Vaccines and Autism: Rand Paul Please Say It Ain't So!

Let's hope that the senator misspoke and will soon clarify his remarks

wikimedia

The measles outbreak traced to Disneyland and which is being spread around the country by kids whose parents have refused to get them vaccinated is becoming politicized. Yesterday Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) weighed in on the question of whether kids should be vaccinated on the Laura Ingraham radio show and CNBC. In both cases, the senator argued that vaccination should be the choice of parents.

On CNBC Paul did say that he thinks "vaccines are one of the biggest medical breakthroughs that we've had" and that "public awareness of how good vaccines are for kids and how they are good for public health is a great idea." So far, so good.

However, the senator seemed to lend credence to the thoroughly discredited claims that vaccinations are associated with autism. From CNBC:

I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.

Let's hope that the senator misspoke and will soon clarify his remarks so as to not inadvertently mislead the public with respect to the safety of vaccines.

For more background, see Reason's debate "Should Vaccines Be Mandatory?" and my recent post "The Voluntarily Unvaccinated Are Harming Other People in California Measles Outbreak."

Comments

[Shirley Knott]

The real tragedy is that the proper libertarian case for vaccinations is nuance and cannot help be made to look batshit crazy in a sound-bite world.
Paul would have done better to let the matter lie or to expand on the point 'the state does not own your children'. And minimized the "so whether you vaccinate is up to you" as that's really not the message he wants to have out there. It is up to you, every bit as much as the choice of whether to fire an Uzi into your neighbor's house is up to you. Both have consequences, both can be viewed as an assault on others.
The damage done by the unvaccinated is becoming increasingly obvious; he's swimming against the tide to try to support some sort of "it's up to you" view. He has to first get people to separate the notions of 'society' and 'state'. We're years away from that. Not his problem to solve, but his problem to take into account.

[Chip]

"The state does not own your children" is probably the best statement that can be made here. The inability for folks to have a civilized discussion re: political issues often means that making nuanced points is quite difficult.

There are at least two separate issues - whether or not a parent should get a child vaccinated and whether or not the decision should be made and enforced by the state. Far too many folks can't separate the two. If you SHOULD do it then you MUST do it, according to the pro-government types.

If the government can mandate this type of medical treatment, why not others?

[Rhywun]

The real tragedy is that the proper libertarian case for vaccinations is nuance and cannot help be made to look batshit crazy in a sound-bite world.

Like they did to Chris Christie - "what a loon!"

[Thomas O.]

I've got a bad feeling that this is gonna become his "Gardasil". Bachmann didn't seem to recover from her little quip. Hopefully he can ride this out; if not, I'm gonna have a hard time deciding who to support in '16.

[bob sacomano]

Except both the uberhawks of the right and totalitarians of the left have felt they've "gotcha'd" Rand at least five or six times already. He is no Bachmann. This will all be water under the same bridge as eating a burger with Steve King, the Q&A at Howard, the Maddow interview on CRA, and whatever else he has done to give Jen Rubin the vapors.

Despite all the noise, Rand is registering with lots of people. Persuading Republicans that his foreign policy isn't something to be scared of remains his biggest obstacle.

[Rhino]

It's not so much being unvaccinated that is the aggression as it is passing diseases onto others. If i am unvaccinated, but it so happens that i never pass any disease onto anyone else, i have not committed any act of aggression or caused any harm towards someone else. I am not a criminal. The libertarian stance, in accordance with the NAP, is to pursue restitution for those harmed, not to go after anyone who might, under the right circumstances, commit an act of aggression. If that were the test, we'd all be aggressors.

[Free Society]

It's not so much being unvaccinated that is the aggression as it is passing diseases onto others.[...]The libertarian stance, in accordance with the NAP, is to pursue restitution for those harmed

If you don't exterminate all the woodpeckers in your forest and douse all the trees with amonia to repel their return, then if a woodpecker damages a neighbor's wood siding, you've transgressed against them?

If you don't set traps all over your woodlands and some wolves cross your property to eat the neighbor's cows, you're liable for that?

If you don't cut down all the trees on your property and a tornado picks one up and kills someone a mile away, you're responsible for that?

What other acts of nature are you responsible for?

The NAP does not give someone a right to force other people to provide them with positive externalities. That's called 'positive liberty' and it's not really even a species of liberty let alone applicable under the NAP.

Now the infected person who knowingly attends school or attends an orgy, sure, that's callous aggression. That would be akin to personally delivering those wolves or woodpeckers to your neighbor's property.

[Kure'i]

I'm not sure if those analogies are apt.

While you may not be responsible for unforeseeable harm, there is a continuum of culpability as both the likelihood and seriousness of the risk rise.

"There is a possibility I am carrying some slightly contagious nonserious ailment" is not the same thing as "I have repeatedly come into contact with a life threatening disease and it's likely that I may be carrying it." Both come short of intent (or even knowledge) of spreading the disease, but the latter seems negligent, or perhaps even reckless.

[Free Society]

I'm not sure if those analogies are apt.

How so? Nothing in your post shows the disconnect.

While you may not be responsible for unforeseeable harm, there is a continuum of culpability as both the likelihood and seriousness of the risk rise.

So there's no responsibility but there is "a continuum of culpability"? Isn't that just a euphemism for claiming you are responsible for acts of nature? Living next to a relatively wild forest increases "both the likelihood and seriousness of the risk rise" of predators attacking your livestock. But that fact doesn't entitle you to demand that the forest's owner napalm the place to exterminate all potentially harmful life.

[Kure'i]

I thought my post illustrated a continuum of culpability, as well as what it meant. But perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll try doing a better job.

If there is a continuum of culpability -- ranging from intentional acts that are clearly blameworthy, to those acts which are unforeseeable and therefore not within one's sphere of control -- then there IS responsibility at the former end.

Your first post seems to relegate all disease-spreading risk to the level of "an act of nature," i.e., where an individual is not responsible for what occurred because he had no knowledge or control over what happened. My point -- the "disconnect" in that analogy, as you put it -- is that the analogy doesn't correspond with the differing levels of riskiness people may adopt when dealing with disease.

You've accepted that intentionally infecting people is categorically different from unknowingly infecting people. My contention is that the category of "unknowingly infecting" has many variations within it.

And I would argue that people involved in very risky behavior do, in fact, owe a higher standard of care to those around them. If you just left Africa, where you were treating Ebola patients, then you should be more cautious than a school teacher who was merely around some 5 year olds with the sniffles, because the seriousness of the potential affliction is so much greater.

[Free Society]

If there is a continuum of culpability -- ranging from intentional acts that are clearly blameworthy, to those acts which are unforeseeable and therefore not within one's sphere of control -- then there IS responsibility at the former end.

2 out of 3 little piggies may have opted to live in straw and wooden houses respectively, but that doesn't make them "culpable" for the wolf's actions nor any other agent of nature. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have invested in a brick house for themselves, but the fact remains that they are not liable for another's actions.

My contention is that the category of "unknowingly infecting" has many variations within it.

And I would argue that people involved in very risky behavior do, in fact, owe a higher standard of care to those around them. If you just left Africa, where you were treating Ebola patients

Ebola isn't the best example since to my knowledge there is no vaccine. In any case, not being vaccinated against X, Y and/or Z isn't the same thing as having been highly exposed to disease X, Y or Z and then quite negligently not taking precautions for others.

The guy who has returned from an African Ebola safari who then infects others because of his lack of precaution would and should be held liable as a form of negligence. But the guy who was unknowingly exposed and passed it on would not be liable for that.

[Kure'i]

I don't think this should be particularly controversial, by the way. It's a principle well accounted for in Negligence (as well as Strict Liability) Law.

[Free Society]

I don't think this should be particularly controversial, by the way. It's a principle well accounted for in Negligence (as well as Strict Liability) Law.

Attributing undirected acts of nature to human agency is most certainly not a part of Strict Liability or Negligence. How much do you owe your neighbor when a tornado tosses your tree onto his house?

[Kure'i]

It's not an "undirected act of nature" to 1) refuse to take a minor precaution, and 2) the failure to do so resulted, exactly the sort of foreseeable harm that, but for the failure to observe the precaution, would not not have occurred.

That's the essence of common negligence law, in a nutshell. And that's exactly what we're talking about when a person fails to act with due care.

Second, Strict Liability tends to occur in specific circumstances were there is exceptional risk of harm. If handling explosives or hazardous waste fit the bill, I'd certainly consider a potential plague to be in the vicinity.

Once again, your example of the tree is faulty. A more comparable example would be a captain choosing to take his passengers onto the sea, when there is a high likelihood of a storm. Would you attribute the drowned passengers to "undirected acts of nature?" Or assign some blame to the captain who decided to set sail regardless of the data?

[Kure'i]

*exactly IN the sort of foreseeable harm.

Damn my failing to proofread.

[Free Society]

t's not an "undirected act of nature" to 1) refuse to take a minor precaution,

Did you program the microbe to target your neighbor?
'Not taking a precaution' for yourself is not the same thing as cultivating an infection.
Nor is it the same thing as negligently or maliciously transmitting the infection.

the failure to do so resulted, exactly the sort of foreseeable harm that, but for the failure to observe the precaution, would not not have occurred.

That rationale could be used to justify forcible circumcision, mandatory hair nets for everyone and virtually any intrusion to one's self-ownership that you could imagine.

That's the essence of common negligence law, in a nutshell.

No it's not. In common law there is absolutely no attribution of acts of nature to human beings. If a woodpecker nests in my tree and he damages your siding, do I owe you something?

Strict Liability tends to occur in specific circumstances were there is exceptional risk of harm. If handling explosives or hazardous waste fit the bill, I'd certainly consider a potential plague to be in the vicinity.

Once again you can't simply equate an unvaccinated person to an unvaccinated person that handles these deadly diseases for a living. There is an order of magnitude of difference in levels of risk between those two unvaccinated individuals.

[Kure'i]

"Did you program the microbe to target your neighbor?"

