Doc Who Tied Vaccine to Autism Ruled Unethical (1 Viewer)

[Tennessee_ATO]

To do some further math on the GROSS revenue provided by infant vaccines:

Say a 90% participation rate accross the population for a single dose, it generates (4,000,000 x .9 x $50) = $180MM per year

Per the CDC, there are 22 recommended vaccines in the first year. Using $180MM per dose, that yields $3.96 billion per year of revenue generated in year 1 of a child's life. A $4B industry is nothing to sneeze at.

And that is not even taking into consideration the remaining child vaccines or adult vaccines.

But a little scale is needed. Humira grossed more than $9B in 1 year. That's 1 drug, 1 R&D cost, 1 manufacturing facility. Lipitor annihilated those numbers. So, ~$4B for an entires sector sounds big, but whatever profit is netted is likely a rounding error for the backbone of what those companies do.http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonking/2013/01/28/the-best-selling-drugs-of-all-time-humira-joins-the-elite/

I'm not saying profit isn't being made. It's just not terribly important to the bottom line of those companies.

2012 vaccine industry was about $25BFrom what I've read up on it today, there are basically only 5 vaccine companies worldwide. It is a very different animal from the other parts of the pharmaceutical industry.

It also seems that the only real "customers" are the WHO and CDC who regulate what vaccines are approved and what companies are approved to manufacture and distribute them.

The top 5 vaccine manufactures in your link (90% of the market) are: Sanofi, Merck, GSK, Pfizer, and Novartis. Those aren't "vaccine companies" those are "pharmaceutical companies with a vaccine division".

I agree.

Pfizer reported net profits north of the entire vaccine sector's revenues in 2013. My point is only that vaccinations make some profits for sure, but even though the numbers are big they're not big when compared to those behemoths.

Regardless, who develops and sells anything without profit being involved?

 

[Sweet J]

There are literally thousands of laws in practice today that do not result on people knocking on your door. You're being ridiculous in your assertion that this is anywhere near the natural outcome of a law.

I swear, I'm fascinated by this debate. Either a parent has the choice to vaccinate his kids or he doesn't. Christie has gotten DESTROYED for saying just that: "parents should have a choice."

You tell me, mr smarty pants: If a parent does not have a choice to vaccinate his kids, what does that mean? Because to me, that means I refuse to vaccinate my kids (even my home-schooled kids) and the state vaccinates my kids anyway. How are you going to enforce it?

And we've had this example happen, right? Plenty of cases with religious folks to want to refuse medical care, and the state steps in with its police power, takes the child away, and forces the procedure. So yes, it can happen.

Just fascinating.

Here's where I think the disconnect is: I believe that the requirement to vaccinate children should be on par with other facets of mandated care that are currently accepted. Let's use car seats for one example. There are mountains of evidence that show that car seats increase child safety. Thus, by law, they are required to be used by everyone. Luckily, there isn't some movement that is debating the merits of that evidence with increasing widespread use of refusal of car seats. It's accepted that that is what is expected when you have a child. You can't leave the hospital your child is born in without one.

So, let's go to another example that was mentioned. You similarly can't starve your child. So, if your child is seen by a healthcare provider and noted to be malnourished, that child will have an evaluation done to see why. If you try to refuse, the state will intervene and not permit you to do so. This is just accepted because there are mountains of evidence that shows the danger of poor growth and malnutrition from a medical standpoint. If you think you know better or disagree, then your child will be taken away from you and put in a new environment so that he can receive the nutrition he needs.

Vaccinations should be on par with this. It should be a part of basic care that everyone that can receive it does. "Choosing" to withhold that kind of care from your child should amount to a form of neglect. So no, no one will come breaking down your door to shove a needle in your kids' arms. But, an agency can step in and remove your children since your decision is actually endangering their health. And yes, the decision to not vaccinate is endangering the health of your children. Your children can be removed from you for other forms of poor parenting such as children left alone, being neglectful with children around a hot stove or iron or pills or swimming pool if DFS investigates and finds that parental supervision is lacking. "Choosing" not to vaccinate should fall in line with all of those things, IMO, because the evidence is OVERWHELMING that they are both incredibly safe and incredibly effective at preventing disease.

