Antivaxxers on Larry King again

[Eos of the Eons]

You can go to the CNN web site and ask questions in advance, including video ones for Larry.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/ (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/)

Known in other circles as the "dimwitted duo", McCarthy and her "man" are on Larry King.

Stupid media sources at CNN are claiming they have "experts" for "both sides". Why is the media going to get that there is only misinformation vs information, not "sides".

Between Larry King and Oprah, I don't know who to nominate as the worst proponents of the most damaging kinds of woo woo idiocy.

[dudalb]

It's a hard choice,but I would give the edge to Ophrah.
Ophrah, I think , actually buys into a lot of woo,whereas King is simply so anxious to get Celebs on his show he will let them do and say anything.

[Toke]

Been a few years since I saw a Larry King show, it involved fighting on stage.

If his audience/viewers are anything like his guests this is a serius problem as they would belive in anything. I guess media will use the "Unbiased presentation" excuse to get some exitement and controversity on stage. Maybe creationist will be next:D

[UnrepentantSinner]

There was a few bits I caught at the end that I want to extract from the transcript after it's posted.

[Eos of the Eons]

I couldn't watch it. Not after seeing that she thinks polio is better than autism. Yep, kids should get polio until "safer" vaccines are made. That fraccin ****beep** doesn't realize that kids will then just get polio and autism. Yeah, that's much better, gah. THE RATES OF AUTISM ARE THE SAME WHETHER CHILDREN ARE VACCINATED OR NOT. Vaccines are not a factor in autism, therefore it is NOT better to get polio.

[Ivor the Engineer]

"Stupid media sources at CNN are claiming they have "experts" for "both sides". Why is the media going to get that there is only misinformation vs information, not "sides".

Who were the "experts" on both sides?

Was Jenny McCarthy being classed as an expert?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Who were the "experts" on both sides?

Was Jenny McCarthy being classed as an expert?

Jenny side:
J.B. HANDLEY, COFOUNDER, GENERATION RESCUE
DR. JERRY KARTZINEL, "HEALING AND PREVENTING AUTISM"

Science side:
DR. MARGARET FISHER, THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
DR. MAX WIZNITZER, PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGIST

And she is being held as one, she wrote two books on the subject!.

Transcript is up (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/03/lkl.01.html).

[Rolfe]

Whoever did that transcript can't even spell Haemophilus or Pneumococcus.

Or encephalopathy.

Rolfe.

[Kuko 4000]

Ok, I've been living under a rock.


Jim Carrey, what the hell :( :( :(

[Ivor the Engineer]

Presumably this (http://www.pppvonline.com/) is the same Dr. Jerry Kartzinel, MD, FAAP on Jenny's side.

Why is he allowed to practice medicine in the USA?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Whoever did that transcript can't even spell Haemophilus or Pneumococcus.

Or encephalopathy.

Rolfe.

I think the (ph) by the words means they are spelled phonetically.

[Eos of the Eons]

Ok, I've been living under a rock.


Jim Carrey, what the hell :( :( :(

He's an uneducated actor, what do you expect. It's the actual MDs that I'm dissapointed in. They need to educate themselves on the immune system if they are going to come onto TV as an expert about vaccines.

The factoids are completely untrue too. 1/60? Yeah right.

And in Washington, our old friend Dr. Bernardine Healey, health editor, "U.S. News and World Report" and former director of the National Institutes of Health.


NIH.

They need some immunology experts, not sCAM sympathizers.

The same old same old arguments on parade again. Dressed up with misinformation about autism statistics.

Yeah, McCarthy said we don't need an antidiarrhea vaccine because we have clean water. Clueless. Fisher tried to address that but, being the only person on there defending the use of vaccines, came up sounding like an apologetic covering for "mainstream" MDs. Barely got words in before being interrupted.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

I couldn't watch it. Not after seeing that she thinks polio is better than autism.
She's probably doing more for the pro-vaccination cause with this sort of statement than any amount of reasoned discussion :cool:.

Yuri

[Eos of the Eons]

She's probably doing more for the pro-vaccination cause with this sort of statement than any amount of reasoned discussion :cool:.

Yuri

You would hope so. However, McCarthy, like other ignorants, believe that the diseases are harmless because we have clean water and good nutrition. As long as you eat fruit and use woo woo cleanses and oils, then you will not have to worry about any disease. Therefore, vaccines are useless and only cause harm, so we should get rid of them. This is the mantra of the woo woos that McCarthy adores, along with others that listen to the woo woos that a have a complete disregard for "allopathy".

[Chris Haynes]

I could not force myself to watch it (actually I was annoyed at both of my sons yesterday morning... one for never leaving the house, and the other for never being home*, go figure!, which explains my responses to "Caro", http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/i_really_wish_this_were_an_april_fools_d.php#comme nt-1528465 )...

I am feeling better as I have this open in the other window and am reading it:
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2009/04/jb-handley-poorly-informed-or-outright.html

*(egads! Younger son took off Friday evening to do gaming overnight at a friend's house, then was at work from 9am to 4pm Saturday, came home took a nap, and then left to another friend's at 8pm, came home after midnight and then woke up just before going to work --- there is hope he will show up for dinner this evening!)

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you for link HCN.
I vote for Outright (http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2009/04/jb-handley-poorly-informed-or-outright.html) Liar. But, Larry King doesn't expect any actual support for Handley's claims, so Handley could get away with it. He wants the public to think vaccines are just thrown out there irresponsibly, and give him some legitimacy for his continued ramblings about vaccines and autism-no matter how many times he is proven to be wrong.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Whoever did that transcript can't even spell Haemophilus...

In the U.S. we'd spell it hemophius. ;)

[Toke]

My experince with physicians and vacinations outside off school was my seamans yellow book. The doctor gave me some injections and powder in water, when I asked for what others were available I got a NO.
Since I was not going to go live in a cave in asia there were some vacinations I would not need, and which had nasty side effects.

My conclusion is that physians consider benefit and sideeffect of all medication.
Guess it is an essential part of the education.

[Puppycow]

I couldn't watch it. Not after seeing that she thinks polio is better than autism. Yep, kids should get polio until "safer" vaccines are made. That fraccin ****beep** doesn't realize that kids will then just get polio and autism. Yeah, that's much better, gah. THE RATES OF AUTISM ARE THE SAME WHETHER CHILDREN ARE VACCINATED OR NOT. Vaccines are not a factor in autism, therefore it is NOT better to get polio.

That made me think:
Since so many people don't vaccinate these days, shouldn't there be a natural "control group" to compare with by now? Surely somebody has done this? If not, why not?

[Ivor the Engineer]

that made me think:

<snip>

Heretic!

[Deetee]

Whoever did that transcript can't even spell Haemophilus or Pneumococcus.

Or encephalopathy.

Rolfe.

Well you can't expect accuracy when they come up with things like this:
MCCARTHY: This is what I'm saying. First of all, autism is treatable and preventable.
CARREY: I have seen this. With my own ayes.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Jim Carrey's a Geordie?

[Deetee]

I did a word count on the script.

McCarthy/Carrey/King: 3727
Fisher/Wiznitzer/King: 2225
Hanley/Healy/King: 1446

For science: 2225
Against science: 5173

Very balanced.... :mad:

Much of Fisher/Wiznitzer's efforts were directed at just deflecting criticism of vaccines or responding to junk from the McCarthyites.

How about this for a "balanced" discussion:
We get the parents of a child who died from meningitis to talk about the disease and how important vaccination is, and how critical they are of all the antivaccine propaganda there is on the airwaves/internet that persuades parents to leave their kids vulnerable to sickness and death. This uses half the available time.

Then have a discussion for the rest of the programme, where a couple of antivaccination lobbyists deflect criticisms and come under pressure from other provaccine and infectious disease experts who harangue them with details of how nasty infections can be.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I did a word count on the script.

McCarthy/Carrey/King: 3727
Fisher/Wiznitzer/King: 2225
Hanley/Healy/King: 1446

For science: 2225
Against science: 5173

Very balanced.... :mad:

Much of Fisher/Wiznitzer's efforts were directed at just deflecting criticism of vaccines or responding to junk from the McCarthyites.

How about this for a "balanced" discussion:
We get the parents of a child who died from meningitis to talk about the disease and how important vaccination is, and how critical they are of all the antivaccine propaganda there is on the airwaves/internet that persuades parents to leave their kids vulnerable to sickness and death. This uses half the available time.

Then have a discussion for the rest of the programme, where a couple of antivaccination lobbyists deflect criticisms and come under pressure from other provaccine and infectious disease experts who harangue them with details of how nasty infections can be.

Wont work.

Chance of kid becoming autistic after vaccination: ~1%
Chance of kid dying of a VPD: <0.1%

[Tomblvd]

Wont work.

Chance of kid becoming autistic after vaccination: ~1%
Chance of kid dying of a VPD: <0.1%


How about:

Chance of kid becoming autistic regardless of vaccination status: ~1%
Chance of kid dying of a VPD: <0.1%

Just to be completely accurate with the terminology.

[Euromutt]

The indispensable Dr. David Gorski offers his take on "the Jenny & Jim show." (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=445)

[Ivor the Engineer]

Does anyone else find the excuse given by some doctors* for throwing parents who do not wish to have their child vaccinated according to the CDC schedule out of their practices a rationalisation for a bruised ego / irrational judgmental attitude?

If doctors refused to treat every idiot who didn't follow their advice they wouldn't have many patients at all.





*Protecting their other patients.

[paximperium]

Presumably this (http://www.pppvonline.com/) is the same Dr. Jerry Kartzinel, MD, FAAP on Jenny's side.

Why is he allowed to practice medicine in the USA?
A silly thing called "Free speech".

[paximperium]

Does anyone else find the excuse given by some doctors* for throwing parents who do not wish to have their child vaccinated according to the CDC schedule out of their practices a rationalisation for a bruised ego / irrational judgmental attitude?Nope. Yawn...Not any more than some idiot who wants an engineer to build him a bridge made from cheese.


If doctors refused to treat every idiot who didn't follow their advice they wouldn't have many patients at all.So? What is it to you?
A doctor has the right to refuse to treat someone who doesn't use or abuses their services.

There is a simple reason no one takes you seriously. Your double standards are hilarious.

[volatile]

A silly thing called "Free speech".

What's medical competence got to do with "free speech"?

[CapelDodger]

They need to educate themselves on the immune system if they are going to come onto TV as an expert about vaccines.

We wish. Education is the last thing anyone needs to get on TV as an expert. Being telegenic and "controversial" rate way higher.

[CapelDodger]

That made me think:
Since so many people don't vaccinate these days, shouldn't there be a natural "control group" to compare with by now? Surely somebody has done this? If not, why not?

No doubt the research is underway, but there are some problems. Anti-vaccination is a recent phaenomenon for one thing, and the control group is not kept separate from the general population. Vaccination is not 100% effective, so a very high proportion of protection is necessary.

Much of the problem is down to collective loss-of-memory. This airhead crap would never have gained any headway a few generations ago when polio, smallpox, rubella etc. were still live nightmares. It's the comfort of their conquest that gives it space to exist. Sadly this generation is going to learn that measles and mumps are not just "colds and sniffles".

[paximperium]

What's medical competence got to do with "free speech"?
What about his practice of medicine is "incompetent"?

His claims are garbage and he is using his false authority to push his agenda but that is protected under free speech in the US.

Any Medical Board that decides to discipline him will be sued and will lose. Malpractice has a very specific definition under the law and if the public is technically not his "patient", he is not libel and is protected under free speech laws.

The only way to counter his nonsense is to go out there and present the real evidence and educate the public. Censorship will not work and he will undoubtedly claim that he was "Expelled" by the evil Medical Industrial Complex and become a martyr for the anti-vaxer cause.

[technoextreme]

What about his practice of medicine is "incompetent"?

His claims are garbage and he is using his false authority to push his agenda but that is protected under free speech in the US.

I am pretty sure it isn't because I know for a fact that engineers can't use authority to push an agenda for which there is no evidence. It literally falls under the legal definition of fraud. And I really hope that doctors are held to the same standard.

[paximperium]

I am pretty sure it isn't because I know for a fact that engineers can't use authority to push an agenda for which there is no evidence. It literally falls under the legal definition of fraud. And I really hope that doctors are held to the same standard.
I vaguely remember the courts ruled that an engineering professor who was fired for claiming that the WTC collapsed because of bombs was protected under free speech. I may be wrong here.

Medical Boards have admonished and even yanked the license from MDs who push false medical practices and medicines(such as chelation etc.) since that falls under medical practice. However I do not believe they can discipline someone for what they say or claim as long as it is not "medical advice" but an "opinion". That is protected under free speech.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Nope. Yawn...Not any more than some idiot who wants an engineer to build him a bridge made from cheese.

So? What is it to you?
A doctor has the right to refuse to treat someone who doesn't use or abuses their services.

The reasoning doesn't make any sense (for the reasons given). Unvaccinated children don't vanish when they leave a doctor's office, they touch, cough and sneeze their way round shopping centres, schools, playgroups, etc.

If a child does get ill, he/she needs to have access to a doctor. What happens then? Are parents effectively forced to wait until their child is seriously ill and needs to be taken to a emergency room? Is it the child's fault his/her parents have some strange ideas about what constitutes good medical care?

There is a simple reason no one takes you seriously. Your double standards are hilarious.

Only gods are omniscient. You are just a doctor, though I suspect you get confused sometimes.:)

[Ivor the Engineer]

What about his practice of medicine is "incompetent"?

<snip>

We will probably never know from other doctors because they so rarely look too hard at what their colleagues are doing unless it's so blatantly unethical or dangerous a journalist could figure it out.

[Deetee]

Does anyone else find the excuse given by some doctors* for throwing parents who do not wish to have their child vaccinated according to the CDC schedule out of their practices a rationalisation for a bruised ego / irrational judgmental attitude?

If doctors refused to treat every idiot who didn't follow their advice they wouldn't have many patients at all.


*Protecting their other patients.

Well I find this excuse (protecting their other patients) irrational.
In the UK it would be rare to encounter this. GPs don't necessarily have to give a reason to patients for removing them from the practice list, but I believe they must give one if this is then requested by the patient. I have heard all manner of reasons for exclusion. Refusal to vaccinate children has not been one of them, but it might occur.

I suspect GPs sometimes remove difficult and demanding patients from their lists who are very "challenging" to care for, and may give as a "reason" the patient's refusal to follow medical advice.

It is quite possible that a GP with a large number of vaccine refusals may fail to reach their mandatory vaccination targets as a result, and therefore may be inclined to "remove" some in order to achieve this goal, thereby getting the extra money. I cannot envisage a GP saying it would be to protect their other patients. That doesn't make medical sense (but it might make economic sense).

[paximperium]

We will probably never know from other doctors because they so rarely look too hard at what their colleagues are doing unless it's so blatantly unethical or dangerous a journalist could figure it out. Your ignorance about the practice of medicine continues to be very amusing.

[paximperium]

The reasoning doesn't make any sense (for the reasons given). Unvaccinated children don't vanish when they leave a doctor's office, they touch, cough and sneeze their way round shopping centres, schools, playgroups, etc.

If a child does get ill, he/she needs to have access to a doctor. What happens then? Are parents effectively forced to wait until their child is seriously ill and needs to be taken to a emergency room? Is it the child's fault his/her parents have some strange ideas about what constitutes good medical care? Which continues to show your ignorance about medicine.

A physician who decides to no longer care for their patients for whatever reasons have a duty to refer their patients to other physicians who may care for them. To dump a patient is has active illness is considered abandonment. Unless a patient is acutely ill(which is covered under EMTALA Act), a physician can refer them to somebody else and if a patient decides not to follow through, the onus is usually on them. When it comes to kids, Pediatricians will often refer them to collegues who are willing to work with an unreasonable parent. If that does not work, the parent will be refered to another clinic.


Only gods are omniscient. You are just a doctor, though I suspect you get confused sometimes.:)
You need to stop projecting your own nonsense onto others.
I get confused often. I am human after all. However, I do know what I'm talking about unlike you.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

A physician who decides to no longer care for their patients for whatever reasons have a duty to refer their patients to other physicians who may care for them.

Is that may or will?

To dump a patient is has active illness is considered abandonment.

<snip>

We're not talking about dumping patients with active illness. But if we were, then I'd say that's what secretaries are for - no need for a doctor to soil his/her conscience.

[paximperium]

Is that may or will? May. Usually will.



We're not talking about dumping patients with active illness.
But if we were, then I'd say that's what secretaries are for - no need for a doctor to soil his/her conscience.
I love the wonderful moving goalpost and the continued digs despite having your arguments refuted. Actually that is completley true. Secretaries are there for a reason. Of course the doctor is evil and unethical for not wasting time on doing the job they hired someone to do.

Oh, well that's what bigots do. No amount of evidence will convince them that their preconceived biases and generalizations are wrong.

[Chris Haynes]

Wont work.

Chance of kid becoming autistic after vaccination: ~1%
Chance of kid dying of a VPD: <0.1%

I added the bolding: I really hope you were joking when you wrote that. The evidence that exists today shows that there is no connection between autism and vaccines, this is a list on the studies on MMR (http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf). And vaccines prevent diseases that are known to cause autism like symptoms.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I added the bolding: I really hope you were joking when you wrote that. The evidence that exists today shows that there is no connection between autism and vaccines, this is a list on the studies on MMR (http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf). And vaccines prevent diseases that are known to cause autism like symptoms.

I did try to choose my words carefully (i.e. using 'after' rather than 'because of' or 'caused by'), while at the same time being succinct (as is my nature:)).

Just to make absolutely clear: I was only expressing the temporal relationship between a child being vaccinated and then autism being diagnosed, and did not intend to imply that vaccination is a cause of, or trigger for, autism.

[Toke]

Yes, one can also say that people on chemotherapy have a much higher mortality rate than the population in general.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Does anyone else find the excuse given by some doctors* for throwing parents who do not wish to have their child vaccinated according to the CDC schedule out of their practices a rationalisation for a bruised ego / irrational judgmental attitude?

If doctors refused to treat every idiot who didn't follow their advice they wouldn't have many patients at all.

*Protecting their other patients.
Right.

OK, right, I'm definitely going to concentrate this time...

:popcorn1

Yuri (determined to learn stuff)

[paximperium]

Right.

OK, right, I'm definitely going to concentrate this time...

:popcorn1

Yuri (determined to learn stuff)
Well you've got to concentrate or...well, actually you don't even need to be awake to smell that loaded question from a mile away.

No pretense of even trying to hide the double standard or being intelligent.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Does anyone else find the excuse given by some doctors* for throwing parents who do not wish to have their child vaccinated according to the CDC schedule out of their practices a rationalisation for a bruised ego / irrational judgmental attitude?

If doctors refused to treat every idiot who didn't follow their advice they wouldn't have many patients at all.
*Protecting their other patients.
Sorry Ivor, I've looked back at the posts prior to this one and I can't find where anyone says that doctors are throwing parents who decline vaccination for their children out.

Help!

(Though I have managed to look at some of the videos of the Larry King show and she just seems to want to sell her book - oops, sorry, 3 books)

Yuri

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sorry Ivor, I've looked back at the posts prior to this one and I can't find where anyone says that doctors are throwing parents who decline vaccination for their children out.

Help!

(Though I have managed to look at some of the videos of the Larry King show and she just seems to want to sell her book - oops, sorry, 3 books)

Yuri

I was reading the posts made at the SBM blog link (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=445) Euromutt posted. E.g.,

chicagomdon 06 Apr 2009 at 1:39 pm

@ Harry,

I practice in a small town outside Chicago.

If I have new parents in the practice who do not wish to vaccinate according to my recommendations (which is essentially the CDC schedule), I ask them to find another physician to care for their child. Obviously, I have an extensive converstaion with them about risks/benefits, etc. prior to making this recommendation. I do this for a variety of reasons, but the main one is for the protection of my other patients.

...

[ddt]

No doubt the research is underway, but there are some problems. Anti-vaccination is a recent phaenomenon for one thing, and the control group is not kept separate from the general population. Vaccination is not 100% effective, so a very high proportion of protection is necessary.
Is anti-vaccination a recent phenomenon? In Holland at least, where vaccination is not compulsory, refusal to vaccinate has traditionally come from fundie protestant circles. AFAIK, this still is the main group which doesn't vaccinate, and not so much the "woo" groups. I could imagine the US, with its fundie protestant groups, having the same phenomenon. Just curious!


Much of the problem is down to collective loss-of-memory. This airhead crap would never have gained any headway a few generations ago when polio, smallpox, rubella etc. were still live nightmares.
Ah, the cruel jokes we made as kids about fundies being crippled by polio :).

[Deetee]

Which continues to show your ignorance about medicine.

A physician who decides to no longer care for their patients for whatever reasons have a duty to refer their patients to other physicians who may care for them. To dump a patient is has active illness is considered abandonment. Unless a patient is acutely ill(which is covered under EMTALA Act), a physician can refer them to somebody else and if a patient decides not to follow through, the onus is usually on them. When it comes to kids, Pediatricians will often refer them to collegues who are willing to work with an unreasonable parent. If that does not work, the parent will be refered to another clinic.


You need to stop projecting your own nonsense onto others.
I get confused often. I am human after all. However, I do know what I'm talking about unlike you.

I don't think Ivor is suggesting that an ill patient is cast out of the surgery.

In the UK, it is possible for primary care practitioners (GPs) to simply remove patients from their list. It is then the responsibility of the Primary Care Trust to allocate that patient to a new GP, but in the meantime the GP will continue to be responsible for providing necessary healthcare.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.ktla.com/landing_news/?Growing-Number-of-Kids-in-School-Without=1&blockID=253349&feedID=171


The risk of autism was the same for children immunized and not immunized for measles, mumps and rubella, according to a study of more than 500,000 Danish children (https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/19/1477) published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002.

Researchers analyzed data on all children born in Denmark between 1991 and 1998 using the Danish Psychiatric Central Register, a database that has information on every diagnosis given in a Danish psychiatric hospital and outpatient clinic.

Overall, there was no increase in the risk of autistic disorder or other autistic-spectrum disorders among vaccinated children as compared with unvaccinated children, researchers concluded.


And another link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12523209

[Beth]

http://www.ktla.com/landing_news/?Growing-Number-of-Kids-in-School-Without=1&blockID=253349&feedID=171



And another link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12523209

That's interesting, but that only analyzes the MMR vaccination. Do you know if there has been any study, published or planned, that looks at the rates of autism correlated with the number of vaccinations received and the age at the time vaccinations were done? That was the issue that Jenny and Jim were talking about in the snippet of the interview I watched.

BTW, they explicitly said they weren't anti-vaccination, but rather that parents inform themselves about the risks and benefits and make decisions based on that. I understand that they have a different view of the risks and benefits, but I don't see any problem with them advocating that parents become more informed.

[Eos of the Eons]

Wrong. They are lying and refusing to determine the actual risk. They are lying about "advocating that parents become informed". They want people to believe they are simply right about vaccines causing autism to fit their own purpose to blame something for causing autism. IF they were interested in actual risk they would learn the facts instead of repeating outright misinformation and even lies.

If the kids have MMR, they also usually have the other ones. They just made for certain on this study they also had MMR. The study protocols are in the first link, and you can read about what they included.