Negligence doesn't require intent. You seem to be missing that point. It does require a lack of due care. Failing to take reasonable precautions -- which may or may not include cautions which prevent the spread of disease -- can implicate negligence. I don't understand why you are seeking to take any human agency out of the equation and instead attribute the spread of disease solely to the course of nature. Of course disease spreads naturally, and no one is liable for that. Failing to take reasonable precautions available, however, is the issue, which you keep ignoring. A tree blowing down isn't the same thing as walking around at the mall with a communicable disease.

Thank you for admitting there are different levels of risk. Now -- With those levels, comes the need for corresponding, increased levels of care. Not following those standards of care creates levels of increasing liability.

The issue is one's duty of care. It doesn't matter if the care resulted in a tree failing down or a ship sinking. It doesn't (usually) matter if it's commercial activity on a boat or throwing a baseball for fun. I'm not sure why commercial activity threw
you off, because negligence law applies across a whole spectrum of activities, and the formula is as I gave it above.

[Free Society]

Negligence doesn't require intent. You seem to be missing that point.

What you quoted me saying was not a reference to negligence, it was a reference to malicious intent.

Failing to take reasonable precautions -- which may or may not include cautions which prevent the spread of disease -- can implicate negligence.

There's nothing reasonable about negligence suits leveled at people who were themselves involuntary hosts to hostile agents of nature.

Even if it were, what are the odds of a random unvaccinated person in the US contracting polio and transmitting it to another person who is vaccinated? I suspect it's a relatively remote, certainly not enough to justify opening people up to liability for acts of nature and using courts to violate other people's self-ownership rights.

I don't understand why you are seeking to take any human agency out of the equation and instead attribute the spread of disease solely to the course of nature.

I'm not taking agency out, I'm recognizing it's proper bounds. There is such a thing as negligence in the spread of a disease, it's just that simply being unvaccinated doesn't fit the bill.

[Free Society]

Thank you for admitting there are different levels of risk. Now -- With those levels, comes the need for corresponding, increased levels of care. Not following those standards of care creates levels of increasing liability.

Yes, in your brilliance you've got me to 'admit' that the relative risk between being unvaccinated and being a professional handler of hazardous materials are grossly disproportionate.

I'm not sure why commercial activity threw you off, because negligence law applies across a whole spectrum of activities, and the formula is as I gave it above.

Threw me off? I understand liability law for a living. A person who doesn't watch the weather before heading out on a fishing boat with his buddies faces no where near the same level of liability than if he were a chartered fishing boat taking money in exchange for his service. That absolutely opens you up to higher standards than if the situation were essentially non-commercial. Ask a jury.

[Free Society]

Once again, your example of the tree is faulty. A more comparable example would be a captain choosing to take his passengers onto the sea, when there is a high likelihood of a storm.

What?!?! The captain is presumably engaging in commerce with his boat and decision-making and faces entirely different liability standards.

Would you attribute the drowned passengers to "undirected acts of nature?"Or assign some blame to the captain who decided to set sail regardless of the data?

That is negligence, which is not the same thing as simply being unvaccinated or unwittingly transmitting a disease.

Your analogy doesn't survive 2 seconds of critical thought. Now explain how the tornado tossing my tree on your house is faulty. Tell me exactly how it doesn't work.

[Kure'i]

The commerce aspect, totally tangential to the central (Negligence Law) concept of Due Care, seems to confuse you. Aside from law specifically pertaining to common carriers, which is not at issue here and doesn't need to be, the fact that he is engaging in commerce is totally irrelevant. Maybe study law beyond the Wiki entry for Negligence and you'll get it.

The tornado tossing your tree is totally out of your control; it doesn't produce liability. Similarly, you seem to think that, from your earlier posts, any risk you take short of intentionally infecting others with a disease is similarly out of your control. It is this latter statement with which I disagree, and which is a totally inaccurate analogy.

[Free Society]

The commerce aspect, totally tangential to the central (Negligence Law) concept of Due Care, seems to confuse you.

Somebody found wikipedia! Good for you.

The tornado tossing your tree is totally out of your control; it doesn't produce liability.

No you could have cut the tree down to reduce the risk. Thus by your logic, if you don't cut down that tree you're open to liability for whatever nature does with it.

Similarly, you seem to think that, from your earlier posts, any risk you take short of intentionally infecting others with a disease is similarly out of your control.

If you read my earlier posts you'd see I discussed situations that could be described as negligence. It's just that your bull isn't it.

[Free Society]

Remoteness of the risk matters

[Kure'i]

"Remoteness of the risk matters."

No shit.In matters in terms of foreseeability, and in terms of likelihood. Both of which I mentioned long ago in this conversation.

[Kure'i]

Yeah, I found Wikipedia. Plus a dissertation on Tort Theory And, oh yeah, practicing law for about 15 years. That, too. Versus your experience doing...?

"No you could have cut the tree down to reduce the risk. Thus by your logic, if you don't cut down that tree you're open to liability for whatever nature does with it."

That's not my theory and it's not the law. It's just your imagination, which seems to be driving a lot of this conversation.

"If you read my earlier posts you'd see I discussed situations that could be described as negligence. It's just that your bull isn't it."

In your initial post you listed two alternatives. One was unintentionally passing the disease, and the other was intentional. The latter you categorized as "an act of aggression" (is that your version of legalese?)

I pointed out that there was a continuum between intentional and accidental (or chance) unknowingly passing on a disease, and therefore a range of culpability. To this, and in defiance of all examples and common sense, you objected. And pointed to shit about trees and tornados and whatever else.

[Kure'i]

Bottom line:

1) Someone intentionally transmitting a disease is responsible for his actions.

2) Someone who recklessly endangers others by knowingly carrying a contagious disease is less culpable than the person in example 1.

3) someone who has a high likelihood of carrying a disease and willingly intermingles with the public is still less culpable.

4) someone who has a probability of carrying a disease and willingly intermingles with the public is less culpable, still.

5) Someone who has a very low probability of having the disease or of having a very difficult to transmit disease is still less responsible if it is transmitted.

6) Someone who doesn't know he or she has the disease, and has no reason to suspect he or she may, who intermingles with the public is still less culpable.

And within and between all of these, there are still smaller grades and degrees.

So there, spelled out for you, without any difficult legal concepts or trees to confuse you. If you want to disagree, feel free. I'm done banging my head against a wall.

[See.More]

It's not an "undirected act of nature" to 1) refuse to take a minor precaution, and 2) the failure to do so resulted, exactly the sort of foreseeable harm that, but for the failure to observe the precaution, would not not have occurred.

2) Failure to vaccinate does not RESULT in the "foreseeable harm". Rather, it merely it does nothing to reduce the risk of contracting said disease IF exposed.

And your conclusion -- "but for the failure to observe the precaution, would not not have occurred" -- is utterly false. Vaccinations are not 100% effective. Therefore, even the vaccinated still have a greater than zero chance of getting infected. Vaccinating only reduces the risk. Not vaccinating makes no change to the risk.

Since your premise is false, your conclusions are false.

[Kure'i]

A duty of care is not synonymous with 100% effectiveness; there are myriad precautionary measures individuals and companies must take every day that are not 100% effective, because the failure to do so would subject them to liability.

You present a legitimate objection to the proximate cause argument. However, I think my original point -- that there exists a continuum of blameworthiness in spreading disease, ranging from its unintentional and unknowing spread to intentionally and knowingly spreading it. The negligence formula only arose in reference to this point, to which the original poster objected.

[Diane Merriam]

What if it's just a good strong wind that did it? If the trunk was rotting from the inside out or the ground was regularly waterlogged on the side of the tree as the neighbor? A situation where a reasonable person could see there was a risk developing and did nothing about it?

There's a sizeable gray area there and tort law is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[See.More]

...not to go after anyone who might, under the right circumstances, commit an act of aggression. If that were the test, we'd all be aggressors.

I agree. It's astonishing that in any other case of "prior restraint" (e.g.: banning guns because they might be used in a crime; criminalizing the purchase of too much Sudafed because it might be used to make meth; etc.) libertarians are rightly opposed, but some are more than happy to apply prior restraint WRT vaccinations...

[Libertymike]

Good post and great job on your posts yesterday regarding this subject.

[See.More]

Thank you.

[Latka6]

He could have said that forced vaccination is not acceptable to him but the science is clear that vaccinations are safe and effective and he encourages parents to protect their children and the community by choosing to vaccinate. That really put a bad taste in my mouth and frankly, made him look ignorant of the science.

[Charles Easterly]

I was vaccinated for measles and I turned out just fine. As did my invisible friend.

[Myptofvu]

rofl

[PM]

Thanks a lot Bailey, I was going to post this for discussion in the AM links and now I have nothing to talk about.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Maybe Rand thought he was on the Alex Jones show.

[EV]

Meh, a minor misstep. Just shut up.

[John]

Not really. Think about what Libertarians would do to some SOCON who questioned evolution. This is no different and really worse since vaccines save lives and the theory of evolution doesn't.

I like Paul a lot. We will see what he has to say about this. Since the President doesn't make much or any "vaccine policy", I understand how this can be written off as a minor quirk in an otherwise good candidate. That is what I am inclined to do. But I write off a lot of out of the mainstream ideas as quirks. Libertarians generally don't. So, they need to explain why they are making an exception here and not just playing "the rules don't apply when its someone we like".

[Zeb]

Think about what Libertarians would do to some SOCON who questioned evolution.

I'm thinking have a big argument about whether it is relevant or not and accuse each other of being secret leftists and/or socons and/or cocktail party obsessives.

[PM]

Typical cosmotarian response...

(sarcasm disclaimer because they seem to be necessary now)

[John]

Zeb,

There would have been one or two conservative leaning libertarians, GKC and me, and perhaps one outlier, probably fluffy, who defend it as irrelevant. The entire rest of the board would be one giant "OH MY GOD THE FUNDES ARE SO FUCKING STUPID WHY CAN'T THE GOP BAN THEM FROM VOTING OR SPEAKING!!!" beat down.

[Zeb]

Oh, there are more than you and Mr. Chesterton who will argue that side. And rightly so. I'd take a young earth creationist if he was going to hugely cut government and was principled about separation of school and state.