For some strange reason, this is an area where this thinking is completely out of line with the entire medical community and I wish I knew why. For those of you that have said "I decided to delay my vaccinations", how did you even come to that conclusion? Who did you base your opinion on? It certainly wasn't from anyone reputable in the medical community because the thought there is UNANIMOUS that vaccinations are necessary. Yet, somehow, such a huge portion of the population feels they know better based on reading from other sources. It's such a frustrating argument because of how one-sided and clear it should be.

Both this response and Tennessee's just before it are really solid.

 

[Jayrod]

To do some further math on the GROSS revenue provided by infant vaccines:

Say a 90% participation rate accross the population for a single dose, it generates (4,000,000 x .9 x $50) = $180MM per year

Per the CDC, there are 22 recommended vaccines in the first year. Using $180MM per dose, that yields $3.96 billion per year of revenue generated in year 1 of a child's life. A $4B industry is nothing to sneeze at.

And that is not even taking into consideration the remaining child vaccines or adult vaccines.

But a little scale is needed. Humira grossed more than $9B in 1 year. That's 1 drug, 1 R&D cost, 1 manufacturing facility. Lipitor annihilated those numbers. So, ~$4B for an entires sector sounds big, but whatever profit is netted is likely a rounding error for the backbone of what those companies do.http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonking/2013/01/28/the-best-selling-drugs-of-all-time-humira-joins-the-elite/

I'm not saying profit isn't being made. It's just not terribly important to the bottom line of those companies.

2012 vaccine industry was about $25BFrom what I've read up on it today, there are basically only 5 vaccine companies worldwide. It is a very different animal from the other parts of the pharmaceutical industry.

It also seems that the only real "customers" are the WHO and CDC who regulate what vaccines are approved and what companies are approved to manufacture and distribute them.

The top 5 vaccine manufactures in your link (90% of the market) are: Sanofi, Merck, GSK, Pfizer, and Novartis. Those aren't "vaccine companies" those are "pharmaceutical companies with a vaccine division".

I agree.

Pfizer reported net profits north of the entire vaccine sector's revenues in 2013. My point is only that vaccinations make some profits for sure, but even though the numbers are big they're not big when compared to those behemoths.

Regardless, who develops and sells anything without profit being involved?

This is my point. Just because it isn't "that" profitable doesn't mean there isn't a profit motive involved in its development and distribution.

 

[Ilov80s]

Everything has a profit motive. I don't understand the point here.

 

[Jayrod]

Everything has a profit motive. I don't understand the point here.

People were saying there wasn't any money in vaccines, and I disagreed, hence the discussion.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Everything has a profit motive. I don't understand the point here.

My point is only that the profit-motive argument against vaccines is a bit of a red herring since Pfizer, et al. are making way more off of other stuff.

Somewhat off topic, I wonder what the overlap of anti-vaxxers is with the "gluten free" and "organic" movement? I bet it's huge. Nothing wrong w/ those latter 2, but they are both fabricated health scares purely to make profit. The irony shouldn't be lost on anyone.

 

[Ilov80s]

So we agree that there is a lot of money in vaccines, but relative to big pharma drugs, it is a lower level money maker. Seems fair. I don't know if that has any relevance to the overall conversation though. Thoughts?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So we agree that there is a lot of money in vaccines, but relative to big pharma drugs, it is a lower level money maker. Seems fair. I don't know if that has any relevance to the overall conversation though. Thoughts?

I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy theorists that believe it is all a big sham to line the pockets of corporations. We're talking about anti-vaxxers here. Not the brightest, most logical bunch of folks.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Every time I see this bumped to the top I think it's a thread about Doctor Who

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Look ma, more measles!

http://news.yahoo.com/5-children-illinois-day-care-diagnosed-measles-191610364.html

ETA: read the comments after the story. They would be hilarious if they weren't so sad.

 

[Ilov80s]

So we agree that there is a lot of money in vaccines, but relative to big pharma drugs, it is a lower level money maker. Seems fair. I don't know if that has any relevance to the overall conversation though. Thoughts?

I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy theorists that believe it is all a big sham to line the pockets of corporations. We're talking about anti-vaxxers here. Not the brightest, most logical bunch of folks.

Yeah, but who would give creedance to that perspective? Has anyone hear stepped forward as anti-vax? This whole thing is insane to me.

 

[Sweet J]

Look ma, more measles!

http://news.yahoo.com/5-children-illinois-day-care-diagnosed-measles-191610364.html

ETA: read the comments after the story. They would be hilarious if they weren't so sad.