[Eos of the Eons]

Why am I so sure of my post above? Because of antics like this:
Handley and the Underhanded Researchers (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=100)

If anyone were actually interested in the truth instead of doing bad science to prove that they are "right", then I might agree with Beth's sentiments. The evidence speaks otherwise though.

Wakefield did the same. They are hypocrites when they say it is their colleagues acting the way they are. Well, then how come we can tell it's the other way around? We can prove it by looking at what they've done compared to when it is done in an unbiased, properly controlled manner with large numbers of the population.

[dudalb]

I am wondering where Ivor got his hatred of the Medical Profession.

[Tomblvd]

That's interesting, but that only analyzes the MMR vaccination. Do you know if there has been any study, published or planned, that looks at the rates of autism correlated with the number of vaccinations received and the age at the time vaccinations were done? That was the issue that Jenny and Jim were talking about in the snippet of the interview I watched.

The fact that there are so many children that have had no immunizations, yet still developed autism, should be enough to put the matter to rest, but it won't.

The point of the study looking specifically at MMR was in response to Wakefield's discredited study. Look at the mayhem one study had on vaccination rates (esp. in the UK). And consider the vast amout of money spent chasing ghosts instead of looking at the actual causes and potential treatments for autism.

That is a crime.


BTW, they explicitly said they weren't anti-vaccination, but rather that parents inform themselves about the risks and benefits and make decisions based on that. I understand that they have a different view of the risks and benefits, but I don't see any problem with them advocating that parents become more informed.

No, no matter how many times they say they are not against vaccination, they are against vaccination. The fact they continue to move the goalposts, first MMR, then thimerosal, then all vaccines, should tell you all they need to know.

[TheDaver]

No, no matter how many times they say they are not against vaccination, they are against vaccination. The fact they continue to move the goalposts, first MMR, then thimerosal, then all vaccines, should tell you all they need to know.
Yup. Old bigots’ philosophy. “I don’t hate x, I just know more about x than you and am coming to the rational conclusion.” Present them with information that contradicts their delusion, and they just respond emotionally.

[Robster, FCD]

Beth,

Parents becoming educated is great. Becoming informed is great.

But how does the average person separate good information from bad? They certainly won't get that insight from the media, which has some odd need to treat every issue as one with two sides. If there was good evidence that vaccinations cause autism, they (Jenny and Jim) might have something to discuss, but they don't have that evidence.

Knowledge of the real risks and benefits is not easy to get from google, or the media, etc. Mark Crislip has a great article on the too many too soon line that the antivaxers are so fond of. I am too much of a noob to post links, but if you search for "The Infection Schedule versus the Vaccination Schedule" you should find it.

[TheDaver]

Rob, is this the article you’re talking about?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289

[Robster, FCD]

The very same.

[Beth]

BTW, they explicitly said they weren't anti-vaccination, but rather that parents inform themselves about the risks and benefits and make decisions based on that. I understand that they have a different view of the risks and benefits, but I don't see any problem with them advocating that parents become more informed.

Wrong. They are lying and refusing to determine the actual risk. They are lying about "advocating that parents become informed". They want people to believe they are simply right about vaccines causing autism to fit their own purpose to blame something for causing autism. IF they were interested in actual risk they would learn the facts instead of repeating outright misinformation and even lies.

So the problem is not what they are saying about parents becoming more informed and making their own decisions, but that you feel they are lying when they say that? Okay. Basically, there is nothing they could say that would change your opinion of what they talking about because you don't feel you can trust what they say. Fair 'nuff. There's plenty of people I feel that way about myself.

This also gets to Ivan's point about why is it that many people are more willing to trust Jenny than their own pediatrician's advice. A very important point that doesn't seem to get much discussion here.


If the kids have MMR, they also usually have the other ones. They just made for certain on this study they also had MMR. The study protocols are in the first link, and you can read about what they included. I agree that if they had MMR they usually have others, but if they didn't have MMR, they might also have had many or most of the others? You simply can't extropolate from this study to come to conclusion that the number of vaccinations would have an no impact on the rates of autism. It's quite likely correct, but it's not a logical conclusion of the study cited.

I'll repeat my question, do you know if there has been any study, published or planned, that looks at the rates of autism correlated with the number of vaccinations received and the age at the time vaccinations were done?

[Beth]

Beth,

Parents becoming educated is great. Becoming informed is great.
I agree. But along with that attitude, you have to accept that some proportion of parents are not going to agree with the health authorities and make different decisions for various reasons. If you aren't going to support informed parents making their own decisions regardless of what they choose, you're advocating that they follow someone blindly, just a different someone.

But how does the average person separate good information from bad? They certainly won't get that insight from the media, which has some odd need to treat every issue as one with two sides. If there was good evidence that vaccinations cause autism, they (Jenny and Jim) might have something to discuss, but they don't have that evidence.
I agree with you here. It IS hard to separate good information from bad and the media does not make it easy. It is extremely difficult for a concerned parent to figure out which sources of information are trustworthy on the matter. While studies are helpful, they are not in language the average parent of young children can interpret for themselves. Thus, they have to decide who they trust to do that interpretation for them.

Again, this goes back to Ivan's point about why are they trusting Jenny rather than their child's pediatrician?

[technoextreme]

I vaguely remember the courts ruled that an engineering professor who was fired for claiming that the WTC collapsed because of bombs was protected under free speech. I may be wrong here.

It depends on the actual details of the story though Im highly skeptical. Depending on his expertise claiming that the WTC was a demolition would actually be a major breach of ethics would then in turn be a legitimate reason for every single engineer on the face of the earth to go after him.

[Eos of the Eons]

A decision is not "informed" if it based on lies. Listening to celebrity is just plain stupid since she has no education and feeds her kid yeast she bought over the internet. She most certainly cannot be trusted to "interpret" studies.

Studies have good discussion and results sections that most people can read, but still choose to ignore. The pediatricians that ignore them over "anecdotes" also can't be trusted.

[technoextreme]

We will probably never know from other doctors because they so rarely look too hard at what their colleagues are doing unless it's so blatantly unethical or dangerous a journalist could figure it out.
You know Im going to ask you again why you don't complain about your own field. And no complaining about idiots is not even close to the same level of corruption that exisists in the engineering field.

[Beth]

A decision is not "informed" if it based on lies. Listening to celebrity is just plain stupid since she has no education and feeds her kid yeast she bought over the internet.

Hey, we agree! :)

[Ivor the Engineer]

You know Im going to ask you again why you don't complain about your own field. And no complaining about idiots is not even close to the same level of corruption that exisists in the engineering field.

:confused:

Wanna give me a clue as to what type of corruption you are talking about and how it specifically relates to engineers rather than just the business world in general?

[Robster, FCD]

Beth, should enough parents decide that they know better than actual researchers, the community ceases to be protected against the uncontrolled spread of these diseases. So it isn't just the children of the google degree holding parent that are placed at a greater real risk to avoid an imagined risk, but all of the children within the community, as well as anybody with a weakened immune system.

To protect the community, many states make it hard to take advantage of public education or other privileges if you choose to avoid vaccination, and should there be an outbreak of vaccine preventable disease in that area, they should expect and even appreciate the fact that they will be placed under quarantine to limit the spread of the disease.

Quite simply, Jenandjim can continue to claim that they are pro vaccine, but their words and actions, and the words and actions of the groups that they represent make it clear that they are anti vaccine, and pro disease. Jenandjim have said that they want measles to return to convince people to make safe vaccines, despite the fact that vaccines have nothing to do with autism (outside of the established fact for children whose mother had measles while pregnant are at much greater risk of developing autism, hence had mom been vaccinated...).

Our best understanding is that autism risk is determined by the presence of certain genes that control brain development in utero. The effects of this change are not easily observed until the kid is a few years old.

[Deetee]

Welcome, Robster!

[Skeptic Ginger]

That made me think:
Since so many people don't vaccinate these days, shouldn't there be a natural "control group" to compare with by now? Surely somebody has done this? If not, why not?Are you referring to comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids? Yes, it's been done. And not only that but autism is diagnosed earlier now than the vaccines are given which were initially being blamed. The anti-vaxer crowd just switched to blame earlier vaccinations, just as they switched to blame Thimerosal when the original claim, autism was associated with MMR vaccine, was completely ruled out.

Then there is the data showing significant rise in autism as the Thimerosal was removed from children's vaccinations. I say researchers should consider Thimerosal may have had a protective effect.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wont work.

Chance of kid becoming autistic after vaccination: ~1%
Chance of kid dying of a VPD: <0.1%Ivor, while I assume you had a point here, your data is full of it.

I challenge you to provide data supporting autism as being caused after birth vs during or before fetal development . The evidence supports the cause of autism as either genetic or the result of something in utero.

(And what Tom said.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Only gods are omniscient. You are just a doctor, though I suspect you get confused sometimes.:)Like you do thinking you have a right to services from a provider who chooses under a free market system not to sell them to you?

Not all doctors refuse patients who choose not to follow their vaccine advice. But for those that do, the US is a free country. I don't know the rules in countries with national health services.

And what about the provider who believes with good reason those unvaccinated kids coming into the clinic put everyone else in the building at risk? Did you even consider that?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well I find this excuse (protecting their other patients) irrational.....I assume you meant to be sarcastic here?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did try to choose my words carefully (i.e. using 'after' rather than 'because of' or 'caused by'), while at the same time being succinct (as is my nature:)).

Just to make absolutely clear: I was only expressing the temporal relationship between a child being vaccinated and then autism being diagnosed, and did not intend to imply that vaccination is a cause of, or trigger for, autism.And yet you still blew it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4606749#post4606749).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry Ivor, I've looked back at the posts prior to this one and I can't find where anyone says that doctors are throwing parents who decline vaccination for their children out.

....

YuriA few doctors in the US have expressed that opinion. But unvaccinated kids are indeed a potential danger to others.

[Skeptic Ginger]

:confused:

Wanna give me a clue as to what type of corruption you are talking about and how it specifically relates to engineers rather than just the business world in general?Are you kidding? Are you are claiming there have been no corrupt engineers who would look the other way for money and let a dangerous structure be built? Or are you claiming doctors have higher percentages of corrupt members in their profession than in other professions?

Where do you get off with such crap?

[Beth]

Beth, should enough parents decide that they know better than actual researchers, the community ceases to be protected against the uncontrolled spread of these diseases. So it isn't just the children of the google degree holding parent that are placed at a greater real risk to avoid an imagined risk, but all of the children within the community, as well as anybody with a weakened immune system. I find this a rather weak argument. Those parents are a part of the community. They and their children are the ones who are most likely to suffer any ill effects of deciding not to vaccinate. If they don't feel the perceived risks of vaccination are worth the benefit, then I don't think the benefits to the community are going to outweight the costs of requiring them to vaccinate their children if they choose not to do so.

To protect the community, many states make it hard to take advantage of public education or other privileges if you choose to avoid vaccination, There is a legimate argument to be made in favor of requiring vaccinations of easily communicable diseases for children attending public schools. This argument does not hold up for all vaccinations though.

should there be an outbreak of vaccine preventable disease in that area, they should expect and even appreciate the fact that they will be placed under quarantine to limit the spread of the disease. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that only people who actually had the disease or were living with someone who had it could be quarantined. I don't think you can quarantine people just because they are not vaccinated.
Quite simply, Jenandjim can continue to claim that they are pro vaccine, but their words and actions, and the words and actions of the groups that they represent make it clear that they are anti vaccine, and pro disease. This sort of hyperbole really doesn't help the case of those who want to promote vaccines. Nobody is 'pro disease' just like nobody is 'pro abortion'. To impugne someone else's motivations in that way does not improve any argument. I think that they have a sincere desire to help children, however misguided they may be about vaccinations.

Jenandjim have said that they want measles to return to convince people to make safe vaccines, despite the fact that vaccines have nothing to do with autism (outside of the established fact for children whose mother had measles while pregnant are at much greater risk of developing autism, hence had mom been vaccinated...).

Our best understanding is that autism risk is determined by the presence of certain genes that control brain development in utero. The effects of this change are not easily observed until the kid is a few years old.

I've no arguments with this. I do, however, think there is a tendancy (at least on this forum :p) to label anyone who questions anything about the official recommended vaccine schedule as 'anti-vax'. That is not necessarily the case.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So the problem is not what they are saying about parents becoming more informed and making their own decisions, but that you feel they are lying when they say that? Okay. Basically, there is nothing they could say that would change your opinion of what they talking about because you don't feel you can trust what they say. Fair 'nuff. There's plenty of people I feel that way about myself.

This also gets to Ivan's point about why is it that many people are more willing to trust Jenny than their own pediatrician's advice. A very important point that doesn't seem to get much discussion here. The 'why' gets discussed quite often, Beth. It's called lack of critical thinking skills. Who parents trust re vaccinations, while influenced in some cases by being alienated from the 'establishment', is not as Ivor portrays it, the result of large numbers of condescending pediatricians. This is simply BS.

I'll repeat my question, do you know if there has been any study, published or planned, that looks at the rates of autism correlated with the number of vaccinations received and the age at the time vaccinations were done?The association has been studied up the ying yang. Just do a Pub Med search and see.

The only conflicting data was published by some guys involved in vaccine injury lawsuits and the journal they published the study in has zero credibility. I'll get to that in a sec.


First, Science Based Medicine posted some detailed blog entries documenting where the science is on vaccines and autism.

Mercury in vaccines as a cause of autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs): A failed hypothesis (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=14), and, The Infection Schedule versus the Vaccination Schedule (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289), already cited here, both have good summaries of the supporting research. (I forgot to mention, after the thimerosal hypothesis failed, the anti-vaxers then switched to the 'vaccine schedule' as the cause of autism. That makes 3 full goal post moves when the data did not support their adopted woo beliefs.)


But as for the "lying" charge, that's actually part of the problem. The parents may not be the liars but there are 'liars' behind the beliefs. In the first SBM link above, David Gorsky points out:...promulgated by a subgroup of parents of autistic children and facilitated by scientists of dubious repute, that somehow the mercury in the thimerosal (ethyl mercury) preservative used in common childhood vaccines in the U.S. until early 2002 causes autism....

...this belief invaded the national zeitgeist in a big way in 2005, beginning with the publication of a book by journalist David Kirby entitled Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy. The fires of hysteria were stoked even higher by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who published a truly twisted and misleading piece of pseudojournalism and pseudoscience published simultaneously in Rolling Stone and on Salon.com entitled Deadly Immunity. Relying primarily on quote-mining of the transcripts of both a conference held Atlanta by the CDC to discuss the question of whether autism is related to thimerosal in vaccines and an Institute of Medicine report on vaccines while simultaneously misrepresenting the results of two studies by Verstaeten et al to paint a false picture of a government coverup, RFK Jr. almost single-handedly managed to stoke fears that vaccines were causing an “epidemic of autism.”

I say “almost” single-handedly, because, unfortunately, he had help. Relying on the dubious research of a variety of investigators, such as the father-and-son team of Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier, whose prodigious output of badly designed studies emanating from a lab in their home in suburban Maryland, done using a rubberstamp institutional review board stacked with friends and cronies to approve the studies, and published for the most part in non-peer-reviewed journals, activists loudly insisted that mercury in vaccines was the cause of most autism. Others claiming to demonstrate this link include Boyd Haley, a chemist from the University of Kentucky, and a few other vocal scientists and advocates, who claim that autism is, in essence, mercury poisoning. Facilitating the dissemination of this message were reporters such as David Kirby, activists such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and media personalities such as Don Imus. Indeed, some activists claimed that some vaccines were “poisoning” our children, even going so far as show photos of autistic children with the label “mercury-poisoned“ underneath them on placards held aloft at protest rallies. They made quite a splash then, and still do to a lesser extent even today. (emphasis mine)


Here's the supposed supporting study which for some strange reason no other researchers seem to be finding the same results:
Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines (http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf)

Could it be there's a reason? :rolleyes:Potential conflict of interest disclosure: David Geier has been a consultant in vaccine/biologic cases before the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) and in civil litigation. Dr. Mark Geier has been an expert witness and a consultant in vaccine/biologic cases before the no-fault NVICP and in civil litigation.

Here's more on the offending fraudulent 'journal' made with the facade of being peer reviewed and legit. I've looked into this before and it is utterly bogus.
SourceWatch on the AAPS (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians _and_Surgeons)

And an example from the 'journal' to demonstrate my point:
Fake Doctors Warn of Obama “Hypnosis” (http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/10/27/fake-doctors-warn-of-obama-hypnosis/)Dear concerned citizens: the AAPS is not a real medical group. It’s a fundamentalist Christian PAC.

Here is the laughable letter (http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089) the AAFP put out warning of the Obama hypnosis plot.



It's unfortunate for parents that the willingness to believe what supports pre-existing views makes them vulnerable to believe there is evidence behind their anti-vaxer conclusions. But add to that such fake journals as the AAPS, which is pretty cheap to publish now that all one need do is make an online version, and you get tragedy in the making.

[Beth]

The 'why' gets discussed quite often, Beth. It's called lack of critical thinking skills. Who parents trust re vaccinations, while influenced in some cases by being alienated from the 'establishment', is not as Ivor portrays it, the result of large numbers of condescending pediatricians. This is simply BS.

Hi SG, I don't think we've talked in a while. How are things going for you?

I agree that condenscending pediatricians is BS. Unfortunately, that's not what Ivor is talking about. He's talking about trying to figure out the systemic cultural causes, of which patient-doctor interactions are part, lead many people in our society to prefer the results a lone father-son doctor team working out of their basement (no doubt while maintaining some other income earning position), fighting against the medical establishment to [edit: let me add mistakenly here] prevent a few children getting autism to the medical establishment's own recommendations.

Maybe, just maybe, that would be worth thinking about?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Like you do thinking you have a right to services from a provider who chooses under a free market system not to sell them to you?

When I say doctors behave as economic agents I get told they have these things called 'ethics' which make them behave differently than would be expected based on identifiable incentives. When I base my reasoning on (medical) ethics I get told doctors are economic agents. It's very confusing.

<snip>

And what about the provider who believes with good reason those unvaccinated kids coming into the clinic put everyone else in the building at risk? Did you even consider that?

I did consider it. While I don't have a medical education (as you so often like to point out), I'm guessing contagious people are not significantly less contagious just because they are coughing, sneezing and touching door handles in shopping centers, schools, playgroups, hospital emergency rooms and dentists' chairs, rather than in doctors' offices.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are you kidding? Are you are claiming there have been no corrupt engineers who would look the other way for money and let a dangerous structure be built? Or are you claiming doctors have higher percentages of corrupt members in their profession than in other professions?

Where do you get off with such crap?

I'm not claiming either of those things.

[Eos of the Eons]

They were on Larry King AGAIN last night :mad:

[luchog]

It is extremely difficult for a concerned parent to figure out which sources of information are trustworthy on the matter. While studies are helpful, they are not in language the average parent of young children can interpret for themselves. Thus, they have to decide who they trust to do that interpretation for them.

I don't believe it is that difficult. It all comes down to credible authority. Who should be more credible as an authority on a child's heath? Someone with a minimum of 8 years of education and training on the subject of health in general, and children in particular; along with however many years of experience in the practice of children's health said authority has had? Or a nude model and actress who dropped out of nusing school, and has little to no relevant education or experience in children's health?

Obviously not all contrasts are that extreme; but for the most part, the choices are not nearly as difficult as the sCAM and CT supporters would have us believe.

[luchog]

He's talking about trying to figure out the systemic cultural causes, of which patient-doctor interactions are part, lead many people in our society to prefer the results a lone father-son doctor team working out of their basement (no doubt while maintaining some other income earning position), fighting against the medical establishment to [edit: let me add mistakenly here] prevent a few children getting autism to the medical establishment's own recommendations.

Maybe, just maybe, that would be worth thinking about?
It has been thought about, and addressed quite well here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4433784#post4433784

[Beth]

I don't believe it is that difficult. It all comes down to credible authority. Who should be more credible as an authority on a child's heath? Someone with a minimum of 8 years of education and training on the subject of health in general, and children in particular; along with however many years of experience in the practice of children's health said authority has had? Or a nude model and actress who dropped out of nusing school, and has little to no relevant education or experience in children's health?

Obviously not all contrasts are that extreme; but for the most part, the choices are not nearly as difficult as the sCAM and CT supporters would have us believe.

Well, then. There's no reason for concern about parents listening to Jenny instead of the medical establishment. Problem solved. Congratulations.


It has been thought about, and addressed quite well here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4433784#post4433784

Sorry, but I didn't see anything about the issue discussed there. If there was a point you feel applies to this argument as well, you might want to specify what it is. Please keep in mind that parents opt against vaccinations for many different reasons. Religious beliefs are one reason, but not the only reason. I don't think religion comes into at all for Jenny and Jim, but I could be mistaken about that.

[luchog]

Well, then. There's no reason for concern about parents listening to Jenny instead of the medical establishment. Problem solved. Congratulations.

Wait, what? This is making no sense at all. Please clarify what you're saying here, as it appears to be a complete non-sequitor.

Sorry, but I didn't see anything about the issue discussed there. If there was a point you feel applies to this argument as well, you might want to specify what it is. Please keep in mind that parents opt against vaccinations for many different reasons. Religious beliefs are one reason, but not the only reason. I don't think religion comes into at all for Jenny and Jim, but I could be mistaken about that.
Conspiracy theory mindset. It's the same regardless of whether you're talking about Evil Government Caused 9/11 or Evil Big Pharma Making You Sick. Once you wade through all the rhetoric, those kinds of nonsense conspiracy theories are the only reason that people resist vaccinations. They can't easily understand the complexity of the nature of diseases and disease prevention, therefore it doesn't exist, and there must be some other reason they can understand. Garden variety anti-intellectualism and anti-authority attitudes.

[Beth]

Wait, what? This is making no sense at all. Please clarify what you're saying here, as it appears to be a complete non-sequitor.
Just a bit of sarcasm. You were saying the decision about who to trust isn't difficult. Since it's not difficult, then that's not the problem, right?

Conspiracy theory mindset. It's the same regardless of whether you're talking about Evil Government Caused 9/11 or Evil Big Pharma Making You Sick. Once you wade through all the rhetoric, those kinds of nonsense conspiracy theories are the only reason that people resist vaccinations. They can't easily understand the complexity of the nature of diseases and disease prevention, therefore it doesn't exist, and there must be some other reason they can understand. Garden variety anti-intellectualism and anti-authority attitudes.

While I don't agree with your assessment of the situation, assuming you are correct, just what do you recommend be done to get more parents to vaccinate their young children?

[Eos of the Eons]

what do you recommend be done to get more parents to vaccinate their young children?

I Know, you didn't ask me that but...
It would help if Handley and McCarthy were called to task on their msinformation instead of wooed by the media. They get more air time, and the evidence gets left in the dust. Handley and McCarthy have been debunked over and over, but they still get to blather on unheeded.
IT would also help if the media got a clue and more educated on the facts, and stopped thinking there are "two sides" and airing the issue as such. But, freedom of speech, and celebrities trump the truth every time.
It the same as giving people a platform to air their ideas about man never having gone to the moon. Phil Plait can debunk that blindfolded, but if he was ignored and villified as "nasa's paid rat" by prominent media presences, he'd have a much harder time of it. Thing is, not believing we can get to the moon doesn't put lives at risk. Yet, this blaming vaccines for autism thing gets in the news way more often. It's marketing, thanks to Handley, a handful of lawyers, and a couple of cluess MDs that say they can cure ADD too.