I'm still going to say they are morons when it comes to their beliefs about how life came to be as it is, because they are. But very few people base their votes on what I say.

[some guy]

Exactly. They're entitled to their idiocy so long as it doesn't hurt me.

[Idle Hands]

Meh. I wouldn't. So argument defeated.

[some guy]

Politically, this was a dumb thing to say, but personally I don't care because he threw in the other caveats: 1) Vaccines are great medicine and 2) Parent choice.

He's right in the things that matter.

It's kind of like how I don't care about his stance on abortion. I know he can't do anything about our nation's abortion laws, so it doesn't matter what he thinks.

[Idle Hands]

Furthermore it doesn't matter what his stance is on any matter, the media will never project a positive narrative towards that view unless it directly helps the democrats win.

[robc]

This.

He gets the two key vaccination issues right.

And its #2 that really pisses off Bailey.

[Robert]

How can Rand Paul & Chris Christie saying essentially the same thing detract from Rand Paul & enhance Chris Christie for libertarians?!

[Diane Merriam]

Maybe he can't do anything now, but as a potential president who would be nominating Supreme Court judges, I'd have to think about that as well.

[EV]

This is already on the front page of Huffpo and CNN. Not that Rand would ever get those idiots vote, but still just shut up about this nonsense.

Just say "Consult with your doctor." Not everything has to be politicized.

Notice how no potential Democratic nominee has said anything.

[John]

The infuriating thing about this is that it is primarily rich leftists who are not vaccinating their kids. Mesals didn't broke out in rural Alabama. It broke out in California.

This whole thing really puts a dent in the Leftists' smug. It is endlessly fun and damaging to these assholes to point out "but I thought you fucking loved science". It also cuts down on their ability to call anyone who questions global warming a "science denier".

Now Paul has opened his mouth and allowed the media to switch this and portray it as just another problem with the right wing denying science and pretend their side isn't primarily responsible. It shows a real lack of judgement on Paul's part. Why couldn't he have just kept his mouth shut? Does he have to comment on everything?

[Zeb]

As someone suggested, he could have said that it is something to discuss with your doctor. Or if no one asked a specific question about it, not said anything about vaccination.

To be a bit fair to leftists, anti-vaccine idiocy is hardly a majority view. Plenty do love science and not just pretty pictures.
But the tendency of anti-vaccine and anti-GMO and other idiots to be on the left side of things puts lie to their claim that all the smart rational people are naturally on their side.

[John]

Thinking the earth is literally 6000 years old is hardly a majority view among Christians. That doesn't stop leftists from pretending it is. Fuck them. If conservatives have to own the people who go to Bob Jones University, leftists can own the ignorant assholes who drive Prius, shop at whole foods and don't vaccinate their kids.

See the Atlantic link below. Failure to vaccinate is almost entirely the outgrowth of a certain particularly loathsome strain of elite, white, liberal culture.

[Palin's Buttplug]

But Creationism IS the prevalent view among the DumbAss Party, Red Tony.

[Sevo]

Turd, do you ever post without lying?

[Palin's Buttplug]

Majority of Republicans Are Creationists

Highly religious Americans are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious, which helps explain the relationship between partisanship and beliefs about human origins. The major distinction is between Republicans and everyone else. While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree.

Gallup.

I will always be smarter than you or John.

[Sevo]

"I will always be smarter than you or John."

You're dumb as mud, turd.

[Ed Ucation]

Classing it up as always, I see.

[PM]

You could have at least hat tipped me for the link.

[Kure'i]

Wow. 41% of Dems believe that, too. So even though they are still the Evil party, they're still competitive in the Stupid category, too.

And both Team Red and Team Blue are anti-science, and neither has a monopoly on ignorance. It's just that one team ignores biology, and the other ignores economics.

[PM]

Thank Thor we have sensible Democrats to steer us in the right direction.

[Zeb]

Thinking the earth is literally 6000 years old is hardly a majority view among Christians.

And I will point out that that is false as well to people who believe it. And that conservatives are not mostly theocratic nuts. All ridiculous generalizations like that are harmful to any hope of reasonable political discourse. Not that I expect to make a big difference, but I try to be honest.

[Hey Nikki!]

Measles also broke out in Texas, based around a megachurch.

[JWatts]

"The infuriating thing about this is that it is primarily rich leftists who are not vaccinating their kids. Mesals didn't broke out in rural Alabama. It broke out in California."

http://www.motherjones.com/fil.....UPD-01.png

[craiginmass]

Why would it put a dent in leftists when Rand Paul, SuperHero, says they are correct?

[Hey Nikki!]

Actually, Hillary jumped all over it with her "#GrandmaKnowsBest" tweet.

[Rhywun]

Not everything has to be politicized.

This should be tatooed on every child's forehead at birth.

[R C Dean]

Would that be a mandatory tattoo?

/ducks

[obadiahlynch]

They don't need to; they're not the ones with the science problems.

[Meerkatx]

Paul was part of the AAPS, maybe still is, which for years has taken a stance that there is a link between Autism and vaccines. It's a kook organization, and that speaks volumes about Dr.Paul.

[JWatts]

Umm, there are multiple organizations that have AAPS as their initials.

American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
AAPS Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences
American Association of Plastic Surgeons

So, I'd be careful with the kook epitaph.

Though I'm guessing you aren't referring to the Paleontologists.

Obligatory links:
http://xkcd.com/460/

[JWatts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zo2zY1Zqg

[MeatBorg]

*epithet not epitaph

[Robert]

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, and they're far from a kook organiz'n. They're the libertarian alternative to the AMA.

[Sky Captain]

And because you say there isn't a link, it is so? What a dumb stance to take. Can you read?

http://articles.mercola.com/si.....pment.aspx

[Zeb]

I don't think politicians all need to have a public position on vaccination. Why say anything? You're just going to annoy someone.

[Mickey Rat]

The pro-vaccination side, which Bailey apparently is in full-throated support of is arguing for mandated vaccinations, which is something politicians have to be involved in by definition.

You cannot put an issue in the tealm of government action and expect a politician to have no opinion on it. Especially, since Bailey is on a crusade to pillory all dissent from his preferred policy.

[Zeb]

They have to be involved in mandating it if that's what they want. They don't have to be involved in not mandating it.

[Mickey Rat]

Only if no one is lobbying for mandates hard. Bailey's side is forcing the issue.

[Zeb]

The pro-vaccination side, which Bailey apparently is in full-throated support of is arguing for mandated vaccinations

Uh, pretty much everyone here arguing against mandatory vaccinations is on the pro-vaccination side.

[Mickey Rat]

OK, pro-forced vaccination side, then.

[Fist of Etiquette]

...who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.

Luckily I was vaccinated for Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Syndrome.

On the other hand, when was our last good herd-thinning outbreak? We all know Mother Nature's teats are pretty worn out from all the people suckling at them. (That's right; I'm tying in Climate Change.)

[John]

This is primarily a stuff white people like problem. This is almost entirely a problem created by smug, ignorant liberals. Now, thanks to Ron Paul, the HUFFPO and the rest of the Dem Op media can pretend that is not true and it is conservatives who are the problem. This was an unbelievably stupid thing for him to say.

http://www.theatlantic.com/hea.....ns/380252/

[Palin's Buttplug]

"I understand that there are families that, in some cases, are concerned about the effect of vaccinations," Obama said in a pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC's Savannah Guthrie on Sunday. "The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We've looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not."

"You should get your kids vaccinated," he added. "It's good for them and the challenge you have is if you have a certain group of kids who don't get vaccinated, and if it grows large enough that a percentage of the population doesn't get vaccinated and they're the folks who can't get vaccinated, small infants, for example ... they suddenly become much more vulnerable."

so that is why liberals hate Obama!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....91452.html

[Sevo]

No, turd, they hate Obo for his constant lies.

[JWatts]

"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Obama pointed to the person in the audience when he said "this person".

Basically when a politician says the science is inconclusive they are evading the question - which he did. Not courageous at all but typical. Think AGW.

[JWatts]

So, what the hell difference does it make that he was pointing to someone else. He didn't say "this person" is wrong.

When Obam was running for President, he was even, by your charitable interpretation, evading the question.

So if you voted for Obama in 2008, you've got little ground to complain about Rand Paul's similar statements in 2014.

[Palin's Buttplug]

I am not complaining about Rand Paul.

I called it a fake scandal below.

[Sevo]

Palin's Buttplug|2.3.15 @ 10:07AM|#
"I called it a fake scandal below."

And you were called on that lie, turd.

[Palin's Buttplug]

So you are saying that this Rand Paul vaccine gaffe is a real scandal?

You are an idiot.

[Sevo]

Palin's Buttplug|2.3.15 @ 10:18AM|#
"So you are saying that this Rand Paul vaccine gaffe is a real scandal?"

No, turd, try reading. You were called on comparing the IRS corruption to 9/11
Do try to keep up, turd

[NealAppeal]

The Onion nails it, of course. First bullet point - "February 28, 1998: British physician Andrew Wakefield publishes the first in a long line of 0 scientific studies that link vaccines to autism"

[John]

Jesus fucking Christ you are a retard. Those are not the talking points. Your masters sent you the talking points from VOX.

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/2/79.....ine-autism

We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."

--Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

You are just fucking retarded shreek. You don't help your cause. You embarrass it. Didn't they finally just ask you to stop posting? Even your handlers have asked you to stop.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Obama pointed to the person in the audience when he said "this person".

Basically when a politician says the science is inconclusive they are evading the question - which he did. Not courageous at all but typical. Think AGW.

[John]

The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."

Are you so retarded you can't understand that or do you think everyone reading this is? Or both?

Obama totally pandered to the antivaccination crowd because they consist almost entirely of his most loyal supporters. Just because your parents told you that you turned out to be retarded and psychotic because of vaccines doesn't make it true. You are retarded and psychotic because your father married his sister. They were just telling you stories shreek.

[Sevo]

John|2.3.15 @ 9:55AM|#
"Are you so retarded you can't understand that or do you think everyone reading this is?"

