Age of Autism and vaccination against meningococcus: What’s that again about not being “anti-vaccine”?

It’s pretty telling that they feel the need to pretend they’re pro-vaccine. They KNOW vaccines are important. They KNOW vaccines save lives. They KNOW that reasonable people are uniformly in favor of vaccines.

And yet they’re so far down the path of delusion, they just can’t turn back.

Well, herd immunity will tend to protect the unvaccinated, unless (of course) large numbers of unvaccinated children come into contact more than one would statistically expect from rand chance.

Where might such a thing happen? The creche at AoA/antivaxx rallies. Obviously.

Should there be a major outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease, it will be interesting if the vectors all lead back to one of these get-togethers.

Maybe I’m not the only one this has occured to. Maybe that’s why the rally in chicago only got 200 people attending.

They aren’t anti-vaccine.

They are anti-health.

They are anti-child.

AOA is a business, pure and simple. It’s committed to deceieving parents into believing vaccines cause autism then selling them thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of over-hyped, under-proven supplements and dubious regimes. Their point is encapsulated neatly in this comment which was posted in response to Kent Heckenlively’s rambling and nonsensical comparison of Autism One with the TV series ‘Lost’.

A mother says:

“I so wished I could have been a part of Autism One last week, to meet and be inspired by the leaders of our Rebellion, however, funding and lack of vacation time kept me at my post. We did celebrate a victory two weeks ago against the Empire. My nephew, Alexander, was not given the Hep B vaccine at birth and will not be vaccinated any time in the near future. Three cheers for saving a child from autism!”

It saddens me, but there you have it. AOA’s followers are completely brainwashed and it’s going to take some enormous miracle to undo the damage!

Friend of mine from Oklahoma, a very beautiful young woman, died of bacterial meningitis.

Go vaccines!

I don’t know whether it’s true that the vaccine is only required in NJ and CT. Both of my children, as college students in VA, had to either get the vaccine or give a medical exemption. I don’t recall there was an option for philosophical exemption (although I could be wrong). Personally, I was VERY happy they were protected from meningitis, especially when it swept through some colleges a few years ago.

I will petition against this bill simply because it makes the vaccine mandatory. Im not against this vaccine, just against the government forcing citizens to inject anything into their body.

This has little to do with safety and what a wonderful (sarcasm) job the CDC does at protecting us, even though they lie and put children in Washington, DC in extreme danger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/19/AR2010051902599.html

Vaccines for stuff like Chicken Pox and HPV are totally unnecessary, it is just pharma companies working with government to take away our rights to decide about our own bodies and our children’s needs. Don’t believe the hype.

Where do they get that “two states for college students” nonsense?

Certainly the University of Arizona and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NM Tech) won’t admit freshmen who can’t show proof of vaccination.

It has been my experience that many people who are anti-vaccine are quick to point at death as the final outcome of a disease. Since people are not dying en mass from a vaccine-preventable disease, they don’t see any need for vaccinations. They also point to people who contract a vaccine-preventable disease while vaccinated as an example of vaccines not working. They fail to understand that vaccine-preventable is a Public Health term, not necessarily applicable to an individual.
When reasonable people try to point out to them that there are psychological, social, and economic impacts to vaccine-preventable diseases (because we’ve gotten so good at keeping someone with a disease alive longer), anti-vaccine people plug their ears and chant.

To quote the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles:
“Shredder, you gotta listen to reason! You’re going to destroy us all!”
Shredder responds by ominously saying, “Then so be it.”

Gardasil is a piece of shit and Merck’s Rotateq is a piece of shit.(same as the other pig infested rota vaccine). Why would you inject a piece of shit into a perfectly healthy kid? Paul Offit should be ashamed.

@ jen:

Facts and evidence please, not meaningless and unsupported accusations.

Speaking as someone who had a very tense few months because of a couple of irregular pap smears thanks to a HPV infection, I wish I could have gotten vaccinated against HPV when I was a kid. Having to have multiple pap smears in the same six months is not exactly a day at the beach, either.

What I don’t understand is why they’re currently only vaccinating girls, and why Gardasil doesn’t seem to have been tested on men at all. Those HPV infections in women come from somewhere, usually from men. Men get HPV infections too, which can cause penile and anal cancers, but unless a man’s actually got visible genital warts, it’s impossible to tell whether he’s an HPV carrier or not. I realise that the majority of the HPV-caused cancers occur in women, which is why Gardasil has been focused on them, but women are generally not transmitting HPV between themselves. (Sociologically speaking from a feminist perspective, the focus on only preventing HPV in women looks an awful lot like a manifestation of the cultural belief that women are the “gatekeepers” of sex, and are therefore responsible for any and all forms of related prophylaxis.)

@Realinterrobang
It’s in the works for MSM, while men between 9 and 26 are already approved to take the vaccine. It just doesn’t make the news like you think it should… We are, after all, the vectors of HPV.

LINK

@Calle Arcale:

Me too, only I was two at the time and it was known that HiB caused my meningitis. I think my father, if he were still alive, would throttle some of these folks who have clearly never dealt with these sorts of diseases for suggesting they are unnecessary.

I stand corrected — it’s already approved for men! Cool! Thanks, Rene!

Chriskid nailed it, Jen & Co just can’t have any vaccine be beneficial and needed. Both the HPV and meningitis vaccines treat so far unconquered, relevant to today’s society diseases, and worse, they do it at an age where the patient understands the importance of it. This might lead them to a less biased view on vaccines when the decision on vaccinating their children 5 – 10 years down the road comes up. It’s easy to argue against stuff like polio and measles, things no one has seen epidemic in 30 years to half a century; stuff that can hit you in a college dorm might get you pro-vaccine just at the age they are trying to hook you on their philosophy.

Freedom for you also means freedom for other people, and they might occasionally misuse that freedom.

Define “misuse”? If they misuse that freedom to put others in society at risk, then the government certainly does have a right to intervene.

You mis-understand the purpose of “mandatory” vaccination. It is not about them. It’s about everyone else. It is about the risk that they present to others by not being vaccinated.

Everyone will agree that people can choose to have their kids unvaccinated provided 1) they do not send them to public schools, 2) they do not use public facilities, and shoot, 3) they completely keep them away from the public without prominently displaying a caution sign that says, “I am unvaccinated.”

If they are willing to agree to these stipulations, then they can be as unvaccinated as they want.

However, if you expect to interact with society at all, then you have a responsibility to the members of society that you participate to benefit everyone. Morons like Sid Offit and Jay Gordon are perfectly willing – nay, REQUIRE that everyone ELSE participate in an activity that they deem to be dangerous, because everyone else doing it means they can get a way without having to. The government says, no, you can’t do that. If we are going to do this, we are going to ALL do it, and you are not going to sponge off the sacrifices of others.

With the rights of society come responsibilities. If you aren’t willing to live up to your responsibilities, then you do not have the right to participate.

“Why would you inject a piece of shit into a perfectly healthy kid?”

That wouldn’t be us, it would be people like Emily McDonald, the sMothering mother who put shit into her daughter’s IV line in the hospital. Does anyone know off the top of their head if she was anti-vacc? Since she was quite a regular on MDC, the probability is pretty likely, but I can’t remember for sure…

1 to 2 years before I started high school, there was an outbreak of meningitis (can’t remember which type) which killed 2 students at the school I was to attend.

I was quite happy to get the vaccine that spring.

When I read their action alert I was struck by one thing–

any actual discussion of vaccine safety. Nothing stating “this vaccine is unsafe”. The only rationale for fighting this is the fact that it is a vaccine.

There are true vaccine safety advocates in this world. AgeOfAutism and their cohorts are not amongst them.

@9 Lawrence

we may be on the verge of a Breast Cancer vaccine – if that is true, I wonder how AoA will deal with that?

I was wondering the exact same thing. My bet is on something like..
“Now evil Big Pharma and Big Gubmint is trying to stop us from breastfeeding”

Utterly stupid…but hey it fits with that anti-vaxx tunnel vision mindset.

…tell your legislators to fix state government and fix the $9 billion+ deficit and pass decent autism health insurance reform rather than interfere with your families’ health decisions.

These people aren’t anti-vaccine; they’re anti-spending, anti-gummint, and anti-collective-solutions-to-any-problem. They may not be the same crowd as the teatards, but the above quote shows they have exactly the same mindset and the same priorities.

Oh, and Weber…are you fucking kidding me? You make the standard paleo-libertardian argument against gummint interference in personal choices, and then say it’s perfectly okay for local govermments to get as totalitarian as they want?

And “you might potentially give a disease to someone else” doesn’t cut it for me; there are lots of things that I can do that could potentially hurt another person, but we don’t have prior restraint on them.

Really? So you can fire off mortar shells in your backyard, pilot a tank on the public roads, dispose of garbage and waste any way you please, drive at any speed you desire, etc., in this strange country where you live?

Might want to think harder prior to your next comment.

Two additional examples relevant to the present public health-oriented discussion: (1) In the mid-20th century, facilities at which children might gather, such as pools, were closed to try to stem the spread of polio. (2) The local, state, and federal governments have the power to quarantine you to try to halt the spread of communicable disease.

Last comment, a bit technical:

In the USA, “prior restraint” is a term used in cases involving free speech. In such cases, prior restraint means stopping the publication of material to which the government objects, so the “speech” is restrained prior to being given. This is in contrast to cases that concern the enforceability, as against the right of free speech, of legal penalties against objectionable speech that has already taken place (e.g., the enforceability of fines for a striptease act that was “banned in Boston”). The government must make a greater showing to support a prior restraint than to support enforceability of penalties for speech that has already taken place.

In vaccination cases, the right of free speech and hence the concept of prior restraint would not be relevant. In fact, I imagine the courts would quite sensibly favor enforced preventive measures prior to the spread of a disease over penalizing those responsible only after others have sickened and died.

At this point other than complete cultish brainwashing, or simply hatred/indifference to the rest of the human race (or both) I cannot deduce a reason why anyone would have a negative reaction to something as wonderful as an HPV, chickenpox, or meningitis vaccine.

The less diseases anyone has to suffer – the happier! Geesh! So obvious.

fix the $9 billion+ deficit

That statement makes me curious as to whether there are any estimates on how much pressure/added costs,if any, the anti-vaxx activities might add to the cost of…say health insurance and maybe health services in general? Treatment of vaccine-preventable diseases surely incurs much greater expense then vaccination.

I really enjoyed the piece posted on AoA today from Barbara Loe Fisher (what a piece of work). Ohhhh, the outrage! Two orally-administered rotavirus vaccines have < > porcine viral DNA! Oh my god, the terror! Pig virus DNA. As if eating a pork chop wouldn’t do the same thing, and we know how those pork chop viruses are killing children left and right.

My guess is that most of those geniuses at AoA probably think that “it is injected DIRECTLY into the bloodstream” (I hear that all the time). Sorry folks…it’s an oral vaccine. If you can tell me why I should go to bat-shit mode because of these DNA chunks vs. all the other viruses I eat on a daily basis in…well, just about anything that is a natural food source…then I might give a krap. Until then < >

Whoops, that should read “I understand what you are saying Dan, but with guns you are talking about…”

Thanks for the understanding, Orange Lantern. As I said in @45, we can’t always track down who gave someone measles, nor do we necessarily want such a regime, and so I’m a bit more willing to be pro-active versus re-active.

Even with all my sympathies thus expressed, I’m still fine with a public (or private, FWIW) school demanding a certain threshold of its students have vaccinations against whatever diseases it deems appropriate. Said another way, even though I might be the kind of person most willing to listen to them on freedom grounds, I cannot find anything wrong with this legislation.

Just because something could potentially put someone at risk is not sufficient reason by itself for banning it.

No, but it is sufficient reason for elected officials to have an honest discussion of whether this or that particular government action might reduce the risk without undue burden.

October 5, 2006
Number 14
NEJM

Invasive meningococcal disease is uncommon in the United States.
Approximately 2500 cases (0.5 to 1.1 per 100,000 population) occur annually.
——————————–
Another mandatory vaccine against a disease affecting few. The public health miracles continue.

Really Sid?

A friend of a friend of mine died of meningitis. He was young, about twenty. It sounded pretty awful and it seems like for certain people (college students, people sharing an apartment with a bunch of folks) this would be a really worthwhile vaccine.

@Sid Offit

Another mandatory vaccine against a disease affecting few. The public health miracles continue.

Yeah. Something that can help cut down/eliminate a somewhat rare disease. Heaven forbid! Who gives a crap about such a minority of people? I mean, it’s not like they matter, or that the costs for treating them is more expensive than vaccinating, or that those costs in time and money could be used to treat people with other injuries/illnesses/conditions that might not be able to find space at hospitals because a bed is taken up by a meningitis patient. Who cares?

I am in general okay with the current set of laws about vaccines and compliance. But some of the justifications that people have for these laws is just frightening and leads to a dangerous place.

I can understand how we got here, because the AoA people make simplistic appeals to emotion (“don’t give mah baby teh autism!”) and it’s natural that we would respond in kind (“don’t have yer baby give mah baby teh measles!”).