The flood of unvaccinated "kids" from Central America was planned, organized and financed by the comprehensive immigration reform lobby and hispanic "community organizers" who were sent to Central America advertizing the 2008 law to actively recruit children and create a crisis to move their agenda forward. Money was handed out by the organizers from rich donors to pay for trips to the American boarder. The 3.7 Billion dollars Obama spent for lawyers and judges to represent the "migrants" was political payback for campaign contributions from the trial lawyers lobby. They were whisked away to every corner of the country with no questions asked.

 

[igbomb]

I've seen this Central American theme pop up in the comments of some friends facebook pages. Seems to be the latest conservative narrative to blame Obama. When I pointed out to one such nutjob that over half of the cases in the US from last year were tracked to a single Amish person who had made a missionary trip to the Phillippines, the immediate response I got back was 'Well what about the rest of the cases then?'.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Organic food causing autism

 

[Sweet J]

Organic food causing autism

I'd post that to my FB, but my computer might explode.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Organic food causing autism

I'd post that to my FB, but my computer might explode.

"Might"?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Addicting Info reviews the children's book Melanie’s Marvelous Measles.

 

[jhib]

Interesting. So, I'm pro-vaccination. And think that everyone should vaccinate their kids. And think the tie between autism and vaccinations has been clearly debunked.

But: Until now, I hadn't really thought about police-forced vaccinations of our kids. Coming into citizens houses, grabbing kids, and injecting them with medicine against parents' wishes. Not really a pleasent thought. But that is what we are talking about if we say that parents shouldn't have the choice on whether to vaccinate their kids.

I'm not advocating one way or another; just trying to get all the proper consequences on the table. And yes, I understand a consequence of not instituting police-state forced vaccinations is mass death-by-smallpox. Not very pleasent choices, if I had to chose.

NYC doesn't allow non-vaccinated kids into public school.

Different than police busting into your home, but still Gov mandated (if you want your kid to go to public school). Also might go towards explaining why so many people with money populate the non-vaccination camp- they can afford to send their kids to private schools who are more interested in the money than in vaccinations (from what little I've seen- 2 private schools).

Again, I find this really fascinating, and I'd love to hear from both vaccers and the anti-vaccers. And the general question is: Is the status quo (assuming the rest of the country followed the NYC rule) acceptable, both as the minimum and maximum policy.

Stated another way, the rule: All children who want to go to public school must have vaccinations. Is that rule enough? Would you "pro-vaccination" folks go "farther" than this rule, and mandate that all children get vaccinated, and if they don't, we will force it.

If not, and the pro-vaccination folks are comfortable with the rule that ties vaccinations to public school, then maybe the pro vaccination set and the anti-vaccination set are not that far off? (assuming that the anti-vaccers are ok with tying vaccines to public school

I wouldn't go so far as having police-forced vaccinations, but the status quo isn't enough, either. In general, I think that tying vaccination to school is a good technique, but we can't make it so easy to be exempt.

I live in a progressive upstate NY college town, so our local brand of antivaxxers are the crunchy, naturalistic fallacy spouting kind. Fortunately, most schools in the area have vaccination rates over 95%, but the ones in the most liberal areas of town have fallen below, with one public elementary school and the local "alternative" public high school both under 85% (not surprisingly, an area Waldorf school is at just over 70%).

New York State (including NYC) gives two possible reasons for exemptions from the vaccination requirement: religious and medical. The fact that 15% of the students from those schools could be exempt leads me to believe that it's way too easy to use those excuses.

There are obviously legitimate medical reasons why a child may not be able to have certain vaccines, so I'm good with that. However, I'm a relatively religious person myself, but sorry, public health trumps your religious beliefs in this case, even if you aren't making the religious belief up in order to use the loophole. If it is sincere, I'm sure you can find a private school that can accommodate your child or you can go the homeschooling route.

So maybe I'm not that far off from an antivaxxer who would agree to stronger requirements for public schools (though I'm not sure what % of antivaxxers would even fall under that description). But I also approve of the general public scorning them for their anti-science viewpoints and their willingness to put their own children and others in greater needless danger when the only reason they feel comfortable doing so is because so many others are doing what they won't.

 

[jhib]

Addicting Info reviews the children's book Melanie’s Marvelous Measles.

That one going through the whole alphabet is great. Bravo to the reviewer for the time and effort for that one.