Turd has hopes his abysmal ignorance is contagious.

[Kure'i]

He wasn't vaccinated against stupidity.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Candidate panders to crowd during speech! You don't say!

[Sevo]

Palin's Buttplug|2.3.15 @ 10:00AM|#
"Candidate panders to crowd during speech! You don't say!"

Turd lies to defend Obo! You don't say!

[Jordan]

Funny how you're never this charitable when a politician talks about abortion or evolution during a town hall.

[jjjjj]

Actually, Mr. Prez, there are reasons not to.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp.....t-vacc.htm

[craiginmass]

So Jenny McCarthy is a leftie? I never associated her with anything other than silicone filling.

I think it's fairly evident that Rand and CC are trying to appeal to that small sliver of fundies who believe that the lord is better than medical care.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Fake scandal.

[JWatts]

This isn't a scandal at all. Rand Paul isn't targeting his political opponents with the IRS, selling guns to Mexican gangs or attempting to blame a terrorist attack on a YouTube video.

Those are scandals. This is a sound bite from an interview, that's being played up for political purposes.

[Palin's Buttplug]

So go after Lois Lerner then. Or the fucking ATF. Or Al-Qaeda.

This idea that Obama planned these things from atop is as fucking stupid as the idea that Bush planned 9/11.

[Sevo]

Palin's Buttplug|2.3.15 @ 9:54AM|#
"This idea that Obama planned these things from atop is as fucking stupid as the idea that Bush planned 9/11."

Yeah, turd, federal government corruption under a president know for his opacity is JUST LIKE and attack by foreign nationals.
Here's your crayons, go color a book.

[Kure'i]

Or that Reagan knew about Iran-Contra, AMIRITE?

[Sevo]

"Fake scandal."

Ye, just like the ones you claim, turd.

[Old Man With Candy]

He's toast.

[Palin's Buttplug]

He still has the Ron Paul vote. 15% of the GOP solid.

[Sevo]

Yeah, turd, and you still lick Obo ass.

[Old Man With Candy]

No, 8%.

[The Late P Brooks]

It gets the needle, or it goes out of the lifeboat.

[jjjjj]

Why is this a children issue? If we're going to mandate vaccines in children, we should also mandate adults get boosters throughout life (MMR effectiveness has been shown to wear off). It's easy for the voting population to force the non-voting populations to do something.

[Steve G]

should be the choice of parents

Absolutely right, but that doesn't mean the choice shouldn't come with consequences impacting school attendence, theme park/cruise ship entrance, etc.

[John]

So we are going to require everyone to carry proof of vaccination to get in anywhere? All to indulge these ignorant fucks?

Moreover, you can't just ban unvacinated children from public. There are too many of them and you could never enforce it.

You have two choices, force these people to vaccinate their kids, or have the diseases come back and see a lot of kids and adults get sick some of whom will die.

That is it. If you think choice number two is the right one, that is not an unreasonable position. But don't kid yourself into thinking that position doesn't have consequences. It does.

[Idle Hands]

I completely agree with you John and I'm for door number two, I just think to many people are vaccinated for a great many to die. I don't know to many people who are anti-vaccine but just the fact that I know more than one is a sad state of affairs.

[John]

One thing about it, let enough kids get sick and die and people will figure it out. It is a tough way to learn but it is a way. And these people seem so stupid, it might be the only way.

[Idle Hands]

It is the only way. But even than it doesn't mean they will learn case and point would be DDT.

[Kure'i]

"..case and point would be DDT."

Or Christian Scientists.

[Zeb]

As with most things, it is probably self correcting in the long run. But it would be a lot nicer if it would correct without a bunch of kids dying.

[Steve G]

It is a tough way to learn but it is a way

Yep, sucks. Extend your logic in another direction: how many people die of heart disease/diabetes every year? You have two choices John: take away all their artery-clogging foods or have the diseases kill tens of thousands every year.

[John]

Except Steve that the science that food is the cause of that is hardly settled. And to the extent that it is, it only is true for some people. Some people eat enormously bad diets and never feel any effects on their heart. Bacteria and viruses are a bit more efficient and uniform in its effects.

Not every case is analogous, not every line is bright, and not every slope is slippery. Sometimes two things really are different. Saying that people should have to vaccinate their kids is not the same as banning fatty foods.

[Steve G]

The science will never be settled, but that's beside the point, at some points they've seemed pretty sure they knew enough to propose draconian measures that you apparently would have given a thumbs up to. It's a question of force, not how close the analogy is.

[John]

The science will never be settled,

Vaccines have been effective since around 1700. They resulted in any number of diseases, like small pox and mumps to name two, that once ravaged populations being unknown.

If you can't see the difference between the state of science regarding vaccines and the state of science regarding heart disease, you are either lying or too stupid to have the conversation. There is no way around that. Some things really are more settled than others.

[Steve G]

I was referring to the science re: heart disease, but thanks for reverting to name calling. At least you're consistent with that.

[See.More]

Vaccines have been effective since around 1700...

Natural selection... before vaccines interfered... had been effective since the dawn of humanity's ancestors; the sick either get better and developed natural immunities or they died off, culled from the herd, so to speak...

[Overt]

Ugh, I'm getting to this late, but Heart Disease is a perfect analogy.

The biggest contributor to Heart Disease is smoking. And guess what? With education and a lack of banning, we have cut Heart Disease significantly in the past two decades.

We didn't need to ban smoking, and we don't need to force vaccinations. We need to hold people accountable for negligence (actively participating in public spaces when sick) and educate them on the dangers of non-vaccination.

[Diane Merriam]

Unfortunately, particularly with measles, you're contagious for 4 days before you have any symptoms.

[Overt]

And?

That is where it is important to educate and even publicly shame people declining to vaccinate. Not everyone who smokes gets cancer or heart disease. And not everyone who declines to vaccinate will catch or transmit a disease. Are they a higher risk? Yup. And we should regularly remind them of that risk.

But, just as with smoking, we have no place *requiring* people to reduce risks of natural phenomena either to themselves or to others.

[robc]

Stupidity is often fatal.

Unfortunately, not always to the stupid person.

[Steve G]

ignorant fucks

Who? The ones who have a respect for individual freedom? You know where you are, right? You want the govt to hold my son down and vaccine him? Fuck you. I'm capable of taking responsibility for the health of my family and will make the right call without force, thank you very much.
Maybe if these "ignorant fucks" had to pay for their child's diseases, they start to take a proactive approach to vaccines. To me, THAT'S how you fix the disinformation campaign out there by the anti-vaxers.

[Steve G]

*vaccinate him

[John]

If you don't want your kid vaccinated you are a fucking moron. I have and should have the freedom to cut my arms for fun. My freedom to be a moron doesn't make me any less of a moron.

If these ignorant fucks were not making the decision for another person and if their decision didn't affect people other than their own kids, you would have a point. But they don't. I am all for parental authority. But I am pretty sure that doesn't extend to killing your kid. Who the hell asked the kid if he wanted to die for their parents' ignorance? Don't' their rights count some too?

[Steve G]

Who the hell asked the kid if he wanted to die for their parents' ignorance?

Who the hell said anything about Abortion!?!?

j/k, you make valid points, slightly less valid than mine, but you know, can't win 'em all.

[John]

I get the freedom end to it. Ulimately, if you don't get your kid vaccinated and these diseases return, which they will and are, and my kid gets sick because he was exposed before his immunity took after his shot or he couldn't get the shot for some health reason, how are you and every other idiot who didn't get their kid vaccinated not responsible for my kid getting sick?

How about his idea, we track the cost of these disease outbreaks. We put a value on every death, on every bit of pain and suffering and every dime of medical costs. Then we assess that cost equally onto every idiot who didn't vaccinate their kid. You don't want to do it, your call. But understand you are going to be assessed a special tax paying for every bit of damage your decision is causing.

[Steve G]

In other words, link consequences with choices. That sounds an awful lot like my first comment.

[robc]

But the damage isnt done by every kid, its done by a specific kid specifically transferring the disease.

If you want to make a tort out of it, feel free, but you cant do a reverse class action.

[John]

But the damage isnt done by every kid, its done by a specific kid specifically transferring the disease.

Yes it is. It is their collective decision of not doing it that caused the outbreak. Think of it this way. If four factories are putting out polluting in a town that is making people sick, you couldn't ever prove that it was the particle from this or that factory that made someone sick. And expecting to do that would be idiotic. You would take the costs of the pollution and divide it among the four factories.

Jesus Christ Rob, why are so enamored with these people? It is an act of unimaginable ignorance and recklessness and you won't even agree to holding them responsible for the damage that results from them doing it.
It is the same thing here.

[Diane Merriam]

You cannot hold one person responsible for the actions of another. Some parents might never let their unvaccinated child go places where they have a chance of contracting anything or stick exclusively with groups that don't vaccinate. That child is no risk to others.

Some children cannot be vaccinated due to age or other medical reasons - reduced immune response or getting a transplant. Some children get the vaccine but it doesn't "take."

[Kure'i]

Sue the dead kid!

[PaulW]

I am all for parental authority. But I am pretty sure that doesn't extend to killing your kid.

Thanks John you won the debate in my eyes. Too many people here are putting the rights of the parents over the rights of the kid as an individual human being.

I missed that important point as well for a while.

[R C Dean]

Moreover, you can't just ban unvacinated children from public.

You don't need to. You just need to allow people to ban unvaccinated children from their property, if they want.

"Public accommodation" be damned,

If your kid can't go to most schools, can't got to most hotels or amusement parks or movie theaters, can't fly, etc. then you might just get them vaccinated.

So we are going to require everyone to carry proof of vaccination to get in anywhere?

Nope. Just to go on those properties that require proof of vaccination.

[John]

You don't need to. You just need to allow people to ban unvaccinated children from their property, if they want.

Sure you could. But not every place would do it and once the herd immunity has been broken even kids who have been vaccinated will get sick and give it to others.