“Won’t somebody please think about the children!?” is never a good way to start a debate, as fans of Maude Flanders know. Parents make all kinds of health decisions for their children every day, including giving them meat, letting them watch television, eat non-organic food, or play competitive sports. These all have potential health effects, even if we aren’t sure whether they are positive or negative. But once we start dealing with potential risks it will become all too easy for the busy-bodies to declare these things either forbidden or required for parents.

Ian, I think there are justifications for infringing on liberty for public health. This doesn’t mean that all infringements are proper or justified. I’m also more willing to let smaller entities have larger leeway in their policies. For example, if New York City thinks that banning transfats from its restaurants is in its interests, I’m okay with that. And any customers who really want their transfat in their burgers can travel outside the city, or have food delivered in to their homes. (I would object to the law if it forbade the first workaround. The second I could debate.)

TLDR: just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

@Dan Weber

I’m not sure what the general rule to be abstracted from your example is. What if New York State banned trans fats? What about the entire eastern seabord working together? You could still go to another state if you wanted. What if it was the whole U.S.A. (some countries are moving to ban trans fats)? You could move to another country. There’s always the option to do something unless the whole world gets together and says ‘no’.

I’m not saying I necessarily disagree, I’m just unclear on the general rule. My general rule is that if you can reasonably demonstrate harm, then infringement is justified, and I think we agree with each other there. I’m just not sure what the rule underlying your ‘smaller entities’ policy is.

Sid did you get passed that paragraph?

“Limited outbreaks of meningococcal disease have occurred in some populations. Public health officials arbitrarily define an outbreak of meningococcal disease as the occurrence of 3 or more cases during a 3-month period, with a primary attack rate of at least 10 cases per 100,000 population, which is approximately 10 times greater than normal. Outbreaks may be restricted to a closed population or may involve a larger community. In a Los Angeles County outbreak of meningococcal disease, nearly one half of community residents with the disease had had contact with persons who had been incarcerated.1

Recently, the incidence of meningococcal disease in adolescents and college-aged young adults appears to have increased. College students living in dormitories seemed to be the population at an increased risk (see Deterrence/Prevention)”

HEY LOOK AT THAT THE INCIDENCE RATE IS INCREASING IN THOSE FOR WHOM VACCINATION IS BEING DIRECTED AT. THE MIND BOGGLES.

@RJ
What is the percentage of cases in the age ranges in this discussion sid? Oh, how those little details make all the difference

————————
1st year college students living in dormitories have higher than average rates (5.1 per 100,000) of meningococcal disease. These rates however, after the first year, rapidly drop to a below average level of 0.7 per 100,000
—————————

So what I think you’re saying is that if I won’t be living in a college dorm I have even less reason to consider the vaccine

@Sid
Pretty high and mighty of you to act like you don’t acquiesce to public health interventions that prevent rare occurrences. Do you eat enriched flour? Drink potable water? Pasteurized milk? Wear a seat belt? Cross the street on crosswalks? Cook your food? Take a vitamin? Get antibiotics? Use iodized salt? The list goes on and on… You’re just a comment troll, plain and simple. I bet you even wash your hands.
Hypocrite.

Good one sid. Good one.

“Why would you inject a piece of **** into a perfectly healthy kid? ”
The vaccine referred to, Rotateq, is not “injected” into anyone. It’s an ORAL vaccine. This commentator is obviously ignorant of the details of how the vaccine is made (never mind its safety record)and is likely to be unduly influenced by trypanophobia, the non-rational fear of injections of all kinds.

@Dan Weber

I guess I am looking for a “hard and fast rule” that distinguishes between the actions of a local government and that of a “non-local” government. I am a resident of Vancouver, which is a city in British Columbia, which is a province of Canada, which is a country in NATO, and so forth. When any one of those regulatory bodies makes a decision, one could say it is “local”, and if I disagree I am free to move to Turkey or Algeria or Mozambique. I really don’t think that’s the point you’re making, but I’m not sure what the point is.

Also, I agree that there is a difference between “we’re doing this because it’s good for you” and “we’re not letting you do this because it’s bad for you” that goes beyond semantics. In the interest of avoiding blatant thread-jacking, you can feel free to e-mail me at crommunist(at)gmail(dot)com if you want to continue the discussion, or we can simply drop the conversation altogether.

For Sid Troll it is all about the numbers. Except he won’t tell us the minimum number of incidences, permanent disability or death that in his mind would warrant having the vaccine available. He goes nuts if someone says that there is up to three deaths per a thousand cases of measles, but refuses to say if he thinks even one case in eight thousand is acceptible.

As far as costs go, it is far far cheaper to vaccinate. There are a couple of studies:
Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001

and the previous experience with measles in California:
Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.

I would wager that this doctor would be in favor of vaccinating against meningococcus.

And I’m a libertarian, but I disagree with Dan Weber. You do NOT have the right to be Typhoid Mary. Your contagions directly infringe on my right to be healthy. I dislike centralized government, but I don’t go out of my way to spite myself to disagree with the Feds. If the POTUS and the SCOTUS and all of Congress told me the sky was blue, I would agree with them and not go all teagarrbbl on them. Unfortunately, I know there are people who would not concede the same point.

You do NOT have the right to be Typhoid Mary.

I agree, and haven’t said otherwise.

Orange Lantern: I’m just trying to help provide useful arguments. 😉 With Hep B, I know they make extraordinary efforts to protect their staff in the event of a spill of bodily fluids (most schools have specific procedures to follow for cleaning blood in particular) and this is more because of Hep B than because of HIV. Frankly, I wonder if they require Hep B vaccination more to protect the *staff* than to protect the other students.

It might be instructive to find out what various school districts/states/etc actually require as opposed to simply encourage. I know not all of the recommended vaccine schedule is actually mandatory (contrary to AoA claims). How many school districts will actually bar you from attending if you decline the tetanus vaccine but do not have a medical or religious exemption? And how many only require tetanus because these days it comes along with the pertussis and diptheria vaccinations? It would be interesting to analyze the differences.

As long as we’re swapping horrible examples …

Years back, our next-door neighbors had two daughters. Nice kids. One, like many sub-10yos, ran all over the place. Her sister, not so much. It may have had to do with the leg braces and spinal distortion left over from paralytic meningitis.

This was from before the vaccine by quite a bit. Zero issue with the parents and vaccination (father from Panama, for crying out loud!), just no opportunity.

$EX_WIFE may be batty, but she’s also an RN who never let the kids miss a vaccine.

D.C. Sessions, I know that is supposed to be a dollar sign in front of “EX_WIFE”… but the way it reads it sounds like an “Ex with benefits.”

Dexter @13 said:

HPV is really not a killer. It may lead to cancer down the line, but the risk is much lower than for other transmissible diseases.

HIV isn’t a killer either then. Sure, you might get severely anemic, catch pneumonia or some other virus, or develop cancer, but it personally hasn’t happened to me, so why should anyone worry about this stuff?

Back in reality, my wife developed cervical cancer due to HPV back in the early 90s. It wouldn’t be right for me to share her painful story here, but here is a summary: she didn’t die but it has had profound life-long negative consequences.

jen, you don’t eat ham? Or pork? Or bacon?

I’m going to have a nice porcine virus sandwich for dinner, myself. Yum. I’ll add some Calcium Propionate-laden cheese too.

How many people on this blog have tolerance for people who chose to not vaccinate? There is a LOT of vaccination discussion on here. I’m sure it’s unbiased, objective, and fair. If you don’t believe it’s the individuals choice then whose choice is it? The states choice?

The politics of mandatory vaccinations however, are an entirely philosophical debate and a matter of personal opinion. The science can inform the politics but the arguments are different and one should not get swept up into anti vaccine rhetoric when the argument one is trying to make is a small government rhetoric.

You are wise in this comment, Superdave. Some of the scientists and wannabe scientists on here can’t tell the difference between science and philosophy/politics. This is a great string of posts showing that some here have very strong political opinions and their emotions can’t let them tell the difference between the two.

@Sid
Pretty high and mighty of you to act like you don’t acquiesce to public health interventions that prevent rare occurrences. Do you eat enriched flour? Drink potable water? Pasteurized milk? Wear a seat belt? Cross the street on crosswalks? Cook your food? Take a vitamin? Get antibiotics? Use iodized salt? The list goes on and on… You’re just a comment troll, plain and simple. I bet you even wash your hands.
Hypocrite.

another version of the seatbelt gambit, rene. Do any of those cause fever induced seizures besides the antibiotics? It’s just a poor choice of logic. Very poor choice.

“A friend of a friend of mine died of meningitis. He was young, about twenty. It sounded pretty awful and it seems like for certain people (college students, people sharing an apartment with a bunch of folks) this would be a really worthwhile vaccine.”

A friend of mine died from a vaccine. Anecdotes work both ways. Either they count or they are dismissed.

augie:

A friend of mine died from a vaccine. Anecdotes work both ways.

Except you have shown yourself to be a liar.

Other anecdotes can be backed up with real data. Your lies, not so much.

Mr. wordly military man: “Other anecdotes can be backed up with real data. Your lies, not so much.”

So anecdotes are ok now?

Or only data? If only data, then why is the anecdote necessary? What type of data? Merck type of data?

If anecdotes are ok then I have lot’s of friends that would love to flood this website.

tarowig: “BTW seatbelts may not cause seizures, but they can cause serious abdominal injuries if you’re in a crash.”

Key words: “if you’re in a crash.” Already in a crash. Just by clicking the seatbelt doesn’t cause these injuries. Just by injecting a vaccine CAN cause febrile induced seizures or DEATH even without the “crash”.

The seatbelt gambit is a fail yet the pro forced mass vaccinators keep going back to the well again and again.

“Also factual- the risk of death and injury from diseases like meningitis is far greater than the risk of death and injury from the vaccines that protect people from them.”

The term “risk is becoming so cliche in this context. You assume that the group for this so called “risk” is homogenous. How can you prove what the risk for any ONE individual is? You can’t.

Ridiculous. My grandfather had meningitis and went deaf. It’s contagious and can be very deadly and is also extremely painful. Because of how quickly it spreads, it is critical that every person who is not immuno-compromised be vaccinated to prevent outbreaks, especially if they live with people who are immuno-compromised. Those people can only be protected by herd immunity.

I’m not a germ theory denialist. I just think the germ needs help

@ 113 Sid Offit,

I’m not a germ theory denialist. I just think the germ needs help

In other words, we are not playing fair by using vaccines against these poor, helpless, killer germs? Is that what you are claiming?

I’m not a germ theory denialist. I just think the germ needs help

If you claim that it is impossible – not just less likely, but impossible – for a microorganism to cause illness in a human being in an optimal state of health, then you are a germ theory denialist.

The human immune system and infections microorganisms have been in a Red Queen race for longer than humans have existed, and it is the height of arrogance to presume that the immune system is always and forever the victor unless put at a disadvantage.

Ian writes:

For example, while it would be better for everyone if we stopped eating hamburgers, it is not reasonable to ban them because my eating a hamburger doesn’t put anyone else at risk.

Let me preface this by saying I’m not a killjoy who wants to stop folks from eating hamburgers, or drinking (even occasionally to excess, if you are not driving or otherwise in a position to cause harm), or lots of other things we all enjoy. I’m also not in favor of the sort of “nanny state” or “police state,” or however you want to put it, that intrudes too far into our personal information and decision-making. But what is “too far” and “personal” isn’t always easy to tell.

Take the hamburger example above. Your eating hamburgers actually does affect me, because other folks living less healthy lifestyles raises my private health insurance rates if we live in the USA, or raises my taxes in countries with national health care systems.

This example also points out the very limited usefulness of local/state/federal concepts in deciding what is appropriate regulation. If we did want to regulate unhealthy lifestyles (I again want to point out I’d be against this degree of intrusion into our lives, but just using it as an example), at least one type of harm – higher insurance premiums or higher taxes – is not going to be local. It’ll be regional or statewide in the case of health insurance premiums, and nationwide in the case of countries with national health systems. The geographic reach of the problem certainly bears on the appropriate geographic reach of the solution.

Same with a public health measure such as vaccination. You’ll remember there were school closures in some areas to try to prevent the spread of H1N1. If the problem had become large enough, then some type of vaccination enforcement might have become appropriate. I think you (Dan? Ian?) would agree in that event that a purely local or even state-based response would be ineffective in a society where people travel so freely and so often.

Also: are analogies beyond you anti-vax folks? Would a seatbelt have to be injected into one’s bloodstream for it to click for you? We assume a small risk of a certain type of injury by wearing a seatbelt which offsets the larger risk of not wearing a seatbelt.

Getting into a car is always a risk, just like going out into the world is always a risk. Some of us are lucky enough to never get in an accident and some of us are lucky enough to never come into contact with someone with a serious disease. Wishful thinkers assume that they will be the lucky ones. Pragmatic thinkers understand the risks and do what is in their power to mitigate that risk.