I blame the media more than anything. They don't how to weigh the evidence, they can't tell up from down, and they let McCarthy and Handley run the show! sCAM artists spam the rest of the media, and it's a gong show.

Paul offit is trying, but everyone just calls him out as being part of "big pharma". sCAM marketing is to blame for a lot of this. Not having a clue about what the immune system is (a collection of cells that fight microbes and anything else that enters the body that isn't going to be part of the processes, and tries to stay on top of its own problems-NOT a mysterious force that can be interrupted by vaccines), they villify every part of "allopathy/mainstream/science based" medicine and want parents to buy their junk (crystals, oils, herbs, etc.) instead. They bash the competition and try to say that "drugs" are toxic. Not understanding that even water kills if too much is taken in and not enough let out, they rant on and on and on about toxins and "drug pushers".

Who are parents left listening to anymore? A collection of miseducated sCAM quacks ignorant about the human body but with products and services to push. It's buyer beware. Yet they say it's doctors who don't like them! Pfft. Doctors have better things to do than pay attention to them, but they play victim to get customers.

Who is going to clean up this mess. It's not up to doctors. It is politicians that make the laws to allow for proliferation of ignorance over anything else. Who cares what a T-Cell is, or a B-Cell is... I've got magic oils! They will protect you from HIV!!! Yeah, okay. Too bad most people can't understand why that is a load of bullkukka. Heck, you can get an online degree and start giving people magic water!!!

Who is marketing? Not doctors. They don't have time. Scam artists are trained to market though. They are all over the internet, put out magazines, run forums for alties. These are who the media woo for advertising dollars. Look in a magazine. How many ads are there for altie products compared to aspirin? How many articles are about clearing toxins compared to no-nonsense articles by MDs about eating and right and exercising to prevent cardiovascular disease? Rather, you'll find some quack saying doctors only push drugs to heart patients, but my MD actually tells me to eat right and exercise.

Don't even get me started on scientologists.

So, parents would have to shut off their computers and actually go to talk to an overworked MD for a change. Who has the time though?

Well, we're here on these forums trying to outshout the sCAM artists. Is it working?

We post about weighing evidence against sCAM claims, and we only get asked the same questions over and over again, even though we've answered them. The sCAM lies seem to immunize people against listening to reason. Logic does not appeal, but crazy stories that are unverifiable tear at heartstrings instead. McCarthy claims her kid is HEALED!!! Whaaaaahooo. Okay. Prove it then. Why isn't he in a classroom with other kids his age instead of homeschooled in a class of one then???

Logic is trumped by a good story, a story that doesn't ring true, but no matter.

So, what does a person do who knows evidence speaks truly? Shake everyone, rant rave? It is buyer beware. You choose to follow the quacks and uneducated celebs. Heck, the Travoltas claimed they cured their son years ago by ridding their home of toxins. Well, he's dead of the disease they claimed to cure him of. So, go ahead, listen to the lies and delusions of the ignorant.

I can only say "told ya so" when the evidence shows that toxins aren't the cause of these disorders. There are genes that govern how the body forms, and some of them cause people to be formed differently. They can be born never exposed to any "toxin" and still not be perfect. That is how many cancers start, a gene error during replication. People need to learn to accept that for a change. A kid can born without a brain, and it's nobody's fault. A kid has a brain that is wired differently because the gene code is different. A kid can be born missing a heart chamber. A kid can be born with extra fingers. Genes and the human body are incredibly complex, and the tiniest "error" in the code can cause a huge difference, or sometimes even be beneficial in some way. Most of the time it's not better though, and no amount of anything can make it different than it is. None of us are perfect though, in any way. There are personality disorders, hair disorders, eating disorders, bad teeth, crooked noses, conjoined twins, etc. We are humans, and nobody is perfect. Nothing can make us perfect. As we get older we break down too. It's already coded into our genes the second egg meets sperm.

So, there is nothing anyone can do to get parents to vaccinate and keep their kids safe. It what THEY can do. If they prefer to listen to quacks, then that is their choice. It's a free world. Some of us can try to get some peoples' attentions, but it is only they who can listen and actually choose to start to learn what the science shows. Many people aren't wired that way though, and will remain susceptible to the appeals to emotion quacks use instead of evidence, and they even call that evidence when it's not.

Who the heck takes science courses in high school anymore and gets to learn that evidence doesn't tell a story the way a quack does? You weigh it, learn how the body works in reality, and it's a lot of work. It's easier to listen to McCarthy and her stupid idea about "tesing immune systems" even though anyone without some immune deficiency will test as able to get a hundred vaccines at once. Try telling her that though, and she'll just stick her fingers in her ears and go on Larry King again to tell her stupid unverified story.

So, make the choice. Nobody can make any parent listen to them instead of some celebrity though. And the media sure as heck doesn't help show why McCarthy, Handley, Fisher, et al are full of it. And the schools don't have the majority of students in the types of classes that would teach them why they are full of it.

Vaccines don't have anything in them that you already don't ingest on a daily basis, and the antigens in them don't affect immune system cells any differently than any other antigen, and they don't cause anything unnatural to happen. There is not one thing about them that can cause autism. Not even McCarthy nor Handley can point to anything, and all they have are empty stories, and they have been proven wrong.

This information and more is all availble online as well. So, make your choice. Learn about the immune system and how it actually works. Learn about dosages in vaccines versus what even a baby gets even from breast milk every day. Look at the reality versus the quack marketing.

I only wish the media would. McCarthy and Handley should be laughed of their stages, but Larry King doesn't have to learn, heck even Dr. Jay Gordon is still telling people he can cure your kid of incurable diseases. Freedom of speech. Buyer beware. Good luck to any parent in this crazy media marketing driven world. Not barely can even start to have the biology education needed to get to the facts of the matter. Even fewer people will listen to those that manage to get said education.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think the problem is scientists and doctors generally do not address what many parents who are thinking about not having their children vaccinated want to know about (i.e. the uncertainties and problems with vaccination), leading many parents to believe what they are being told by their doctor is too good to be true. To some parents this positive spin gives an air of credibility to what the likes of Jenny McCarthy and other anti-vaxers have to say.

Take Jenny and Jim's ammo away; explain in detail to parents what the problems and uncertainties with current vaccinations are.

Or you could just carry on shouting "vaccines are great!" with the people you are trying to persuade ignoring you.

[Eos of the Eons]

I think the problem is scientists and doctors generally do not address what many parents who are thinking about not having their children vaccinated want to know about (i.e. the uncertainties and problems with vaccination), leading many parents to believe what they are being told by their doctor is too good to be true. To some parents this positive spin gives an air of credibility to what the likes of Jenny McCarthy and other anti-vaxers have to say.

Take Jenny and Jim's ammo away; explain in detail to parents what the problems and uncertainties with current vaccinations are.

Or you could just carry on shouting "vaccines are great!" with the people you are trying to persuade ignoring you.
Scientists and doctors do address this. Offit wrote a book, Novella blogs constantly, Harriet Hall writes volumes. But, the quacks say to stay away from all that great information. Thanks to the quacks, parents only listen to quacks who lie about vaccines and create invalid uncertainties. If it weren't for the lies and misinformation and quacks telling them that doctors only want to keep people sick, then we wouldn't even be discussing this right now.

Check out www.stopjenny.com (http://www.stopjenny.com) while you're at it.

Also, when the heck have I just shouted "vaccines are great"? Never. Not even in my post before this. I guess you don't bother reading what you asked for and I've already delivered.

[dudalb]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139793
So now the 9/11 Conspiracy kooks are turning to AntiVax Craziness as well. The promises a Perfect Storm of pure Woo.

[luchog]

Just a bit of sarcasm. You were saying the decision about who to trust isn't difficult. Since it's not difficult, then that's not the problem, right?
Right. The problem, ultimately, isn't one of authority and trust. It's one of rationality vs. irrationality.

In the first part of my original response, I noted that to the rational mind, the question of authority is a very simple, cut-and-dried one. Who is the more credible authority: someone who has had a minimum of 8 years education on the subject, combined with N years of post-educational experience working directly with the subject; or someone with little or no relevant (directly or indirectly) education or experience?

Examples:
Who is more credible on the subject of common upper-respiratory viral infections and their treatment: medical doctors, epidemiologists, and immunologists with at least 8 years of education, many years of experience, and decades of scientific research behind them; or a schoolteacher with no medical training or experience whatsoever?

Who is more credible on the subject of ASDs: a trained and licensed neurologist who has spent years studying ASDs, with over a decade of scientific research behind his work; or a former nude model turned actress, promoting a New-Age religious worldview?

The problem is that while these choices are obvious and simple to the rational mind, as I noted in the second part of my response, people often do not think rationally. Their decisions are informed by emotionalism, religion, and other non-evidence-based worldviews. They don't want to understand, they want to blame. They don't want amelioration and coping strategies, they want the problem to simply go away so they don't have to deal with it anymore.

While I don't agree with your assessment of the situation,
Whether you agree with it or not, that is what the situation is. There is plenty of documentation demonstrating exactly that. People actively opposing established scientific research and conclusions, and formulating conspiracy theories to "explain" situations they find undesirable. HIV/AIDS denialism is strongly based on anti-medical-industry conspiracy theories in the western world, and anti-western-medicine in the third world. Same with cancer treatment, ASDs, and many other chronic or difficult-to-treat diseases and disorders. People are unwilling to accept that these afflictions cannot be "cured", and that their existence is just a fact of nature; and concoct some reason, which is sufficiently plausible in their worldview, which allows them to place the blame squarely on some entity who they can then demand changes from or use as an excuse for fatalistic ranting.

Historically, problems that could not be easily fixed would be blamed on "curses", on "evil spirits", on "witches", the gods, etc. The problem could be eliminated by dispelling the curse, exorcising the evil spirit, killing the witch, propitiating the gods, and so on. In extremis, when all these things failed, by simply placing blame and fatalistically accepting that they were powerless against such an entity, and bemoaning their fate, and absolving themselves of all responsibility for their condition, or of taking any action to make what improvements they could. Or bv simply blaming the victim, stating or implying that they deserved their condition because of a lack of right living, in this life or a previous one.

Today, pharmecuetical companies, foreign governments, atheists, homosexuals, ect. have largely replaced malefic witches and capricious dieties; but the reactions and attitudes are predominantly unchanged.
assuming you are correct, just what do you recommend be done to get more parents to vaccinate their young children?
Like anything else, education is important. Also mandating immunizations for any children enrolled in public programs (in some areas, it is possible to opt-out of vaccinations for religious reasons). Public information campaigns, pushing to get evidence-based information into public view. Improve educational programs to teach critical thinking instead of rote learning. And most importantly, taking purveyors and promoters of these quack medical programs to task for the damage that they cause. Requiring them to meet the same standards of efficacy, reliability, and accountability that any other provider of medical advice and treatment is held to.

Like the problem of ASDs, there is not, and cannot be, any quick-fix solution. It requires a lot of concerted effort by a lot of people in order to make any improvements to the situation.

[Beth]

Right. The problem, ultimately, isn't one of authority and trust. It's one of rationality vs. irrationality. I just don’t buy this. Partly because humans are inherently somewhat irrational creatures, but mainly because I don’t find it all that irrational for people to be distrustful of authority. In the first part of my original response, I noted that to the rational mind, the question of authority is a very simple, cut-and-dried one. The question of authority is fairly cut and dried, yes. The question of who to trust is not. To be trustworthy is not an inherent quality of authority.
The problem is that while these choices are obvious and simple to the rational mind, as I noted in the second part of my response, people often do not think rationally. Their decisions are informed by emotionalism, religion, and other non-evidence-based worldviews. I agree with this. But I do not see this as a ‘bad’ thing to be avoided. I see it as a) part of being human and inevitable and b) as having some advantages as well as disadvantages. Taking emotions into consideration when making decisions is not necessarily a bad thing.
They don't want to understand, they want to blame. They don't want amelioration and coping strategies, they want the problem to simply go away so they don't have to deal with it anymore. Whether you agree with it or not, that is what the situation is. While I’m sure it’s true for some people, I don’t agree that this is the reason we have so many parents are refusing vaccinations. I think it’s a problem of not trusting the authorities who are making those recommendations. It isn’t that they aren’t perceived as knowledgeable, but that they are not perceived as making recommendations are based on what is best for the child the parent is concerned about.
There is plenty of documentation demonstrating exactly that. People actively opposing established scientific research and conclusions, and formulating conspiracy theories to "explain" situations they find undesirable. HIV/AIDS denialism is strongly based on anti-medical-industry conspiracy theories in the western world, and anti-western-medicine in the third world. Same with cancer treatment, ASDs, and many other chronic or difficult-to-treat diseases and disorders. People are unwilling to accept that these afflictions cannot be "cured", and that their existence is just a fact of nature; and concoct some reason, which is sufficiently plausible in their worldview, which allows them to place the blame squarely on some entity who they can then demand changes from or use as an excuse for fatalistic ranting. I think you confuse the noisy with the many.
Like anything else, education is important. Also mandating immunizations for any children enrolled in public programs (in some areas, it is possible to opt-out of vaccinations for religious reasons). Which is better than the alternative IMO.
Public information campaigns, pushing to get evidence-based information into public view. Improve educational programs to teach critical thinking instead of rote learning. Aren’t we doing (or at least attempting) these things now? There approaches don’t seem to have been terribly effective to me. Education is part of the solution, but I don't think it will solve the problem.

[luchog]

I just don’t buy this. Partly because humans are inherently somewhat irrational creatures, but mainly because I don’t find it all that irrational for people to be distrustful of authority.

Gross overgeneralization. Context is critical when deciding how much one trusts any "authority".

The question of authority is fairly cut and dried, yes. The question of who to trust is not. To be trustworthy is not an inherent quality of authority.

You're making a false equivalency between sociopolitical authorities and scientific authorities. The former is purely arbitrary; and therefore not inherently trustworthy. The latter, however, is established by a preponderance of evidence; and is fully as trustworthy as the evidence it is based on. In some cases, available evidence is insufficient or ambiguous; but more often is it clear enough to establish a definitively authoritative position. The question of ASDs and vaccinations is certainly a case where there is clear and overwhelming evidence; and the scientific authority is unambiguous.

I agree with this. But I do not see this as a ‘bad’ thing to be avoided.

Well, that's the problem right there, in a nutshell.

I see it as a) part of being human and inevitable and b) as having some advantages as well as disadvantages. Taking emotions into consideration when making decisions is not necessarily a bad thing.

When deciding questions of fact, emotionalism is always a bad thing. The correct answer to a mathematics problem is not the one that "feels right", it's the one that all the numbers add up to. The conclusion of scientific investigation is not the one that makes us happy, it's the one that the evidence points to. Emotion can never reach the right answer, because it's not concerned with right or wrong, only with preferences. That's fine if you're picking out a new outfit, or going on a date; but it's the worst possible basis for making a potentially fatal medical decision for a child. If a preference is "right", it is only that way by sheer accident; and it is never reliable.

Reason, systematic logical evaluation, is the only valid, consistently reliable process for making decisions of fact; because it is the only process that can determine the correct answer based on the available evidence. Emotionalism only leads too woo-woo nonsense. Like doctors attempting to "cure" ASDs by tapping on childrens's heads to "wake up" their brains, or New-Age religious nonsense about "Indigo" or "Crystal" children. In extreme cases, it can lead to killing children with unnecessary and unproven dangerous treatments (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9074208) in an attempt to "cure" ASDs. This is what happens (http://whatstheharm.net/autismdenial.html) when emotions are used to make decisions instead of reason.

While I’m sure it’s true for some people, I don’t agree that this is the reason we have so many parents are refusing vaccinations.

That's what all the documentation shows. Do you have sources that show otherwise? If so, please post them. Actual evidence, not vague "feelings" about what you "think" might be the reason.

I think it’s a problem of not trusting the authorities who are making those recommendations. It isn’t that they aren’t perceived as knowledgeable, but that they are not perceived as making recommendations are based on what is best for the child the parent is concerned about.

This statement does not contradict my claim. In fact, it is exactly what i said. The only difference between your statement and mine is that I provided an explanation of why that trust is lacking, whereas you have completely avoided doing so.

I think you confuse the noisy with the many.

No, I'm simply following the clear and unambiguous evidence. What every anti-vax promoter says, what every anti-vax argument consists of, what every anti-vax believer has claimed is the basis of their beliefs. If you have contrary evidence, provide it. Again, actual evidence, not vague feelings of what you think might be the reason.

Which is better than the alternative IMO.

Huh? There are three seperate points in the line you quoted. Which one are you referring to? I'm strongly hoping that it isn't the last one; because that is certainly not better than the alternatives, which would be epidemics of easily-preventable, and potentially lethal, diseases.

Aren’t we doing (or at least attempting) these things now? There approaches don’t seem to have been terribly effective to me. Education is part of the solution, but I don't think it will solve the problem.
You clearly didn't bother to read what I wrote, since I already addressed this.

[Beth]

Gross overgeneralization. Context is critical when deciding how much one trusts any "authority". Absolutely! No disagreement there.

You're making a false equivalency between sociopolitical authorities and scientific authorities. Er, no. I didn't say anything about sociopolitical authorities. However, I think that such groups as the CDC vaccine committee qualifies as a sociopolitical authority as well as a scientific one.
The former is purely arbitrary; and therefore not inherently trustworthy. The latter, however, is established by a preponderance of evidence; and is fully as trustworthy as the evidence it is based on. You might want to check out this video:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/beatrice-golomb

While I can't argue that science is as trustworthy as the evidence it is based on, it is scientists who interpret that evidence and make recommendations for the rest of us. They are just as human and prone to error as politicians and parents.

In some cases, available evidence is insufficient or ambiguous; but more often is it clear enough to establish a definitively authoritative position. The question of ASDs and vaccinations is certainly a case where there is clear and overwhelming evidence; and the scientific authority is unambiguous. I have no disagreement there. I happen to think that vaccinations are a great invention.

Well, that's the problem right there, in a nutshell. When deciding questions of fact, emotionalism is always a bad thing. The correct answer to a mathematics problem is not the one that "feels right", it's the one that all the numbers add up to. The conclusion of scientific investigation is not the one that makes us happy, it's the one that the evidence points to. Okay. I've no disagreement with this. But outside of pure mathematics, facts get a lot squishier and harder to pin down. Further, it's a mistake to downplay the role of emotions can play in performing mathematics.
Emotion can never reach the right answer, because it's not concerned with right or wrong, only with preferences. That's fine if you're picking out a new outfit, or going on a date; but it's the worst possible basis for making a potentially fatal medical decision for a child. If a preference is "right", it is only that way by sheer accident; and it is never reliable. It's interesting that you're making an emotional argument here (adds a lovely bit of irony to your post) in support of rational decision making. First emotion can never reach the right answer. Then, it can do so only by accident. Finally, you claim it is never reliable. None of those are true statements.

Reason, systematic logical evaluation, is the only valid, consistently reliable process for making decisions of fact; because it is the only process that can determine the correct answer based on the available evidence. Come now, the ONLY valid reliable process? I don't think so. The most reliable I would agree with. You're making another emotional argument here.
Emotionalism only leads too woo-woo nonsense. Like doctors attempting to "cure" ASDs by tapping on childrens's heads to "wake up" their brains, or New-Age religious nonsense about "Indigo" or "Crystal" children. In extreme cases, it can lead to killing children with unnecessary and unproven dangerous treatments (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9074208) in an attempt to "cure" ASDs. This is what happens (http://whatstheharm.net/autismdenial.html) when emotions are used to make decisions instead of reason. And yet more emotional illogical arguments. Emotionalism leads to many things, some good as well as some not so good. What would science be without the passion of scientists?

That's what all the documentation shows. Do you have sources that show otherwise? If so, please post them. Actual evidence, not vague "feelings" about what you "think" might be the reason. You haven't actually provided any evidence. You've given lots of vague generalities and some basic reasoning, but no actual evidence.

This statement does not contradict my claim. In fact, it is exactly what i said. The only difference between your statement and mine is that I provided an explanation of why that trust is lacking, whereas you have completely avoided doing so. No, you provided your OPINION of why that trust is lacking. An opinion that WASN'T backed up with facts, but generalizations of what motivates other people that isn't in tune with my observations.

No, I'm simply following the clear and unambiguous evidence. What every anti-vax promoter says, what every anti-vax argument consists of, what every anti-vax believer has claimed is the basis of their beliefs. If you have contrary evidence, provide it. Again, actual evidence, not vague feelings of what you think might be the reason. We were discussing parents who chose not to vaccinate. They are not usually anti-vax promoters. Nor are they necessarily even anti-vax believers. Mostly, they are just parents trying to make the best decisions for their kids.

Huh? There are three seperate points in the line you quoted. Which one are you referring to? I'm strongly hoping that it isn't the last one; because that is certainly not better than the alternatives, which would be epidemics of easily-preventable, and potentially lethal, diseases. I was indeed talking about the last one. And yes, my opinion is the alternative is worse.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the problem is scientists and doctors generally do not address what many parents who are thinking about not having their children vaccinated want to know about (i.e. the uncertainties and problems with vaccination), leading many parents to believe what they are being told by their doctor is too good to be true. To some parents this positive spin gives an air of credibility to what the likes of Jenny McCarthy and other anti-vaxers have to say.

Take Jenny and Jim's ammo away; explain in detail to parents what the problems and uncertainties with current vaccinations are.

Or you could just carry on shouting "vaccines are great!" with the people you are trying to persuade ignoring you.You are so ignorant of what it is medical professionals actually do. You really need to do more research before making comments about a problem you've only assumed you know the basis of.

Start here: The mindset of an antivaccinationist revealed, courtesy of Jake Crosby of The Age of Autism blog (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/the_mindset_of_an_antivaccinationist_rev.php?utm_s ource=ScienceBlogs+Weekly+Recap&utm_campaign=cdc7bbca86-Recap_4_07_to_4_14__2009&utm_medium=email)In response to my comment that "no amount of science...will ever convince them that vaccines don't cause autism," what to my wondering eyes should appear but Jake Crosby showing up in the comments to confirm that I am absolutely right about this:

"Amount" doesn't matter. A million "studies" claiming the Earth were flat wouldn't make it true. Likewise, pseudostudies claiming no association to autism consistent with overwhelming evidence of a CDC-cover up will only further convince me that vaccines cause autism.

This is the mindset we're dealing with in Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, J.B. Handley, Barbara Loe Fisher, and the rest of the antivaccine movement. They all know that vaccines cause autism and are uninterested in anything that might challenge that belief. Science doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. Epidemiology doesn't matter. Reason itself doesn't matter. None of them matters, other than how they can be twisted to make post hoc conclusions that support the antivaccine belief system, and any scientific evidence conflicting with that belief system must to them be the result of a CDC or big pharma coverup. This is all just like a cult, where, the more evidence is presented to members that they are in a cult, the more tightly they cling to their cultish beliefs.

The majority of parents do get their questions answered and do follow and trust the recommendations of their health care clinicians. The idea the medical community is at fault is contradicted by that fact. And the evidence showing the mindset of those who choose not to follow the advice of the science based medicine community is evidence of where the fault actually lies.