There is just no way around it. For vaccinations to be fully effective like they have been, everyone or nearly everyone has to get them. Once that is no longer true, you are going to have outbreaks. No amount of "but let the private sector handle it" is going to change that. Nature and viruses don't give a shit about the private sector like they do in Libertopia.

[Latka6]

Herd immunity requires between 85-90% rate to protect against outbreaks. There are kids with immunosuppression from chemotherapy that are particularly vulnerable to these viral illnesses are more likely to suffer severe illness. It's a no-brainer, vaccinate.

[Free Society]

Let's stop talking about barring access the government dominated k-12 education market like it's an exercise of property rights to do so. Anytime you erect a government dominated industry and then attach political strings to the provision of those resources, that is anything but an exercise of free association.

[See.More]

So we are going to require everyone to carry proof of vaccination to get in anywhere? All to indulge these ignorant fucks?

Starts black market business for forged proof of vaccination records...

[Kure'i]

Oh crap. There are gonna be posts on all the right wing sites now about the illegals getting free proof-of-vaccination cards, and how that's destroying American and making it more brown and stuff.

[Idle Hands]

I have to ask, why the fuck is this even a topic of conversation at this point?

[Zeb]

Because people with defective children are desperate to blame it on something and a bunch of other people are suckers who think they are special.

[The Late P Brooks]

Only right wing teabagster nutjobs don't believe in vaccinating their children.

I heard it on Morning Joke.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Some are religious whackjobs like the Seventh Day crowd or JW that don't believe in blood transfusions. Some are CT lefty anti-GMO types. In total they are small.

[Sevo]

The Late P Brooks|2.3.15 @ 9:53AM|#
"Only right wing teabagster nutjobs don't believe in vaccinating their children."
--------------------
Maybe you have to be local, but:

"Many parents at Lagunitas and Bolinas-Stinson Union School Districts appear to be holding firm in their refusal to vaccinate their children against infectious diseases such as chicken pox, Hepatitis B and measles, despite a new California law passed last year that makes it harder to opt out."
http://www.ptreyeslight.com/ar.....ot-so-much

The article doesn't mention the actual vaccination rates; according to the Chron, in oh-so-lefty Bolinas, the rate is 18%.
Yep, 88% of the little rug rats are just waiting to get sick.

[Sevo]

'Scuse me; 82%, not 88%.

[R C Dean]

What's 8% between friends?

[Sevo]

So it was an Obamian slip?

[Bones]

Or 6%.

[NealAppeal]

Didn't know you were friends with PB. =]

[Joec578]

What I find amazing is how the media is piling on top of Paul and Christi while giving Obama a complete pass for saying the same exact thing back in 2008. The science today is no different than it was in 2008.

[John]

And the left wing media publicized and treated the concerns seriously for years. Here is Mother Jones in 2004.

http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....ping-point

How many fawning daytime talk show interviews did Jenn McCarthy get to pander this bullshit? Sure enough their readership believed them and now are not vaccinating their kids. Somehow it is still all Rand Paul and Chris Christy's fault.

[JWatts]

"What I find amazing is how the media is piling on top of Paul and Christi while giving Obama a complete pass for saying the same exact thing back in 2008."

That's doesn't surprise me in the least. The surprising event is that Vox jumped off the Liberal plantation and pointed it out. Which has enraged the Leftwing Press.

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/2/79.....ine-autism

[Jackand Ace]

In fact, he didn't say the same thing in 2008. Ronald's post yesterday was misleading.

[JWatts]

"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."

--Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

[Jackand Ace]

Did you even look at the video posted on your link? In the first place, "this person included" refers to a person in the audience, not the President.

And the science that was "inconclusive" was any suggestion of a link between vaccines and autism, not the science of vaccines.

You should read/watch the things you cite.

[Sevo]

Jackand Ace|2.3.15 @ 10:20AM|#
"Did you even look at the video posted on your link? In the first place, "this person included" refers to a person in the audience, not the President."

Nice try; don't you get dizzy?
It was tried and called as partisan bullshit above, from another partisan bullshitter.

[JWatts]

"Did you even look at the video posted on your link? In the first place, "this person included" refers to a person in the audience, not the President."

Yes, ergo the President was pandering to the anti-Vaccination votes.

"And the science that was "inconclusive" was any suggestion of a link between vaccines and autism, not the science of vaccines."

The link between vaccines and autism is about the science of vaccinations.

[Jackand Ace]

And Rand Paul, he pandered to who yesterday?

[Latka6]

The conspiracy kook fringe that hates "big-pharma"

[Sevo]

Jackand Ace|2.3.15 @ 10:09AM|#
"In fact, he didn't say the same thing in 2008."

You're right, it was worded differently"
"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
--Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008."

Now go split some hairs, jack.

[Zeb]

When was that study that was pretty much the only support for the autism-vaccine connection retracted? I could forgive people a bit more for suspecting a connection, if not for avoiding vaccinations, before then.

[obadiahlynch]

Didn't the autism story get recently debunked? Like last year, year before?

[Zeb]

The major study that posited the link was retracted a few years ago by the journal that published it. For several years before that, it was pretty clear that it was probably fraudulent.

[Diane Merriam]

Several years ago, plus the fact that what they were going on about was that mercury was used in a preservative in some vaccines and there is a documented link between mercury and neurological conditions. However the level was extremely low, even then, and that preservative was banned in 2003. So even that slight connection has been gone for 11 or 12 years.

[invisible furry hand]

He didn't actually say autism, so it's possible he was referring to the fact that some vaccines can cause serious brain injury. If that's what he meant, it is so amazingly rare that the "many" bit is just bullshit and his statement is still irresponsible bollocks

[Steve G]

Saw an interestign graphic over the weekend that compared deaths from measles and deaths from the measles shot. zero in the former, over a hundred in the later. I can't vouch for it's accuracy, but if true it raises and interesting point? Which is more important, containing a non-lethal disease or preventing death?

[kinnath]

http://www.who.int/mediacentre...../fs286/en/

Key facts

-- Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.

-- In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally ? about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.

-- Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.

-- In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services ? up from 73% in 2000.

-- During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

[kinnath]

Continuing

Most measles-related deaths are caused by complications associated with the disease. Complications are more common in children under the age of 5, or adults over the age of 20. The most serious complications include blindness, encephalitis (an infection that causes brain swelling), severe diarrhoea and related dehydration, ear infections, or severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia. Severe measles is more likely among poorly nourished young children, especially those with insufficient vitamin A, or whose immune systems have been weakened by HIV/AIDS or other diseases

[kinnath]

Given the anti-vax movement is about a decade old, the people most at risk from catching measles from unvaccinated kids are young children that are too young to be vaccinated, have medical risks that prevent vaccination, or were vaccinated but did not develop immunity.

In another decade, unvaccinated young adults are going to cause huge problems on college campuses as 20-somethings start getting measles when they become high risk again.

[Steve G]

seems legit.

[Latka6]

I can discredit the meme as complete and utter donkey ball bullshit

[Jackand Ace]

"Get your kids vaccinated." President Obama, yesterday.

"I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Rand Paul, yesterday.

Ronald's suggestion, yesterday, that the two hold similar opinions was, and is, laughable. Its just tough to accept that the "prog" holds a more scientific view than the Libertarian.

But gee, climate change should have provided a warning.

[Jordan]

The CDC agrees with Rand Paul's assertion, since he did not say anything about autism. But guess who did say something about autism?

[Jackand Ace]

Yesterday, one encouraged parents to get their children vaccinated. The other spoke to largely unfounded fears of vaccinations.

Guess who said what. Hint...I already posted the quotes.

[Jordan]

I'm not finding that quote you posted of Rand telling people to not get vaccinated. I do see a quote of him praising vaccinations as a very important medical breakthrough.

[Jordan]

I also found the quote you posted of Obama pandering to anti-vaxxers.

[Jackand Ace]

He did? And who exactly did Paul pander to yesterday?

[Jackand Ace]

So again, yesterday one encouraged parents to get their children vaccinated (exact words), and the other said it was a choice and then followed with largely unfounded fears associated with vaccines (no equivocation there).

And who was who?

[R C Dean]

Yeah, which one said this, again?

he thinks "vaccines are one of the biggest medical breakthroughs that we've had" and that "public awareness of how good vaccines are for kids and how they are good for public health is a great idea."

[Jackand Ace]

Tell it to Ronald...he is sure that Paul's message was at best muddled and needs clarification.

The one who said "get your kids vaccinated" didn't muddle, and it doesn't need clarification. Taking quotes from 6 years ago is laughable. Yesterday is much much more current.

[Jordan]

PAUL: Here's the thing is, I think vaccines are one of the biggest medical breakthroughs that we've had. I'm a big fan and a great fan of the history and the development of the smallpox vaccine for example. But for most of our history they have been voluntary, so I don't think I'm arguing for anything out of the ordinary, we're arguing for what most of our history has had.

PAUL: I think public awareness of how good vaccines are for kids and how they are good for public health is a great idea. We just appointed a Surgeon General. These are some of the things that are things that we should promote as good for our health. But I don't think there's anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom. I'll give you a good example. The Hepatitis B vaccine is now given to newborns, we sometimes give 5 and 6 vaccines all at one time. I chose to have mine delayed. I don't want the government telling me that I have to give my newborn a Hepatitis B vaccine which is transmitted by sexually transmitted disease, and/or blood transfusions. Do I think it's ultimately a good idea? Yeah. And I've had mine staggered over several months.

Yep, he clearly hates and shuns vaccines!

[Jackand Ace]

Like I said to RC above, tell it to Ronald. You seem sure that Paul was clear on his thoughts. Ronald certainly doesn't...he said that Paul better clarify his statements.

[Robert]

Rand Paul has the same ideas about vaccines as I do, because we know what we're talking about. Biologicals are a technical field, as all drugs are, and it makes no sense for a physician to say, "Sure, take all the drugs that are available." Hepatitis B, of course he takes that, he's a surgeon, he's exposed to lots of people's body fluids. Giving it routinely to babies is ridiculous.