For anyone that hasn't yet seen this going around again lately, here's a really sad true story from a much better author.

Roald Dahl and the Measles (used snopes because I find it the clearest recounting without extra fluff)

 

[parasaurolophus]

he's found a link between penicillin/amoxicillin and ADHD

I read this earlier today. I am going to make sure my son does not get any of this poison now until further testing is done. Has anybody read the warning pamphlet that comes with the amoxicillin?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think drunk driving is terrible, but don't try to tell me whether I can go where I want to or not.

Alcohol consumption increases the risk of accidents. Suppose there were some kind of stimulant that decreased the risk of accidents. The stimulant is not dangerous; the side-effects are rare and mild. There's no good medical reason not to take the stimulant before driving. It's got a very short half-life and precise dosing is a breeze, so it won't even disrupt your normal sleep patterns. It will just help you drive more alertly. Mandating that drivers be under the influence of the stimulant may save many lives each year.

Would you be comfortable if the government forced people to take the stimulant before driving on public roads?

I might support mandatory use of the stimulant under those circumstances -- but there's still something about it that would make me uncomfortable. Similarly, I support mandatory vaccination for children going to public schools -- but I understand why some people find state-mandated child-inoculation a bit creepy.

 

[msommer]

How fortunately that soon google will do the driving for us so we can kill a few analogies...

 

[NCCommish]

There are literally thousands of laws in practice today that do not result on people knocking on your door. You're being ridiculous in your assertion that this is anywhere near the natural outcome of a law.

I swear, I'm fascinated by this debate. Either a parent has the choice to vaccinate his kids or he doesn't. Christie has gotten DESTROYED for saying just that: "parents should have a choice."

You tell me, mr smarty pants: If a parent does not have a choice to vaccinate his kids, what does that mean? Because to me, that means I refuse to vaccinate my kids (even my home-schooled kids) and the state vaccinates my kids anyway. How are you going to enforce it?

And we've had this example happen, right? Plenty of cases with religious folks to want to refuse medical care, and the state steps in with its police power, takes the child away, and forces the procedure. So yes, it can happen.

Just fascinating.

Your rights end at the tip of my nose. When your selfish and ridiculous choice can cost my kid his or her life I am supposed to give you the right to kill or disable my child? #### that. Get your kid shots and act like you grew up in the 20th century.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I think drunk driving is terrible, but don't try to tell me whether I can go where I want to or not.

Alcohol consumption increases the risk of accidents. Suppose there were some kind of stimulant that decreased the risk of accidents. The stimulant is not dangerous; the side-effects are rare and mild. There's no good medical reason not to take the stimulant before driving. It's got a very short half-life and precise dosing is a breeze, so it won't even disrupt your normal sleep patterns. It will just help you drive more alertly. Mandating that drivers be under the influence of the stimulant may save many lives each year.

Would you be comfortable if the government forced people to take the stimulant before driving on public roads?

I might support mandatory use of the stimulant under those circumstances -- but there's still something about it that would make me uncomfortable. Similarly, I support mandatory vaccination for children going to public schools -- but I understand why some people find state-mandated child-inoculation a bit creepy.

You need to add the caveat that the drug in question has effectively reduced the risk of accidents to the point that the issue can even be considered.Measles, for example, had been effectively eradicated in the country BECAUSE of vaccinations in the 1st place.

 

[gianmarco]

I think drunk driving is terrible, but don't try to tell me whether I can go where I want to or not.

Alcohol consumption increases the risk of accidents. Suppose there were some kind of stimulant that decreased the risk of accidents. The stimulant is not dangerous; the side-effects are rare and mild. There's no good medical reason not to take the stimulant before driving. It's got a very short half-life and precise dosing is a breeze, so it won't even disrupt your normal sleep patterns. It will just help you drive more alertly. Mandating that drivers be under the influence of the stimulant may save many lives each year.

Would you be comfortable if the government forced people to take the stimulant before driving on public roads?

I might support mandatory use of the stimulant under those circumstances -- but there's still something about it that would make me uncomfortable. Similarly, I support mandatory vaccination for children going to public schools -- but I understand why some people find state-mandated child-inoculation a bit creepy.

You need to add the caveat that the drug in question has effectively reduced the risk of accidents to the point that the issue can even be considered.Measles, for example, had been effectively eradicated in the country BECAUSE of vaccinations in the 1st place.