Perhaps we need more tools and skills to deal with this fringe, but it is not because, as Ivor ignorantly writes, we aren't doing a good job with most of our patients.

[Skeptic Ginger]

When I say doctors behave as economic agents I get told they have these things called 'ethics' which make them behave differently than would be expected based on identifiable incentives. When I base my reasoning on (medical) ethics I get told doctors are economic agents. It's very confusing.'Free market' has a greater meaning than simply the economic aspects of the market. I am free to turn clients down based on lots of reasons with economics being only one of those reasons.

I did consider it. While I don't have a medical education (as you so often like to point out), I'm guessing contagious people are not significantly less contagious just because they are coughing, sneezing and touching door handles in shopping centers, schools, playgroups, hospital emergency rooms and dentists' chairs, rather than in doctors' offices.The difference is sick people are more likely to stay home, but make an exception to see a doctor. So contagious people are going to be at clinics and hospitals specifically when they are ill, not just randomly.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not claiming either of those things.



technoextreme to Ivor:
You know Im going to ask you again why you don't complain about your own field. And no complaining about idiots is not even close to the same level of corruption that exisists in the engineering field.

Ivor:
Wanna give me a clue as to what type of corruption you are talking about and how it specifically relates to engineers rather than just the business world in general?

Skep:
Are you kidding? Are you are claiming there have been no corrupt engineers who would look the other way for money and let a dangerous structure be built? Or are you claiming doctors have higher percentages of corrupt members in their profession than in other professions?

Where do you get off with such crap?

Ivor:
I'm not claiming either of those things.

So you are just waiting for technoextreme to give you his/her version then of corruption in the engineering profession before answering his quesiton?

[Ivor the Engineer]

You are so ignorant of what it is medical professionals actually do. You really need to do more research before making comments about a problem you've only assumed you know the basis of.

Start here: The mindset of an antivaccinationist revealed, courtesy of Jake Crosby of The Age of Autism blog (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/the_mindset_of_an_antivaccinationist_rev.php?utm_s ource=ScienceBlogs+Weekly+Recap&utm_campaign=cdc7bbca86-Recap_4_07_to_4_14__2009&utm_medium=email)

The majority of parents do get their questions answered and do follow and trust the recommendations of their health care clinicians. The idea the medical community is at fault is contradicted by that fact. And the evidence showing the mindset of those who choose not to follow the advice of the science based medicine community is evidence of where the fault actually lies.

Perhaps we need more tools and skills to deal with this fringe, but it is not because, as Ivor ignorantly writes, we aren't doing a good job with most of our patients.

I didn't say that. In fact I explicitly narrowed the group by using "...parents who are thinking about not having their children vaccinated...".

I take it as a complement you have to misrepresent what I say to disagree with me.:)

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

The difference is sick people are more likely to stay home, but make an exception to see a doctor. So contagious people are going to be at clinics and hospitals specifically when they are ill, not just randomly.

And the prize for stating the bleeding obvious goes to...:)

Are you recommending ALL doctors refuse to treat people who have a vaccine preventable disease and are contagious to protect their other patients? Where should such people go for medical attention so no one else is put at risk? Is there anywhere?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't say that. In fact I explicitly narrowed the group by using "...parents who are thinking about not having their children vaccinated...".

I take it as a complement you have to misrepresent what I say to disagree with me.:)Your problem here Ivor is claiming that the clinician's arrogant attitude is the reason Big Pharma CT believing patients don't get their kids vaccinated. Or claiming that all we need is better responses to the Big Pharma CT believing parents and they will be convinced a lack of vaccine safety is not being covered up by a Big Pharma conspiracy.

I am telling you, the clinicians are trying to get through to Big Pharma CT believing parents using multiple approaches and if we found one that was successful, we'd all be using it.

As for misrepresenting what you say, you seem to be unaware that when you say things, the implications are broader than the narrow window you are looking through. You saidI think the problem is scientists and doctors generally do not address what many parents who are thinking about not having their children vaccinated want to know aboutYes, we do address what these parents want to know. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I have lots of evidence all the valid information in the world is not going to have any effect on parents who are convinced vaccines are bad. Just what magical opinion changing information do you suggest we are failing to provide?

[Skeptic Ginger]

And the prize for stating the bleeding obvious goes to...:)

Are you recommending ALL doctors refuse to treat people who have a vaccine preventable disease and are contagious to protect their other patients? Where should such people go for medical attention so no one else is put at risk? Is there anywhere?They can stay home if no providers will see them. Why should they go anywhere if they don't trust SBM?

Mind you, I am not one who holds the philosophy of excluding patients who don't buy the whole SBM package. I'm dedicated to changing their position, not excluding it. But I also don't think a provider who says to a patient, "if you endanger my other patients, I don't want you in my clinic", is wrong to do that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's some evidence, Ivor.

The mindset of an antivaccinationist revealed, courtesy of Jake Crosby of The Age of Autism blog (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/the_mindset_of_an_antivaccinationist_rev.php?utm_s ource=ScienceBlogs+Weekly+Recap&utm_campaign=cdc7bbca86-Recap_4_07_to_4_14__2009&utm_medium=email)In response to my comment that "no amount of science...will ever convince them that vaccines don't cause autism," what to my wondering eyes should appear but Jake Crosby showing up in the comments to confirm that I am absolutely right about this:

"Amount" doesn't matter. A million "studies" claiming the Earth were flat wouldn't make it true. Likewise, pseudostudies claiming no association to autism consistent with overwhelming evidence of a CDC-cover up will only further convince me that vaccines cause autism.

This is the mindset we're dealing with in Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, J.B. Handley, Barbara Loe Fisher, and the rest of the antivaccine movement. They all know that vaccines cause autism and are uninterested in anything that might challenge that belief. Science doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. Epidemiology doesn't matter. Reason itself doesn't matter.(emphasis mine)

[Ivor the Engineer]

What would you be saying if I used blog posts as evidence?

Here's some higher-quality evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/5/1532

Promoters of Accepting Vaccination

Overwhelmingly, we found that for vaccinators, the main promoter of accepting vaccination was trusting the doctor (Table 3). As one mother phrased it, "I don't know enough about how [vaccines] are put together and tested to have a confidence level about that. But that's where the doctors come and you have to trust them."

Another important promoter was feeling satisfied by the pediatrician's discussion about vaccination, which led to trusting that pediatrician. In particular, vaccinators who were vaccine-hesitant recounted positive, often lengthy discussions with the pediatrician.
"[The pediatrician] respected the fact that ... we wanted to sit and talk for an hour and a half about vaccinations.... And he stayed very late one night ... it wasn't something that they could charge us for.... And it's a very busy practice. It wasn't as if he needed to solicit our business."

Part of being able to trust their pediatrician was finding that their pediatrician was able to answer their questions satisfactorily and completely. Mothers needed to feel as though their pediatrician was knowledgeable and had all of the relevant information.

Other promoters included a perception that vaccinating was a "cultural norm" and not wanting to depart from that norm (also called "bandwagoning"12), believing in the social contract, mothers' past experiences with diseases and vaccines for themselves or for older children, and wanting to prevent disease in their child (Table 3).

[Skeptic Ginger]

What would you be saying if I used blog posts as evidence?Are you incapable of distinguishing between an unsupported opinion in a blog and a discussion of a quote from a person who runs an antivaxxer website that was found in a reply to a blog entry?
If the post was specifically about a replyIt was about a reply that reflects a frequently encountered attitude in CTers and antivaxxers alike. The point was Jake was admitting to what we all have seen over and over.



Here's some higher-quality evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/5/1532Sometimes it's really hard to reply to your posts. They lack so much information, where does one begin?

How many people are still vaccinating their kids? The majority.

Surprise, these parents trust science based medicine and their clinicians. :rolleyes:

The boat you completely missed here is not, why are some parents vaccinating, it's what is different about the parents who aren't?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't yet access the transcripts from the conference I went to on Fri re this topic, but when they get it up on the CE site I'll post it. Essentially, there was a report on a study looking at 2003 vs 2006 data on parental attitudes and many of the CT propaganda ideas increased in parents with children of vaccine needing ages.

The bad news, the false beliefs are increasing.

The good news, it still represents a small proportion of parents and the CDC is looking at evidence based approaches to countering the propaganda campaigns. I was pleasantly surprised to see the CDC actually had a position with the title of Associate Director for Communication Science. Yeah!!!

Kristine Sheedy, Ph.D.
Associate Director for Communication Science
National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, Georgia

[luchog]

Er, no. I didn't say anything about sociopolitical authorities. However, I think that such groups as the CDC vaccine committee qualifies as a sociopolitical authority as well as a scientific one.

The CDC is a political agency, but it's authority is scientific. It is based on solid, scientific research for the most part. The conclusions can be, and have been, ignored or misrepresented by polititians, but that's a completely different issue entirely.

You might want to check out this video:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/beatrice-golomb

Interesting, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.

While I can't argue that science is as trustworthy as the evidence it is based on, it is scientists who interpret that evidence and make recommendations for the rest of us. They are just as human and prone to error as politicians and parents.

No, they're not just as prone to error. That is the entire point of science. The elimination of observer error and development of reliable predictive data.

Scientists are prone to error, yes. Errors of method, methodology, interpretation, and even fraud. I addressed that. In fact, as many people have pointed out in many places, these errors are at the core of the anti-vax, AIDs-denialism, and similar pseudo-science-based movements.

However, science and scientists have several built-in error-correcting mechanisms that parents and polititians simply do not have -- the scientific method of observation and experimentation, peer review, blinded studies, and independent replication. It is precisely these processes that ensure that science and scientists are less prone to error and subjectivity than laymen who do not use these processes.

Okay. I've no disagreement with this. But outside of pure mathematics, facts get a lot squishier and harder to pin down.

Again, this was addressed. And I would argue your use of the vague term "a lot". In fact, I would argue that it's more common for facts to be quite clear and unequivocal. The only areas that are "squishy" are those where there are few facts available. In the area of medicine, there is a substantial amount of natural variation that makes the predictive value of any set of data less than 100%, but that is a dramatically different condition from the sort of vague subjectivity that you are asserting.

Further, it's a mistake to downplay the role of emotions can play in performing mathematics.

You what? I really want to see you support this. I can't imagine any possibly way in which what one feels about "1+1" can possibly make it equal anything except 2. Certainly if one is overly-emotional, one is more prone to making mistakes in one's calcuations; but that's easily spotted and remedied. That's not the same thing as subjectivity in mathematics, because there isn't any.

It's interesting that you're making an emotional argument here (adds a lovely bit of irony to your post)

Erm, no, I'm not. You're reading in what you want to see, not what I'm writing. The only irony is in your own head. Emotion cannot arrive at consistently correct answers, because it cannot objectively evaluate data. That is a simply fact. Subjectivity cannot be predictive, because it is far too variable. That is a fact. Coincidences happen. That is a fact. A subjective decision may accidentally come up with the right answer on one particular occasion. That is a fact. However, due to the purely subjective nature of emotional responses and reaction, it cannot be reliably expected to determine the right answer in a predictive fashion. That is a fact. I completely fail to see where you are getting any emotionalism at all. You are projecting your own emotionalism.

Come now, the ONLY valid reliable process? I don't think so. The most reliable I would agree with.

The only reliable process. You have yet to demonstrate how emotionalism can possibly create a reliably predictive evaluation of data. Please do so, otherwise this is sheer nonsense.

You're making another emotional argument here.

No, factual. You're projecting your own emotionalism.

And yet more emotional illogical arguments.

Where? I presented simple statements of fact. All of these things exist, and are independently verifiable. The head-tapping thing is a variant of Bodytalk Systems, a pseudo-scientific quack medical practice. That, "Indigo Children", and "Crystal Children" are all well-documented in this forum, and all over the Internet. I even provided a link to one incident involving a death which directly resulted from a quack medical "cure" for autism. How is providing objective data emotional or illogical?

You are either deliberately misinterpreting, disingenuously attempting to distort, or are projecting your own emotionalism. I am simply providing verifiable facts.

Emotionalism leads to many things, some good as well as some not so good.

Irrelevant non-sequitor.

What would science be without the passion of scientists?

Falsely equivalency fallacy. Motivation is completely different and seperate from process. Passion for science may be an important motivating factor in deciding to work in a particular field; but it is not only completely and totally irrelevant to the scientific process, but is strictly antithetical to it. Emotional irrationality is responsible for the vast majority of error -- accidental or deliberate -- in science. Without any "passion" at all? We'd probably be less advanced than we are, but we'd also have encountered fewer mistakes along the way.

The ideal researcher is purely objective, purely rational, purely emotionless. That is clearly not humanly achievable; which is why the process described earlier is so important.

You haven't actually provided any evidence. You've given lots of vague generalities and some basic reasoning, but no actual evidence.

The evidence has been posted repeately in this thread, and in numerous past threads on this forum. It's very very easy to find. You can also go through the stopjenny.com (http://stopjenny.com/) website, quackwatch.com (http://www.quackwatch.com/), whatstheharm.net (http://whatstheharm.net/), and numerous others for extensive evidence.

No, you provided your OPINION of why that trust is lacking. An opinion that WASN'T backed up with facts, but generalizations of what motivates other people that isn't in tune with my observations.

I've already posted sources for my observations; as have others numerous times in the past. Post the sources for yours. So far all you've given is vague emotionalism.

We were discussing parents who chose not to vaccinate.

And other things.

They are not usually anti-vax promoters.

No one claimed that they were, this is a red herring.

Nor are they necessarily even anti-vax believers. Mostly, they are just parents trying to make the best decisions for their kids.

Sorry, this does not work. Either you believe that vaccines are an important part of preventing disease and ensuring your children's health, or you believe that they're unnecessary or harmful. Either pro- or anti-, there is no in between. There is no "sort of" vaccinations, no "feeling" vaccinated, no "appreciating the concept" of vaccinations. Like death and pregnancy, you either are, or you aren't; there is no in-between. You either accept them, or you don't. I fail to see why this is so difficult a concept to grasp.

Parents who accept the information provided by medical authorities will believe that vaccines are an important component to ensuring their children's health will get them vaccinated. Parents who beleive that vaccines are unnecessary or harmful, that diseases either don't exist, or are actually good for their children to experience -- either because of non-scientific (religious) authorities, or pseudo-scientific authorities, will oppose vaccinating their children. It's that simple.

If you have evidence otherwise, post it. You have failed to provide any so far. You are the one claiming that parent's who refuse to vaccinate their children aren't necessarily anti-vaxxers, so it's up to you to provide evidence to support this. Provide any verifiable citation that demonstrates a parent refusing to vaccinate their child despite believing that vaccines are both safe and useful.

I was indeed talking about the last one. And yes, my opinion is the alternative is worse.
Let me make sure I have this clear, because I don't want you accusing me of misrepresenting you (even though you have no problem misrepresenting me).

My original statement was:

Like anything else, education is important. Also mandating immunizations for any children enrolled in public programs (in some areas, it is possible to opt-out of vaccinations for religious reasons).

(emphasis added)

To which you replied:

Which is better than the alternative IMO.

Which I questioned thus:

Huh? There are three seperate points in the line you quoted. Which one are you referring to? I'm strongly hoping that it isn't the last one; because that is certainly not better than the alternatives, which would be epidemics of easily-preventable, and potentially lethal, diseases.

And you responded:

I was indeed talking about the last one. And yes, my opinion is the alternative is worse.
So, there are two alternative interpretations possible. The first is simply that your reading comprehension is lacking; and that you simply didn't understand what i was saying, which I hope this will clear up with the added emphasis.

The second is that you believe that religion should trump established scientific evidence and public health concerns; and that epidemics of easily preventable diseases, diseases which can cause substantial permanent disability and death, are preferable to imposing any restrictions on parents' ability to restrict on potentially life-saving treatment for their children for purely irrational religious reasons.

If the latter is the case, do you also support Jehovah's Witnesses refusal to allow life-saving blood transfusions for their children? What about Scientologists' refusal to allow epilepsy medication, medication for mental illness, or various other neurological and physical conditions for their children? What about fundamentalists Christian and Islamic parents' denying their children life-sustaining insulin and other critical medical treaments?

Do you truly believe that children should be allowed to suffer from diseases and disabilities that are easily preventable or treatable because of their parents' irrational emotionalism? Or, more importantly, do you beleive that someone else's children should have to suffer easily preventable diseases which can cause permanent disability and death[/i] because someone who is not their parent has made an irrational, emotional decision that the proven disease risk is less important than a refuted vaccine risk, or a nebulous "spiritual" risk; and thus prevents a community from developing sufficient "herd immunity".

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ugh. I had such respect for Chelsea Handler, but tonight she had that vile Jenny on as her special guest and, thankfully, it was mostly celebosphere B.S. banter, she did give money to Jenny's charity and promoted her book as part of the segment. Blech.

Chelsea, this is vodka talking, Jenny if full of **** when it comes to medicine and you need to ignore her blathering on the subject.

[Damien Evans]

Known in other circles as the "dimwitted duo", McCarthy and her "man" are on Larry King.

Stupid media sources at CNN are claiming they have "experts" for "both sides". Why is the media going to get that there is only misinformation vs information, not "sides".

Between Larry King and Oprah, I don't know who to nominate as the worst proponents of the most damaging kinds of woo woo idiocy.

Oprah. She has more influence worldwide.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are you incapable of distinguishing between an unsupported opinion in a blog and a discussion of a quote from a person who runs an antivaxxer website that was found in a reply to a blog entry?

No, but I'm constantly amazed at how you and others seem to be incapable of distinguishing between people with different reasons for not following the CDC schedule to the letter, lumping them all in the "anti-vaxer" group.

It was about a reply that reflects a frequently encountered attitude in CTers and antivaxxers alike. The point was Jake was admitting to what we all have seen over and over.

Don't know where the quote attributed to me here you are replying to is from. Certainly not in the post linked to.:confused:

Sometimes it's really hard to reply to your posts. They lack so much information, where does one begin?

How many people are still vaccinating their kids? The majority.

Surprise, these parents trust science based medicine and their clinicians. :rolleyes:

The boat you completely missed here is not, why are some parents vaccinating, it's what is different about the parents who aren't?

This is pointless. You know you are right, apparently so much so you have not bothered to read the article I linked to, which looks at what is different about parents who do not have their children vaccinated to the CDC schedule.

The thread is all yours. I'll be wasting my time elsewhere.

[Beth]

Perhaps we need more tools and skills to deal with this fringe, but it is not because, as Ivor ignorantly writes, we aren't doing a good job with most of our patients.

The boat you completely missed here is not, why are some parents vaccinating, it's what is different about the parents who aren't?

Um, that's exactly what the link he posted to was discussing.

No, but I'm constantly amazed at how you and others seem to be incapable of distinguishing between people with different reasons for not following the CDC schedule to the letter, lumping them all in the "anti-vaxer" group.
Yes. It amazes me as well.


luchog, I'll try to respond to your post later.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Um, that's exactly what the link he posted to was discussing. ...The problem is, knowing what makes parents decide to vaccinate does not automatically mean those who don't vaccinate their kids simply need the same thing.

You both are claiming all the parents who refuse to vaccinate only have a knowledge deficit. That is not the case. They have access to the same knowledge as the parents who do vaccinate.

Not only that, but if, as Ivor suggests, the clinicians are simply failing some parents and yet answering the questions of the other parents, what does that imply? It implies we should be able to find a reason, like most of the parents who take their child to Dr A. come away uninformed and don't vaccinate, therefore it is Dr A's not answering the parents' questions that is at fault. Or we should find Dr A spends more time with some parents and for reasons I'm sure Ivor has figured out, Dr A resents the other parents and offends them rather than answering their questions.

Ivor's hypothesis is an epic fail. And his evidence does not support his hypothesis it is the clinician not giving parents information that is the problem. Show me the evidence that shows WHY some parents get their questions answered while others don't.

That evidence shows it is the parents' woo beliefs that are the source of the antivaxxer decision. Those woo beliefs are supported by crap such as Jenny McCarthy on Larry King.

We need to get through to those parents. We need to address their woo beliefs. I am not saying we shouldn't be looking for ways to help parents tell the difference between good information and crap. But Ivor has a bias that everything is the arrogant clinician's fault. It's absurd.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, but I'm constantly amazed at how you and others seem to be incapable of distinguishing between people with different reasons for not following the CDC schedule to the letter, lumping them all in the "anti-vaxer" group.Ivor, unless you believe the woo beliefs about vaccines, there are no science based medicine reasons (excluding individual medical contraindications) for not giving your kids routine vaccinations. So what "different reasons" other than conclusions not based on facts would you be referring to?


Don't know where the quote attributed to me here you are replying to is from. Certainly not in the post linked to.:confused:Me too. Don't know where that came from. I misread something. Sorry.



This is pointless. You know you are right, apparently so much so you have not bothered to read the article I linked to, which looks at what is different about parents who do not have their children vaccinated to the CDC schedule.

The thread is all yours. I'll be wasting my time elsewhere.Just as I thought. It was not going to be easy to show you why your thought process here was flawed. You still don't get it. If you don't get it from reading my answer to Beth, I'll wait for someone else to chime in.

But also, there were studies about the antivaxxer beliefs I'm waiting for conference transcripts to be up before I can share those. Maybe then you will see where your logic is off.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor, unless you believe the woo beliefs about vaccines, there are no science based medicine reasons (excluding individual medical contraindications) for not giving your kids routine vaccinations. So what "different reasons" other than conclusions not based on facts would you be referring to?

<snip>

While I'm sure you will disagree, the wait and see approach to some vaccinations is reasonable, particularly the newer ones.

Just as I thought. It was not going to be easy to show you why your thought process here was flawed. You still don't get it. If you don't get it from reading my answer to Beth, I'll wait for someone else to chime in.

My thought process is not flawed at all. You (and others) simply attribute beliefs to me which I do not hold. For example:

But Ivor has a bias that everything is the arrogant clinician's fault.

My ideas are considerably more sophisticated than that, but I realise it serves your and others' purposes to reduce them to such an epithet.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Ivor, unless you believe the woo beliefs about vaccines, there are no science based medicine reasons (excluding individual medical contraindications) for not giving your kids routine vaccinations. So what "different reasons" other than conclusions not based on facts would you be referring to?
There will be many parents reluctant to vaccinate who think that the bogus information they have been given actually is scienced based - they don't appreciate the difference or the (to them) subtle distinction between types of evidence.

A parent standing up and recounting a story about a child who was vaccinated and then half an hour later showed signs of autism is far more powerful evidence to them than any amount of trials and papers. Education of people has to start way back from statistics and science; they have to be carefully educated that stats and science even have any relevance in the first place and why anecdodes, although they can be powerful and persuasive, aren't the best things to base important decisions on.

Yuri

[Ivor the Engineer]

Stats are great for making decisions if you are close to the mean, not so good the further away you get.

[pgwenthold]

A parent standing up and recounting a story about a child who was vaccinated and then half an hour later showed signs of autism is far more powerful evidence to them than any amount of trials and papers.



You know, if it was always "then a half hour later" it might actually help. But it is something like, "after he got vaccinated the signs showed up." How much later? Well, pretty soon after. How soon is soon? A couple of weeks? A couple of months? A year?