There are also medical differences of opinion as to when vaccination is most effective. The recommended schedules for infant vaccination are largely guesswork, based on an idea of when people are taking their kids to the pediatrician. It is highly unlikely that the recommendations match up exactly with when an individual's immune system is best primed to receive each component; they're largely for convenience.

[Robert]

I'll give you another practical example. I never had mumps, & when I was a child none of the components of what is now MMR were available. When I went to medical school and realized I was about to start Pediatrics, I asked for the mumps vaccine, which was then available. However, they wouldn't give it to me without checking my Abs first, fearing the possibility of adverse rx as well as waste of the vaccine in case I was already immune. My Ab titer turned out to be unmeasurably low, so then they gave it to me. I did not have my Ab titer taken since, so I don't know whether it took. Much later I had a couple times I was worried I had parotitis, but it was sialoadenitis.

[DrZaius]

Directly from the CDC's website, cuntrag.

Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

Let's also not forgot the overlap between anti-GMO Luddites who think Monsanto wants to poison us all and the people scolding Paul for his admittedly stupid and unforced error.

I don't think this is by any means fatal to Rand 2016, but dude needs to learn to stay on message and not set himself up like this.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Just out of curiosity who is the most prominent elected anti-GMO Luddite? I can't think of one right now.

[Sevo]

Why, turd, I'm surprised you're trying some misdirection! Really, I am!

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

All the legislators that support mandatory GMO-labeling?

You do the research.

[Palin's Buttplug]

This is a true divide among liberals/conservatives.

I will denounce in a second any idiot who says GMO derived food is harmful to your health. But conservatives back up the idiocy of a Jim Inhofe as gospel truth.

[R C Dean]

To date, more than 70 bills have been introduced in over 30 states to require GE labeling or prohibiting genetically engineered foods.

There seems to be no shortage, Plugs.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.....itiatives#

[Palin's Buttplug]

States can label if they want. I am against it but I cannot name a single Dem state rep anyway.

[Jordan]

Well, that settles it. Nobody shriek knows voted for Nixon, either.

[John]

The ignorant Greens have help to blind thousands of children because of their objections to golden rice.

The left is appallingly anti-science and anti-science in ways that have harmed millions of people. This is a very unpleasant truth that they don't want people to know. This is why our resident retard is on here shitting all over the thread. They have a feral sense of what hurts the cause.

[The Late P Brooks]

This is why every American should have an RFID data chip implanted in his or her neck.

[JWatts]

For the children!

[Bill Dalasio]

Strictly speaking, the anti-vaxers have the stronger case from a libertarian perspective. If someone is going to claim "my body, my choice". it's hard to argue that a person should be compelled to have something injected into their body "for their own good".

Now, you can claim an externality argument, but that seems strange. You have to contend that you have a "right" to another person's vaccination. If so, how do you suggest one deals with a person for whom vaccination didn't take? Presumably, they're violating your right to their vaccination just as much as the person who refused the process.

Now, I'll be upfront. I think the argument against vaccination is bullshit. And I'd certainly advise anyone to get them. But, compulsory vaccination almost certainly flies in the face of individual rights.

[R C Dean]

You have to contend that you have a "right" to another person's vaccination.

Eh, not really. This is getting into strawman territory.

I still think there's a good analogy between being unvaccinated and being a public nuisance, in effect.

Like allowing garbage to accumulate on your property and becoming a haven for rats. Or allowing the drainage on your property to get effed up so water runs onto your neighbor's property.

Its not a perfect analogy, and I'm not even sure it carries the day, but we do have a time-tested property rights doctrine that can require you to take action on your own property in order to mitigate risks to your neighbors.

[Bill Dalasio]

But, once you've stretched that "public nuisance" argument enough to stop the anti-vaxers, you're going to have an awfully hard time putting it back in the bottle. Think your kids should be able to play outside on their own? Sorry, public nuisance. Think you should be able to smoke marijuana? Sorry, public nuisance. Think you should be able to have a gun? Sorry, public nuisance. Don't think your kids should have to go through "social justice training"? Sorry, public nuisance.

[R C Dean]

Yeah, that's the bit I struggle with.

What's the limiting principle, once you take it out of the property context? The slope starts looking kinda slippery.

Although some of your counterexamples don't really cut it, I don't think. The public nuisance argument is that your failure to act creates a risk of damage or disease. I don't think it could be stretched to social justice training, kids playing outside, etc.

[Tony]

Mature citizens can take each case as it comes. We have, society-wide, decided that it's a good idea to require babies to be properly strapped into car seats. From one perspective, that's quite an imposition on decision-making autonomy of parents. And in that case it's only their own child at risk. With the public risk aspect, vaccine is a no-brainer compared to a lot of other stuff government tells parents they are required to do with their children. For other matters, mature citizens should be able to handle taking each case as it comes.

[R C Dean]

Mature citizens can take each case as it comes.

Mature citizens have principles, and try to avoid a completely ad hoc approach to directing that state violence be imposed on people.

[Tony]

There's something so Orwellian about how everything including medical treatment is "state violence" but the actual literal state violence you support to protect your property rights is necessary and just. We're all to some degree socialists. We all think we should get to tell other people what to do, to some extent, whether it's to stay off your lawn or to purchase health insurance. There is no principle dividing the two except what you make up in your head to make yourself feel morally superior.

[Free Society]

We're all to some degree socialists. We all think we should get to tell other people what to do, to some extent, whether it's to stay off your lawn or to purchase health insurance. There is no principle dividing the two except what you make up in your head to make yourself feel morally superior.

Except that telling someone to stay off your lawn is no more socialist than telling a rapist to stay out of your pants. Whether or not my neighbor has a right to put a gun to my head and force me to buy something is also quite distinct from my own property rights to my lawn and my person.

[Tony]

No it isn't. Police and courts cost money.

[Free Society]

No it isn't. Police and courts cost money.

So extortion is indistinguishable from private property?

Your sophistry runs so deep that it's impossible to even speak to you in the same philosophical language. As usual Tony, you've been a complete waste of time.

[utabintarbo]

This is such a profoundly stupid statement that one has to assume it was done purposely. I can't fathom the lack of intellect that would conflate forcing individuals to purchase a product with using force in response to a transgression (such as trespassing). Is it really all the same to you? Is that the fiction you need to feel that you've achieved some minimal level of moral equivalency with others? How sad is that?

[Tony]

I need you to wrap your head around the fact that they are not, in principle, any different. You like having certain government programs to do your bidding unless you are an anarchist. In which case you are to some degree "socialist." You are welcome to attach that reality to an appreciation of how decent modern societies work and learn to love universal healthcare. Or you can defend the position of why we alone among advanced countries shouldn't have it. I just think you should have to actually defend it. Deploying nonsensical slogans about government force is an indication that you don't actually have a good argument in defense of your policy position.

[Diane Merriam]

Who owns you?

[Tak Kak]

"We're all to some degree socialists. We all think we should get to tell other people what to do, to some extent, whether it's to stay off your lawn or to purchase health insurance. There is no principle dividing the two except what you make up in your head to make yourself feel morally superior."

If that's the case "You" would apply to yourself and everyone else except extreme libertarians who don't believe in states at all, are you saying they're more principled than you?

[Tony]

Anarchists are more consistent than most libertarians, yes. So are many other types of extremists. I'm just saying you can't be against something solely because it requires government force, because you're OK with government force in certain circumstances. I'm sorry if this means you have to find a way to defend your policy preferences on their merits like the rest of us do.

[Tak Kak]

"Anarchists are more consistent than most libertarians, yes."

By that you mean, extreme libertarians are more consistent than yourself.

"I'm just saying you can't be against something solely because it requires government force, because you're OK with government force in certain circumstances."

That's quite a shift from your previous statement. Good. Moving on...

"I'm sorry if this means you have to find a way to defend your policy preferences on their merits like the rest of us do."

I've never met a single libertarian who didn't have a laundry list of reasons behind their policy preferences on top of the principle of non-aggression. Or as Roderick Long said"

"all but the hardiest deontologists generally try to show that their favoured policies will in fact have good consequences, while all but the hardiest consequentialists generally try to show that they're not committed to morally outrageous conclusions"

[Diane Merriam]

There's a big difference. It's presumptive violence, forcing someone who has done nothing that harms another to take an action that they do not freely choose to, vs using it only in response against someone who has taken an action that infringes on the rights of another.

There are a few gray areas, namely wanton endangerment and the reasonable man assumption, but the basic principle is the same there.

[John]

You stop it because those cases are different. Germs are not pot smoke.

And there are lots of cases of legitimate public nuances. Take pollution. A group of factories in a town each belch out enough smoke and particulates that people in the town get sick. Shouldn't those factories have to pay for that? Don't the people in the town have a right to demand that the factories cut back on their pollution?

You could make the same arguments there that you are making here. It is only the cumulative effect of all of the factories that is making people sick. No one factory is making anyone sick. Just like no one person not getting vaccinated is making any one sick. And if we tell people they can't pollute, where does it end?

Those arguments are utterly stupid and unpersuasive when presented with a case of an actual public nuance and externality. And they are stupid and unpersuasive here because contagious disease is the best and most obvious example of an externality.

[Free Society]

Eh, not really. This is getting into strawman territory.

No it's not. If you're arguing that not being vaccinated is an affront to the rights of others, you are quite clearly claiming a right to the positive externality of someone else's vaccination.

Like allowing garbage to accumulate on your property and becoming a haven for rats. Or allowing the drainage on your property to get effed up so water runs onto your neighbor's property.

That analogy would fit if a person were filling their body with radioactivity that they allowed to harm others. As it stands, an unvaccinated person is not akin to a garbage dump, they would be more akin to an undeveloped piece of land. And as the owner of a piece of undeveloped or minimally developed land, you are not responsible for the actions of biological agents on your land that you didn't cultivate.

You are not liable for the wood pecker that resides in your trees when he damages someone's wood siding.
You are not liable when a tornado picks up a tree from your yard and hits a house a mile away.
You are not liable for a pack of wolves that cross your property to eat the cows of your neighbor.

The fact that you didn't exterminate the wood peckers, trap the wolves and cut down all the trees does not confer liability for any such acts of nature.