Yeah, hospitals don’t have spark plugs and vaccines aren’t made of woven nylon, but the analogy definitely stands up.

Mike the rattlesnake: “Also: are analogies beyond you anti-vax folks?”

How about this one. If I CHOOSE to jump on a grenade to save my friends then I am considered a hero. If someone pushes me onto a grenade to save themselves then that person is a murderer.

I’m not anti-vax. I think they still should be made for the people who want them and are scared they might die from chickenpox.

Sure Augie’s not anti-vacc – I mean he did just compare getting a vaccine to “jumping on a grenade”, but what does that have to do with anything, right? Right? :-/

provaxmom: “My 7m old niece died from pneumo meningitis, a strain for which there is currently no vaccine. As a result, my SIL (this baby’s mom) does quite a bit of vaccine advocacy and meningitis awareness.”

I find this an odd motive. A vaccine would not have saved the child yet the parent is advocating the use of vaccines. It’s sort of like the flu statistics that are used to promote the vaccine, yet the majority of the deaths wouldn’t be prevented by using the influenza vaccine. It’s misguided “awareness”.

In many cases (not necessarily provaxmoms) it’s disease mongering and fear mongering.

provaxmom: “My 3 year old son is getting the menactra. My 2 year old niece (twin to the baby that died) already got it, but it was a fight with the ped to get it.”

Probably because of this:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/2/177

“There was no evidence of protection in children younger than 2 years; all 8 MCD cases in this age group occurred in vaccinees.”

or this:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/mening.pdf

“In one study, efficacy declined from more than 90% to less than 10% 3 years after vaccination among children who were younger than 4 years of age when vaccinated. Efficacy was 67% among children who were older than 4 years of age at vaccination.”

Is this the type of numbers people talk about when they say “of course vaccines aren’t 100%”? Zero percent, 10 percent, and 67%?

good point about anecdotes, Augustine. My grandmother had guillaume-barre after her flu shot in the 70’s. It works both ways,Chris, whether you like that or not.

For the record (so augustine can stop ineffectively flicking an empty lighter at a rather poorly constructed straw man), I am not pro-forced vaccination. I think it’s reasonable for public institutions like schools to require it (for safety and liability), but if you want to homeschool your kid and megadose on vitamins that’s fine with me. The trick is using education, a more vigilant (and less credulous) media, and sites like this to make sure that these morons make up a small enough portion of the population not to endanger my family. The problem we have now (and the reason some people are for forced vaccination) is that fools like augustine have managed to permeate into the public conciousness enough to do harm. If you don’t want forced vaccination, keep your goofy beliefs to yourself and nobody will bug you.

Mike the snake: “If you don’t want forced vaccination, keep your goofy beliefs to yourself and nobody will bug you.”

Shut up, sit down, and take my vitamins if I know what’s good for me? Just comes down to threats and intimidation now doesn’t it? Business as usual. You tell your side and I’ll tell mine and let the people decide.

well.. I did my part, as a NYS registered voter, and health professional that KNOWS first hand how nasty meningitis can be. It kills. It permanently injures. I causes serious illness. It can be prevented.

I dropped emails to both my assemblyman and my senator.

GO VACCINES!

@Pablo

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

On GBS, I’ve heard of a “random day” study, which chose a completely arbitrary day, and studied how many cases of a condition occurred after it. To my recollection, even rare and severe events like MS occurred on the order of 1/100K. It seems to me, by logical extension, that it would be impossible to prove or disprove causation for an increase at or below that level.

Something I find rather amusing: Wasn’t the “Urabe” MMR vaccine recalled because it was believed to CAUSE meningitis? But, anti-vaxxers oppose a vaccine that could prevent the same or similar condition.
This is what I mean when I say anti-vaccine actives only get in the way when it comes to solving real problems with vaccines.

@augustine

A vaccine for the side effects of another vaccine?

That is not what David N. Brown said. That is yet another person whose words you have twisted to mean something other than what was stated.

“Wasn’t the “Urabe” MMR vaccine recalled because it was believed to CAUSE meningitis? But, anti-vaxxers oppose a vaccine that could prevent the same or similar condition.”

He made a statement infering that “anti-vaxxers” are contradictory based on this statement. This is not contradictory. In fact it is a logical fallacy.

But pro-forced mass vaccine people overlook those types of things when they are opposed to their beliefs. As a matter of fact they sometimes defend such fallacy when it coincides their belief systems. As evidenced right here.

Could everybody please just stop feeding the damned troll?

Could everybody please just stop feeding the damned troll?

No.

This is the Internet, feeding trolls is our National Pastime.

“Isn’t this the pro forced mass vaccine agenda board where scientist spout off their ideologies, strong political opinions, personal philosophies and then with a twist of rhetoric call it “science” or evidence instead of what it really is?”

Nope.

If anything, at least you’re asking easy to answer questions!

@ 155/157:

stuv., many of us appear driven by the sentiment expressed in this comic: http://xkcd.com/386/

The troll has thus far contributed the following to the threads it has polluted on this blog:
– Unsubstantiated assertions mendaciously presented as established fact
– Distortions and lies (of opponents’ positions and statements, of basic facts, etc.)
– A stunning lack of understanding of science, risk, logic, and history

The troll then has the audacity to claim that he/she/it has a ‘side’ in a reasonable debate, a claim that, since the support the troll presents for his/her/its ‘side’ is as above, is demonstrably false.

All the same, you’re probably right, we should stop feeding the troll. It just feels wrong to let him/her/it get away with such loathsome behaviour.

Sometimes I wonder if bensmyson is in reality:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/the-kelly-bensimon-metaph_n_599139.html

The spelling is too close to be coincidental.

augustine, you may want to educate yourself on chickenpox. Kids with leukemia who get it have up to a 28% chance of dying from it (not leukemia), and other kids who are immunocompromised can also die from it. It’s believed to be behind almost 1/3 of childhood strokes and birth defects if a pregnant woman gets it for the first time.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of snark, right?

Here’s a suggestion for another analogy for vaccines, since the seatbelt one doesn’t suit the local antivaxxers. They won’t like this one either but at least they will have to come up with different counterarguments, and that might be amusing.

A fire drill is a(frequently mandated/legislated) precautionary safety procedure where people practice what to do in the event of a real fire. Participation in fire drills increases the safety of the participant (because the individual will have practiced how to get out and thus be better prepared for a real fire) AND increases the safety of others (because trained people will be less inclined to panic, go out the wrong way and otherwise create hazards for other people in the event of a real fire). Fire drills are not 100% protective and do not guarantee safety in the event of a real fire. They come with a cost (disruption and loss of work time, the need to have some people specially trained as floor wardens, use of professional firefighter time to supervise in some drills). The drill exercise is also not risk free. There’s a small chance that some people will stumble and hurt themselves getting out down the stairs, especially if they aren’t in good shape. There’s even a (vanishingly) small chance someone will fall and injure themseves badly, or even hit their head on a step and die.

I put to you that even with these limitations, fire drills are still a good bargain risk-wise and that they are the price we have to pay to work and go to school in large buildings with lots of other people. Failure to comply with mandated fire drills is grounds for dismissal in many workplaces. Failure to enforce a fire drill in a school is nearly unthinkable. Home fire drills are also a good risk bargain. Now, “antidrillers” argue that rules against open flame around flammable materials, bans on workplace smoking, the presence of advanced sprinkler systems and the existence of modern burn units makes the fire drill an unnecessary risk these days, but they are a small, though vocal, minority.

Sciencecat: “A fire drill is a(frequently mandated/legislated) precautionary safety procedure where people practice what to do in the event of a real fire. Participation in fire drills increases the safety of the participant …”

This troll was a test. should a real troll come along and incite massively large numbers of unvaccinated all by him/herself then the members of scienceblogs will be more prepared to fight the potential risk of a real troll.

Now, the troll drill is not 100% effective. Some will choose to ignore the troll’s valid points. Also the troll drill is not risk free as some will even begin to get confused and believe that people actually have individual rights when it comes to their bodies and medical procedures. And these drills do come with a cost. Valuable time that should be spent studying scientific endeavors or actually working could be lost. One could possibly even lose their job for participating in troll fighting drills.

But in the end it’s still a good bargain risk-wise and that they are the price we have to pay to work and go to school in completely sterile environments.

Now there are some who are opposed to fighting the trolls but they are a minority. Besides if we don’t fight them a real disease could break out and kill all of the vaccinated or worse… The trolls could take over the internet.

KittyCat, that was the worst analogy I’ve ever heard. But I have to give it to you. You put some time and thought in to it. Bless, you.

The analogy I’ve used is the cards that were given to WWII anti-aircraft gunners (and for all I know, spotters and lookouts in just about all areas of the military). They showed color schemes and silhouettes of friendly and enemy aircraft, so that they could recognize and fire upon enemies instead of waiting to be shot at. Now sure, “natural immunity” probably worked better (if you’ve been shot at by a Messerschmitt or a Zero and lived, you’ll never forget what they look like), but at a hell of a cost. Compare that to the common papercuts, occasional injuries as somebody dropped a crate of the things on their foot, or rare but serious injuries at the printing presses.

For the benefit of those commenters who assert that their rights trump the needs and safety of society, I suggest reading a document which had some influence on the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution:
The Social Contract, by Jean Jacques Rousseau

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

It’s a bit long and the language a bit formalized, but I have mined a few quotes:

1) “as the force and liberty of each man are the chief instruments of his self-preservation, how can he pledge them without harming his own interests, and neglecting the care he owes to himself?”

It’s a bit subtle, but what he is leading to is that when you accept the contract to live with other people in society, you give up some of your liberty and pledge the force you can exert to benefit the common good.

2) “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.”

Society is trying to defend and protect all of us collectively, but in doing so, can it each of us to obey themselves alone?

3) “on the violation of the social compact, each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty in favour of which he renounced it.”

By entering into this contract, each of us gives up some of our personal “natural” liberty, in order to gain the “conventional” liberty that comes from organizing to provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare. When we insist on obeying ourselves alone, we also lose these common benefits.

4) “These clauses, properly understood, may be reduced to one — the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.”

i.e., you are giving up some of your rights to the community.

You are accepting the same conditions as everyone else. So, if vaccination is a recommended public health measure for everyone else to protect against the common enemy of infectious disease, you should accept that it is recommended for you as well. A demonstrable medical/scientific contraindication that applies to you specifically would, I think, be an acceptable exemption.

If you choose not to accept those conditions, then you should act not to make yourself burdensome to others.

In other words, go find an obscure uninhabited corner of a rain forest somewhere and subsist on ethically wild harvested produce for a while. Perhaps in a few hundred years the rest of society will discover your surviving descendents and wonder where they came from.

@squirrel: “For the benefit of those commenters who assert that their rights trump the needs and safety of society,”

Starting off with a straw man is no way to influence these evidence based scientists. They see right through your hollow attempts to persuade. Remember these are fallacy killers you’re dealing with. They take no prisoners. They are serious about their science. Do not taint it with logical fallacies.

“Yes, because it’s so much better to be speaking with utter dogmatic confidence in support of a position for which you have no evidence or logic.”

Please explain your strawman zertec. Let’s see if we can deconstruct him.

Orac,

I ask for permission to be moderation free.

ScienceCat! I love your ‘nym. I love your inputs! I love the idea of ScienceKitties!

(not so fond of feeding the troll… but I must confess I fed him a bit yesterday because he is so silly!)

ScienceCat–

I like that analogy.

But I’m the person who annoys the building fire safety director by raising her hand when he says “any questions?” to ask “Yes, where are the fire extinguishers?” (I also got the H1N1 shot partly in the interests of herd immunity.)

@T. Bruce McNeely

Are you questioning augustine’s psychic abilities? I presume you have scientific evidence that augustine is mistaken? 😛

Also, augustine, in a bit of shameless self-promotion ;), I think I will repeat part of a comment I posted yesterday. jen seemed to think it referred to her, but perhaps you would benefit from reading it.

To be taken seriously as a commenter, even if not everyone chooses to agree with everything you say, you should at least do the following.

1) State what you think/understand/perceive to be the truth. Don’t just toss out questions that imply disagreement even if they don’t actually say so or respond to everything with a content free short retort.

2) Explain what you base that on. You don’t have to provide peer-reviewed journal articles to support everything, but you should be willing to at least go to the well of real data when questioned to see if they really support what you are saying.

3) Try to make a direct response to questions. Merely asserting that the other person doesn’t understand you or is biased or you just know (what you are asserting is really true) won’t convince very many people.

4) Oddly enough, be willing to correct your own mistakes or at least clarify them when questioned. It shows you care about the accuracy of what you say, not just about whether it irritates someone into responding. And that makes you more believable, not less.

All little Augie has done with his comment at 181 has proven that he does NOT read all of what anyone posts. Chris has posted enough times that L.A. should know her sex. I just wish I had a killfile at work like I do at home…

augustine @ #176:

Please explain your strawman zertec. Let’s see if we can deconstruct him.

Well since I’m still awaiting your “brilliant” deconstructions on the other threads, why not have a look at this one too?