Well, given how often kids get vaccinated, any child who starts exhibiting autism symptoms between the ages of 18 and 36 months is going to be within a few months of being vaccinated or so.

Of course, this begs the question of whether the symptoms really started then, and if these parents could recognize autism symptoms in pre-18 month olds in the first place.

[Beth]

This is getting excessively long, so I’m going to cut it a bit. If I miss something you really want an answer to, please ask again.

You might want to check out this video:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/beatrice-golomb

Interesting, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.

That’s a pity. It goes directly to the trusting in scientific authority issue. I realize it wasn’t about vaccinations, but it was about being able to rely on the conclusions and medical recommendations that are presented in scientific papers.


While I can't argue that science is as trustworthy as the evidence it is based on, it is scientists who interpret that evidence and make recommendations for the rest of us. They are just as human and prone to error as politicians and parents.

It is precisely these processes that ensure that science and scientists are less prone to error and subjectivity than laymen who do not use these processes.

Right. I agree with this. But fewer errors and subjectivity does not mean that bias cannot creep into the process contaminating the results. You might find ‘The Tainted Truth’ by Cynthia Crossen of interest on this point. Given the extent to which bias does affect the interpretation of experimental results and recommendations (as detailed in both the video mentioned previously and the book referenced above), I do not find it any surprise that many people do not take the consider the recommendations made by a committee, even if it is composed entirely of professional scientists, to be inherently trustworthy. I don't. Given sufficient time, anything of serious importance to me I'll research for myself.

Okay. I've no disagreement with this. But outside of pure mathematics, facts get a lot squishier and harder to pin down.

Again, this was addressed. And I would argue your use of the vague term "a lot". In fact, I would argue that it's more common for facts to be quite clear and unequivocal. The only areas that are "squishy" are those where there are few facts available. In the area of medicine, there is a substantial amount of natural variation that makes the predictive value of any set of data less than 100%, but that is a dramatically different condition from the sort of vague subjectivity that you are asserting.
Actually, no, I didn’t feel it was addressed previously and I’m not talking about anything other than what you are describing in the above paragraph.

Further, it's a mistake to downplay the role of emotions can play in performing mathematics.

You what? I really want to see you support this. I can't imagine any possibly way in which what one feels about "1+1" can possibly make it equal anything except 2.
Actually, I’m not talking about the computational results but about the creative aspect of doing mathematics. Without that, no new mathematics would ever be discovered. You seem to have misinterpreted my statement here.

It's interesting that you're making an emotional argument here (adds a lovely bit of irony to your post)

Erm, no, I'm not. You're reading in what you want to see, not what I'm writing. Maybe. And maybe you are unaware of how much of your emotional states spills into your writing. I find the exaggeration of the problems and absolutist terminology you use to be indicative of an emotional response.


Come now, the ONLY valid reliable process? I don't think so. The most reliable I would agree with.

The only reliable process. You have yet to demonstrate how emotionalism can possibly create a reliably predictive evaluation of data. Please do so, otherwise this is sheer nonsense. One piece of advice given to young women about how to avoid being assaulted is to trust their instincts and avoid being alone with people/places that make them uncomfortable, uneasy, or frightened even if they don’t have a rational reason to feel that way.

At any rate, the problem is that we don’t have reliable scientific evidence to cover every possible decision we are faced with these days. Emotions can provide a way to make a decision quickly. As I said earlier, I agree it isn’t as reliable as a well done scientific experiment. But I don’t think that makes it useless. Sometimes, intuition is the best we’ve got available.



And yet more emotional illogical arguments.

Where? I presented simple statements of fact. All of these things exist, and are independently verifiable. The head-tapping thing is a variant of Bodytalk Systems, a pseudo-scientific quack medical practice. That, "Indigo Children", and "Crystal Children" are all well-documented in this forum, and all over the Internet. I even provided a link to one incident involving a death which directly resulted from a quack medical "cure" for autism. How is providing objective data emotional or illogical? The choices of what facts to present is a subjective one and how they are presented can be an emotional one. A death resulting from a medical “cure” for autism has nothing to do with parents choosing not to vaccinate. I see it as the same kind of emotionally based argument that the anti-vaxers use. “Look – this child got autism – isn’t it awful. Don’t vaccinate’.

The ideal researcher is purely objective, purely rational, purely emotionless. That is clearly not humanly achievable; which is why the process described earlier is so important.
You haven't actually provided any evidence. You've given lots of vague generalities and some basic reasoning, but no actual evidence.

The evidence has been posted repeately in this thread, and in numerous past threads on this forum. It's very very easy to find. You can also go through the stopjenny.com (http://stopjenny.com/) website, quackwatch.com (http://www.quackwatch.com/), whatstheharm.net (http://whatstheharm.net/), and numerous others for extensive evidence.
You originally said This statement does not contradict my claim. In fact, it is exactly what i said. The only difference between your statement and mine is that I provided an explanation of why that trust is lacking, whereas you have completely avoided doing so.
No, you provided your OPINION of why that trust is lacking. An opinion that WASN'T backed up with facts, but generalizations of what motivates other people that isn't in tune with my observations.

The sources you’ve posted do not (at least not that I can find) support your contention regarding WHY trust is lacking. Ivor has since posted a link to some evidence on that issue though, which does not appear to support your opinion.

Nor are they necessarily even anti-vax believers. Mostly, they are just parents trying to make the best decisions for their kids.

Sorry, this does not work. Either you believe that vaccines are an important part of preventing disease and ensuring your children's health, or you believe that they're unnecessary or harmful. Either pro- or anti-, there is no in between. There is no "sort of" vaccinations, no "feeling" vaccinated, no "appreciating the concept" of vaccinations. Like death and pregnancy, you either are, or you aren't; there is no in-between. You either accept them, or you don't. I fail to see why this is so difficult a concept to grasp. Maybe because it isn’t correct? There are, after all, many different vaccines these days. Not everyone feels they are all equally important or all equally harmful. Some people get some vaccines and refuse others for various reasons. Seems to me they fall in-between rather than being pro- or anti-.

If you have evidence otherwise, post it. You have failed to provide any so far. You are the one claiming that parent's who refuse to vaccinate their children aren't necessarily anti-vaxxers, so it's up to you to provide evidence to support this. Provide any verifiable citation that demonstrates a parent refusing to vaccinate their child despite believing that vaccines are both safe and useful. I believe that vaccines in general are both helpful and relatively safe. However, I still have chosen to delay some and refused others. Am I pro- or anti-? I tend to think of myself as being somewhere in between.

So, there are two alternative interpretations possible. The first is simply that your reading comprehension is lacking; and that you simply didn't understand what i was saying, which I hope this will clear up with the added emphasis.

The second is that you believe that religion should trump established scientific evidence and public health concerns; and that epidemics of easily preventable diseases, diseases which can cause substantial permanent disability and death, are preferable to imposing any restrictions on parents' ability to restrict on potentially life-saving treatment for their children for purely irrational religious reasons. Let me rephrase that a bit, because I find your phrasing biased and denigrating. While I believe that most vaccines are beneficial to both the individual and society in preventing the transmission of disease, I do not feel that the benefit of mandating standard childhood vaccines without exemptions for those parents who do not want their children to have the vaccines is sufficient to overcome the cost to our society in terms of individuals losing the freedom to make such decisions for themselves and their children. I do not care what reasons they have for rejecting them.

If the latter is the case, do you also support Jehovah's Witnesses refusal to allow life-saving blood transfusions for their children? What about Scientologists' refusal to allow epilepsy medication, medication for mental illness, or various other neurological and physical conditions for their children? What about fundamentalists Christian and Islamic parents' denying their children life-sustaining insulin and other critical medical treaments? This is pretty much where I draw the line. I’m okay with overriding parental objections and giving a medical treatment to a child when there is imminent danger to the child’s life if the treatment is withheld.

Or, more importantly, do you believe that someone else's children should have to suffer easily preventable diseases which can cause permanent disability and death[/i] because someone who is not their parent has made an irrational, emotional decision that the proven disease risk is less important than a refuted vaccine risk, I’ll bet you don’t see this as an emotional argument either do you? Despite the fact that the probability that a child will actually suffer a permanent disability or death as a result of that decision is so low. Should we ask the same about a parent who allows, perhaps even encourages their child, to do such risky things as play football, ride a bike or go swimming. How many deaths or permanent disabilities can be attributed to those decisions? How does that compare with choosing not to vaccinate?

or a nebulous "spiritual" risk; and thus prevents a community from developing sufficient "herd immunity". No, I don’t consider herd immunity to be a sufficient benefit to justify mandating vaccinations if the person or parent chooses against it. I’d rather live with the risks of a society where some people haven’t been vaccinated than live in one where such minor personal health choices are not considered the prerogative of the individual.

[Deetee]

You know, if it was always "then a half hour later" it might actually help. But it is something like, "after he got vaccinated the signs showed up." How much later? Well, pretty soon after. How soon is soon? A couple of weeks? A couple of months? A year?

Well, given how often kids get vaccinated, any child who starts exhibiting autism symptoms between the ages of 18 and 36 months is going to be within a few months of being vaccinated or so.

Of course, this begs the question of whether the symptoms really started then, and if these parents could recognize autism symptoms in pre-18 month olds in the first place.

Just to play devil's advocate: The time gap between vaccination and appearance of autism could depend upon many things.
Remember this is a neurodevelopmental problem, so there needs to be sufficient time delay between the insult and the neuropathology becoming manifest. There are a number of competing theories about how autism results after vaccination. Most require a time delay. It could take months.

Not playing devil's advocate: Many parents indeed say there was an immediate noticeable change in their child, which seems unfeasible considering the damage should take a while to show up.

[Eos of the Eons]

The actual time frame for autism development is actually dependent upon the brain growth from birth. First the child's brain becomes enlarged and then misses a pruning stage, so stays enlarged and unorganized, then you see a period of regression in the child after seeming progression. This takes 15 - 18 months.

[pgwenthold]

Just to play devil's advocate: The time gap between vaccination and appearance of autism could depend upon many things.
Remember this is a neurodevelopmental problem, so there needs to be sufficient time delay between the insult and the neuropathology becoming manifest. There are a number of competing theories about how autism results after vaccination. Most require a time delay. It could take months.


Oh I agree, so you aren't actually devilishly advocating. However, as I said, given the vaccination schedule, symptoms that have nothing to do with vaccination are still going to show up "within months." IOW, you can't distinguish "symptoms that show up months after vaccination" with "symptoms unrelated to vaccination."



Not playing devil's advocate: Many parents indeed say there was an immediate noticeable change in their child, which seems unfeasible considering the damage should take a while to show up.

Of course, it's not clear what constitutes "immediate." When your child is 12 years old, looking back it may seem that the response was pretty much immediate, even if it were months. It's not like parents are keeping a journal of autism-like symptoms. They are based on subjective impressions of symptoms and time.

[pgwenthold]

By the way, Eos, autism was the topic on Doctor Radio this morning (Satellite Radio Sirius 114/XM Radio 119). Very well done, as you can imagine. Guests included a guy from the Indiana Medical school, the woman who created the ADOS exam for diagnosis, and Paul Offett.

There was only one loopy question (about alternative treatments) and it got hammered by the guests and callers.

I called, but another caller brought up the same point before me, so I didn't pursue it: the loopy caller claimed that using "homeopathy and vitamins" that her 4 year old autistic son was "cured."

The other caller went off on her saying how claims that it was "cured" give people a false impression. I actually was going to ask the question if autism is actually "curable"? I was under the impression it isn't "cured," although symptoms can be improved. Comments?

The doctors were pretty gentle for the most part ("as long as things are safe I try to work with the parents") but when she defended chelation therapy, they got a little tougher.

I realize the docs on Doctor Radio have to walk a fine line and all, but I would like them step up and be a little more forceful in this regard. They ran out of time, but if I would have called in, it would be to ask them what they think of the anti-vax implication that doctors are part of a conspiracy. See Jim Carey's nonsense in HuffPo, where he says, "...given the agenda of big pharma, the AAP, and the CDC."

Exactly what "agenda" does he think the AAP and CDC have? Apparently, it is something aside from "to provide the best pediatric care possible" and "to control infectious diseases in the US" respectively?

If I were a pediatriciaion and member of the Academy, I would be very offended, and wouldn't take such an insult lightly.

oBTW - Offett: Paul made one questionable comment, I thought. He claimed that anti-vax media is limited to the fringe nowadays, such as HuffPo, Larry King, and Oprah. Unfortunately, I don't think Oprah is near fringe enough, and is too mainstream, particularly with respect to reaching parents of vaccinatable children. She has a very large presence in that market, comparatively. They are watching her much more than they are watching the CBS Evening News, that's for sure.

ETA: I think the show was About Our Kids and they mentioned a website AboutOurKids.org. I haven't looked it up though

[Skeptic Ginger]

While I'm sure you will disagree, the wait and see approach to some vaccinations is reasonable, particularly the newer ones.We are talking about vaccines with established research that demonstrates the vaccines are safer than risking the infections. With the exception of the HPV vaccine and the higher dose live varicella vaccine for shingles, the time to wait and see has passed for the vaccines in question.


My thought process is not flawed at all. You (and others) simply attribute beliefs to me which I do not hold. For example: ...

My ideas are considerably more sophisticated than that, but I realise it serves your and others' purposes to reduce them to such an epithet.You may or may not hold that belief. Your posts, however, clearly express it and time and time again, your posts continually express some inherent resentment toward the power difference between you and medical decision makers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There will be many parents reluctant to vaccinate who think that the bogus information they have been given actually is scienced based - they don't appreciate the difference or the (to them) subtle distinction between types of evidence.

A parent standing up and recounting a story about a child who was vaccinated and then half an hour later showed signs of autism is far more powerful evidence to them than any amount of trials and papers. Education of people has to start way back from statistics and science; they have to be carefully educated that stats and science even have any relevance in the first place and why anecdodes, although they can be powerful and persuasive, aren't the best things to base important decisions on.

YuriThe false assumption here is that health care clinicians don't know that. We do. Knowing what the barrier to communication is, is not the same as knowing how to breach that barrier. Care to tell us how to breach it, now that we've established the fact we are all equally aware of the problem?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to play devil's advocate: The time gap between vaccination and appearance of autism could depend upon many things.
Remember this is a neurodevelopmental problem, so there needs to be sufficient time delay between the insult and the neuropathology becoming manifest. There are a number of competing theories about how autism results after vaccination. Most require a time delay. It could take months.

Not playing devil's advocate: Many parents indeed say there was an immediate noticeable change in their child, which seems unfeasible considering the damage should take a while to show up.The best answer to the autism anecdotes is the fact we now can diagnose autism earlier than the age the vaccines which were supposedly responsible are given. A clever researcher compared 1st birthday videos many parents made for behaviors then checked to see which correlated with autism. Your 15 month MMR or your 18 month DTaP cannot give you autism if you were diagnosed with it at 12 months.

Of course, just as a vaccine is PROVED not to be the cause of autism, the anti-vaxxer crowd finds another reason to blame vaccines. Not the MMR? Then it must be the Thimerosal. Not the Thimerosal? Then it must be too many vaccines too early. Not too many vaccines (disproved by the number of protein antigens per today's vaccines combined which is a fraction of the number of antigens in older vaccines singly)? Then it must be the aluminum or formaldehyde additives.

As each and every hypothesis is disproved, a small number of activists who are emotionally invested in blaming vaccines and who have access to mass media outlets advertise the new culprit. The medical community is fighting not the science or the misled parents. We are fighting a well oiled propaganda machine.

That is what I think we need to address next. Otherwise we are addressing the problem at its surface rather than at its root.



Edited to add: I reviewed the early diagnosis of autism given Eos' post #121The actual time frame for autism development is actually dependent upon the brain growth from birth. First the child's brain becomes enlarged and then misses a pruning stage, so stays enlarged and unorganized, then you see a period of regression in the child after seeming progression. This takes 15 - 18 months. It appears the birthday study was not replicated in a prospective study of "young siblings of children with autism from 4 to 54 months," (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17203244?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed) So I am investigating further.Cognitive and language skills of 39 siblings of children with autism (SIBS-A) and 39 siblings of typically developing children (SIBS-TD) at ages 4, 14, 24, 36, and 54 months were compared. Twelve of the 39 SIBS-A revealed a delay in cognition and/or language (including one child diagnosed with autism) compared to only two SIBS-TD. Developmental trajectories revealed that the cognitive differences disappeared by age 54 months, but some differences in language ability remained. Thus, most SIBS-A were well-functioning, but some revealed cognitive and/or language difficulties during the preschool years. Even these siblings by and large caught up by the age of 54 months, with receptive and expressive language abilities remaining an area of difficulty for some earlier identified siblings.


Development in infants with autism spectrum disorders: a prospective study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16712640?dopt=Abstract) This prospective study of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) examined development using the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) in 87 infants tested at target ages 6, 14, and 24 months. Participants came from infants at high risk (siblings of children with autism) and low risk (no family history of autism) groups. Based on language test scores, Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, and clinical judgment at 24 months of age, participants were categorized as: unaffected, ASD, or language delayed (LD). Longitudinal linear regression and ANOVA models were applied to MSEL raw scores, and estimates were compared between the three diagnostic groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant group differences were detected at 6 months. By 14 months of age, the ASD group performed significantly worse than the unaffected group on all scales except Visual Reception. By 24 months of age, the ASD group performed significantly worse than the unaffected group in all domains, and worse than the language delayed group in Gross Motor, Fine Motor, and Receptive Language. The developmental trajectory of the ASD group was slower than the other groups', and showed a significant decrease in development between the first and second birthdays. CONCLUSIONS: Variations from typical and language delayed development are detectable in many children with ASD using a measure of general development by 24 months of age. Unusual slowing in performance occurred between 14 and 24 months of age in ASD.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This article was a review of the genetic research as of 2004. I found the following excerpts interesting:

The genetics of autism. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121991?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed) ...There is convincing evidence that "idiopathic" autism is a heritable disorder. Epidemiologic studies report an ASD prevalence of approximately 3 to 6/1000, with a male to female ratio of 3:1. This skewed ratio remains unexplained: despite the contribution of a few well characterized X-linked disorders, male-to-male transmission in a number of families rules out X-linkage as the prevailing mode of inheritance. The recurrence rate in siblings of affected children is approximately 2% to 8%, much higher than the prevalence rate in the general population but much lower than in single-gene diseases. Twin studies reported 60% concordance for classic autism in monozygotic (MZ) twins versus 0 in dizygotic (DZ) twins, the higher MZ concordance attesting to genetic inheritance as the predominant causative agent. Reevaluation for a broader autistic phenotype that included communication and social disorders increased concordance remarkably from 60% to 92% in MZ twins and from 0% to 10% in DZ pairs. This suggests that interactions between multiple genes cause "idiopathic" autism but that epigenetic factors and exposure to environmental modifiers may contribute to variable expression of autism-related traits. The identity and number of genes involved remain unknown. The wide phenotypic variability of the ASDs likely reflects the interaction of multiple genes within an individual's genome and the existence of distinct genes and gene combinations among those affected....

Thus far, a putative speech and language region at 7q31-q33 seems most strongly linked to autism, with linkages to multiple other loci under investigation. Cytogenetic abnormalities at the 15q11-q13 locus are fairly frequent in people with autism, and a "chromosome 15 phenotype" was described in individuals with chromosome 15 duplications. Among other candidate genes are the FOXP2, RAY1/ST7, IMMP2L, and RELN genes at 7q22-q33 and the GABA(A) receptor subunit and UBE3A genes on chromosome 15q11-q13. Variant alleles of the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTT) on 17q11-q12 are more frequent in individuals with autism than in nonautistic populations. In addition, animal models and linkage data from genome screens implicate the oxytocin receptor at 3p25-p26....

Parents who wish to have more children must be told of their increased statistical risk. It is crucial for pediatricians to try to involve families with multiple affected members in formal research projects, as family studies are key to unraveling the causes and pathogenesis of autism. Parents need to understand that they and their affected children are the only available sources for identifying and studying the elusive genes responsible for autism. Future clinically useful insights and potential medications depend on identifying these genes and elucidating the influences of their products on brain development and physiology.

[luchog]

Actually, no, I didn’t feel it was addressed previously and I’m not talking about anything other than what you are describing in the above paragraph.
Actually, I’m not talking about the computational results but about the creative aspect of doing mathematics. Without that, no new mathematics would ever be discovered. You seem to have misinterpreted my statement here.

I took it at face value, I did not attempt to interpret. The problem is that you are not clear.

Maybe. And maybe you are unaware of how much of your emotional states spills into your writing. I find the exaggeration of the problems and absolutist terminology you use to be indicative of an emotional response.

You are projecting again. You see emotion because you want to; because that supports your erroneous assertions.

One piece of advice given to young women about how to avoid being assaulted is to trust their instincts and avoid being alone with people/places that make them uncomfortable, uneasy, or frightened even if they don’t have a rational reason to feel that way.

This is so wrong, I can't even begin to address it in this post. That would require an entirely different thread.

At any rate, the problem is that we don’t have reliable scientific evidence to cover every possible decision we are faced with these days. Emotions can provide a way to make a decision quickly. As I said earlier, I agree it isn’t as reliable as a well done scientific experiment. But I don’t think that makes it useless. Sometimes, intuition is the best we’ve got available.

I strongly disagree. There is sufficient scientific evidence to cover nearly every common decision. Without evidence, rational examination of the situation should be sufficient. Furthermore, "intuition" is a vague, and effectively meaningless word in this context; as it is used to refer to everything from a judgement based on insufficient evidence but extensive experience with similar situations (ie, inductive reasoning), to a snap judgement based on no evidence or experience whatsoever (ie, bias).

The choices of what facts to present is a subjective one and how they are presented can be an emotional one.

I don't agree. People who aren't interested in rational evaluation certainly make it that way; but that is not inherent in the process.

A death resulting from a medical “cure” for autism has nothing to do with parents choosing not to vaccinate. I see it as the same kind of emotionally based argument that the anti-vaxers use. “Look – this child got autism – isn’t it awful. Don’t vaccinate’.

Again, you see emotion, because you insist on thinking emotionally instead of rationally; and are unable to envision anyone else not doing the same.

The next section is far to convoluted and vague to address, since I cannot determine your point. Please restate clearly and I will attempt to address whatever point you were trying to make. I will state that with regard to anything Ivor has posted in this thread, that his claims have been thoroughly addressed refuted by others, so I won't bother duplicating their work.

Let me rephrase that a bit, because I find your phrasing biased and denigrating.

That is because you insist on emotionalism, instead of evaluating the issue rationally. As long as you do that, you will never fail to be offended, and will continue to miss the point.

While I believe that most vaccines are beneficial to both the individual and society in preventing the transmission of disease, I do not feel that the benefit of mandating standard childhood vaccines without exemptions for those parents who do not want their children to have the vaccines is sufficient to overcome the cost to our society in terms of individuals losing the freedom to make such decisions for themselves and their children. I do not care what reasons they have for rejecting them.

1) What is the "cost to society" you're referring to? How is does it overweigh the cost of potentially lethal and disabling epidemics of easily preventable diseases?