Exactly. If accidents became non-existent as a result of that drug, I would be 100% comfortable with forcing people to take it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think drunk driving is terrible, but don't try to tell me whether I can go where I want to or not.

Alcohol consumption increases the risk of accidents. Suppose there were some kind of stimulant that decreased the risk of accidents. The stimulant is not dangerous; the side-effects are rare and mild. There's no good medical reason not to take the stimulant before driving. It's got a very short half-life and precise dosing is a breeze, so it won't even disrupt your normal sleep patterns. It will just help you drive more alertly. Mandating that drivers be under the influence of the stimulant may will absolutely, undoubtedly save almost every life that would have been lost many lives each year.

Would you be comfortable if the government forced people to take the stimulant before driving on public roads?

I might support mandatory use of the stimulant under those circumstances -- but there's still something about it that would make me uncomfortable. Similarly, I support mandatory vaccination for children going to public schools -- but I understand why some people find state-mandated child-inoculation a bit creepy.

Better comparison now.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There are literally thousands of laws in practice today that do not result on people knocking on your door. You're being ridiculous in your assertion that this is anywhere near the natural outcome of a law.

I swear, I'm fascinated by this debate. Either a parent has the choice to vaccinate his kids or he doesn't. Christie has gotten DESTROYED for saying just that: "parents should have a choice."

You tell me, mr smarty pants: If a parent does not have a choice to vaccinate his kids, what does that mean? Because to me, that means I refuse to vaccinate my kids (even my home-schooled kids) and the state vaccinates my kids anyway. How are you going to enforce it?

And we've had this example happen, right? Plenty of cases with religious folks to want to refuse medical care, and the state steps in with its police power, takes the child away, and forces the procedure. So yes, it can happen.

Just fascinating.

Your rights end at the tip of my nose. When your selfish and ridiculous choice can cost my kid his or her life I am supposed to give you the right to kill or disable my child? #### that. Get your kid shots and act like you grew up in the 20th century.

I'm in favor of mandatory vaccinations, but this is a bad argument for them. An anti-vaxxer would just turn this around and note that your kid's right to be free from disease (no such right exists, of course) ends at the point where you start compelling people to undergo a medical procedure against their will.

Sometimes you have to trade liberty for security. That's what governments exist for. This is a case where the "liberty cost" of compulsory vaccination are extremely low and the "security benefits" are astronomical. I generally set a pretty high bar when it comes to these kinds of tradeoffs, and I get the ideological counter-argument that other libertarians offer, but this one easily clears my personal threshold.

On a side note, Reason did a feature on this issue just a few months ago.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think drunk driving is terrible, but don't try to tell me whether I can go where I want to or not.

Alcohol consumption increases the risk of accidents. Suppose there were some kind of stimulant that decreased the risk of accidents. The stimulant is not dangerous; the side-effects are rare and mild. There's no good medical reason not to take the stimulant before driving. It's got a very short half-life and precise dosing is a breeze, so it won't even disrupt your normal sleep patterns. It will just help you drive more alertly. Mandating that drivers be under the influence of the stimulant may will absolutely, undoubtedly save almost every life that would have been lost many lives each year.

Would you be comfortable if the government forced people to take the stimulant before driving on public roads?

I might support mandatory use of the stimulant under those circumstances -- but there's still something about it that would make me uncomfortable. Similarly, I support mandatory vaccination for children going to public schools -- but I understand why some people find state-mandated child-inoculation a bit creepy.

Better comparison now.

From 1900-1904 we averaged roughly 1m cases of vaccine preventable diseases, on a population base of ~75m. In 1998 there were about 8000 cases, on a population around 320m. (I'm rounding to make my math easier.)

So, sure. If a stimulant could reduce the number of accidents from roughly 11,000,000 per year to something like 27,500 (reducing them by 99.75%), sign me up.

IMO it's the scale and effectiveness that makes the case for vaccines compelling. You could roll those both back far enough that you'd get to a gray area -- but we're a long way from that.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Agree w/ last 2 posts.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Timely...

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 88 percent of scientists believe GM foods are safe to eat, compared with only 37 percent of the public — a gap of 51 percentage points.

An equally overwhelming majority of scientists (87 percent) believe that climate change is mostly caused by human activity, and 50 percent of the public agrees — a gap of 37 percentage points. Fully 98 percent of scientists believe that humans have evolved over time, and 65 percent of the public agrees — a gap of 33 points.