Here is your post (augie) from #171:

With words like “up to a 28% chance” ,”believed to be”,”almost”, “if a pregnant woman” you hardly established ANY facts there, kid

Now please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here, since your original comment was so vague, and lacking in specifics. But you seemed to be complaining about koryO @ #164 speaking in terms of probabilities of a complex event and it’s conditions, rather than speaking in terms of absolutism like a dogmatist such as yourself. So was that your intent or not, augie? If not then perhaps you should have worded things more clearly. If your intent was that koryO didn’t link to other sites to back-up the position, why didn’t you just say that? Also, why should he/she take the time to do so for you, augie? You don’t read them anyhow.

As to my comments directed towards you augie, they were how you tend to make confident sounding assertions that have no basis in fact. Like your lie (in the other thread) about Brian Deer not criticizing anything to do with “Big Pharma”. Or your assertion (again in another thread) that natural resistance is all society needs against disease. We’ve been asking you for evidence for sometime now, but the only thing you’ve offered beyond more assertions, were quote-mined papers.

So please, as I asked in the Petition thread, deconstruct away.

I don’t bother reading augie’s incessant whiny repetitions anymore either. It’s practically the same thing over and over ad nauseam. However, whenever I see its nym this “Tree of Life” T-Shirt(@ bottom of page) comes to mind.

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2005-15.html

@ Todd W:
Quite true.
Augie must have a very short memory since he/she pulled this same crap on me towards the end of the “Fun with anti-vaccine petitions” thread. I called the bluff then too, I’m still waiting for him/her to act upon the threat “to respond and shred that piece of work”. It’s amusing that someone can think that such a juvenile bluff would be any sort of threat to a grown adult.

Hell…it’s amusing that he thinks that anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty (and maturity) would feel afraid of such a threat even if it wasn’t a bluff. Just another case of projection I guess.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

@ augustine:
Do you know what intellectually honest adults do when they get caught making a mistake , or making a bad argument, and you can prove it? They admit the error, apologize for it, and move on. All of the things that you haven’t been doing.

P.S. I’m still waiting….

😉

————————————————————————————————————————————–
@ Sauceress:
Not to mention lying about Brian Deer, making false assertions about other poster’s positions, quote-mining papers, etc.

Augie has been a naughty little troll.

@Zetetic and Todd W.

but the only thing you’ve offered beyond more assertions, were quote-mined papers.

Don’t forget insults. Augie’s offered insults, too, in place of evidence.

Don’t forget about his imaginary hierarchy of commentators, that’s my favorite. I think I am (one of?) the resident angry mother(s). But definitively not at the top in regards to education or intellect (although my mommy sense knows all). 😉

@Bruce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Scientism: The term scientism describes the position that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.

It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things.

As a form of dogma: “In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

@ 195 augustine,

I only mimic and mirror the posters on the board.

As with a mirror, only a reflection.

No substance.

No depth.

No understanding.

And, your specialty, no valid evidence.

A distorted fun house mirror, but without the fun.

Rogue: “As with a mirror, only a reflection.

No substance.

No depth.

No understanding.”

It displays your character. You attack yet you don’t even know what you attack. You’re playing in a house of mirrors, fool.

Question from Zetetic 199
“give us an example of any advancement in human knowledge that was produced by unscientific thinking and explain how we know that it’s correct.”

The answer from Augustine
“Nuremberg Code”

What the heck?

Ok, I will admit that the Nuremberg code is an advancement in human philosophy and ethics, and a very needed one, but as for knowledge?
Also, I will not say that the judges came with these guidelines in a “unscientific thinking” mod. They reviewed data, identified causal effects and proposed an action to correct them. Hardly unscientific.

@ 202 augustine,

It displays your character. You attack yet you don’t even know what you attack. You’re playing in a house of mirrors, fool.

All you are doing is promoting ignorance.

Fortunately, most people seem to be realizing that anti-vaccinationists just oppose protecting children from disease.

You keep repeating your mantra that vaccines are bad.

Children will keep dying from vaccine preventable illnesses.

You claim that I do not know what I am doing?

@seb30
non scientific would be a better word

Rogue medic:
“Fortunately, most people seem to be realizing that anti-vaccinationists just oppose protecting children from disease.”

fallacy. It is an error of logical application. Because someone does not choose to take a vaccine does not mean they want someone to get sick and die.

Rogue medic: “You keep repeating your mantra that vaccines are bad.”

Did I say that?

Rogue medic: “Children will keep dying from vaccine preventable illnesses.”

This is just rhetoric. It presumes that the death of someone from an infection for which a vaccine has been concocted would have been prevented if that person had been vaccinated. This is IMPOSSIBLE to assess for that person. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.

Rogue medic: “You claim that I do not know what I am doing?”

No.

It presumes that the death of someone from an infection for which a vaccine has been concocted would have been prevented if that person had been vaccinated. This is IMPOSSIBLE to assess for that person. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.

Evidence to the contrary? Let’s see it.

Oh I forgot. You don’t “do” evidence.
You have “other ways of knowing”. I yield to the superior power of your ass, from whence all knowledge flows.

Well, augustine, Zetetic just gave you a much more thorough response than I have time for this morning.

But, your comment that you “only mimic and mirror the posters on the board” piqued my curiosity.

I know that you read my comment 172, because you immediately responded with 2 comments of your own and asked

“Just how much of your doctrine influenced your interpretation of the text you just read to us?”

I replied with comments 185 and 186, but those seemed to slip below your radar, so I will repeat a couple of statements.

In response to your question, I answered
“Since a lot of the comments on this thread had to do with the social agreements we make as a basis for political decisions on public health measures, I thought a little historical/philosophical background might be useful.”

And, since your question seemed to indicate you didn’t entirely accept my interpretation of Rousseau, I asked

“If you disagree with my explanation, perhaps you would care to state your own interpretation and explain why you think it is correct.”

As a short review as you prepare to mimic and mirror my writing style, I suggest you read my comment 186. I noticed that Zetetic offered a similar thought to my suggestion 4 in comment 194.

I look forward to your elucidation.

@ augustine:
Just an after thought…It occurred to me that you might try to spin my description of the most serious side-effect listed from your own link as an attempt to ignore the possibility of an allergic response. So just to preempt that accusation here is a little tidbit about the possibility of allergic reaction to the MMR vaccine.

Although greater than 70 million doses of MMR vaccine have been distributed in the United States since VAERS was implemented in 1990, only 33 cases of anaphylactic reactions that occurred after MMR vaccination have been reported. Furthermore, only 11 of these cases a) occurred immediately after vaccination and b) occurred in persons who had symptoms consistent with anaphylaxis (CDC, unpublished data).

and of course a link to the source…
Update: Vaccine Side Effects, Adverse Reactions, Contraindications, and Precautions Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

So augustine out of 70,000,000 doses in the USA at the time of the article there were 33 cases of an anaphylactic reaction, of which only 11 occurred immediately after the injection (meaning that the other 22 may be unrelated).

You do the math.

How does that stack up against your “very, very, tiny” risk of 1-2/1,000 of deaths from measles?

Evidence to the contrary? Let’s see it.

Oh I forgot. You don’t “do” evidence.
You have “other ways of knowing”. I yield to the superior power of your ass, from whence all knowledge flows.

———————————————————
Person receives vaccine for rhetorical “vaccine preventable disease. Person dies. Evidence:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/10/10/despite_vaccine_meningitis_takes_teens_life/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+–+City%2FRegion+News

@augie:

A newspaper account of a single person who died of meningitis despite being vaccinated against meningitis? And what would have happened had she not been vaccinated? Yes, in a rare case, a vaccine can be ineffective. Tell us something we don’t know.
I forgot, for you, anecdotes are everything.

The same article states that the vaccine is 85% effective.
This is against an illness that has a significant mortality rate (3 – 7% in adults) and a very high rate of lifelong disability:

In children there are several potential disabilities which result from damage to the nervous system. Sensorineural hearing loss, epilepsy, learning and behavioral difficulties, as well as decreased intelligence, occur in about 15% of survivors.[1] Some of the hearing loss may be reversible.[43] In adults, 66% of all cases emerge without disability. The main problems are deafness (in 14%) and cognitive impairment (in 10%).[4]

(from Wikipedia)

This is why my daughters are immunized.
[edit]

@ augustine:
What is it about those that defend irrational positions that they don’t even use accusations of logical fallacies correctly? Oh, that’s right…it’s the irrational part.

So putting aside that you apparently have nothing of substance in my rebuttal to your list of further lies, fallacies, and misrepresentations. (As an aside. I found that “selectively” quoting an article from 1967 calling for the eradication of measles by widespread vaccination, by cherry picking the one part that you could cherry-pick to support your position, was rather amusing. Thanks for the laugh.) Would you please be so kind as to point out where exactly I’ve committed a Tu Quoque fallacy? Remember…for it to be a Tu Quoque I’d have to be accusing you of something that I myself was demonstrably guilty of. Such as you accusing others of being closed minded, while they were open to contrary evidence and you were ignoring contrary evidence. Got it? In this case all you have to do is point out an example where I was clearly “projecting”. Please do so…it should be rather amusing to see how you lie and spin to try and pull it off.

In the meantime augie, I also see that you have yet to answer which risk is greater 1-2/1000 or 1/1,000,000. Surely it can’t be that hard a question is it?

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Person receives vaccine for rhetorical “vaccine preventable disease. Person dies.

Still unable to grasp even the most basic concepts of relative risks and probability, are you augie? How very pathetic.

“Person receives vaccine wears seat-belt for rhetorical “vaccine preventable disease automotive safety. Person dies.”

See how build and foolish your statement is now augie? Of course not you’d have to be open to admitting that you’re wrong first. Can’t have that now can we?
———————————————————
Did person get thrombocytopenia before making it out of their driveway?

Zertec: “What is it about those that defend irrational positions that they don’t even use accusations of logical fallacies correctly?”

Do you always label something irrational just because you don’t agree with it? Let me project some more. Do you think the belief in a god is irrational?
————————————————–

Zertec, you’ve committed a mind numbing number of logical fallacies while attempting to engage in rhetoric and your particular view of disease, health, and the role of prophylactic medication.

Me? I’m just a lowly virtual troll. I’m expected to make these errors because I stand for everything ignorant and irrational in the universe by the educated elite.

You on the other hand are a professional scientist (or wannabe) who champions critical thinking and evidence. Remember who are are. Don’t let your emotions get the best of you.

@ everyone:
Warning everyone….it’s SIWOTI time again!

————————————————————————————————————————————–

augustine @ #219:

Do you assert that ALL knowledge IS science? Or that All of knowledge comes through scientific first principles?

More Straw-man arguments…You augustine are the one that is going around implying that issues of medical facts and risk can be determined by “other lenses to view the world”. All I asked was for you to provide any way that such issues of fact can be determined and proven to be correct by your “other lenses”. So far you have failed to do that.

It is as if I asked you to describe an alternative source of power and specify it’s efficiency, and you replied “Rainbows are pretty”. Well, be that as it may, it doesn’t actually answer the question. Nor did your reply backup your position there are alternatives to evidence to access whether it’s factually better to take vaccines or nor. Overall it was a pathetic attempt at a diversion on your part.

Long established human morals? It (code) was established at this time because new scientific advancement jumped out in front of human morals… in the name of, shall I dare say it, science. OUCH

Which refutes my point how exactly? Do you really think that people in general didn’t have any concern for human lives before the Nuremberg Code? That no researchers any where had any ethics? While we’re on the subject though augie…how much death and suffering has been caused by religion or politics? Why is science so special to you, hmmm? No, you’re still attempting to divert from your own lack of argument about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

1+9=10; 9+1=10 What’s the problem, zertec? You might not like the way I presented it but there is no misrepresentation. It is the exact same evidence.

Because everything after that line shows that you deliberately cited, as evidence for your position, papers that contradict your position. Are you really that dishonest or just deluded? The closest you got to accurately representing the papers was when you said that the risk of death of measles was 1/1,000, but even there you still spun things a little and left out the 1-2/1,000. Just to do your math for you augie that means the rate of death from measles in industrialized countries is 1/1,000 to 1/500, but then you don’t seem to be big on accuracy. Not surprising since you seem to be derisive of evidence.

Is vaccination the ONLY difference in the citizens of these countries? No. Malnutrition is usually a big variable, but it is not the only one. Infection rate is not problem the mortality rate and serious sequelae is the problem

Are you really that delusional or just dishonest? What part of “Measles is very rare in countries and regions of the world that are able to keep vaccination coverage high.” said anything about the damage, it was clearly referring to the rate of measles infection, not fatality. The heading for that section (that you linked to) was “Measles Incidence”. Seriously, you really need to read these things for full comprehension, not just skim them for cherry-picking quotes that can be taken out of context.

Infection rate is not problem the mortality rate and serious sequelae is the problem. These were reducing in before vaccination.

Yeah funny how all other factors being equal, a higher infection rate means a higher rate of death and sequelae. How odd that you don’t mention that. I wonder why?