This is pretty much where I draw the line. I’m okay with overriding parental objections and giving a medical treatment to a child when there is imminent danger to the child’s life if the treatment is withheld.

How do you define "immanent", and what about if there is immanent danger to someone else's life? Some of us are old enough to remember when epidemics of measles and pertussis were a very real thing; the latter still killing roughly 600,000 people every year in areas of the world where vaccines are unavailable or actively resisted. The former killed 873,000 people worldwide in 1999; a number which was reduced to 345,000 in 2005, due to the widespread uptake of vaccines in third-world countries, mainly Africa. Anti-vaccination movements in Africa saw a resurgence in measles deaths; with areas such as Nigeria which had had only a few dozen a year, skyrocketting into hundreds within a few years.

This uptake in measles vaccinations in Africa have also produced a reduction in deaths from numerous other, opportunistic diseases which attacked the immunocompromised. With the upsurge of anti-vax movements and the increase in prevalence of easily-preventable diseases, deaths from opportunistic diseases are also increasing. Polio has been almost eliminated worldwide; and is currently endemic in only 4 nations in the world, all third-world nations. One of them is Nigeria, a stronghold of the anti-vax movement in Africa.

Furthermore, AIDS denialism has resulted in huge numbers of immunocompromised individuals; a number which is growing rapidly. An outbreak of a serious, but easily preventable disease like measles, pertussis, or polio has the potential to become a catastrophic epidemic, devastating the populations of these regions, if strong measures aren't taken soon. That sounds pretty immanent to me.

The anti-vax movements in Africa, like most of the rest of the world, is based on anti-Western conspiracy theories, and religion (Islamic fundamentalists in northern Africa are strongly anti-vax).

So do you feel that the benefits of enforcing religious beliefs on children is more important than ensuring their health, and the health of the community?

I’ll bet you don’t see this as an emotional argument either do you?

No, because 1) I'm addressing the issue rationally, not mired in emotionalism; and 2) it was a question, not an argument.

Despite the fact that the probability that a child will actually suffer a permanent disability or death as a result of that decision is so low. Should we ask the same about a parent who allows, perhaps even encourages their child, to do such risky things as play football, ride a bike or go swimming. How many deaths or permanent disabilities can be attributed to those decisions? How does that compare with choosing not to vaccinate?

All of thse pastimes have safety equipment, rules, personnel, and procedures which greatly reduce the chances of injury and death. Choosing not to vaccinate is choosing to encourage your child to participate in those activities, but banning helmets, kneepads, lifeguards, and first-aid kits. And the more people who refuse to vaccinate, the greater that risk becomes.

No, I don’t consider herd immunity to be a sufficient benefit to justify mandating vaccinations if the person or parent chooses against it. I’d rather live with the risks of a society where some people haven’t been vaccinated than live in one where such minor personal health choices are not considered the prerogative of the individual.
Except that you and your child are not the only ones who have to live with the effects of your choice. You're also forcing everyone else who comes in contact with you and your child to live with the effect of your choice as well.

Immunizations are not individual preventatives. Individually, they are only partially effective. They rely primarily on creating herd immunity to function effectively. In order to effectively create herd immunity, there needs to be a minimum uptake of about 90%. As we've seen, in areas where uptake drops down even as low as 80%, outbreaks become much more frequent, and begin to affect even those who have been immunized. A small percentage of people are unable to receive the vaccines, for health reasons. Another small minority are immunocompromised due to health issues or simple age. Reducing herd immunity puts these people at greatly increased risk, since they depend entirely on herd immunity for protection.

You're not deciding for your child, or yourself. You're deciding for everyone else as well. That is why immunization is so important. You are deciding that your beliefs are more important than anyone else's life.

[Beth]

The choices of what facts to present is a subjective one and how they are presented can be an emotional one.

I don't agree. People who aren't interested in rational evaluation certainly make it that way; but that is not inherent in the process. I agree that it emotions aren’t inherent in the process of deciding how to present information. Certainly information can be presented without emotion. However, I think your presentations in this thread have shown signs of emotion.

A death resulting from a medical “cure” for autism has nothing to do with parents choosing not to vaccinate. I see it as the same kind of emotionally based argument that the anti-vaxers use. “Look – this child got autism – isn’t it awful. Don’t vaccinate’.

Again, you see emotion, because you insist on thinking emotionally instead of rationally; and are unable to envision anyone else not doing the same. Maybe. But if it was a purely rational presentation, why did you include that particular anecdote? It doesn’t advance your argument at all. It seems to me that the only reason to bring it up is as an attempt to elicit an emotional response from the reader.

The next section is far to convoluted and vague to address, since I cannot determine your point. Please restate clearly and I will attempt to address whatever point you were trying to make.
Going back over that section, the part I am interested in is why you see vaccinations as such a black and white issue i.e.
Either you believe that vaccines are an important part of preventing disease and ensuring your children's health, or you believe that they're unnecessary or harmful. Either pro- or anti-, there is no in between. There is no "sort of" vaccinations, no "feeling" vaccinated, no "appreciating the concept" of vaccinations. Like death and pregnancy, you either are, or you aren't; there is no in-between. You either accept them, or you don't.

Some people accept some vaccinates as needed and beneficial but are not as confident about others. Do you consider such people to be pro- or anti- vaccinations and why?

I will state that with regard to anything Ivor has posted in this thread, that his claims have been thoroughly addressed refuted by others, so I won't bother duplicating their work. No, they haven’t been refuted. People have misconstrued his claims and refuted their misguided conception of what he was claiming. I haven’t seen anyone address either his actual claims or the evidence he’s presented to support them.

Let me rephrase that a bit, because I find your phrasing biased and denigrating.

That is because you insist on emotionalism, instead of evaluating the issue rationally. As long as you do that, you will never fail to be offended, and will continue to miss the point.
I’m not particularly offended. I simply find it biased and denigrating. Let’s take another look at what you said.
The second is that you believe that religion should trump established scientific evidence and public health concerns; and that epidemics of easily preventable diseases, diseases which can cause substantial permanent disability and death, are preferable to imposing any restrictions on parents' ability to restrict on potentially life-saving treatment for their children for purely irrational religious reasons.
First of all, it’s an exaggeration to say that because I defend the right of parents to make vaccination decisions for their children that I would believe that ‘religion should trump established scientific evidence and public health concerns’. That’s a very biased way of putting it. I’m not arguing about religious beliefs at all (you are the one that keeps bringing that up) but I would argue that personal choice should trump scientific evidence and public health concerns in some situations. For example, I think people should be allowed to smoke if they choose to. While I think it’s reasonable to ban them from smoking in certain public spaces, I don’t support a universal ban on smoking in all public places. And no, I’m not a smoker.

Next, you are talking about epidemics of easily preventable diseases. I think this is an exaggeration as well. I don’t see any reason to assume that allowing people to decline vaccinations for their children will lead to epidemics. Instead, I see that as an emotional argument not based in fact. To my knowledge, England has seen the largest decrease in vaccine uptake. They suffered an increase in vaccine-preventable diseases, but I don’t think that they suffered what could be classed as an epidemic because of it. The result was that as the disease became more prevalent, parents that had previously refused the vaccine reconsidered. Vaccine uptake increased. That is what I would expect to have happen.

Now, it’s possible I have mis-recalled what I read about the situation, but if you have evidence that an actual epidemic occurred as a result of parents declining vaccinations, I will reconsider my opinion on the matter and whether or not your statement above was an emotional one or simply a statement of facts.

Finally, you claim that refusal are for irrational religious reasons. While I don’t agree with the reasoning they use, I don’t find it irrational. They hold certain beliefs and their actions are rational in the context of those beliefs. Thus, I think your phrasing was a biased and denigrating way to refer to their choices.


While I believe that most vaccines are beneficial to both the individual and society in preventing the transmission of disease, I do not feel that the benefit of mandating standard childhood vaccines without exemptions for those parents who do not want their children to have the vaccines is sufficient to overcome the cost to our society in terms of individuals losing the freedom to make such decisions for themselves and their children. I do not care what reasons they have for rejecting them.
What is the "cost to society" you're referring to? Loss of personal freedom.
How is does it overweigh the cost of potentially lethal and disabling epidemics of easily preventable diseases? I simply don’t believe that this is the inevitable outcome of allowing people to make that choice on a personal level. I think the cost in regard to loss of freedom outweighs the cost of a small increase in vaccine preventable diseases that I would expect as a result.

This is pretty much where I draw the line. I’m okay with overriding parental objections and giving a medical treatment to a child when there is imminent danger to the child’s life if the treatment is withheld.

How do you define "immanent", and what about if there is immanent danger to someone else's life? Good question. I think if death were to occur in 24 hours or less that would certainly qualify. Is that sufficient for this discussion or do I need to give the matter more thought?
Some of us are old enough to remember when epidemics of measles and pertussis were a very real thing; the latter still killing roughly 600,000 people every year in areas of the world where vaccines are unavailable or actively resisted. The former killed 873,000 people worldwide in 1999; a number which was reduced to 345,000 in 2005, due to the widespread uptake of vaccines in third-world countries, mainly Africa. Anti-vaccination movements in Africa saw a resurgence in measles deaths; with areas such as Nigeria which had had only a few dozen a year, skyrocketting into hundreds within a few years. I’d prefer to keep the discussion to American and European societies. I really don’t know enough about the governmental and societal systems of African countries to be comfortable discussing their current policies and whether/how they should change.

So do you feel that the benefits of enforcing religious beliefs on children is more important than ensuring their health, and the health of the community?
No. I feel the benefits of allowing people to make personal choices on vaccines is more important than the negative impact on their health and the health of the community I would expect to as a result of doing so.

Despite the fact that the probability that a child will actually suffer a permanent disability or death as a result of that decision is so low. Should we ask the same about a parent who allows, perhaps even encourages their child, to do such risky things as play football, ride a bike or go swimming. How many deaths or permanent disabilities can be attributed to those decisions? How does that compare with choosing not to vaccinate?

All of thse pastimes have safety equipment, rules, personnel, and procedures which greatly reduce the chances of injury and death. Choosing not to vaccinate is choosing to encourage your child to participate in those activities, but banning helmets, kneepads, lifeguards, and first-aid kits. No, it’s not. I was trying to comparing the impact of allowing children to participate in those activities on “the negative impact on their health and the health of the community” with that of allowing people not to vaccinate. Such a comparison would include the use of safety equipment, etc. I personally think that the impact of allowing people to choose not to vaccinate is going to be comparable (or less than) the impact of allowing people to choose to do other things like participating in various sports activities. I don't see any the potential for harm as sufficient to justify not allowing people their choice in such matters.

And the more people who refuse to vaccinate, the greater that risk becomes.
And the greater the risk becomes, the more people will choose to vaccinate.

No, I don’t consider herd immunity to be a sufficient benefit to justify mandating vaccinations if the person or parent chooses against it. I’d rather live with the risks of a society where some people haven’t been vaccinated than live in one where such minor personal health choices are not considered the prerogative of the individual.
You're not deciding for your child, or yourself. You're deciding for everyone else as well. That is why immunization is so important. You are deciding that your beliefs are more important than anyone else's life.
And every time I drive my car, I’m forcing everyone else to suffer the effect of my adding exhaust fumes to the atmosphere. Does that mean I’m deciding that my freedom to drive my car is more important than anyone else’s life? That our daily choices impact others to some degree is inevitable. That fact alone is not sufficient to justify social policies that dictate individual decisions.

[luchog]

I agree that it emotions aren’t inherent in the process of deciding how to present information. Certainly information can be presented without emotion. However, I think your presentations in this thread have shown signs of emotion.

I've already explained that. You're projecting. You might also want to do a little research on "Asperger's Syndrome" and the lack of emotion that is characteristic of it. Just because you are not able to think rationally and unemotionally doesn't mean that no one else is able to do so.

Maybe. But if it was a purely rational presentation, why did you include that particular anecdote? It doesn’t advance your argument at all. It seems to me that the only reason to bring it up is as an attempt to elicit an emotional response from the reader.

It's called an "illustrative example". They're often used to demonstrate abstract concepts in more concrete or specific terms.

Going back over that section, the part I am interested in is why you see vaccinations as such a black and white issue i.e.
The lessons taught by history and science make it clearly one. Herd immunity is absolutely essential to protect the community, and in particular the immunocompromised. Those who are able to be vaccinated, and refuse to do so, are parasites.

Some people accept some vaccinates as needed and beneficial but are not as confident about others. Do you consider such people to be pro- or anti- vaccinations and why?

Do they have the medical background to adequately assess the potential risks vs. the individual and community benefits -- eg. epidemiology? Or are the acting on the professional advice of someone who has the necessary qualifications? If not, then they're acting out of ignorance, and are different from any other anti-vaxxer only in scale, not in kind.

No, they haven’t been refuted. People have misconstrued his claims and refuted their misguided conception of what he was claiming. I haven’t seen anyone address either his actual claims or the evidence he’s presented to support them.

You and Ivor can claim that all you want, but the fact remains that his posts on the subject are little more than collections of unsupported ignorant assertions bolstered with numerous logical fallacies; all of which have been repeatedly refuted in the past.

I’m not particularly offended. I simply find it biased and denigrating. Let’s take another look at what you said.

First of all, it’s an exaggeration to say that because I defend the right of parents to make vaccination decisions for their children that I would believe that ‘religion should trump established scientific evidence and public health concerns’. That’s a very biased way of putting it.

Yet that is exactly what you're arguing for, you're simply dressing it up in obfuscatory language.

Either vaccines are essential for public health, or they're not. If they are, then no religious other other irrational nonsense should be allowed to overrule that. And ultimately, all anti-vax activism is religious or conspiracy-theory at base. You have denied this, but have not yet provided a single counter-example.

I’m not arguing about religious beliefs at all (you are the one that keeps bringing that up) but I would argue that personal choice should trump scientific evidence and public health concerns in some situations. For example, I think people should be allowed to smoke if they choose to. While I think it’s reasonable to ban them from smoking in certain public spaces, I don’t support a universal ban on smoking in all public places. And no, I’m not a smoker.

Another example of irrationality and evasion. You seem to have missed entirely your blatant self-contradiction.

You believe people should be allowed to smoke. Fine. So do I. That's a personal health, not a public health concern. You think it's reasonable to ban them from smoking in certain public places. That is a public heath concern, and therefore justified; because smoking in public affect other peole besides the smoker. You don't support a universal ban on smoking in public place? I can't comment on this until you define "universal" and "public".

Next, you are talking about epidemics of easily preventable diseases. I think this is an exaggeration as well.

The CDC and WHO disagree with you on this. Guess who I will trust on the issue.

I don’t see any reason to assume that allowing people to decline vaccinations for their children will lead to epidemics. Instead, I see that as an emotional argument not based in fact.

That is, again, because you are projecting your own emotional irrationality in an attempt to ignore the reality of what the anti-vax movement has caused.
http://www.euro.who.int/vaccine/diseases/20090205_5
http://www.immune.org.nz/?t=742
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w800n42261203w61/
http://appablog.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/polio-outbreak-in-14-african-countries-prompts-ifrc-emergency-appeal/
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/measles-epidemic-strikes-japan/2007/05/25/1179601669854.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1022280
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/29/health-measles-epidemic
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/index.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/full/nature06509.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-01/anti-vaccination.html
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:oVaVnFblr-MJ:www.nga.org/Files/ppt/0509TerryDwelle.ppt+pertussis+epidemic&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/331/1/16
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/803186-overview
http://www.avert.org/aidsimpact.htm
http://africa.resurrectionsong.com/archives/001138.html
http://www.comminit.com/en/node/1534/38

To my knowledge, England has seen the largest decrease in vaccine uptake. They suffered an increase in vaccine-preventable diseases, but I don’t think that they suffered what could be classed as an epidemic because of it.

First, the World Health Organization has called it an epidemic, multiple epidemics actually; and are predicting far, far worse epidemics if current anti-vax trends do not reverse themselves soon. Do you claim to be more of an expert than their medical staff?

Second, the UK has not seen the largest decrease. Africa has the largest decrease and highest instance of anti-vax propaganda. Japan is also higher, and has seen epidemics of several diseases, including measles and pertussis, as noted in the links above; including two seperate major epidemics of over 200,000 and 160,000 cases of measles in 2000 and 2007 respectively; and hundreds of deaths. Over a dozen universities in Japan shut down for a week or more due to outbreaks of measles in 2007. Australia has also seen major epidemics, as has Sweden. The US saw over 25,000 cases of pertussis in 2005, and similar outbreaks in subsequent years. Similar outbreaks have been reported in Germany and Canada. Africa has seen close to 300,000 deaths from pertussis alone in the last decade. 300,000 deaths that could have been easily prevented.

The WHO has reported a major epidemic of meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa -- http://www.who.int/csr/don/archive/disease/meningococcal_disease/en/index.html

Finally, you claim that refusal are for irrational religious reasons. While I don’t agree with the reasoning they use, I don’t find it irrational. They hold certain beliefs and their actions are rational in the context of those beliefs. Thus, I think your phrasing was a biased and denigrating way to refer to their choices.

Again, you are using emotionalisms to evade the issue, instead of address it. You yourself said they base their decisions on beliefs. Not logical, rational evaluation of all available evidence, but beliefs. That is the definition of irrational. Every shred of reliable scientific evidence is strongly opposed to the anti-vax movement; and fully in suport of vaccination. You can cry offense, throw around all the baseless accusations you like, but that doesn't change the clear and obvious facts of the situation.

Loss of personal freedom.

Nonsense. Personal freedom has limits. And those limits are precisely where they would create a significant risk of harm to others. "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." The fist is the clear and demonstrated risk of infection by measles, pertussis, polio, mumps,

I simply don’t believe that this is the inevitable outcome of allowing people to make that choice on a personal level. I think the cost in regard to loss of freedom outweighs the cost of a small increase in vaccine preventable diseases that I would expect as a result.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths every year say that you're wrong.

Good question. I think if death were to occur in 24 hours or less that would certainly qualify. Is that sufficient for this discussion or do I need to give the matter more thought?

If by "more" you mean "at all", definitely. That is a truly ludicrious qualification. There are no diseases that I've ever heard of, however virulent, that kill within 24 hours of onset of symptoms, however deadly they may be.

I’d prefer to keep the discussion to American and European societies.

Much easier to ignore the reality that way. Africa leads the world in anti-vaccination sentiment and politics; and leads the world in easily-preventable deaths.

I really don’t know enough about the governmental and societal systems of African countries to be comfortable discussing their current policies and whether/how they should change.

It's not difficult to educate yourself.

No. I feel the benefits of allowing people to make personal choices on vaccines is more important than the negative impact on their health and the health of the community I would expect to as a result of doing so.

Hundreds of thousands of dead and permanently disabled people would disagree with that.

No, it’s not. I was trying to comparing the impact of allowing children to participate in those activities on “the negative impact on their health and the health of the community” with that of allowing people not to vaccinate. Such a comparison would include the use of safety equipment, etc. I personally think that the impact of allowing people to choose not to vaccinate is going to be comparable (or less than) the impact of allowing people to choose to do other things like participating in various sports activities. I don't see any the potential for harm as sufficient to justify not allowing people their choice in such matters.

Are those goalposts heavy?

And the greater the risk becomes, the more people will choose to vaccinate.

Increasing numbers of epidemics resulting in tens and hundreds of thousands of deaths and permament disabilities in Africa, the Middle East, the US, UK, Australia, Sweden, Japan, Germany, etc. proves otherwise. The epidemics havne't made people choose to vaccinate; they've resulted in people concocting elaborate and bizarre conspiracy theories about how the diseases are manufactured by "Big Pharma", Western governments, Jews, the Illuminati, etc. to sell "poisonous" vaccines and drugs, eliminate/sterilize Blacks, Muslims, and so on, and so on, ad nauseum. The predeliction of humans for irrationality and bizarrely contrived justifications in the face of overwhelming evidence never fails to astound me.

And every time I drive my car, I’m forcing everyone else to suffer the effect of my adding exhaust fumes to the atmosphere. Does that mean I’m deciding that my freedom to drive my car is more important than anyone else’s life?

Only if you refuse to use the government mandated emissions-control systems that filter and catalyze the vast majority of the toxic by-products of petrol combustion and render them harmless or low-risk. You know, like refusing to vaccinate.

That our daily choices impact others to some degree is inevitable. That fact alone is not sufficient to justify social policies that dictate individual decisions.
Gross overgeneralization. When your choices cause significant risk of harm to others without their knowledge and consent, then the government that is tasked with protecting public health and safety is perfectly justified in enforcing policies which prevent such harm; even if that makes a few nutcases upset.

The near-elimination of the most deadly plagues of history wasn't the result of "personal choice". It was the result of concerted effort by societies who put a premium on the health and welfare of it's citizens, supported by clear, unassailable scientific evidence; even when a few ignorant extremists tried to claim otherwise.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've already explained that. You're projecting. You might also want to do a little research on "Asperger's Syndrome" and the lack of emotion that is characteristic of it. Just because you are not able to think rationally and unemotionally doesn't mean that no one else is able to do so.

<snip>

Rather than lacking emotion themselves, people with Asperger's lack insight into what others are feeling/thinking.

Either vaccines are essential for public health, or they're not. If they are, then no religious other other irrational nonsense should be allowed to overrule that. And ultimately, all anti-vax activism is religious or conspiracy-theory at base. You have denied this, but have not yet provided a single counter-example.

Here's a whole thread of reasons why one might think twice about some vaccinations:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140184

What you (and many others) fail to comprehend is that not everyone's tolerance for risk is the same under all circumstances. For example, I wouldn't dream of climbing a mountain unless my life almost certainly depended on doing it. Others do it for fun. When they fall and need an air ambulance and months in hospital, their behaviour costs the rest of society.

A more relevant example would be that some of the parents who refused to have their children vaccinated with the Rotashield vaccine might have saved their child from serious medical complications and possibly death.

Similarly it could be wise to wait a few years and see if Gardasil has any unwanted effects before having your child vaccinated, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon because of induced guilt from people such as yourself.

This year a 100-1 shot won the grand national.

[alfaniner]

I heard an ad that Jenna McCarthy is going to be on Oprah today.

[dudalb]

Any bets that Jenny finds a way to blame "Big Pharma" for the Swine Flu outbreak?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Any bets that Jenny finds a way to blame "Big Pharma" for the Swine Flu outbreak?This brings up an interesting point. By the time there is a vaccine for this new flu, and even if the virulence turns out to be average, the news is going to be counting every death for a while and with seasonal flu virus that's 36,000 people per flu season on average. Given the news media and the public health counting the deaths and pointing them out, I can see what it might sound like when the news reports even death # 10,000, let alone death # 30,000. People are going to be saying, give me a flu shot, give my kids one.

So, how will the anti-vaxxers deal with that? Right now, the vaccine preventable deaths are invisible. There are not kids on your block dying of measles. My parents like others of the day were relieved there were vaccines for these childhood killers. The anti-vaxxers have no experience with what that was like. They may be about to have that experience.

[Eos of the Eons]

So, how will the anti-vaxxers deal with that? Right now, the vaccine preventable deaths are invisible. There are not kids on your block dying of measles. My parents like others of the day were relieved there were vaccines for these childhood killers. The anti-vaxxers have no experience with what that was like. They may be about to have that experience.
I guess if that is what it takes. I can't help but feel that something else is not being done, and that is the appropriate education of the masses on how the immune system works, and how vaccines work, etc. This is attempted to be addressed at www.stopjenny.com (http://www.stopjenny.com) on the vaccines page, but people just don't read it or learn.

