplan is the author or editor of thirty-two books and over 600 papers in peer-reviewed journals of medicine, science, philosophy, bioethics and health policy.
He has served on a number of national and international committees including as the Chair National Cancer Institute Biobanking Ethics Working Group, the Chair of the Advisory Committee to the United Nations on Human Cloning, the Chair of the Advisory Committee to the Department of Health and Human Services on Blood Safety and Availability, a member of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses, the special advisory committee to the International Olympic Committee on genetics and gene therapy, the ethics committee of the American Society of Gene Therapy, and the special advisory panel to the National Institute of Mental Health on human experimentation on vulnerable subjects. He has consulted with many corporations, not-for-profit organizations and consumer organizations. He is a member of the board of directors of The Keystone Center, the National Center for Policy Research on Women and Families, Octagon, The Franklin Institute, Iron Disorders Foundation and the National Disease Research Interchange. He chaired the advisory committee on bioethics at Glaxo from 2005–8. He was the co-director of a United Nations/Council of Europe Study on organ trafficking. He is an advisor to DARPA on synthetic biology.

He writes a regular column on bioethics for NBC.com.[1] He is a regular contributor to WebMD/Medscape. He is a regular commentator on WGBH radio Boston on the noontime news show. He is a frequent guest and commentator on various other media outlets.

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

Here's another very interesting article he's written:

Free to Choose but Liable for the Consequences: Should Non- Vaccinators Be Penalized for the Harm They Do?

http://www.academia.edu/2344148/Fre...vaccinators_be_penalized_for_the_harm_they_do

 

[MyBelle]

You could care less be about their children?? It's only the vaccinated children you care about?
I care about all children. That's why I am worried about what these vaccines are actually doing to us.

I care about the un-vaccinated children of those who have no choice in the matter because of age or illness.

 

[MyBelle]

I just want to point out "who" the author of that article is. It's Arthur L. Caplan, one of the most highly respected and honored bio-ethicists in the world, and also one of the most prolific writers on the issues. He is not just a ranting nobody. He really is "the voice" of medical ethics around the world. This article is actually somewhat out of character for him-- he seldom rants like this, so I have to conclude that he is immensely frustrated with the whole "anti-vax movement", as well as the infinitesimally small number of unethical physicians who have joined in that "movement".

Arthur L. Caplan is director of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center's Department of Population Health.



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

Here's another very interesting article he's written:

Free to Choose but Liable for the Consequences: Should Non- Vaccinators Be Penalized for the Harm They Do?

http://www.academia.edu/2344148/Fre...vaccinators_be_penalized_for_the_harm_they_do

Thanks. Second article is what I was referencing upthread: consequences for exposing innocent, susceptible children.

 

[Charlie09]

A Supreme Court case from over 100 years ago still stands as a matter of law. If you aren't happy with abiding by laws, move to another country. It's your choice.

JMO

but...I am abiding by the law.

 

[Charlie09]

I didn't suggest you were breaking any laws. Because you seem so unhappy with a more than 100 year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that does allow for forced vaccinations if public officials decide it is necessary, I suggested that you move to another country.

JMO

Enough with snide comments, let's discuss Paul Thorsen. what about Thorsen being a fraud and his research and studies that supposedly disproved Wakefields were all made up? And he's on the run for stealing 2 million dollars? I find it hard to believe that on this forum of all forums, when people such as yourself are so keen on the law and lawbreakers such as non vaccinating parents be jailed and charged - aren't outraged that the data relied on is faked.

Just as a reminder - from the Office of the Inspector General a little bio

CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.

https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp

and

Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children. Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html


how independent are vaccine defenders?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/

 

[PrairieWind]

Ccc

I just want to point out "who" the author of that article is. It's Arthur L. Caplan, one of the most highly respected and honored bio-ethicists in the world, and also one of the most prolific writers on the issues. He is not just a ranting nobody. He really is "the voice" of medical ethics around the world. This article is actually somewhat out of character for him-- he seldom rants like this, so I have to conclude that he is immensely frustrated with the whole "anti-vax movement", as well as the infinitesimally small number of unethical physicians who have joined in that "movement".

Arthur L. Caplan is director of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center's Department of Population Health.



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

Here's another very interesting article he's written:

Free to Choose but Liable for the Consequences: Should Non- Vaccinators Be Penalized for the Harm They Do?

http://www.academia.edu/2344148/Fre...vaccinators_be_penalized_for_the_harm_they_do

KZ, that is my point. Who he is. He is saying there can be no discussion. This man you hold as the top medical ethicist has pretty much disqualified himself from that label by taking that position. And it is relevant that front line physicians don't support that rhetoric, because it isn't productive.

 

[Charlie09]

Yes, the answer is to increase the vaccination rate. Measles is throughout the world and people travel. The un-vaccinated rate for school children has increased substantially in the U.S. because of laws allowing for personal belief exemptions.

Another example is measles, which has become rare in the United States: U.S. outbreaks of the disease have occurred when Americans traveling to countries where measles remains widespread brought the disease back with them. With adequate vaccination rates, most of these types of outbreaks can be prevented. But if vaccination rates drop, “imported” cases of preventable diseases can begin to spread again. In the early 2000s, for example, low vaccination rates in England allowed measles to become endemic once again after earlier vaccination rates had halted its continuous transmission in the country.

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/misconceptions-about-vaccines

Pretty sure that's not an MSM link - but it seems to only matter on one side of the isle of this debate.

I haven't seen that the percentage of non-vax families has risen drastically - it's stayed the same ...roughly 5% which shouldn't impact vaccinated people - *IF* the vaccinations worked. The declining efficacy of the vaccinations and shelf life should be a concern to those who put their trust in the vaccines.

It's not as settled as the "pro" side would like it believed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17509/Why-Japan-banned-MMR-vaccine.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ter-award-over-child-with-autism-7858596.html