Mortality rate is actually higher now with vaccines.

You just can help lying can you? OK, augie where is your proof of this? We’ve been asking you for it for a few weeks now, but you still haven’t show anything credible that actually supports that position. Why not?

They are protected after the disease.

As I had already told you…Yes, If they survive it in the first place, you’re assuming that it won’t be a problem. Plus you’re also making the assumption that the others that they infect in the meantime won’t be harmed either. Why do you keep ignoring that?

BTW augustine since you seem to be under the impression that getting immunity from a measles vaccine is so inferior in comparison to getting the disease I though that this might interest you [emphasis added]…

Most children who get the vaccine develop immunity to all three diseases (over 99% for measles and 95% for mumps and rubella). Protection is believed to be life-long. Two doses of vaccine are recommended, with the first dose given at 12–15 months of age.

Parents’ Guide to Childhood Immunization
And gee it doesn’t involve risking killing anyone else!

Some never get the disease.

Your own articles show that before vaccination, about 90% would get it by age 15. You seem to be ignoring that too.

That’s because I did calculations with the data given. You just look at the conclusions given.

Let’s look at the numbers that you probably used. I’m sure that at this point you’ll bring up the estimated under reporting of measles cases (assuming that the estimates are accurate), but this brings up the question of if there were so many unreported cases of measles, how many cases of measles deaths went unreported/misidentified? We don’t know.

But just to give the best (for you) scenario… Let’s go with the higher estimate of 4,000,000 cases of measles annually (most of which were unreported) assuming 500 deaths per year (and not higher, again to make it more in your favor) we still get a fatally rate of about 1/8000 (to make a simple example). Now lets compare that to the risk of serious harm from the Measles vaccine of about 1/1,000,000. Tell us augie, which is greater?

I looked at the census and used the 1950 number of 150 million people.

LOL! BUSTED! Caught in another deception augie. So now you’ve just admitted that you deliberately used a lower year for measles cases and then falsely implied that it was representative of the population of the whole for each year (not just 1950). While conveniently ignoring the higher years before and after 1950. How very typical of you.

Either way you still are trying to ignore that 90% of the population having caught it by age 15. Why do you keep ignoring that augie? Oh that’s right…saying “3% per year” (while hiding that it was a low year) sounds much less risky than “90% by age 15”, even though the latter is more accurate and honest.

Which is a 99.99+++ percentage. I like those odds

Granted on an individual basis it does look good. But, you keep forgetting that when you are dealing with a highly contagious disease which infects 90% of the population by 15 years of age, that 0.001%-0.002% starts to add up.

So augustine….again which is better? 99.999% with a chance of indirectly killing bystanders? Or 99.999999% with zero chance of killing bystanders? Have you decided yet augie, how many children dead of an easily preventable disease is acceptable to you yet?

1 out of a million (BTW do you have a citation for this number. It’s actually much higher).

Actually it was from the second article that you linked to, it’s the statistical probability of the most serious side-effect of the MMR vaccine “Encephalopathy less than 1/1,000,000 doses”. I explained that in my post at #211. The figure has been supported by every other credible medical source I’ve come across.

It’s actually much higher

By all means please provide a credible source for such a claim. So far nothing that you have given us supports that conclusion.

How many people get the measles vaccine in the U.S? 100 million? So now, according to your numbers, at least 100 people have a serious reaction to measles vaccine?

Oh brother! What is wrong with you augustine? It’s not 100 million doses per year! Since 1970 the MMR (the most common form of the vaccination) had been given in about 500 million doses in 60 countries. Seriously augie, are you even trying to think these things through honestly?

So now you’re trying to compare the total number of doses over decades to the measles death and sequelae rate per year. Do you not see a problem with that? Lets go with the numbers though….

How many actual deaths occured last year from measles?

Shortly before the vaccine 450-500 per year (again from one of your own links, and other sources), it was higher earlier in the century for obvious reasons. Also 48,000 hospitalization per year before the vaccine.Parents’ Guide to Childhood Immunization

I didn’t find a number for measles deaths in 2009, but from your second article again…”From 1980 through 1988, a median of two measles-associated deaths per year were reported”. The same was reported in 2002.

So let’s see….
Before vaccination…. an average 450-500 dead/48,000 hospitalized per year.

After widespread vaccination… about 2 dead per year/and maybe 100 hospitalized over decades (using your own 100 million number).

[sarc]
Yeah…gee augie! I can barely tell the difference!
[/sarc]

That’s an honest comparison.

As I just showed, your comparison was anything but honest.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
augustine @ #222

Did person get thrombocytopenia before making it out of their driveway?

Thrombocytopenia? Are you really that concerned about a temporary and usually benign reduction in platelets that only happens in 1/30,000-40,000 cases of the MMR? No… you’re still trying to avoid the point of the analogy aren’t you? The point is that just because something decreases the odds of harm doesn’t necessary guaranty that you won’t be harmed.

Is it really that hard for your dogma riddled brain to understand that if a vaccine for meningitis in the case of your article is 85% effective (as opposed to the aprox. 99% against measles for 2 doses of the MMR), that there is a 15% chance that it won’t create the required immunity? Is your understanding of probability really that poor? Has it not occurred to you that the more people that are protected by the vaccine, the less likely it is for anyone to get it.

If more people had been vaccinated against meningitis it’s possible that she might not have caught it and would still be alive. If she wasn’t vaccinated? Oh, that’s right, she still would have caught it and died too. Funny how you left that out, but then I guess that it’s just another “minority objection”, right?

Do you always label something irrational just because you don’t agree with it?

Not at all. I think that it’s irrational when the evidence, the numbers (as I just showed you above), and the field experience worldwide all conclusively speak against a given position. The fact of the matter is that more people died and were hospitalized before the vaccine even in industrialized countries, than in areas that have high vaccination rates.

Your opposing position is contradicted by all of the available evidence. That is what makes your position irrational. It is further demonstrated by that fact that you consistently have to lie about others, and misrepresent the data. Tell me augie…how rational can you position be if you must constantly lie just to defend it? The evidence shows that you want to trade lower risks for greater risks. To trade fewer deaths and sequelae for more. How is that not irrational unless you goal is to reduce the human population? Now if reducing the human population is your goal, then yes…your position would be rational, but I would find it to be a highly unethical way to go about it. **Note: I’m not actually claiming that reducing the human population is your goal augustine, merely that it’s that only position that is rationally consistent with both the facts and your position regarding the measles vaccine.**

Zertec, you’ve committed a mind numbing number of logical fallacies while attempting to engage in rhetoric and your particular view of disease, health, and the role of prophylactic medication.

And yet strangely (in spite of constant threats to do so) you can’t seem to accurately cite even a single one against me.

You are constantly accusing others of making fallacies, yet nearly every time you’ve done so it’s been by deliberately misrepresenting their positions. (Such as Rouge Medic earlier, and others.) On the other hand, every fallacy I’ve pointed out that you’ve committed has been by accurately representing your consistently dishonest position. All while you are refusing to admit to one clearly documented lie after another.

Me? I’m just a lowly virtual troll. I’m expected to make these errors because I stand for everything ignorant and irrational in the universe by the educated elite.

On the contrary augie, I had earlier referred to you as being apparently intelligent, it’s your honesty and objectivity that I’ve called into question. You’re either a pathological liar, or you have the most severe case of Morton’s Demon that I’ve ever seen outside of a Flat Earther.

You on the other hand are a professional scientist (or wannabe) who champions critical thinking and evidence. Remember who are are. Don’t let your emotions get the best of you.

Good advice and thank you.

😉

@zetetic,

I actually enjoy your little SIWOTI’s!

Although I have trouble with the formatting changes once in a while, it usually becomes clear because your responses are clearly laid out and reasoned.

augustine usually manages to avoid the said/said not broadsides, but comments 219 and 222 definitely remind me of Jake Crosby’s style after a few comments into the thread.

Thanks Todd W. and squirrelelite.
(Yeah I hate the way the site re-formats what I type.)

@ Todd W.:
I’ll concede your point, apologies I’m rather sleep deprived at the moment and I made a mistake. There are indeed other possibilities, as you stated. Good catch. Apologies to augustine for leaving out the other possibilities Todd elucidated in my attempt at keeping the SIWOTI from reaching critical mass.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
Speaking of corrections, I forgot to include something with vaccination statistics (sorry about that).

“After widespread vaccination… about 2 dead per year from measles/and maybe 100 hospitalized over decades (using your own 100 million number) from vaccine reactions (although I believe the number is closer to 70 Million in the USA, IIRC) plus about 45 Measles hospitalizations per yer.“Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.

So we have 2 deaths from measles/45 Measles hospitalization per year and our hypothetical 100 hospitalizations (over a few decades) for MMR reactions.

Still doesn’t change much though does it?

Oh well now to try and get some sleep for a change.
G’night all for now!

😉

@augustine:

What you are describing in #223 is exactly why smallpox is no longer on the routine vaccination schedule. It could happen more often if only people like you would get a clue.

PS NICE job on #224, Zetetic!

@ 230:

Not only that, Bruce, but even if diseases such as measles or polio were en route to eradication, it takes only a slippage of vaccination rates for them to make a comeback (especially measles).

The most obvious example of this phenomenon is polio. If it weren’t for anti-vaccination sentiments having arose in Nigeria, polio would probably have gone the way of smallpox by now.

It’s very ironic that anti-vaccination sentiment is prolonging the requirement to vaccinate against a number of eradicable diseases. The best way to reduce vaccinations is to eradicate such diseases as are eligible for eradication. Then we wouldn’t have to vaccinate against them at all.

@230

Bruce,

I explained it that way on purpose. Do you see the logic fail? He’s arguing the individual risk vs. benefit. At some point this argument does not work in the way he has described it. At that point, is the agenda still pushed using the same logic (to the recipient) that was used to get there or do you shift the goal post to perpetuate the agenda?

MI Dawn: “I had both, and for some reason I have never developed immunity (nor did the MMR give it to me; fortunately I DID develop rubella immunity after the disease…yes, I am that old…)…Individual quirks, but I depend on herd immunity for this.”

Did you die?

augustine @ #233:

It’s a question not a straw man argument.

It is when you are apparently deliberately using it to imply my intent about the subject. Especially, when you are attempting to do so in order to divert attention from you own lack of an answer to my question. If that wasn’t your intent, then why did you bring it up rather than answer the question? Better yet, why even bring up “other lenses” and play down the importance of evidence in discussions about medical facts and questions of effectiveness in the first place?

Does it really matter what “people in general” think when totalitarian regimes take over?

Still not answering how it refutes my point. So do you think that everyone in the world was in Nazi Germany or Tuskegee? That no one ever before had any principles of ethics?

Yes, so some scientists were in Nazi Germany and yes we know about Tuskegee, this has what to do exactly with deciding what is factually correct when talking about vaccines? Why do you seem to be confusing ethical guidelines with matters of fact and evidence?

No, you’re just trying to make a diversion since you probably know that deep down inside you can’t win on arguments about efficacy and rates of safety.

I posted my response at religionblogs.com and politicsblog.com

A nice non-answer.

——————————————————————-

I cited the papers. I did not misrepresent the papers nor their authors.

You claimed that they were logic and evidence that supported your position. They didn’t. Instead you made statements of half-truth, and made claims such as “More than 97% of the population per year didn’t get measles.” that were both phrased in a way to “spin” the truth. You also deliberately cherry picked a quote that played to your spin, from a paper where the author called for the eradication of the disease, while conveniently not mentioning the author’s intent. Hardly an example of intellectual honesty.

So which is it? 1 or 2? or both?

Call it 1.5 if you prefer. It seems to depend on the region being studied. Again it was from your own citation, I just find it interesting that you only went with the lower estimate.

So if there is NO permanent sequelae from measles and the incidence is high, then what is the problem? Death and permanent sequelae is the REAL issue. Otherwise long term immunity is the side effect.

There is always a risk of death and sequelae, factors such as nutrition, education, and medical care can lower the rates but there will still always be the possibility of harm. What you are ignoring is that even if the odds are low, as the number of cases increase, so does the risk of such harm. Do you really think that all possibility of harm has just magically disappeared rather than just being reduced?

What I find additionally amusing about your position is that you’re willing to just wave off the risk of death and sequelae from measles (as long as it’s low enough), but you apparently will not tolerate an even much lower risk of harm from the vaccinations. An interesting double standard.

Incidence rate remains stable. Death rate goes down. Chart ends before vaccination campaign. No sir, You’re wrong.

So what part of “all other factors being equal” was unclear to you? Funny how your evidence was a study from 1962 that compares rates from 1912 to 1962, do you think that there was no changes in the USA during that time period? Did I not already mention in my earlier post that the rate of harm in the USA was higher earlier in the last century? Funny how you always miss those details.

You’ve figured it out yourself. Just look at the links i’ve given. 1 in 8000 (your own calculations) case fatality before vaccine 1 in 1000 after vaccine. The question is why has this happened? You’re smart. You come with your own opinion.

Thank you, but there are several problems with your line of thought.