The Pew/AAAS report does not attempt to explain why so many Americans reject the scientific consensus on GM foods. It notes that educated Americans are less skeptical of the science than the public at large, but not by that much: 49 percent of people with college degrees believe eating GM foods is safe, while 47 percent believe it isn’t.

The report also doesn’t delve into political differences on these issues, but Lee Rainie, Pew’s director of Internet, science, and technology, shared some background. On climate change, the political breakdown is what you might expect: Republicans believe by 53 to 43 percent that the evidence is real, whereas Democrats are convinced 87 to 10 percent.

On vaccine policy, there was no difference between parties when Pew asked in 2009: 68 percent thought vaccination should be mandatory, while 30 percent thought parents should decide. Since then, Rainie said, the share of Republicans favoring parental choice rose by eight points, while the share of Democrats favoring parental choice declined by five.

And on genetically modified foods?

“Declared Republicans were more likely than declared Democrats to say GM foods are generally safe – 44% vs. 34%,” Rainie said in an e-mail. “But when you add those leaning towards each party to the mix, the differences between them become statistically insignificant. There are no differences on this issue among people who describe themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal.”

 

[stubby]

http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker

 

[msommer]

http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker

 

[FreeBaGeL]

http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker

 

[Dragons]

CT is apparently at 98.5% vaccinated (laws are similar to NY, where kids can't attend public school), but the # of waivers has gone up.

Lawmaker seeks study of vaccine exemption laws, policies

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker

Yeah it is. I sent it to a pediatrician buddy of mine. My kids' clinic finally made the official switch -- you don't want your kids vaccinated? We aren't going to be your kids' pediatricians. They couch it in terms of "philosophical differences mean we won't be a good fit". Biggest (by far) pediatric outfit in town. Way overdue as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Jayrod]

http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker

That's quality work right there.

 

[stubby]

http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker

Yeah it is. I sent it to a pediatrician buddy of mine. My kids' clinic finally made the official switch -- you don't want your kids vaccinated? We aren't going to be your kids' pediatricians. They couch it in terms of "philosophical differences mean we won't be a good fit". Biggest (by far) pediatric outfit in town. Way overdue as far as I'm concerned.

My brother is a pediatrician, which is how I knew about this. It's all over Facebook, but I linked the original tumblr post to make it easier. The comments section on Facebook were priceless, as many had no clue it was satire.

 

[Dragons]

Going around Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.hibbenwhite/posts/10155168515065632:0

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Going around Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.hibbenwhite/posts/10155168515065632:0

 

[Ilov80s]

Cartoon from the 40s. I guess we haven't come such a long way.

https://twitter.com/historicalpics/status/566295990488301568

 

[The Commish]

So an interesting story in my family. Full disclosure: I am ALL FOR vaccinations, but I found this interesting.

My cousin just had a baby this past year...almost one year old actually. Anyway, she was going through all the vaccinations and noticed that there were runny noses etc after some of the shots. Didn't think much about it, but this last set of shots sent the child into shock. About three months ago, the baby was having issues with milk and breaking out, vomiting etc. Come to find out, the child is allergic to milk...they haven't gotten the test results to see how many varieties etc, but they know cow's milk is one. The doctor informed my cousin that this could be problematic going forward with vaccines. They'd need to get special ones because the more common ones had elements of cow's milk/protein (something) in them and would explain all the reactions that child had previously.

I think it was the DTaP series that was causing the problem...not sure, but I found it interesting. Her doctor is probably the best doctor I have ever met. The dude is on point with everything. I wonder how many doctors would miss things like this. Are they all familiar with the science of how these vaccines are produced? I don't know...just wondering.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So an interesting story in my family. Full disclosure: I am ALL FOR vaccinations, but I found this interesting.

My cousin just had a baby this past year...almost one year old actually. Anyway, she was going through all the vaccinations and noticed that there were runny noses etc after some of the shots. Didn't think much about it, but this last set of shots sent the child into shock. About three months ago, the baby was having issues with milk and breaking out, vomiting etc. Come to find out, the child is allergic to milk...they haven't gotten the test results to see how many varieties etc, but they know cow's milk is one. The doctor informed my cousin that this could be problematic going forward with vaccines. They'd need to get special ones because the more common ones had elements of cow's milk/protein (something) in them and would explain all the reactions that child had previously.