[Free Society]

Its not a perfect analogy, and I'm not even sure it carries the day, but we do have a time-tested property rights doctrine that can require you to take action on your own property in order to mitigate risks to your neighbors.

Simply not being vaccinated is different than being infected and even being infected doesn't assume that you're attending an orgy while knowing of your infection. Your arguments about nuisance and negligence would be apt for that parallel, not for justifying compulsory vaccination for a person who has not impeded anyone else's rights.

[See.More]

I still think there's a good analogy between being unvaccinated and being a public nuisance, in effect.

You're still wrong.

Your garbage dump analogy works, if, and only IF, the individual is infectious. Your analogy assumes that unvaccinated == infectious, denying the possibility that an unvaccinated individual could be healthy and non-infectious.

Furthermore, it assumes that vaccinated are not carriers or spreaders of the disease, when, in fact, a fully vaccinated individual can cause an outbreak.

Healthy, unvaccinated individuals are no more a risk of spreading the disease than healthy, vaccinated individuals. Vaccination status is irrelevant; it is the infection/infectious status that matters.

Its not a perfect analogy..

It is far from perfect; it is wrong.

[Diane Merriam]

While it is conceivable that a vaccinated person could be contagious, it's highly unlikely. It doesn't just prevent you from having symptoms of the disease.

A vaccine prompts your body to create antibodies which then subsequently attack any infection of the disease and eliminates it from the body before it ever has a chance to get established in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to others.

[See.More]

While it is conceivable that a vaccinated person could be contagious, it's highly unlikely...

Hmmm... Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Person.

It's a little more than just "conceivable".

A vaccine prompts your body to create antibodies which then subsequently attack any infection of the disease and eliminates it from the body before it ever has a chance to get established in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to others.

Except that vaccines are not 100% effective and, thus, do not gaurantee protection from infection.

So, again, it is far more than just "conceivable". The vaccinated are still at risk, albeit a greatly reduced risk, of getting infected and/or becoming infectious.

[John]

I don't see what is so complicated about it. You and various other idiots choose not to vaccinate your kids. As a result of that diseases which had previously been unheard of return to the population. As a result of that, my kid gets sick because he was exposed before his immunity took after his shot or because he couldn't get vaccinated due to health reasons. Before you and your idiot friends decided not to vaccinate your kids, my kid wouldn't have gotten sick. Now thanks to your idiocy, my kid is sick.

Explain to me how you and everyone else who helped bring these diseases back into the population is not responsible for that? How is it any different than you deciding that damming a stream on your property is a good idea and the resulting pond floods my property? You have a right to do what you want with your land right? Your land your choice. How do I have a right to you not damming your property? And if you sending germs over to me and getting me sick isn't a harm, how is sending water onto my land also not a harm?

[Bill Dalasio]

So, John, should we throw people for whom the vaccine didn't take in jail?

If not, why not?

[John]

If the outbreaks get bad enough and are enough of a threat to other people's lives, maybe. It all depends on the circumstances and the consequences of their failure to vaccinate.

At the very least, the full costs of these outbreaks should be calculated and assessed in the form of fines on everyone who didn't vaccinate their kid. If you don't want to do this, shouldn't you have to pay for your pro rata share of the costs the resulted from it?

[Bill Dalasio]

At the very least, the full costs of these outbreaks should be calculated and assessed in the form of fines on everyone who didn't vaccinate their kid.

Which is why I suggested dealing with it as a tort yesterday. The basic idea is the same.

[John]

It doesn't work in torts Bill. I can't prove your kid got mine sick. Torts deals with the individual not the collective. What am I going to do, sue every person in America who didn't vaccinate their kid?

It is funny to watch Libertarians struggle with this. It is an easy issue only made hard if you think torts and the market are the solution to every single problem in the world. They are not.

[Free Society]

It is funny to watch Libertarians struggle with this. It is an easy issue only made hard if you think torts and the market are the solution to every single problem in the world. They are not.

Yes ,John. Sometimes the solution is to kill babies... claims the relativist who thinks indiscriminately incinerating men, women and children is permissible in the right circumstances. And a rather loose set of circumstances at that.

[See.More]

You and various other idiots choose not to vaccinate your kids. As a result of that diseases which had previously been unheard of return to the population...

Ignoring the "idiots" ad hominem, this is a ludicrous proposition.

Not getting vaccinated will not result in a spontaneous return of the disease(s). Some outside carrier, from whom your kid would be at greater risk than from an unvaccinated and unexposed / non-infectious kid, would have to introduce it into your population/microcosm.

... my kid gets sick because he was exposed before his immunity took after his shot...

I am not responsible for your kid. You are. If you are afraid of him getting exposed before his immunity takes (after vaccination), then keep your brat at home until it does take!

...or because he couldn't get vaccinated due to health reasons...

Then, again, man up and take some responsiblity for your own brat's health by taking every measure from surgical masks to staying at home to minimize his exposure to pathogens.

... Now thanks to your idiocy, my kid is sick.

No. Thanks to your irresponsibility as a parent for NOT taking greater effort to protect YOUR kid when you KNOW he is at higher risk (e.g.: immunity hasn't taken yet or cannot get vaccinated or is immuno-compromised, etc.).

Fuck off slaver!

[Diane Merriam]

There can be responsible anti-vaccinating parents who do take care that their child doesn't get infected or that is kept away from anyone else if they are even possible infected. So in and of itself, not every anti-vaccination parent is, by definition, putting your child at risk.

If I dam the stream and also build barriers on my property to ensure that the resulting pond does NOT spill onto yours, then you have been done no harm.

[The Late P Brooks]

Which is more important, containing a non-lethal disease or preventing death?

Tonight, on Ask a Utilitarian, we'll debunk this false choice.
Stay tuned.

[John]

God you are stupid Brooks. You really are. Sometimes the choice is make for you. Utilitarianism is wrong right up until either choice results in harm. Then it changes. If the choice is do nothing and nothing happens or do something and get this good at this cost, then all of the arguments against utilitarianism apply.

If, however, the choice is do nothing and this harm results or do something and some other goods and some other harms result, then you have no other choice to but to choose based on some kind of utilitarian calculation.

You can say "we should do nothing because of freedom" and that sounds great except that what about the people who die as a result of our doing nothing? Do they not count? Did we ask them to die so we can have freedom?

It is not such a simple question is it? Or at least it isn't if you are not simple minded and think deeper than screaming about buzzwords.

[Free Society]

You can say "we should do nothing because of freedom" and that sounds great except that what about the people who die as a result of our doing nothing? Do they not count? Did we ask them to die so we can have freedom?

"If it saves just one life..."

[Diane Merriam]

You leave out one step ... it's possible to not vaccinate and still be responsible about protecting others. In that case the government has no reason to presumptively force vaccination on them.

What's really funny if it weren't so sad about this whole argument is that the vast majority of those who are against vaccinations are about as anti-Libertarian a crowd as you can get and yet here we are, defending their right to do something that to us appears to be really stupid because of our principles.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I don't with to reflexively defend Paul, I'll just say that it's depressing that with all his missteps, he's *still* so much better than the alternatives.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

don't *wish*

[Tony]

By all means, let's start a conversation that gets voters thinking about the obvious practical good of some public responsibilities, especially when it comes to the health of their own little darlings. This is a conversation Democrats would love to have and Republicans should run away from. Blame California liberals all you want, this is not a topic that plays into the hands of libertarians.

Almost as concerning to me with respect to Rand Paul's little hissy fit is his insistence that journalists stop telling him what science is and stop asking him hard questions, especially if he decides to run for president. His tone was almost threatening to that nice interviewer lady. He's getting into Sarah Palin territory with this repeated whining about being asked questions.

[R C Dean]

Yes, Tony, we know the "my body my choice" wing of the Dem party is in favor of "your body my mandate" on everything other than abortion and birth control.

[Tony]

Seems like a pretty consistent anti-nutjob stance to me.

[Whahappan?]

That's because you're a mendacious fool.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

This is a conversation Democrats would love to have and Republicans should run away from. Blame California liberals all you want, this is not a topic that plays into the hands of libertarians.

Why should Republicans run away from it? All they really need to do is point out that most unvaccinated kids come from left-wing residential havens.

Maybe you should be hectoring your fellow liberals rather than libertarians that the science is settled and they should vaccinate their kids.

[Tony]

I don't give a shit what the politics are of anti-vaccination people. Unlike Republicans, Democrats are willing to call out anti-science kooks in their midst and have no problem doing so. We are talking about how Rand Paul is vocally on the side of the kooks and Barack Obama is vocally against them. And it is in principle a libertarian position anyway (ignore externalities).

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I don't give a shit what the politics are of anti-vaccination people.

From above:

This is a conversation Democrats would love to have and Republicans should run away from. Blame California liberals all you want, this is not a topic that plays into the hands of libertarians.

Yeah, there's no partisan motivation here at all!

Unlike Republicans, Democrats are willing to call out anti-science kooks in their midst and have no problem doing so.

Right, that's why anti-vaxxers have been steadily growing in California's Democrat-voting counties.

[Diane Merriam]

Immunization waivers for allowing unvaccinated children to attend public schools weren't argued for and passed by Libertarians, but by liberals.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

This is a conversation Democrats would love to have and Republicans should run away from. Blame California liberals all you want, this is not a topic that plays into the hands of libertarians.

Why should Republicans run away from it? All they really need to do is point out that most unvaccinated kids come from left-wing residential havens.

Maybe you should be hectoring your fellow liberals rather than libertarians that the science is settled and they should vaccinate their kids.

[R C Dean]

No vaccination fight should fail to reference the HPV kerfuffle in Texas. Its got everything: cronyism, Republicans requiring vaccination, Republicans opposing mandatory vaccination, various other states considering and rejecting the mandate, etc. etc.

Seriously, folks, its not like we didn't just work over this issue in a slightly different context. But, I suppose, those who forget history . . . .

[nuffcedmcgreevey]

Incredibly stupid fight to pick, as libertarianism hardly requires an anti-vaccine stance. He'll have only himself to blame for the predictable wave of "Rand Paul hates sciencez, hur durr" from the media.