Problem #1: I was deliberately making a worse case scenario from your numbers.

Problem #2: As I earlier mentioned we don’t know how many deaths were not reported to the relevant authorities, or were miss diagnosed.

Problem #3: The 3-4 million total cases is an estimate, but not confirmed. So we don’t really know if it’s actually valid. But for the argument I was willing to assume that it is.

Problem #4: Even if it is true that the death rate from catching measles is higher with measles vaccination, it still doesn’t change that due to preventing the disease the total number of deaths, sequelae, and hospitalization per capita is greatly reduced with vaccination. An average of 450-500 dead per year before vaccination vs 2 dead per year with incomplete vaccination. Do you really not see a difference? For what it’s worth I’ve heard some theories that measles might be more dangerous since the people that are often getting it now are the older unvaccinated (due to not being exposed to it as early), and may be more adversely effected due to their age. While the theory is unproven, even if it’s true it still doesn’t change the total death/sequelae rates. Hint: augustine in the real world, even something that is ultimately beneficial usually has at least some drawback, the question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. In the case of measles vaccination they still clearly do.

Problem #5: As with smallpox, if vaccination was sufficiently complete worldwide all measles deaths and sequelae would be permanently eliminated even with no further measles vaccinations. The biggest obstacles to such a goal (in many countries) are political priorities and people such as yourself.Refusing to Vaccinate Affects Other Kids, Too

Because statistically they won’t.Why do YOU keep ignoring that?

Soooo….what part of “highly contagious” do you have trouble understanding? What is it about 90% having been infected by age 15 is unclear? Sorry but as I pointed out before, while the odds per individual are good (so therefore I obviously didn’t ignore it, in spite of your assertion that I had), when you start talking about large number of infected children you end up counting lots of small coffins. Funny how you seem to have trouble with basic logic and statistics when it argues against your position. What part of 500 dead and 48,000 hospitalized (before vaccination) per year are you having trouble with? Do you think that all of those dead and injured just happened through spontaneous generation of the virus?

——————————————————————

You remind me of those 50’s movies when they say “ah Ha , you’ve been caught.”

OK…I’ll admit that I was having a bit of fun with you there. I was in a silly mood at that point. I found it amusing that you just happened to conveniently chose a starting point that just happened to be bracketed by years with nearly twice the rate of infection.

The population rises each year after that.

And so…..the population was rising for nearly every single year before then (with the exception of WWII). OK, I’m nitpicking there again, but I find it an odd reason.

In all seriousness though you were correct in one statement…

It’s actually less than 3%.

(BTW I just realized that I made a typo in my post at #219 and left out the full quote, sorry about that.) The problem that I was trying to point out (granted, I could have been more clear in retrospect) is that the “less than 3%” is for the population as a whole, it adds adults that have already survived measles with children that have just caught it (or haven’t caught it yet). That is why you can accurately claim that “less than 3%” caught measles per year (it’s actually under 1% of the whole population, adults plus kids according to CDC statistics which still doesn’t include possible under reporting) but that 90% of the population can catch it by age 15. Do you understand now though why saying something like “less than 3%”, while accurate, isn’t being fully honest? You’re attempting to portray measles as being less common among children than it was by group adults with kids (both those kids that have already survived it plus those that didn’t get it yet). Just like when you previously tried to dishonestly group possible injuries over decades, with measles deaths/sequelae per year. Funny how you like to mix such different sets of data together when you think it supports your position.

It looks good because IT IS GOOD.

Wait…didn’t you just say that I ignored that point, previously? Hmmmm. Funny though how you still ignore the even better odds offered by widespread vaccination.

Do you care to retract that before you are ripped to shreds for being ignorant of the vaccine? Your fellow science bloggers just gasped.

Really? Do you have evidence of anyone having gotten a properly manufactured modern version of the MMR that spread measles to another person? If so I’d really like to read it. Or is it like your claims about how everyone is underestimating the rate of death and serious complications from the measles vaccine that you conveniently never seem to show us?

No it’s apparently not obvious. Go ahead and explain these reasons and explain how these reasons ceased to be once the vaccine came into existence. As if they knew the new king was in town.

Wow…first you go off over the observation that factors such as malnutrition and improvements in medical care lower the death and sequelae risks in industrialized countries, and how you apparently think that measles is now essentially harmless just because it’s less likely to kill and injure you if you catch it in an industrialized country. Then you seem to act as though you really don’t see a connection with improvements in the USA in the earlier 1900’s in medical care, nutrition, sanitation, and education? Are you now arguing that improvements in an industrial society doesn’t improve the survival rate of measles? Hell augie, you just linked an article in your own post that showed just that! Even when in your own post at #233 you noted that the death rate went down from 1912 (were the recording starts)? What else do you think magically caused a reduction in measles fatalities before vaccination? Odd that you didn’t seem to realize that I was agreeing with you about the reduction in deaths and sequelae with improved conditions, while still failing to realize that it doesn’t really ultimately support your position.

Interesting…that’s twice in one post that you seem to have contradicted yourself. Having trouble keeping the lies, half-truths, and rationalizations straight, augie?
————————————————————————————————————————————-
augustine @ #234:

He’s arguing the individual risk vs. benefit.

Actually I’m arguing the risks vs. benefits both individually and for society as a whole. You are the one that seems to be fixed solely on the risk to one individual and disregards the highly contagious nature of measles, and the risks that it poses to others. Either for the individual, or society, the benefits of vaccination ultimately greatly outweigh the risks of not vaccinating. Like I said before, even with our hypothetical worse case scenario which is better… 1/8,000 odds of death or 1/1,000,000 odds of just serious injury and even lower odds of death? We’re still waiting for you to explain to us augie how a 1/1,000,000 event is more likely than a 1/8,000 event. Please tell us how?

At some point this argument does not work in the way he has described it.

Really? In what reality? I noticed that you still aren’t explaining it how exactly it’s wrong, yet.

At that point, is the agenda still pushed using the same logic (to the recipient) that was used to get there or do you shift the goal post to perpetuate the agenda?

Exactly what goalposts have been shifted by the pro-vax side? The only goalpost shifting has been by you, such as bringing up the meningitis vaccine when you were just arguing about measles, or trying to divert the conversation with arguments about “other lenses”.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
augustine @ #235:

That is speculation. That is all it is.

Actually I have to agree with you a bit there augie (surprising, I know)….sorry Composer99. The main problem there (IIRC) is anti-west sentiment encouraged by some of the local religious leaders spreading scare stories. (Hey just like you augie!) Although people like you, augie, aren’t helping any.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
augustine @ #236

Did you die?

Of course, augie, you’ve already made it clear to us that apparently the people who do die don’t really count unless they were vaccinated and you can spin it to blame the vaccine.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
augustine @ #237:

It’s not the only one where the kid committed a fallacy.

Says the king/queen of lies and fallacies for the whole blog for over a week now. Still waiting for your promised “deconstruction”. For that matter we’re still waiting for you to admit to even one of your demonstrable lies in any of the threads you’ve posted in.

Wow Zetetic, you have such patience and either are one very fast typer or have much more time on your hands than I do. Sadly after reading this lested post I see you still have to repeat the same things over and over and augustine still does not seem to understand.

Zetetic: “An average of 450-500 dead per year before vaccination vs 2 dead per year with incomplete vaccination. Do you really not see a difference?”

What was mortality from 1900,1910,1920,1930,etc.? Answer: much higher and rapidly declining to 440 deaths. Vaccines had nothing to do with this decline. You cited the variable earlier. An unanswerable question is would the deaths continued to drop without vaccine? How much would it have dropped to? How much of the mortality reduction is being attributed to vaccines yet other factors are responsible for the drop?

Oh, and to add: my mother HAD had measles and mumps as a child, also (child of the 1940’s that she was; her entire second grade class got no grades for the fall term because of measles and mumps causing so many absenses in the class that the school district decided no child in the elementary schools – K through 6 – would get grades for that term). However, although she didn’t get a clinical case of the mumps from me, her antibody levels were obviously NOT high enough to protect the fetus.

i find it quite intresting that measels killed 2/3 of the population of cuba in 1529. reality trumps philosophy anyday. prove to me that small pox was elimanted by another means then vacine and i will cheerfully change my position, prove to me that measels in afficia can be elimated without vacines and i don’t need peer review papers for it i’m just and avarge person. i will see right now is a wall of text complaining about mean siency people

i find it quite intresting that measels killed 2/3 of the population of cuba in 1529. reality trumps philosophy anyday. prove to me that small pox was elimanted by another means then vacine and i will cheerfully change my position, prove to me that measels in afficia can be elimated without vacines and i don’t need peer review papers for it i’m just and avarge person. i will see right now is a wall of text complaining about mean siency people

Zetetic; “there is always a risk of death and sequelae, factors such as nutrition, education, and medical care can lower the rates but there will still always be the possibility of harm.”

Zetetic,

Do you take an antibiotic everyday? There is an african child somewhere who could succumb to a germ that you could easily kill or fight off with a broad spectrum antibiotic. That theoretical child has a 1 in 3 chance of making infected if he/she gets infect. Disease is only a plane ride away, you know?

There is always “the POSSIBILITY of harm.” Better take the antibiotic. If that child dies the blood will be on your hands.

Your arguments are weak. I see where you’re coming from. I just don’t agree with it. Man cannot avoid sickness and death by waging war with microbes. Man is just not that smart. I’m fine with you taking all the medicine you feel you need to take. Just don’t tell me or anyone else they need to take it because of your own fears.

I love the frenzied graph-juggling and selective use of statistics by the antivax crowd to show that vaccine-preventable diseases would have waned on their own without immunization, and that deaths and serious injury from these diseases would have been magically eliminated by other factors.

Wonder when they’ll start in on rabies. Used to be that no survival had ever been recorded in human rabies; in recent years a couple or so people have survived after contracting the disease (though what shape they’re in now may be another matter). Surely this means that the rabies problem has been eliminated by good hygiene or divine intervention or whatever, so we can stop mandating rabies vaccination for our susceptible pets and cease vaccine bait programs for wild animals. If more domestic animals and humans contract rabies as a result, no biggie*…they can just eat magic foods and take colloidal silver supplements, and everything will be nifty fine.

*I’m still waiting for the first documented case of a hard-core antivaxer getting bitten by a rabid animal and subsequently declining the rabies vaccine. That would be something to see…at a distance.

bacon: “I love the frenzied graph-juggling and selective use of statistics by the antivax crowd to show that vaccine-preventable diseases would have waned on their own without immunization,”

The data doesn’t show that it WOULD have waned, it shows that it DID wane.

@ 254:

Oh, look, another deliberate misrepresentation.

Good job, troll.

augustine @ #241:

It’s not half-truths or spinning of truth. It is THE truth. I could say the same about your numbers. You can’t win this argument.

Can’t win it? Wrong, I already did. That your refuse to acknowledge it is simply a symptom of your own dogmatically clinging to a position. It doesn’t matter how much you continue to lie in order to evade the point that you are deliberately grouping adult and child survivors of measles in with the uninfected, the fact of the matter if that you are deliberately trying to spin the stats so that they look more favorable to your position. As an example (and without trying to derail the thread), it’s like when Global Warming Deniers repeat the old line of there being “No statistically significant warming since 1995” technically it’s a true statement but what they don’t tell you is that from 1994 (just one year longer) there is a measurable statistically significant global warming. Just as you neglect to mention that 90% of the population had been infected before age 15. It’s the proverbial “sin of omission”.

Want to say the same about my numbers? Go right ahead…we’ve been trying to get you to provide evidence that actually supports the idea that vaccination is more harmful than not vaccinating for weeks.

Like I told you before, augie, that is the difference between us and you. All you have to do to change my position is provide credible evidence that the measles vaccine is ultimately more harmful than not vaccinating. Instead all you do is argue that a 1/8,000 risk of death is better than a 1/1,000,000 of encephalopathy (the most dangerous side-effect) of MMR. You keep asserting that vaccines are more dangerous than not vaccinating, but nothing you’ve offered has supported it.

Tell us augie, honestly, what would it take to convince you that vaccines are safer than not vaccinating? The statistics all ready support that conclusion, so obviously that isn’t sufficient to you.

There is a possibility for anything isn’t there? That is not enough reason to vaccinate.

It is when the odds of death and sequelae from measles without vaccinating is greater than the odds of harm with vaccination. Shortly before the vaccine the decline in death rates was leveling off, it then plummeted shortly after the vaccine started being used.

What part of 450-500 deaths/48,000 hospitalized annually (just before the vaccine) vs 2 deaths/45 hospitalized annually with vaccination makes it seem like vaccination is more dangerous? Really I’d like to know.

I’d rather put resources into these than vaccines.

A baseless assumption. Why make the assumption that you can make significantly greater improvements in fatality without the vaccine just because it happened early in the first half of the 20th century? For that matter, why are you making the additionally baseless assumption that they are mutually exclusive? Funny how you have no trouble criticizing others as making assumptions even when they are reasonably backed by evidence, but you have no trouble with risking the lives of children over your own far more baseless assumptions.