You can lead a horse to water, but it would rather watch ignorant miseducated ramblings on TV that are supported by equally ignorant (thanks to the out of control sCAM industry telling the masses that "big pharma is only out for big bucks and don't give a darn about your kids even though people working in that industry have children themselves and do give a darn) TV talk show hosts.

It's just easier to listen to celebs who don't have a clue than to actually learn the facts. It is easier to learn the hard way, but even then the blame will be laid on "toxins" in the environment or parents not giving their kids proper nutrition (to name a few things that will get the blame for so -called weakened immune systems).

Microbiology is not that simple though. Microbes are constantly changing, evolving, to survive whatever is thrown their way. They have the advantage of numerous generations in a short period of time. They can share dna before they replicate the next generation! If the immune system is not ready with the memory cells to fight off infections early, then they can become numerous within hours/days to take over your body and then spread to new hosts. The more more we can stop current microbes before they mutate into strains not yet included in vaccines, the less victims there will be.

It is unfortunate the masses are being miseducated, and it is even more unfortunage that people who know how the body really works and are educated do not get the due respect or the same platforms as celebrities get. Instead, they are the enemy.

If anything, we deserve what we are going to get. If humans have allowed this to happen with our own stupidity, then we have to learn the hard way. We, as a society, are listening to celebrities instead taking the time to learn. This is dumb, lazy, ridiculous. We are lazy and love to be entertained. We will learn a hard lesson, and deserve it. The tools are there, but it is the sCAM marketing that wins over the masses. We allowed the sCAM schools that don't teach the students about the immune system, that don't teach students about microbiology, that don't teach students about genetics, that don't teach students reality. Freedom to learn stupidity should not have trumped actual anatomy, but we then must learn to accept the consequences of that "freedome" from reality. Detoxification, subluxations, and a hatred for "big pharma" in favor of selling sugar pills, magic water, and supplments that don't even work!

Nothing new, but it is sad. Human nature is what it is. It is easier to learn the simple ramblings about magic water and subluxations than to learn all about the numerous aspects of the immune system or liver function. T-Cell? B-Cell? Eosinophil? Basophil? Bah! Just crack the back and let the energy flow! Liver? Bah! Just eat some fungus that causes diarrhea and think that you are cleansed! Most people get a headache when they try to understand the detoxification job of the liver! All those big words (http://www.gastromd.com/lft.html)! Just eat this herb and you will live forever!

We like entertainment, not big words. We like charisma over the drone of common sense. We will just have to learn the hard way.

[Beth]

Just because you are not able to think rationally and unemotionally doesn't mean that no one else is able to do so.

I consider this a personal attack and have reported it. I don’t know if the moderators will share my opinion; I know I am rather thin skinned about this type of comment. My solution is not to interact with people who don't treat me with respect.

I think you are an intelligent person and have been enjoying our conversation. However, if you can not converse with me on this issue without the use of personal attacks, then I’ll have to end our conversation.


The lessons taught by history and science make it clearly one. Herd immunity is absolutely essential to protect the community, and in particular the immunocompromised. Those who are able to be vaccinated, and refuse to do so, are parasites.
I consider this to be extremist and emotion laden rhetoric. Parasites? Why are they parasites while the immunocompromised are not? Both are doing the same thing. BTW, I don’t consider either group parasites, but the immunocompromised are a much better candidate for that sort of disparaging term. After all, most of those who are refusing to vaccinate themselves or their children are supporting themselves and are not excessively partaking of public health dollars.

This type of remark is what causes me to consider your posting style as ‘emotional’ on this issue.


Some people accept some vaccinates as needed and beneficial but are not as confident about others. Do you consider such people to be pro- or anti- vaccinations and why?

Do they have the medical background to adequately assess the potential risks vs. the individual and community benefits -- eg. epidemiology?
If not, are they supposed to just accept the current professional recommendations without question? If they decide they don’t agree with a particular vaccine for their child, does that makes them anti-vaccination? Are parents not to be trusted to make such a decision because some might choose differently for reasons completely unrelated to the science?

It seems to me the important question is: Is the health risk to the remaining population, who do have access to those vaccinations, sufficient for taking the responsibility for that choice away from parents?

That last question is a value judgement. It cannot and will not be decided by scientists, but by politicans. I don’t trust politicians very much. I feel that the overall best societal outcome regarding vaccinations will be obtained by encouraging and educating parents about the different options and what the risks are with each one and then leaving the decision up to them. I don’t mind having the default be vaccination, but feel that opting out for any or all of them is a right that individuals be allowed to exercise.


Or are the acting on the professional advice of someone who has the necessary qualifications? If not, then they're acting out of ignorance, and are different from any other anti-vaxxer only in scale, not in kind. [\quote]


So, if I’m not with you, I’m agin’ you? That is an example of what I consider extremist arguments.

[quote]
First of all, it’s an exaggeration to say that because I defend the right of parents to make vaccination decisions for their children that I would believe that ‘religion should trump established scientific evidence and public health concerns’. That’s a very biased way of putting it.

Yet that is exactly what you're arguing for, you're simply dressing it up in obfuscatory language. Again, extremist and emotional verbiage. The ‘obfuscatory’ language was my trying to explain to you why that is NOT what I’m arguing for.

Look, your post is just too long to respond to everything and the vast majority of it is this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. I feel like you are either angry with me or trying to incite me to become angry with you.

There’s only one other part I wanted to respond to:
Next, you are talking about epidemics of easily preventable diseases. I think this is an exaggeration as well.

The CDC and WHO disagree with you on this. Guess who I will trust on the issue.


You were right about this. I hadn’t realized that ‘epidemic’ referred to any outbreak above the expected number. I had always associated the term with large outbreaks over large areas and didn’t realize the term applied to a small outbreak in a single city.

[Eos of the Eons]

This article was a review of the genetic research as of 2004. I found the following excerpts interesting:

The genetics of autism. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121991?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed)

I find interesting too. Too bad there are so many others that don't.

There has not been any mode/mechanism that has been described in any way that would describe how in the world vaccines could possibly cause autism. There have only been modes/mechanisms proposed that have been proven implausible and proven to not cause autism in relation to vaccines. Vaccines do not overload the immune system. Vaccines do not contain enough "poisons" that could cause autism. Vaccines are not unnatural and do not cause an unnatural immune response that causes autism. They actually cause less of a load on the immune system, they prevent diseases, etc. I could go on and on.

The research points to genetics. The prevalance in families points to genetics.


Oh, to skeptigirl-I wasn't talking about an early diagnosis of autism. I was just pointing out what happens to the brain development. This is not used as a diagnostic criterion. The signs of the effect of said brain development don't show up until the ages discussed in the studies you posted. Indeed, regresssion is most apparent after those ages as the children fall more and more behind in their development

[Typicallucas]

Ok, I've been living under a rock.


Jim Carrey, what the hell :( :( :(


I listened to a podcast of the Brian Whitman show and he interviewed John Asher (Jenny's ex-husband and father of their autistic son.)

He talked a little about what Jenny is like in bed and if half of what he said is true I think I can guess what Jim's motivation is to support her outrageous claims.

If I was him I don't know that I would be any different. :(

[luchog]

Rather than lacking emotion themselves, people with Asperger's lack insight into what others are feeling/thinking.

And yet again you demonstrate your profound ignorance of a subject. Flattened affect and restricted emotional responses are characteristic of ASDs.

Here's a whole thread of reasons why one might think twice about some vaccinations:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140184

Seen it, and it's already been stipulated that some people are unable to tolerate the vaccienes, which is why herd immunity is so critically important.

This year a 100-1 shot won the grand national.
How many fallacies can I count in your post: non sequitor, false equivalency, appeal to probability, gambler's fallacy, appeal to emotion, argument from ignorance, and more I'm not interested in going into.

[luchog]

I consider this a personal attack and have reported it. I don’t know if the moderators will share my opinion; I know I am rather thin skinned about this type of comment. My solution is not to interact with people who don't treat me with respect.

Your accusations of emotionalism are just as much a personal attack. I merely responded in kind. You receive as much respect as you give.

I think you are an intelligent person and have been enjoying our conversation. However, if you can not converse with me on this issue without the use of personal attacks, then I’ll have to end our conversation.

I'm perfectly happy to end any personal references just as soon as you do. As long as you consider my mentation open for debate, so is yours. However, your subsequent comments clearly indicates that you are not willing to stop doing so.

I consider this to be extremist and emotion laden rhetoric.

What you consider it is irrelevant. It is a simple statement of fact.

Parasites? Why are they parasites while the immunocompromised are not?

Show me where I made that claim.

As usual, you are reading into, and not reading at face value. it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who insists on "interpreting" your words through their own filters, instead of accepting them as they are written. Your insistence on putting words in my mouth and ascribing non-existent motivations give the lie to your claim that you want to discuss the issue, and not the people involved.

By the standard English definition of the word, both populations are parasites. The immunocompromised, however, have no choice in the matter. They are unable to contribute to the herd immunity, while being dependent on it. Such a position is not an enviable one. Those who simply refuse to vaccinate, however, are capable of contributing; but choose not to do so. They make themselves parasites through their own choices. I have great sympathy for the former, since they have no choice in the matter; I have nothing for the latter except an abstract disgust at their strident insistence on opposing reality.

Given your tendency to overly-emotional responses, perhaps "free rider" would have been a better term; but "parasite" is a perfectly accurate and adequate one.

After all, most of those who are refusing to vaccinate themselves or their children are supporting themselves and are not excessively partaking of public health dollars.

Irrelevant, and argument from consequences. They are not contributing to herd immunity, and are actively detracting from it by their refusal to vaccinate. That is the only issue relevant to this discussion.

This type of remark is what causes me to consider your posting style as ‘emotional’ on this issue.

Again, you are projecting your own lack of rationality; and this and subsequent attributions of motive are veering dangerously close to ad hominem territory.

If not, are they supposed to just accept the current professional recommendations without question?

This has already been addressed. Repeatedly. Do you take your automotive advice from a nutritionist, or an auto mechanic? Do you take your plumbing advice from a television psychic, or a licensed and bonded plumbing contractor? Do you take your computer advice from a natural history professor, or an experienced IT service-person.
Are parents not to be trusted to make such a decision because some might choose differently for reasons completely unrelated to the science?
As it presents a clear and present danger others, yes. That's why we have child-safety-seat and seat-belt laws, and various other legislated safety requirements. Too many parents think they "know better" than the clear physical evidence; or are simply too lazy to think adequately about the issue.

People who are fully compos mentis should have full and total right to make any decisions they wish that impact their own health and safety, regardless of the risks involved, even if the conclusions are highly likely to be disabling or fatal. Their bodies, their decision.

People should not have the right to make that decision for anyone else. Parents have a responsibility to ensure that their children are raised in a way that does not subject them to unwarranted risk of disability or death. Failure to do so is neglectful, and in extreme cases, abusive.

It seems to me the important question is: Is the health risk to the remaining population, who do have access to those vaccinations, sufficient for taking the responsibility for that choice away from parents?

That is an, IMO potentially disingenuous, fallacious restatement of my previous question to you. False dichotomy, incomplete comparison, appeal to emotion, and veering into special pleading.

The true question is: Is the proven substantial health risk to those who are unable to receive vaccination, the proven substantial health risk to the unvaccinated children, and the increased risk to those who have received vaccinations, sufficient to override the desire of parents to make vaccination decisions based on criteria other than demonstrable and verifiable scientific evidence? The only rational answer to that that I can see is "No". If they are making decisions for themselves, then there's no call to interfere. Once they start making that decision for other people, then they lose the right to make such decisions.

That last question is a value judgement. It cannot and will not be decided by scientists, but by politicans. I don’t trust politicians very much. I feel that the overall best societal outcome regarding vaccinations will be obtained by encouraging and educating parents about the different options and what the risks are with each one and then leaving the decision up to them. I don’t mind having the default be vaccination, but feel that opting out for any or all of them is a right that individuals be allowed to exercise.

There are so many fallacies here I cannot begin to list them all. Any option that creates a significant risk of harm to any other non-consenting individual is not a valid one.

And I find it quite telling that you find polititians, whose motivations are highly variable and often irrational, and education on the issue highly questionable, more trustworthy than scientists with extensive experience and verifiable evidence on the subject at hand.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even truly understand how vaccinations work. Vaccinations do not guarantee 100% protection for individuals. Not even 90% protection in many cases. If they did, then this whole discussion would be moot. Vaccines only provide an individual reduction in risk, not a prevention of disease. On an individual basis, they are only partially effective. The key to vaccine effectiveness is herd immunity. The more people who are vaccinated against a disease, who are resistant to it, the harder it is for a disease to propogate. A disease which cannot propogate dies out.

Diseases need carriers. Nearly all diseases are host-specific, and mutations which cross the species barrier, let alone gain or retain potentially harmful virulence, are rare. So most diseases depend on human hosts as carriers. When the number of potential carriers are reduced, it's harder for a disease to spread and infect a new host. Once the pool of potential carriers is reduced below a certain threshold, roughly 90%, it is nearly impossible for the disease to spread, and it effectively dies out. That is why smallpox vaccinations are no longer given, the disease is effectively dead, and the vaccinations no longer considered a high necessity, except in very specific cases (eg. military personnel travelling to certain overseas locations).

A certain percentage of the population is always going to be potential carriers, through an inability to receive or make use of the vacciene. This includes the immunocompromised, the elderly, and the very young. Those unable to receive the vaccine depend entirely on the transmission risk reduction provided by the vaccienated. The greater the percentage of potential carriers, the greater the risk not only to others who are unvaccinated or immunocompromised, but the greater the risk to those who have been vaccinated. Even if a vaccine provides a 90% resistance, that's still a 10% possibility of aquiring the disease if they come in contact with a contagious carrier. The more contact with contagious carriers they have, the greater their likelihood of aquiring the disease.

This is why herd immunity is a far more important characteristic of vaccination than individual immunity; and why the effects of anti-vax propaganda and activists around the world, particularly as noted in Africa, are so very dangerous. You can discount the situation in Africa all you want (although I cannot understand why you would do so, since that smacks of racism); but the fact remains that these diseases will not remain isolated in Africa as long as international travel is still permitted. People all too easily forget the lessons of history.

So, if I’m not with you, I’m agin’ you? That is an example of what I consider extremist arguments.

False attribution. Straw man. Evasion.

You claim that my definition is wrong; yet you have not provided a single counter-example. Either provide a counter example, or concede the point.

Again, extremist and emotional verbiage.

Again, projection.

The ‘obfuscatory’ language was my trying to explain to you why that is NOT what I’m arguing for.

Then you are much too vague and unclear in your wording, since that is the only reading you leave open. If that is not what you are claiming, then restate specifically what you are arguing in clear language.

Look, your post is just too long to respond to everything and the vast majority of it is this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. I feel like you are either angry with me or trying to incite me to become angry with you.

Avoiding the issue. You cannot address the points, so you now resort to ad hominem arguments. Projecting your emotionalism on me does not in any way invalidate any of my assertions. Typical anti-vaxxer behaviour. The science is against you, so you resort to inventing straw men, falsely ascribing motives, and then making arguments based on your fallacies rather than the actual evidence.l

You were right about this. I hadn’t realized that ‘epidemic’ referred to any outbreak above the expected number. I had always associated the term with large outbreaks over large areas and didn’t realize the term applied to a small outbreak in a single city.
If you are arguing definitions, you are arguing with the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. Not me. Did you actually bother to read the links that I posted, because hundreds and thousands of cases covering multiple regions is not "a small outbreak in a single city". I'm betting that you didn't. 200,000 cases of measles in a single year, in a highly advanced, industrialized nation like Japan, is not "a small outbreak in a single city". Your response is disingenuous.

In fact, your responses are becoming increasingly disingenuous. Instead of debating the issues, you resort to building to straw men and ascribing motivations, combined with ad hominem arguments; as well as false attributions, goalpost shifting, argumentum ad consequentiam, fallacy of the middle ground, poisoning the well, slippery slope, argumentum ad populum, fallacies of distribution, among others.

Unless you're willing to debated honestly, and cease this constant, obfuscatory effort to "prove" that I'm somehow investing more emotionalism into the debate than you are, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

[Toke]

Good point on herd immunity, luchog.

[Beth]

Your accusations of emotionalism are just as much a personal attack. I merely responded in kind. You receive as much respect as you give.
I’m sorry you feel it is an attack. I have tried to be careful to discuss only your arguments, not you personally. If I failed in that, I apologize.

Parasites? Why are they parasites while the immunocompromised are not?

Show me where I made that claim. Post #130. You stated “Herd immunity is absolutely essential to protect the community, and in particular the immunocompromised. Those who are able to be vaccinated, and refuse to do so, are parasites.” The implication was that the immunocompromised are not parasites while those who refuse vaccinations are. By the standard English definition of the word, both populations are parasites. Although I don't think either group are parasites, we can at least agree they are the same in this aspect. ;)
Given your tendency to overly-emotional responses, perhaps "free rider" would have been a better term; but "parasite" is a perfectly accurate and adequate one.
Yes, free-rider is a better term. Parasite has a lot of unfavorable connotations in our society and will evoke an emotional response from others that free-rider does not.

After all, most of those who are refusing to vaccinate themselves or their children are supporting themselves and are not excessively partaking of public health dollars.

Irrelevant, and argument from consequences. They are not contributing to herd immunity, and are actively detracting from it by their refusal to vaccinate. That is the only issue relevant to this discussion.
It’s not irrelevant to calling them parasites. It's why they don’t qualify as parasites in my opinion. Which is why I find it to be an extremist statement as well as an emotional argument rather than “a simple statement of fact”.

If not, are they supposed to just accept the current professional recommendations without question?

This has already been addressed. Repeatedly. Do you take your automotive advice from a nutritionist, or an auto mechanic? I take automotive advice from everyone I know. I act on the advice I get from people I trust. That includes both professionals and non-professionals. I have been burned more than once by professional auto mechanics. I don’t trust someone just because they are a professional, but because I either know them and feel they are trustworthy or they have been recommended by someone I trust as being honest and trustworthy.

The issue of trust in the vaccine recommendations is the most important one IMO. I think those who want to promote vaccine uptake rates need to focus their efforts on understanding that issue. It’s why I keep bringing it up over and over again. It’s the same point Ivor has been trying to make.

Are parents not to be trusted to make such a decision because some might choose differently for reasons completely unrelated to the science?
As it presents a clear and present danger others, yes. That's why we have child-safety-seat and seat-belt laws, and various other legislated safety requirements. Actually, I opposed seat-belt and child-safety-seat laws for the same reasons I’m arguing with you about requiring vaccinations for all children. But those are other issues and off-topic for this thread.
Too many parents think they "know better" than the clear physical evidence; or are simply too lazy to think adequately about the issue. People who are fully compos mentis should have full and total right to make any decisions they wish that impact their own health and safety, regardless of the risks involved, even if the conclusions are highly likely to be disabling or fatal. Their bodies, their decision. Can I assume then that you don’t support seatbelt laws or motorcycle helmet laws for adults?

It seems to me the important question is: Is the health risk to the remaining population, who do have access to those vaccinations, sufficient for taking the responsibility for that choice away from parents?

That is an, IMO potentially disingenuous, fallacious restatement of my previous question to you. False dichotomy, incomplete comparison, appeal to emotion, and veering into special pleading. Interesting. You consider my question to be an appeal to emotion, but calling parents who decline one or more vaccines ‘parasites’ is not. I guess we’ll just have to disagree on that assessment.

The true question is: I was unaware that ‘true’ was an adjective that could be applied to questions. Silly me, I thought it was the answers that could be classified as 'true' or 'false'.
Is the proven substantial health risk to those who are unable to receive vaccination, the proven substantial health risk to the unvaccinated children, and the increased risk to those who have received vaccinations, sufficient to override the desire of parents to make vaccination decisions based on criteria other than demonstrable and verifiable scientific evidence? The only rational answer to that that I can see is "No". Again, we’ll just have to disagree. Both on what the important question is as well as the answer to what you consider the “true” question. By the way, I notice that you failed to answer my question, answering your own instead.

If they are making decisions for themselves, then there's no call to interfere. Once they start making that decision for other people, then they lose the right to make such decisions Your main argument for insisting on vaccinations rather than leaving it up to the individual is based on herd immunity, which isn’t affected by whether the unvaccinated proportion of the population is adult or not. The argument that parents shouldn’t be able to choose not to vaccinate their children because it’s putting the child’s health at risk is based on the idea that vaccines are a wise health measure for the individuals, not that it’s necessary to maintain herd immunity.

Now, if your argument is that vaccinations are necessary for the health of the individual child, that’s fine. We can then look at the expected result on the health of the individual child and, as a society, decide if we think it’s neglect to choose not to vaccinate. So far, our society says “No”, parents can choose not to vaccinate their children. I’m arguing that we should maintain that approach.

On the other hand, if your argument is that vaccinations are necessary for herd immunity and the health of all individuals in our society, then that argument applies to adults just as much as it does to children. In which case, the same vaccination requirements should apply to adults as well as children.

Which argument do you wish to make? Should parents be required to vaccinate their children for the sake of their children’s health? Or should all individuals be required to be vaccinated for the sake of herd immunity?

And I find it quite telling that you find polititians, whose motivations are highly variable and often irrational, and education on the issue highly questionable, more trustworthy than scientists with extensive experience and verifiable evidence on the subject at hand. Actually, no. That isn’t what I wrote or my opinion. I trust the scientists more. I’m making the point that if it isn’t individuals and their parents making these decisions, it will be the politicians and administrators, NOT the scientists.




So, if I’m not with you, I’m agin’ you? That is an example of what I consider extremist arguments.

False attribution. Straw man. Evasion.

I asked (post #129):
Some people accept some vaccinates as needed and beneficial but are not as confident about others. Do you consider such people to be pro- or anti- vaccinations and why?
You responded (post #130):
Do they have the medical background to adequately assess the potential risks vs. the individual and community benefits -- eg. epidemiology? Or are the acting on the professional advice of someone who has the necessary qualifications? If not, then they're acting out of ignorance, and are different from any other anti-vaxxer only in scale, not in kind.

I take that as a “you are either with us or against us” attitude and that you consider anyone who has doubts about any vaccines an ‘anti-vaxer’. I don’t think it is a straw man or an evasion and it’s certainly not a false attribution. Do you wish to modify your original statement? Is it possible that someone can have doubts about some vaccinations without being an anti-vaxxer?

You claim that my definition is wrong; yet you have not provided a single counter-example. Either provide a counter example, or concede the point.

Let’s review this exchange again:

I said (post 129): it’s an exaggeration to say that because I defend the right of parents to make vaccination decisions for their children that I would believe that ‘religion should trump established scientific evidence and public health concerns’.

You responded (post 130): Yet that is exactly what you're arguing for, you're simply dressing it up in obfuscatory language.

Either vaccines are essential for public health, or they're not. If they are, then no religious other other irrational nonsense should be allowed to overrule that. And ultimately, all anti-vax activism is religious or conspiracy-theory at base. You have denied this, but have not yet provided a single counter-example.