I think it was the DTaP series that was causing the problem...not sure, but I found it interesting. Her doctor is probably the best doctor I have ever met. The dude is on point with everything. I wonder how many doctors would miss things like this. Are they all familiar with the science of how these vaccines are produced? I don't know...just wondering.

Sorry your first cousin once removed (I think that's right?) had to go through this. But cases like this are actually a very strong pro-vaccination argument. There are children who can't get vaccinated for a variety of regions, including people with allergies and the obvious case of infants who haven't been around long enough yet. The people who choose not to vaccinate their children put the health of infants and children like your relative at far greater risk.

 

[rockaction]

Timely...

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 88 percent of scientists believe GM foods are safe to eat, compared with only 37 percent of the public — a gap of 51 percentage points.

An equally overwhelming majority of scientists (87 percent) believe that climate change is mostly caused by human activity, and 50 percent of the public agrees — a gap of 37 percentage points. Fully 98 percent of scientists believe that humans have evolved over time, and 65 percent of the public agrees — a gap of 33 points.

The Pew/AAAS report does not attempt to explain why so many Americans reject the scientific consensus on GM foods. It notes that educated Americans are less skeptical of the science than the public at large, but not by that much: 49 percent of people with college degrees believe eating GM foods is safe, while 47 percent believe it isn’t.

The report also doesn’t delve into political differences on these issues, but Lee Rainie, Pew’s director of Internet, science, and technology, shared some background. On climate change, the political breakdown is what you might expect: Republicans believe by 53 to 43 percent that the evidence is real, whereas Democrats are convinced 87 to 10 percent.

On vaccine policy, there was no difference between parties when Pew asked in 2009: 68 percent thought vaccination should be mandatory, while 30 percent thought parents should decide. Since then, Rainie said, the share of Republicans favoring parental choice rose by eight points, while the share of Democrats favoring parental choice declined by five.

And on genetically modified foods?

“Declared Republicans were more likely than declared Democrats to say GM foods are generally safe – 44% vs. 34%,” Rainie said in an e-mail. “But when you add those leaning towards each party to the mix, the differences between them become statistically insignificant. There are no differences on this issue among people who describe themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal.”

Check the premises of the bolded again, wdcrob. It's a radically different question than the other two examples. I can't believe this wasn't caught, or that it made it into the article. It's explicitly about mandatory policy, not about belief in the efficacy of vaccines. The other two premises and examples are radically different than the bolded.

I've posted in many other threads about Michael Willrich and Pox and the framing of this question, and I'm a strong pro-vaxxer, but I think that the recent anecdotal and county data wouldn't support the D/R breakdown you're pointing out. Anyway, just my two cents in the thread.

 

[gianmarco]

Jimmy Kimmel -- So good

 

[gianmarco]

Nice graphic

 

[heckmanm]

http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker

Linked in the comments

 

[joffer]

Jerry Brown just signed a bill removing the personal belief exemption.

 

[Amused to Death]

Jerry Brown just signed a bill removing the personal belief exemption.

Great news, coming on the heels of this:

Madrid (AFP) - A 6-year-old boy has died in Spain's first case of diphtheria since 1987, his hospital said Saturday.

The child had not been vaccinated against the disease amid controversy over the potential side-effects of the jab, and had been fighting the bacterial infection for a month.

The Vall d'Hebrone hospital in Barcelona confirmed on its Twitter account "the death of a patient with diphtheria" who had been hospitalised at the end of May.

An infection that mostly affects the nose and throat, diphtheria is highly contagious but has become increasingly rare in western Europe in recent decades due to high rates of vaccination.

The little boy's treatment had suffered delays due to the difficulty in finding the right antitoxin in Europe. It was finally provided by Russia.

Nine other children and an adult were exposed to the bacteria but did not develop the disease, having all been vaccinated, according to health services in Spain's northeastern Catalonia region.

The decision by the boy's parents not to vaccinate him has raised a fresh debate in Spain over the risks of the vaccine versus the risk of not having it.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Jerry Brown just signed a bill removing the personal belief exemption.

The antivaxxers around here are going ape ####.

 

[General Malaise]

Jerry Brown just signed a bill removing the personal belief exemption.

The antivaxxers around here are going ape ####.