This is about an ideological agenda not what is best for everyone.

More projection from augustine. Yes, augie you’ve made it abundantly clear that you are arguing exclusively from a position driven by ideology (as far as measles goes) and that you have shown no concern at all for what is best for everyone as a whole. You consistently side with greater risks of harm for both the individual and for the population as a whole, justifying it with one baseless assertion after another, all in pursuit of your ideological position.

We on the other hand, have been arguing exclusively for what is best for both the individual and the population as a whole. Please by all means show evidence otherwise.

If it so happens to kill a few then so be it.

This coming from the person that thinks that 450-500 deaths per year is preferable to 2 deaths per year.

It’s NOT SCIENCE! That is a strategy and the strategy is based in PHILOSOPHY! NOT SCIENCE!

So now you’re arguing against the ethics of trying to protect human lives through medicine? If it’s really about ethics then why are you lying about the science in the first place? Oh that’s right, if you admit that vaccines ultimately save more lives than they take, it makes it much harder for you to make your case. No wonder why you have to lie and spin.

You made it a double standard. Not me. Your formula for deciding medical procedures is: what is the statistical risk (supposedly known)of the homogenous population (which may or may not even represent the individual) vs. The risk of being harmed very, very seriously (again supposedly known) by the procedure.

You’re projecting again augie… a double standard is saying that 2 deaths per year with vaccination is intolerable, but 450-500 deaths per year from an easily preventable disease is just fine. A double standard is saying that a 1/1,000 risk (from your own statements expressing your willingness to take the 1/1,00 risk) of death is fine, but that a less than 1/1,000,000 risk of death is too great.

My position is that even with assuming a worse case scenario (as much in your favor as possible with the numbers) the risk of not vaccinating the population as a whole is worse than the odds of harm from vaccinating the population. The numbers that you augie want to use still support that position and you have failed to make an argument to the contrary.

Your double standard is clear for all to see augie, how exactly is my siding with what is safest not just for the population as a whole, but also individually (even when assuming your worst case scenario) a double standard? Please explain, I’m sure that it’ll be hilarious.

Your formula is moot until you answer the question “do I need the medical procedure?” Your medical opinion for me or my child is that I do.

So augie, your position is that we should never use any medical procure no matter how low the risk of harm, until after someone is already sick or dying, even if it means preventing far greater levels of death? How is that rational? The answer is obvious if you’d set aside the dogma for a moment. If there are still people dying from an easily preventable disease and it’s safer for them to be protected (than to not be protected), then yes it makes sense to use the vaccine. Especially when it can potentially be eradicated and thereby eliminate the risk from it entirely forever.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
augustine @ #242:

What was mortality from 1900,1910,1920,1930,etc.? Answer: much higher and rapidly declining to 440 deaths.

Yes…due to improvements in living conditions, nutrition, and medical care. So why were you just arguing against that in your post @ #233? Are you brain damaged? Or too blinded by dogma to realize that I was agreeing with you on that point. Even after I explained to you at least twice that I was agreeing with you about that? Or are you just being a lying troll?

An unanswerable question is would the deaths continued to drop without vaccine? How much would it have dropped to? How much of the mortality reduction is being attributed to vaccines yet other factors are responsible for the drop?

True, it can’t be answered. But that doesn’t justify making an unwarranted assumption that they would have continued to do so (as you are doing augie), especially since the fatality rates were starting to level off before the measles vaccine was introduced. Check out your own link at page 3, figure 3. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/52/Suppl_2/1.pdf

Plus the fact that measles does still kill even in modern societies today, and therefore obviously there would still be some measles caused deaths. The difference, that you consistently try to ignore, is that without vaccination the death rate would be higher than it is today. Granted it MIGHT be lower than before vaccination was started (although how much lower is arguable), but it would still be higher than with widespread vaccination.

A better question is how many deaths would there be if measles vaccination was sufficiently widespread enough to eradicate measles altogether, just like with smallpox? (No, I haven’t forgotten that you keep dodging that little detail.)

Answer: None.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
augustine @ #249:

Don’t stop there. Please describe the living conditions and nutritional status in Cuba circa 1529. Please describe the living conditions and nutritional status in the third world countries. Please describe the living conditions and nutritional status of your family 2010.

I’m sorry… but weren’t you earlier arguing against my saying the same thing about improvement in the USA back at your post at #233? Are you now going to admit that you were wrong earlier?

————————————————————————————————————————————–
augustine @ #250

Do you take an antibiotic everyday?

Why would I take an antibiotic against a virus?

I know…I know…you’re just making a monumentally stupid analogy. You do realize, don’t you, that with antibiotics that overuse also poses risks? When the risks of overuse outweigh the benefits you should stop, that is the standard medical position. The difference is that the risks of using the MMR vaccine is still outweighed by just a little over 2 orders of magnitude by the risks of not using it. All you have to do to make a case otherwise is to finally show evidence that the risks of using vaccines is outweighed by the risk of not using them. Something that you have consistently failed to show after weeks.

There is always “the POSSIBILITY of harm.” Better take the antibiotic. If that child dies the blood will be on your hands.

If I get sick with something bacterial I generally try to avoid exposing others until any antibiotics I take have had time to make sure that I’m no longer contagious. Maybe you think that it’s OK if you don’t, since you seem to think that other people catching your infections is just another “minority objection”. Personally I prefer to not be such a self-absorbed SOB, and try to show some consideration for others. Again it’s still about those relative risks that you just can’t seem to backup.

Man cannot avoid sickness and death by waging war with microbes. Man is just not that smart.

Against all diseases? Of course not, at least not any time in the near future. But then no one here is claiming that such a thing is possible at this time, you seem to be making another Straw-man there augie. But right now it is possible to win battles again some forms of disease. Or do you think the all of the smallpox viruses worldwide committed mass suicide since us humans are just so dumb?

Just don’t tell me or anyone else they need to take it because of your own fears.

It’s not about my fears, augie, it’s about the rate of death and sequelae and having some compassion about others to rationally decide what’s best for everyone on the whole and individually. If there was a way to insure that in the process that you didn’t harm others by not vaccinating then I’d be fine with that, even though even your own worse case numbers show that you’d be a fool for accepting a higher risk over a lower one.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
augustine @ #254

The data doesn’t show that it WOULD have waned, it shows that it DID wane.

True, but if you REALLY looked at it (and removed your dogma goggles for a minute) you would have realized that the rate of decrease was leveling off (see above).

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Nope deaths are still decreasing before vaccine ever implemented. I can’t believe my own eyes.

Falcon, seriously c’mon.

Funny how your eyes noticed the decline but also missed the leveling off (see above, again).

————————————————————————————————————————————–
BTW augie have you found any cases yet were someone getting a properly manufactured MMR vaccine spread measles to someone else? I’m still waiting for that, after all you were so sure that the other blogers here would take me to task for it. Surely if they didn’t take me to task you wouldn’t let it slide if it was true would you? Or were you just making another childish bluff, thinking that some how I’d shy off? News flash, augie, you’re the one that so far won’t admit a mistake (or apologize for a lie), not I.

I’m also still waiting on your evidence that the MMR is less safe than the disease….and no just making more baseless assertions about how dangerous the MMR is doesn’t count.

😉

@Augustine 257:

Yet another deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps your quote-mining would be more successful if the original text weren’t right there above yours. Note the part that you left out (I put it in bold so you wouldn’t miss it this time): “only appear to be dropping if you selected the proper years.” If you were anyone else, I’d be moderately surprised that the full quote contradicted your representation of it. But I’ve read your comments, and no level of mendacity from you can surprise me any more.

Also notice that cases remained steady in that graph you directed us to. You’re as dense as bensmyson if you think that one supports your case. Or perhaps you’re just lying again.

Your lies are getting weaker with time. I’m leaning toward the hypothesis that you’re a Poe.

Hmm, the graph shows a steady trend in cases, and a downwards trend in deaths ending in a relatively steady rate, and the text states that this downwards trend may have ceased and levelled off over the last few years.

Somehow, this is being used as direct evidence that the downwards trend would have continued.

Sarcasm is no defence against failing to understand a graph and plainly stated text.

Augie is done here. All that’s left is to determine how much of an arse they have made out of themselves.

madder:”What will happen to your chances if people stop vaccinating?”

My chances? Nothing. I still like my chances circa 1967. Pre-vaccine era.

“This self-limiting infection of
short duration, moderate severity, and
low fatality has maintained a remarkably
stable biological balance over the
centuries.”

Zertec: “Then, just as I asked you before, instead of just making “woo-prattle” give us an example of any advancement in human knowledge that was produced by unscientific thinking and explain how we know that it’s correct. Surely it can’t be that hard can it?”

Answer: Penicillin. Name the scientific first principle that was the foundation for the discovery of antibiotics. There wasn’t one at the time. It was luck and “fortuitous” events combined with observation that led to it’s discovery. There was no skeptic brand of science involved.

Mad hatter: “My point addressed your “99.999+%” chances of not seriously harmed by measles. This would go down if fewer people vaccinated. But you know that, so I’m just keeping score for the spectators.”

I certainly hope you’re not a doctor. Silly you, those ARE the 1967 statistics, pre-vaccine era. Mad hatter would be a better name for you. Maybe you have thimeresol poisoning. Maybe you’re a wannabe doctor.

Mad person: “Do you expect that perhaps it would continue its linear decrease past zero? That people would spontaneously come back to life because of measles?”

No. but coming from this statement I do expect more logical fallacy errors coming from you.

madder by now: “Perhaps you’d like to go back to the days of polio wards, and hospitals full of kids with preventable diseases, since it’s likely that fewer of those people would die given our advances in hospital care.”

A common fallacious use of logic particularly by the bottom dwellers on this site. Since someone questions the use of mass vaccination then they must be for death. Logic fail.

I’m really really mad now: “Now I have to get a shovel and clean up after it.”

Like you did anything. At least some of the other posters are more passionate. You’re just stupid.

@Zetetic

Are you saying that we’re not supposed to care about the 450-500 dead and 48,000 hospitalized per year? After all they weren’t “healthy”, right augie?

I half expect augustine to reply, “Well, of course they weren’t healthy! They got sick!”

That draws very near to Th1Th2’s attitude over at SBM.

“Are you saying that we’re not supposed to care about the 450-500 dead and 48,000 hospitalized per year? After all they weren’t “healthy”, right augie?”

They can get vaccinated if they believe it will save them. The vaccine works right?

augsustine @ #271:

Rational to not take vaccine? yes.

Nope. Not when the odds are even better when taking the vaccine.

Reasonable? yes.

Still nope. See Above.

Based on science? yes

You mean based on the same science that you earlier seemed to indicated that didn’t matter, and that shows that the odds are better with the vaccine than without?

Realize that there is a microbe eradication ideological agenda going on in the background of this debate? YEP.

Yeah because wanting to minimize human death and suffering is an “ideological agenda”. You seem to have a rather lose definition of an ideology there augie.

The funny thing is augie, you could be completely and perfectly safe from measles without getting a shot yourself if enough other people got the MMR instead. Not every one even needs to get the shot to eliminate measles, just enough of the population to make the herd immunity, that you are so dismissive of, strong enough for long enough for the measles to die off. Not everyone had to get the smallpox vaccine to eradicate it either, all it took was enough people to get it. Remember your paper advocating the elimination of measles from the 60’s, if more people had been vaccinated before we wouldn’t even be arguing about measles today, it would be dead, gone, and largely forgotten. I find it amusing that you talk as though you want a world without having to get the measles vaccination, when the biggest obstacle to eliminating measles is people like yourself, even if it’s all possibly been an act.

=============================================================================================================================
augustine @ #272:

They can get vaccinated if they believe it will save them. The vaccine works right?

Sure, but when people like you are deliberately going around telling lies and fear-mongering over assertions of harm from the vaccine the number of people that don’t get vaccinated goes down. When enough people don’t vaccinate the disease comes back and starts doing damage, starting with the unvaccinated that were either dumb enough to believe people like you, or those that can’t for various reasons. But of course you’ve already established that you apparently don’t care about them, right augie?
===========================================================================================================================
augustine @ #273:

In general, what type of person gets measles gets sick and then dies? Then you have to ask yourself Am I that type of person? The answer for me is NO!

[sarc]Yes, aguie because denying that something is true will keep it from being true.[/sarc]

The type of people that tend to get infected are those that haven’t been protected by either the infection or the disease. Your own scenario (remember 1/8000 vs 1/1000) seems to point to an increasing risk as you get older. Have you been either vaccinated or infected yet? Also, as I’ve also pointed out earlier there is those that you infect, if you catch the disease. Even if it doesn’t kill you, it may kill them. Oh but that’s right, you don’t care about anybody else, right augie?

But there is more to consider that you seem to be overlooking in your overly simplistic worldview there augie. Tell us augie are you immortal? Do you think that you’ll never get older, or sick?

[sarc]
Look! Up there in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane?
No ! It’s Super-Augie!

