Measles: To Disneyland and Beyond

[PrairieWind]

A lot of people believe it's only the woefully uneducated, the fanatical religious, or poor immigrants who don't get their vaccines. Not true.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/12/measles-outbreak-infected-commuter-silicon-valley

Wow, that is an interesting article if their numbers are correct. Less than half of the Google facility employees' kids are vaccinated. Similar numbers for Pixar, and Cisco.

 

[MyBelle]

Wow, that is an interesting article if their numbers are correct. Less than half of the Google facility employees' kids are vaccinated. Similar numbers for Pixar, and Cisco.

It is surprising to me that educated employees aren't vaccinated. My children's colleges all required proof of vaccinations.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I wonder what LinkedIn's numbers are, given this recent linkedin employee with measles who went to work, rode public transportation and went out to dinner...

 

[MyBelle]

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I get my hair colored every few weeks. It takes a hell of a lot longer to do than getting one booster shot every ten years, it's a lot more expensive, and I'll probably find out it's lots more "toxic."

Years ago, my mother was convinced her non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was a result of coloring her hair. She never colored it again. The toxins she ingested over the next 12 years from chemo were far more harmful than the hair dye.

JMO

 

[Hiandmighty]

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

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

 

[nrdsb4]

Years ago, my mother was convinced her non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was a result of coloring her hair. She never colored it again. The toxins she ingested over the next 12 years from chemo were far more harmful than the hair dye.

JMO

Well, there has been some correlation to that with hair dyes which were in use before 1987 (IIRC). I remember that being discussed when Jackie O got lymphoma. My hair dye is vegetable based, but I'm not naive to the fact that I'm putting chemicals on my scalp for 20 minutes every few weeks that MIGHT carry some kind of risk of something.

 

[Charlie09]

I don't decide just as I didn't decide during other epidemics but I think it is a marvelous idea.

Until it's something you disagree with, but by then you've given up all your constitutional rights.

 

[Charlie09]

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

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

Except Constitutional rights as citizens to not be forced to undergo medical treatments, but why should that bother anyone.

 

[PrairieWind]

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.

 

[nrdsb4]

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"?

 

[MyBelle]

Well, there has been some correlation to that with hair dyes which were in use before 1987 (IIRC). I remember that being discussed when Jackie O got lymphoma. My hair dye is vegetable based, but I'm not naive to the fact that I'm putting chemicals on my scalp for 20 minutes every few weeks that MIGHT carry some kind of risk of something.

My mom was diagnosed in 1988. She spotted the lump under her jaw while getting her hair done. Her oncologist told her it was more likely from the agriculture run-off of herbicides and pesticides.

 

[MyBelle]

Except Constitutional rights as citizens to not be forced to undergo medical treatments, but why should that bother anyone.

It doesn't bother me because it has never been an absolute right in my lifetime or my parents'. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that the greater public good trumps an individual's right to refuse a vaccine.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/case.html

 

[PrairieWind]

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.

 

[Hiandmighty]

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

Who is "screaming"?

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.

 

[Hiandmighty]

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)

 

[Charlie09]

It doesn't bother me because it has never been an absolute right in my lifetime or my parents'. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that the greater public good trumps an individual's right to refuse a vaccine.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/case.html

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:

 

[Charlie09]

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 appreciate your measured tone -

 

[CoolJ]

Anti-vaccine does not equal anti-science. Not in the least. I said this before, I will say it again. It is the manipulation and corruption within science that I am against.

Also, do not forget....
"Skepticism is the foundation of the scientific method"

 

[nrdsb4]

Anti-vaccine does not equal anti-science. Not in the least. I said this before, I will say it again. It is the manipulation and corruption within science that I am against.

Also, do not forget....
"Skepticism is the foundation of the scientific method"

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.

 

[Charlie09]

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.

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.