I’m not sure what definition you are referring to here that I’m supposed to have denied and provide a counter example to. As far as whether vaccines are essential for public health, certainly I think having them available is essential. I’m not arguing people shouldn’t be allowed to have vaccinations. I'm only arguing that they should retain the right to make that choice for themselves and their children.

As far as what drives anti-vax activism, I neither know nor care if you are correct in that statement. Why people make the choice not to use vaccines is irrelevant to the argument I’ve been making regarding whether or not people should retain the right to make that choice for themselves and their children.

I do maintain that there are a variety of reasons why parents may choose not to get their children some or all of the recommended childhood vaccines at the recommended times. I believe you acknowledged this point earlier and indicated you agreed that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are not necessarily anti-vax activists.

The reasons why people like myself argue that the final decision on the matter should rest with the parents have nothing to do with the science behind vaccines but are about political issues and the cultural climate of our society.

[luchog]

It’s not irrelevant to calling them parasites. It's why they don’t qualify as parasites in my opinion. Which is why I find it to be an extremist statement as well as an emotional argument rather than “a simple statement of fact”.

My wording was originally a bit clumsy at first, I admit. I'll try again, in deference to your preference for emotionalism over facts.

Resistance against vaccinatable diseases depends greatly on herd immunity, in order to maintain public health. A minimum uptake is required in order to achieve effective herd immunity. In any community, there are "free-riders", those who are not vaccinated, for various reasons. They enjoy the benefits of herd immunity without contributing to it. In any society, there will always be those who are unable to be vaccinated, due to physical problems which would result in too great a personal risk. These free-riders depend on herd immunity for their protection; and can be considered handicapped in this context. There are, unfortunately, also those who are able to be vaccinated, but choose not to be, either out of ignorance, paranoia, or an exaggerated sense of self-importance. These people not only put themselves at risk, but they put the entire community at risk by decreasing the effectiveness of herd immunity; or eliminating it entirely once uptake drops below a certain threshold. Herd immunity depends on a minimum threshold uptake value. Too far below that value, and herd immunity cannot exist. These intentional free riders deserve the popular negative connotation of the term "parasites"; because they reduce health safety for others without their consent, and contribute nothing in return. What's worse, is that most of these people do not make this decision for themselves (the vast majority, at least in the First World, were immunized as children); but for their children, who are unable to give consent. They are making their own children the subjects of some bizarre and twisted experiment in public health. They create a real and demonstrable risk, for absolutely no benefit outside their own imagination.

I take automotive advice from everyone I know. I act on the advice I get from people I trust. That includes both professionals and non-professionals. I have been burned more than once by professional auto mechanics. I don’t trust someone just because they are a professional, but because I either know them and feel they are trustworthy or they have been recommended by someone I trust as being honest and trustworthy.

You've neatly and steadfastly avoided answering the question yet again by dragging in a lot of irrelevancies. What about my other examples, which I noticed you completely ignored. Throwing in the existence of a small minority of unscrupulous examples of professionals is a complete red herring, and disingenuous.

Who is more trustworthy on an issue, someone who has extensive education and experience on the issue? Or someone who may know a little bit of the basics, but lacks any of the background that a trained professional has? How is the risk of bad information a very small number of unscrupulous professional worse than the risk of bad information from a very large number of ignorant people who think they know far more than they actually do?

Hint: read history. Many orders of magnitude more damage has been done by the masses of the ignorant, than by the few charlatans. In fact, charlatans depend on mass ignorance. Without it, they're useless. And in the sciences, there are multiple built-in protections against charlatans -- the scientific method, peer review, and independent replication. None of these protections exist in the sort of vaguely-pluralist folk-knowledge you seem to espouse.

Your constant evasions of the real issues are not helping your position.

The issue of trust in the vaccine recommendations is the most important one IMO. I think those who want to promote vaccine uptake rates need to focus their efforts on understanding that issue. It’s why I keep bringing it up over and over again. It’s the same point Ivor has been trying to make.

Except that that's nonsense. The vaccination "promoters" understand the issue quite well. The problem is that the vaccine resisters think they understand far more than they actually do; and actively encourage others to share their ignorance and delusions in ways that appeal to the ignorant and deluded.

If it was simply a matter of education, it would be easy. But it's not. As I noted in a previous post, and which you summarily dismissed without addressing, the conspiracy theory nature of the vast majority of anti-vax propaganda depends heavily on creating a sense of persecution in their target audience, as well as a sense of commonality and self-importance. It plays on the (quite understandable) feelings of inferiority that most people develop when confronted with someone who possess superior knowledge and experience on a subject, and attempts to twist those feelings into anger and outrage against a supposed "elite" by fostering feelings of anti-authoritarianism and false egalitarianism. They distort reality and encourage the assertion of "rights" which are taken grossly out of their proper context. Even when not based on actual falsehoods (such as the bogus autism link), they badly distort the reality; and grossly overexaggerate the risks.

Education can help, certainly; but by that point, the target audience has been manipulated to distrust the only reliable sources of accurate information to such a great degree that it's a hard, uphill struggle to counter the prevailing propaganda.

Actually, I opposed seat-belt and child-safety-seat laws for the same reasons I’m arguing with you about requiring vaccinations for all children. But those are other issues and off-topic for this thread. Can I assume then that you don’t support seatbelt laws or motorcycle helmet laws for adults?

I do not support mandatory seatbelt or helmet laws for competent adults, no. Adults are fully capable of learning and assessing the risks to themselves.

I fully and completely support such laws for children. People should be allowed to take risks with their own lives. They should not be allowed to take such risk with other peoples' lives. The question you keep avoiding is do you believe that people should be allowed to put others at risk without their consent?

Do you deny that there are many children out there who need to be protected from neglectful or abusive parents? How can refusal to take even the most basic safety precautions for your children possibly not be neglectful? Child protection laws exist to protect children from the ignorance or outright neglect of their parents. Good parents don't need them, certainly; but there are a lot of parents out there who are far from good.

I was unaware that ‘true’ was an adjective that could be applied to questions. Silly me, I thought it was the answers that could be classified as 'true' or 'false'. Again, we’ll just have to disagree. Both on what the important question is as well as the answer to what you consider the “true” question. By the way, I notice that you failed to answer my question, answering your own instead.

Nonsensical semantic quibbling. I answered the valid question. Yours was merely a logical fallacy, as I pointed out.

Your main argument for insisting on vaccinations rather than leaving it up to the individual is based on herd immunity, which isn’t affected by whether the unvaccinated proportion of the population is adult or not. The argument that parents shouldn’t be able to choose not to vaccinate their children because it’s putting the child’s health at risk is based on the idea that vaccines are a wise health measure for the individuals, not that it’s necessary to maintain herd immunity.

Straw man and false dichotomy.

Which argument do you wish to make? Should parents be required to vaccinate their children for the sake of their children’s health? Or should all individuals be required to be vaccinated for the sake of herd immunity?

As I said, this is a false dichotomy, and smacks of poisoning the well.

If you'd been paying attention to what I and others have been saying this entire thread, you couldn't even ask such a fallacious question. There is no such dichotomy with vaccination. As has been stated repeatedly, vaccines provide a limited personal benefit to the individual, but are not, and cannot be, one hundred percent effective. It is useful, but not [/i]optimal[/i]. For a vaccine to have optimal effectiveness it relies on a large enough uptake to create herd immunity. Individual vaccination partially protects the individual. Herd vaccination optimally protects everyone.

It is not an "individual" vs "herd" immunity, as you falsely claim. It is a progression from "minimally effective", to "optimally effective".

Refusal to vaccinate reduces the effectiveness, and puts some members of society at much greater risk than others.

Actually, no. That isn’t what I wrote or my opinion. I trust the scientists more. I’m making the point that if it isn’t individuals and their parents making these decisions, it will be the politicians and administrators, NOT the scientists.

This irrelevant, and not the issue at hand. Who makes the decisions isn't nearly as important as the basis for those decisions. The only valid basis for the decision is clearly demonstrated evidence. If one group of decision makers, the parents/guardians, do not make decisions in accord with the clear evidence; then another group, administrators and elected officials, must step in and do so, in the interests of public health. We've seen in places like Japan, Australia, and especially Africa, what the consequences are when decisions are made on an emotionalist basis, instead of on the clearly demonstrated evidence.

I take that as a “you are either with us or against us” attitude and that you consider anyone who has doubts about any vaccines an ‘anti-vaxer’. I don’t think it is a straw man or an evasion and it’s certainly not a false attribution. Do you wish to modify your original statement? Is it possible that someone can have doubts about some vaccinations without being an anti-vaxxer?

Feelings and doubts are irrelevant. Only evidence is relevant.

Do they vaccinate as recommended by the evidence, or do they refuse? That is the only valid distinction. If they refuse, they're anti-vax. If they don't, they're not, regardless of their feelings.

I said (post 129): it’s an exaggeration to say that because I defend the right of parents to make vaccination decisions for their children that I would believe that ‘religion should trump established scientific evidence and public health concerns’.

You responded (post 130): Yet that is exactly what you're arguing for, you're simply dressing it up in obfuscatory language.

Either vaccines are essential for public health, or they're not. If they are, then no religious other other irrational nonsense should be allowed to overrule that. And ultimately, all anti-vax activism is religious or conspiracy-theory at base. You have denied this, but have not yet provided a single counter-example.

I’m not sure what definition you are referring to here that I’m supposed to have denied and provide a counter example to.

You claimed that not all anti-vaccination decisions are made based on conspiracy theories and religious justifications promulgated by the anti-vax propagandists. I asked you to provide examples of another basis used to make the decision, you have so far failed to do so. Now you're claiming it's not important, yet you're the one who brought it up to begin with.

As far as whether vaccines are essential for public health, certainly I think having them available is essential. I’m not arguing people shouldn’t be allowed to have vaccinations. I'm only arguing that they should retain the right to make that choice for themselves and their children.

This is nonsense, and yet again ignores the issue.

Having vaccines "available" is useless if they're not used in an optimal manner.

Parents who make these decisions do not do so only for themselves, or only for their children as you keep erroneously asserting. They are making that decision for everyone in their community. They are making that decision for everyone too young, too old, or too ill to benefit from being vaccinated. If their decisions only affected themselves, I would have no problem with it. If it only affected their children, I would have a problem with it, but less of one, and it could more easily be remedied. But their decision affects the health of the entire public, which is the point that you seem persistently unable or unwilling to understand. And until you can acknowledge and understand that very simple principle, you're simply spouting propaganda, not debating facts, and I see no reason to continue this discussion any further.

As far as what drives anti-vax activism, I neither know nor care if you are correct in that statement. Why people make the choice not to use vaccines is irrelevant to the argument I’ve been making regarding whether or not people should retain the right to make that choice for themselves and their children.

And again, they're not making that choice for themselves and their children. They're making that choice for anyone and everyone they come in contact with. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

I do maintain that there are a variety of reasons why parents may choose not to get their children some or all of the recommended childhood vaccines at the recommended times. I believe you acknowledged this point earlier and indicated you agreed that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are not necessarily anti-vax activists.

Goal-post moving. Of course not everyone who refuses to vaccinate is an activist; but that is not what you said. You said that not everyone who refused to vaccinate was anti-vax. Period. I've demonstrated that that's wrong.

The reasons why people like myself argue that the final decision on the matter should rest with the parents have nothing to do with the science behind vaccines but are about political issues and the cultural climate of our society.
Vaccination is not a political issue. It's a health issue, an evidence issue. Only the persistently ignorant, and the self-serving propagandists, have made it a political issue. And "cultural climate" has been used to justify any number of travesties in the past. When someone's decisions threaten only themselves, there's no need for anyone else to have a say. When their decisions threaten others, society is justified in rightfully taking that decision out of their hands.

[Bombastic Penguin]

This woman is insane with delusions of grainger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1u1rOVzkEc

[dingogirl]

Re pertussis, the unvaccinated aren't the only ones spreading it. Immunity lasts about five to ten years. There are about a 1 million cases in adults and adolescents each year in the U.S. Boosters are being recommended for these groups so they don't spread pertussis to others. So be sure and get your boosters.

[Beth]

I take automotive advice from everyone I know. I act on the advice I get from people I trust. That includes both professionals and non-professionals. I have been burned more than once by professional auto mechanics. I don’t trust someone just because they are a professional, but because I either know them and feel they are trustworthy or they have been recommended by someone I trust as being honest and trustworthy.

You've neatly and steadfastly avoided answering the question yet again by dragging in a lot of irrelevancies. What about my other examples, which I noticed you completely ignored. Throwing in the existence of a small minority of unscrupulous examples of professionals is a complete red herring, and disingenuous. That's because it’s the main point I want to discuss. I didn’t respond to all of your examples because my response is the same to them all. I don't make decisions about who to trust based solely on the knowledge and credentials of the person involved.
Who is more trustworthy on an issue, someone who has extensive education and experience on the issue? Or someone who may know a little bit of the basics, but lacks any of the background that a trained professional has? I can’t say who is more trustworthy on an issue based on this information alone. I can say who is likely to be more knowledgable, but trust isn’t just about the credentials and knowledge a person has, but also about their character, values, and repuation.

How is the risk of bad information a very small number of unscrupulous professional worse than the risk of bad information from a very large number of ignorant people who think they know far more than they actually do? How is the risk of bad information from a very small number of unscrupulous professionals in the investment industry worse than the risk of bad information from a very large number of ignorant people giving investment advice to their friends and neighbors?

Many orders of magnitude more damage has been done by the masses of the ignorant, than by the few charlatans. In fact, charlatans depend on mass ignorance. Without it, they're useless. And in the sciences, there are multiple built-in protections against charlatans -- the scientific method, peer review, and independent replication. None of these protections exist in the sort of vaguely-pluralist folk-knowledge you seem to espouse. The problem is, I’m not espousing the pluralist folk-knowledge. I’m espousing the rights of the ignorant masses to choose for themselves what they feel is the best course of action. The reason I think it’s important for them to be able to choose for themselves is because, sometimes, a few bad apples in a critical position can create major problems for the rest of society. One of the main preventatives and solutions to such problems is the ability of the ignorant masses to “vote with their feet” and not participate. All I’m arguing for is that; that I think it’s best for our society if people retain the ability to vote with their feet on this issue.


The issue of trust in the vaccine recommendations is the most important one IMO. I think those who want to promote vaccine uptake rates need to focus their efforts on understanding that issue. It’s why I keep bringing it up over and over again. It’s the same point Ivor has been trying to make.

Except that that's nonsense. You’re entitled to your opinion, just as I’m entitled to disagree. I think we’re running out things to say and starting to repeat ourselves.

If it was simply a matter of education, it would be easy. But it's not. Correct. We agree at this point. I don’t think it’s simply a matter of education.
Education can help, certainly; but by that point, the target audience has been manipulated to distrust the only reliable sources of accurate information to such a great degree that it's a hard, uphill struggle to counter the prevailing propaganda.
Yes, as I said, I think the major issue is one of trust. I never said it was an easy problem to solve.

I fully and completely support such laws for children. People should be allowed to take risks with their own lives. They should not be allowed to take such risk with other peoples' lives. The question you keep avoiding is do you believe that people should be allowed to put others at risk without their consent? I haven’t avoided it at all. I thought I made myself clear on it in an earlier post that there are situations where it’s appropriate to prevent people from putting others at risk (i.e. speed limits) and other situations where it’s appropriate to allow minor risk to others (i.e. every car trip to the grocery store puts other people at risk due to the exhaust fumes of the automobile and the danger of accidents). It is always dependent on many factors, such as who is being put at risk, how great the risk to others is, the benefits of allowing the action, the costs of preventing it, etc .

Do you deny that there are many children out there who need to be protected from neglectful or abusive parents? No
How can refusal to take even the most basic safety precautions for your children possibly not be neglectful? Because something like ‘basic safety precautions’ isn’t a clear and well-defined set of rules. Even experts disagree on things like whether or not car seats for children age two and up is of benefit. Such things depend heavily on the actual circumstances.
Child protection laws exist to protect children from the ignorance or outright neglect of their parents. Good parents don't need them, certainly; but there are a lot of parents out there who are far from good. I have no argument with you on that point. :(

By the way, I notice that you failed to answer my question, answering your own instead.

Nonsensical semantic quibbling. I answered the valid question. Yours was merely a logical fallacy, as I pointed out.

Hmm, let me repeat my question:

Is the health risk to the remaining population, who do have access to those vaccinations, sufficient for taking the responsibility for that choice away from parents?

You claim this is a fallacy, yet you also state:
Refusal to vaccinate reduces the effectiveness, and puts some members of society at much greater risk than others.

What is fallacious about my question given the above statement? I agree with your statement above. Where we apparently differ is whether we feel that the health risk to the remaining population is sufficient to justify mandating vaccinations.

I take that as a “you are either with us or against us” attitude and that you consider anyone who has doubts about any vaccines an ‘anti-vaxer’. I don’t think it is a straw man or an evasion and it’s certainly not a false attribution. Do you wish to modify your original statement? Is it possible that someone can have doubts about some vaccinations without being an anti-vaxxer?

Do they vaccinate as recommended by the evidence, or do they refuse? That is the only valid distinction. If they refuse, they're anti-vax. If they don't, they're not, regardless of their feelings.
So if someone were to actually research the vaccine literature and and decide, as an example, that their 2-year-old doesn’t need the hep B vaccine that CDC vaccine committee recommended, they are not anti-vax because they are basing their decision on the evidence? Have I interpreted your position correctly?

This is nonsense, and yet again ignores the issue.

Having vaccines "available" is useless if they're not used in an optimal manner.
Excuse me, I have a hard time believing you actually believe this statement. Vaccines being available to those who want them is useless unless everybody uses them? If you really believe this, could you explain why a 90% vaccine uptake rate should be considered useless?

their decision affects the health of the entire public, which is the point that you seem persistently unable or unwilling to understand. And until you can acknowledge and understand that very simple principle, you're simply spouting propaganda, not debating facts, and I see no reason to continue this discussion any further.

I’m absolutely understand and am willing to accept that principle. In fact, my acceptance of that was an inherent part of the question you called fallacious and chose not answer.
And again, they're not making that choice for themselves and their children. They're making that choice for anyone and everyone they come in contact with. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this? I do understand it. I simply don’t agree that the ends justify the means you are advocating.

I do maintain that there are a variety of reasons why parents may choose not to get their children some or all of the recommended childhood vaccines at the recommended times.
You said that not everyone who refused to vaccinate was anti-vax. Period. I've demonstrated that that's wrong. I don’t think they are, particularly not people who simply choose to skip or delay some vaccinations.
Period. I've demonstrated that that's wrong. Well, if you define anti-vax as anyone who delays or refuses a vaccine as anti-vax, you’re right. I don’t define anti-vax that way. I think of anti-vax as those people who are against all vaccines.

The reasons why people like myself argue that the final decision on the matter should rest with the parents have nothing to do with the science behind vaccines but are about political issues and the cultural climate of our society.
Vaccination is not a political issue. It's a health issue, an evidence issue. Only the persistently ignorant, and the self-serving propagandists, have made it a political issue.
It’s not a political issue, but it’s been ‘made’ into a political issue? Doesn’t that make it a political issue? I think you accidently agreeing with me here. :D

And "cultural climate" has been used to justify any number of travesties in the past. When someone's decisions threaten only themselves, there's no need for anyone else to have a say. When their decisions threaten others, society is justified in rightfully taking that decision out of their hands.

No, when their decisions threaten others, society may be justified in rightfully taking that decision out of their hands. It depends on the risk of harm occurring, the extent of the harm if it does occur, and the costs of enforcement of such policies. Since you are the one arguing for change in our current policy, if you wish to convince others, such as myself, that the change is needed, you'll have to provide a bit more evidence regarding the costs of allowing exemptions and the benefits of refusing them.

You are claiming that in this situation, the threat to the rest of society is sufficient to justify such an approach. I disagree. Further, I interpret the evidence provided in this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=142188 as supporting my opinion on the matter.

[Eos of the Eons]

Jenny's kid has a very concerned grandma. From the healthfraud email list:
At a dinner party on Saturday evening I had the pleasure of sitting next to a delightful woman named J*** B***. She informed me that she is the Grandmother to Jenny McCarthy's child (Joyce is the Mother of the baby's Father).
I informed her about the Jenny McCarthy Body Count web-site. She was alarmed, but Joyce is very much against the McCarthy led anti-vax movement and is currently writing an article, and a book, where she will discount many of the claims Jenny has made regarding the child. Joyce stated that the child showed signs of abnormalities earlier than Jenny claims and that currently the child is far from "cured" as Jenny has claimed. I offered to help her and agreed to be quoted in her publications. I have provided her with information I have found through the Healthfraud list (thank you all).
I will try to alert you when any published articles are released.
Best wishes, B.D.A. PhD


Wanna bet that Grandma will never get on Larry King or Oprah?

[Eos of the Eons]

Re pertussis, the unvaccinated aren't the only ones spreading it. Immunity lasts about five to ten years. There are about a 1 million cases in adults and adolescents each year in the U.S. Boosters are being recommended for these groups so they don't spread pertussis to others. So be sure and get your boosters.
That is why it is important to vaccinate babies against it as soon as possible, since they are at highest risk of complications and even death from the disease. Even nursed babies can't rely on their mothers' immunities.

[Eos of the Eons]

Antivaxxers are people who use misinformation to form their vaccination decisions upon. The worst ones are people that make up the misinformation to influence others with, or embellish on the previous misinformation. Therefore, antivaxxers vary in their levels of innocence and ignorance. Some are just misinformed, some just go out of their way to be totally unethical and push their own products with misinformation against vaccines. Some people are innocent, some go out of their way to justify it. The ones I dislike the most are the conspiracy theorists (Handley, Wakefield, Geiers), since they are truly deluded but the most vociferous, make the most money off of it, and get the most attention over it all.

[dingogirl]

That is why it is important to vaccinate babies against it as soon as possible, since they are at highest risk of complications and even death from the disease. Even nursed babies can't rely on their mothers' immunities.
Today 05:42 PM

Babies are not fully protected until their third dose, which is at six months. Pertussis is most dangerous in babies under 6 months old. Many babies catch pertussis from their parents, which is why:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that all adults and adolescents 11-64 years of age, especially those who have close contact with an infant, be immunized with a tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) booster. The CDC also recommends that new mothers get the Tdap vaccination in the immediate postpartum period to protect themselves from pertussis and reduce the risk for exposing their infants to the disease.

Adults who received vaccinations when they were children may mistakenly believe that they are still protected against pertussis, but immunity wears off over 5 to 10 years, leaving them vulnerable to contracting and spreading the disease.

[Bombastic Penguin]

Jenny's kid has a very concerned grandma. From the healthfraud email list:


Wanna bet that Grandma will never get on Larry King or Oprah?

Of course she won't, since she never attended the prestigious University of Google.

[Eos of the Eons]

Babies are not fully protected until their third dose, which is at six months. Pertussis is most dangerous in babies under 6 months old. Many babies catch pertussis from their parents, which is why:
Yeah, I got the shot free two years ago because I would be working around sick people and was due. Most people don't get their boosters every five - ten years, until they get a deep wound and get worried about tetanus again.