Yes, Super-Augie, strange visitor from a distorted view of reality…who came to Earth with powers and reasoning abilities far below those of mortal men.

Super-Augie, who can derail thread discussions by trolling.
Tell big lies in a single sentence, can evade taking responsibility for any lie or error on his part, and who, disguised as augustine, a mildly bothersome troll in the threads of a great metropolitan science blog, fights a never ending battle for lies, harm to others, and the contagious way!
[/sarc]

Like I said before augie (assuming that the arrogance is not all just an act), I bet that they’d just LOVE you in Vegas!

😉
=================================================================================================================
@ Todd W.
Yeah I figured that to…and yeah I caught T1T2’s routine over there as well. There’s only so much time in the day though, and T1T2’s routine is just a one-trick pony. At least our augie here can do a little song-and-dance.

Look! Up there in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane?
No ! It’s Super-Augie!

And you too can become like Super-Augie with an immune system that can handle the measles virus without vaccination. Be able to fend off the mind control that tells you your immune system is too weak to fight a measles microbe without the help of vaccines. In spite of the scientific fact that 99.999+++% of the population didn’t need a vaccine to begin with. Once you become a Super Augie you’ll be able to use you your x-ray vision to filter out the enormous kryptonite type amount of propaganda that is laid over a foundation of data disguised as scientific fact.

aughustine @ #275:

You’ll keep talking about disease and fear and I’ll keep talking talking about ethical informed consent.

Yet another Straw-Man from augie! Tell us aguie, where exactly here did anyone on the pro-vax/pro-science side argue against informed consent? You talk about how you’ll keep arguing for informed consent, but nowhere so far have you actually done that. Note: informed consent doesn’t mean that those opposed to the procedure get to just make up lies and claim it as fact without credible evidence.

As for fear, what exactly is it that makes you so fearful of a couple of little bitty shots? Or makes you so afraid of eradicating a disease that kills people? Hell augie, you’re apparently so afraid of a couple little shots that even children dying is of no concern to you, as long as it doesn’t effect you personally.

If from the start you had just claimed that you don’t want to get a couple of little shots, and that you’re willing to take the risks even though the risks are higher than with the shot, then there would have been little to argue about. But (assuming that it’s not all just an act for you) you seem to be compelled to rationalize your position even though your own numbers don’t support your conclusion. Instead you’ve wasted lots of time arguing about the merits of vaccination and lying about others rather than just admitting that the shot is safer, but that you still refuse to take it. I find your attempts at rationalization rather interesting, and rather amusing.
=====================================================================================================================
augustine @ #276:

Once you become a Super Augie you’ll be able to use you your x-ray vision to filter out the enormous kryptonite type amount of propaganda that is laid over a foundation of data disguised as scientific fact.

And ignore the inevitable piles of dead and injured children, and the potential risks to your own health (sooner or later). Tell us augie, since you didn’t answer earlier, do you really think that you’ll stay “healthy” forever?

“Denial, it ain’t just a river in Egypt.”
====================================================================================================================
augustine @ #277:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

True, but picking the road with the lower body count usually works pretty well to avoid picking the wrong road. The road to hell is also paved in ignorance, self-absorption, and shortsightedness. You know, your camp augie. Looks like your still projecting augie, it’s your side that increase death and suffering, remember? Also, you still haven’t shown (after weeks) that vaccination is more harmful than not vaccinating. Why haven’t you been able to locate that evidence yet?

But if you’re an atheist then it’s justified.

So you’re saying that only atheists can have compassion for their fellow humans and want to reduce humans suffering? It’s interesting that you have such a low opinion of the religious, even though it’s a rather nice thing for you to say about atheists.

David Brown: “Also, an irony: In the 1800s, when genuine problems with vaccines were far more common, clergymen were lining up to support vaccination. Hence, making an issue out of some “pro-vaxxers” being atheist makes one look rather stupid(er).”

In the spirit of science blogs, David, I give you this. 1800s? HMM. There was a big difference in living conditions that caused or contributed to higher infectious disease deaths. Clergymen were lining up? How many? The majority? only 3? What is your basis for this statement?

Genuine problems with vaccines? You mean there has been genuine problems in the past? And how does the medical profession usually deal with the public relations of such problems? They minimize the real problem of safety and say the benefits out weigh the risks. Then when a newer medical only solution is available they say “a safer” version is available. Hence admitting that the older one actually DID have safety issues. But only until a newer product is available. Pertussis vaccine?

1800’s hmm. What vaccines were available back then? I suppose you only mean smallpox? Not the “10,000 vaccines” combined that are reccomended and proclaimed safe. Of course safe is only a relative term to vaccinationists if one looks at their history.

david b: “making an issue out of some “pro-vaxxers” being atheist makes one look rather stupid(er).”

No. It doesn’t. An atheist and a believer in any god (Buddah,Allah, mother earth, etc) are going to have different ethics and morals and a different basis for those ethics and morals. They will have a different a priori.

I believe that most of the hardcore pro mass vaccine propagandists are atheists. Are there those that believe in a god who also push this belief system? of course. But you atheist know how incongruent their positions are when it gets to the core of it.

The believers need to realize that there is decisions of values that are involved. This is not a pure science decision.

Do you believe that people are weak and incapable of fighting pathogens? Do you believe that most of us will perish without prophylactic medicine? How do you know which individual will?

Or do you believe that we were created stronger than that? Do you believe that the living body is endowed with intelligence or created from intelligence or is it just a soup of chemicals that need to be manipulated?

David N. Brown @ #279:

I do believe I’m going to steal this one.

Glad you liked it. Please feel free.

============================================================================================================================
augustine @ #280:

No. It doesn’t. An atheist and a believer in any god (Buddah,Allah, mother earth, etc) are going to have different ethics and morals and a different basis for those ethics and morals. They will have a different a priori.

Bwahahahahahahahah! As if even two different people from the same culture and same religion are likely to share EXACTLY the same morals. Not to mention people from different cultures with the same religion.

Oh augie, your argument just keeps getting more and more pathetic with your incessant need to rationalize your position rather than just being honest about it.

Right from the start you came in with your “this is an atheist blog” line of crap, to try and divert everyone from the truth about your position. It did work then and it’s not going to work now. All you’ve done is add another fallacy to your list. Now we’ve got the Excluded Middle Fallacy from you. Do you really think that religious groups that oppose modern medicine are any thing more than a minority among most religious groups? Why do you think that so many religious groups justify using modern medicine, including vaccines, to help others? Because unlike your stated position, most religious institutions place at least some value on minimizing human suffering. The fact is that many that are religious would be appalled by your lack of empathy and shortsighted selfishness.

So first we have augie “The Invulnerable”, and now it’s augie “The Patron Saint of Pestilence”.

So tell us augie, if you’re so eager to cowardly and dishonestly hide behind the skirts of religion…

Exactly where in your religion’s moral guides does it say “Thou shalt not use vaccines”? What about those that are religious that develop vaccines and promote their use to prevent death and suffering? If you’re opposed to vaccines on a religious basis, does your religion also have any prohibits against lying? I noticed that you seem to have no reservations about lying. You also don’t seem to be too big on confession.

I believe that most of the hardcore pro mass vaccine propagandists are atheists.

Of course augie, because nobody that disagreed with you could possible be religious, right? Never mind the religious that created and promoted vaccination, and would be embarrassed to have you using religion as a false defense. What was it I said about your pompous, self-righteous arrogance? Now you are even trying to imply a claim that you speak for the religions of the word? What a joke!

Personally I find it rather amusing that one of the arguments used to defend religion is to point out the work of religious groups in trying to help others through medical care. But here you are augie, trying undermine that same defense to rationalize your own personal and irrational opinion.

This is not a pure science decision.

Of course not, it’s also about the ethics of saving human lives. We’ve been saying that for a long time now. But, the science comes down squarely against your position. You yourself have long since conceded that saving lives isn’t even a concern to you.

Do you believe that people are weak and incapable of fighting pathogens? Do you believe that most of us will perish without prophylactic medicine? How do you know which individual will?

Oh Goody! Yet another Straw-Man from augie! So tell us aguie, were EXACTLY did anyone on the pro-science side say that, hmmmm?

You know perfectly well, that the pro-vax side knows that most people will in fact survive measles. Hell, augie, most of Europe survived the bubonic plague too, does that make it OK to just let it run rampant? Granted that is an extreme example, but it’s to illustrate a point. Just because most of a given population will survive a disease…How do you justify NOT doing anything about it, especially when the vaccine is so much safer? How do you justify hundreds of deaths and thousands hospitalized per year just because you’re apparently scared of 2 little (and extremely safe) shots? Please by all means give us any religious justification that doesn’t also rule out most of modern medicine in the process.

============================================================================================================
So tell us augie is your “religious” conviction about vaccines any deeper that a simplistic dogma of “Nature Good, Science Bad”?

Come on augie…it’s time to “come out of the closet” and tell us the truth for a change.

Rogue medic: “Children will keep dying from vaccine preventable illnesses.”

augustine: “This is just rhetoric. It presumes that the death of someone from an infection for which a vaccine has been concocted would have been prevented if that person had been vaccinated. This is IMPOSSIBLE to assess for that person. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.”

I’m actually glad that our latest Goofus, augustine, chose to use this fallacious gambit again. I sometimes have to be away for a while and spot a delicious fallacy when I’m catching up… too late for it to be really worthwhile to call out the fallacy. So I’m actually quite tickled that the Goofus tried this trick again.

Here is the claim to which the Goofus replies, in syllogism form:

1) Out of the people who catch vaccine-preventable diseases, some of them die from those diseases.
2) Out of the people who would otherwise catch vaccine-preventable diseases but receive vaccinations, many will not in fact catch vaccine-preventable diseases.
3) Therefore, some of the people we vaccinate against these vaccine-preventable illnesses will be people whose lives are saved because of that vaccination.

Until Goofus can produce some evidence that premises 1 or 2, or the form of the syllogism, are not correct, we must take the conclusion as true. In other words, the burden of proof is on Goofus. His denial of this fact is … well, it’s just that, denial. “Even though you’ve proven that vaccines save lives I refuse to believe it! I reject any form of proof except a kind that’s impossible, requiring us to have 100% perfect knowledge of what would have happened if we did something that we did not in fact do!”

Usually when I dissect the arguments of Goofuses I like to find the central fallacy, because much of the time these arguments are taken seriously by people who are sincerely trying to find and understand the truth but who have fallen for someone’s superficially convincing arguments. Here, there is no clear fallacy. There is only a Goofus trying to pretend that he never needs to be bound by the rules of debate under which reasonable adults operate. The pro-science people have proven that vaccines save lives. Goofus can try to challenge the components of the proof, if he likes, but what he cannot do is deny that the burden of proof is now on him.

A person with ASD will typically also prefer to stick to a set of behaviors and will resist any major (and many minor) changes to daily activities. Several relatives and friends of people with ASDs have commented that if the person knows a change is coming in advance, and has time to prepare for it; the resistance to the change is either gone completely or is much lower.

Mary — you *can* be sure. You aren’t sure, because of what you’ve read, but you can change that, if you’re willing to put in a little effort. Go beyond the press releases of groups like Age of Autism. Read the science. There is plenty of evidence that vaccines cause far more good than harm, and that it is less risky to use them than to not. (Can you be injured by a vaccine? Yes. You are much more likely to be injured by the disease the vaccine protects against, though, so it’s really not difficult to decide where to put your chips. Are there specific risk factors? A few, primarily allergies to vaccine ingredients; these are manageable, so make sure you tell your doctor if you have any known allergies, or if you have any known immune dysfunction, or any other concerns you may have.)

As for autistic children, why don’t you think what’s good for normal children is good for autistic children too? I know autistic people can seem very strange, with puzzling mannerisms and sometimes explosive outbursts, but they are actually largely the same as the rest of us. Vaccines work the same in them as they do in the rest of us. And they deserve protection just as much as all other children.

You might ask “what about Hannah Poling?”, a girl whose parents claim she became autistic because of a vaccine. Well, her case is more complicated than that. She has a genetic mitochondrial disorder which makes her susceptible to brain damage following a fever. Any fever. That includes fevers provoked by vaccines, of course, but the vast majority of fevers that children get have nothing to do with vaccines — it’s consequently impossible to say that the vaccine was what caused her specific fever. Indeed, since children like her are at such high risk from fevers, it is *more* important to vaccinate them, so as to reduce the number of fevers they get over the lifetime. The thing about vaccine fevers is that you know about them ahead of time, and you can give medications to prevent the fever. So her case is, in my opinion, actually a case *for* vaccination of the autistic.

Bottom line: there is plenty of science to make your decisions, if you can get past the mess the media often makes of it. And autistic children deserve protection as much as any children do.

BTW, Black Smith, that is my experience also. When my daughter has adequate warning of a change, she tends to handle it just fine. Her adaptability has improved with age as well, as she learns how to do the things that come more naturally to other children. That’s one of the oft-overlooked things about ASDs; the children aren’t really frozen, and they are capable of progress and often quite amazing things.