It's hardly the kind of stuff that disqualifies one from the presidency (which I've read a few times already this morning), but if he wants to make it that far, he's got to do better than this.

[Rhino]

The opponents of libertarianism are trying to conflate the libertarian stance of not forcing people with the ridiculous stance of anti-vaccinations. Much the same as the authoritarians have been painting libertarians as a bunch of potheads for not wanting to lock people up with rapists and murderers and violent criminals for possessing or consuming marijuana. The truth is, the libertarian position is the only well thought out position morally and consistent with actually justice and respect for individual rights. The opponents, on the left or right, are just proposing another round of giving up liberty for security.

[Stormy Dragon]

The opponents of libertarianism are trying to conflate the libertarian stance of not forcing people with the ridiculous stance of anti-vaccinations.

No, the defenders of Libertarianism are conflating the two. Paul could have just said he didn't think the government shouldn't force people to vaccinate. He didn't. He also said "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

Paul is an anti-vaxxer.

[Diane Merriam]

Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. Leaning Libertarian, yes. Being Libertarian, no.

There are tragic cases of bad responses to any and every medicine, vaccine or even common medical treatment.

The preservative Thimerosal, formerly used in many vaccines, contains mercury and there is a proven relationship between mercury and neurological conditions. That's the thinnest cord of plausibility due to there being so little of it, but it's there ... except that Thimerosal has been banned since 2003.

His addition there has definitely put another strike against him in my book. I hope he clarifies what he said in regards to the scientific evidence, but it still won't totally erase the stupidity of what was said in the context given.

[Stormy Dragon]

It's hardly the kind of stuff that disqualifies one from the presidency

Paul either knows the suggestion that vaccines cause mental disorders is bullshit, which makes him a liar, or he doesn't know it's bullshit, which makes him a moron.

Either disqualifies him as president.

[Beezard]

I like how he says vaccines are great and that's not fucking good enough.

Screw perpetuating science as Kultur Warz chess piece. Stop tripping over yourself to prove how pro-science you are. It's just as pointless as tripping over yourselves to prove how anti-racist you are. Most people who are for making immunizations mandatory are not remotely libertarian or reasonable. They're pretty much ok with the state raising your kids or at least punishing you if you don't do it "right".

Bailey's stance without some limiting principle negates a whole fuck ton of rights and opens up huge swathes of previously developed real estate for governing bodies to tell you what to do and make you legally liable for things like microbial life forms on or in your body. And for what? Most of us won't even know someone who knows someone with polio.

And spare me any morality about it. Those parents care a zillion times more about their kids than you will. Or does that cop snatching someone's kids because they're medical marijuana patients actually have a point? There's been a whole lot of "objective science" behind perpetuating the drug war, or sterilizing retards, or measuring Gypsies foreheads to see if they can fit into society. Fuck that. And get the fuck off my lawn.

[John]

And spare me any morality about it. Those parents care a zillion times more about their kids than you will.

Presumably so do people who strap their kids up with bombs to use them as suicide bombers. They just want their kids to go to heaven. How much someone cares about their kids is irrelevant.

Bailey's stance without some limiting principle negates a whole fuck ton of rights and opens up huge swathes of previously developed real estate for governing bodies

And so does every single thing the government does. The government throws prison for decades or their entire lives for crimes like murder and rape. Doesn't them doing that just open up new fields of throwing people in prison for other things? Indeed, it has in fact done so as the government now throws people in jail for victimless crimes. Are you a libertarian or are you an anarchist? Is the solution to get the government to throw the right people in jail or just deprive them of that power altogether?

It is the same thing here. Not every case is the same. Vaccines are different than big sodas or fatty foods. If you think telling people they have to be vaccinated is a slippery slope, what government action isn't? And if no action isn't a slippery slope, why aren't you an anarchist?

[Beezard]

How much someone cares about their kids is irrelevant.

It is when the state is justifying getting all mandatory on them.

And I'm pretty sure the intent of the terrorist parents is blow up people. Where the anti-vaccer parents have no intent towards anyone. The terrorist parents also have clear control over strapping a bomb to their kids. Where viruses are nature.

And if no action isn't a slippery slope, why aren't you an anarchist?

Because you're inventing new laws out of whole cloth. I don't have to be an anarchist to believe that we don't need new legislation on this.

And there is an obvious slope here since people already can't differentiate between vaccines for diseases that can wiped out and, say, flu vaccines that change constantly and only effect certain strains and won't end the virus or even make it negligible.

There's also medical advances that will fall right into this, like genetically modifying babies. What sort of monster would have a natural birth when they could genetically engineer our diseases?!

[John]

Because you're inventing new laws out of whole cloth.

No we are not. Government has been quarantining people with contagious diseases and requiring vaccinations for such for hundreds of years. You may not like this power, but there is nothing new about it.

And there is an obvious slope here since people already can't differentiate between vaccines for diseases that can wiped out and, say, flu vaccines that change constantly and only effect certain strains and won't end the virus or even make it negligible.

There is an obvious slippery slope to everything. Name any government action, no matter how needed and legitimate, and there is a corresponding abuse or overreach. Just because the government can screw up and send innocent people to jail or pass unjust laws that make crimes where there shouldn't be, doesn't mean the government should send no one to jail or never pass laws. It is the same here. Just because it is possible to require useless vaccines, doesn't mean the government shouldn't be able to require needed ones.

[Beezard]

No we are not. Government has been quarantining people with contagious diseases and requiring vaccinations for such for hundreds of years. You may not like this power, but there is nothing new about it.

Sure. Government has been making sure you don't walk into airports with guns, too. But that's different than whole sale seizing of citizens guns at home. Because there gradations exist doesn't mean I should be for the most severe.

Just because it is possible to require useless vaccines, doesn't mean the government shouldn't be able to require needed ones.

Then I guess we have different definitions of "needed".

How is this more a clear and present danger than the zillion other risks libertarians are willing to shrug off for the sake of protecting rights or erring in favor of freedom?

I honestly haven't met an anti-vaccer except on the internet. I'm not sure their beliefs hold any more sway than holocaust revisionism or any more of a direct threat on me or mine than radical Islam. (which isn't).

And it's not just useless vaccines, it's anything the government deems necessary so long as we bandy the word "science", or "the children" about. It's just not a reasonable trade off to me. And you can't have any claim to natural rights and then deny people the choice to live what they see as naturally. I mean, you can, but don't claim it's a libertarian bonifide..

[John]

Then I guess we have different definitions of "needed".

Before vaccines, thousands of kids died from these diseases. After vaccines, they became virtually extinct wherever a large percentage of society got them. Now, thanks to large number of people not getting vaccinated, these diseases are returning.

If that doesn't make them needed in your view, I am at a loss to think of what you would consider needed.

I honestly haven't met an anti-vaccer except on the internet. I'm not sure their beliefs hold any more sway than holocaust revisionism or any more of a direct threat on me or mine than radical Islam. (which isn't).

Something doesn't have to be a threat to you personally for it to be a threat to others. They are a threat to their kids who don't get to choose to take this risk and have it chosen for them. And they are a threat to kids who either can't for health reasons be vaccinated or kids who are exposed in the time between when you get the shot to when your immunity develops. They are also a threat to adults whose immunity has worn off. Thanks to these assholes adults will have to start taking vaccines again where before since the diseases had been wiped out, they didn't.

They are a huge threat. It boggles my mind why you people refuse to see that.

[See.More]

Before vaccines, thousands of kids died from these diseases. After vaccines, they became virtually extinct wherever a large percentage of society got them. Now, thanks to large number of people not getting vaccinated, these diseases are returning.

If that doesn't make them needed in your view, I am at a loss to think of what you would consider needed.

Appeal to emotion, much?

Unless you can show that no child will live to adulthood without vaccinations, then it is not a "need". Merely REDUCING SOME RISKS of... /gasp/... being alive and improving childhood mortality is not a "need".

A "benefit", yes, but not a "need".

[Beezard]

Before vaccines, thousands of kids died from these diseases. After vaccines, they became virtually extinct wherever a large percentage of society got them.

And this only happened because the vaccines were mandatory? Most parents get their kids vaccinated. No one here is actually arguing against vaccination, just a policy of forcing other people to do it.

They are a threat to their kids who don't get to choose to take this risk and have it chosen for them.

Everything gets chosen for kids. It's whether or not the government (or scared neighbors) choose. Or whether the people that birthed them and care for them everyday choose.

And they are a threat to kids who either can't for health reasons be vaccinated or kids who are exposed in the time between when you get the shot to when your immunity develops.

Then who are the monsters who take those at risk kids to amusement parks and other public places? Just think of the bacterial threat there, let alone viral. and they could be crushed! Or kidnapped!!

They are a huge threat. It boggles my mind why you people refuse to see that.

So you're afraid. Join the gazillion other people who let their fear of something they statistically wont catch override real world freedoms. Normally, we downplay such risks in favor of liberty.

[Diane Merriam]

Can you not see the difference between using government force against someone who has done no one else any harm and using it only in response against someone who HAS harmed another first? Rape and murder HAVE harmed others. Not vaccinating? It hasn't, and if handled responsibly (and it can be ... it just rarely is) won't harm anyone else.

You do not have a right to force someone else to take an action for your own benefit when they have done you no harm to begin with.

Is that really so hard a distinction to understand?

[The Late P Brooks]

Your holier-than-thou moral preening is truly impressive, John.

You should take your tent show on the road.

[John]

There is nothing moral about it you fucking half wit. It is just that life isn't is as simple as your simple mind thinks it is, regardless of what your morality. Not every question is answered by appealing to the evils of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism sucks right up until it doesn't. Sometimes, circumstances are such that it is the only calculation available. And this is one of them.

[John]

People let the culture war think for them. Some of the very same people who won't get their kids vaccinated for chicken pox, think the SPV vaccine is the greatest thing ever. Indeed, these idiots are getting a much more sympathetic hearing on this board than the SPV vaccine refuseniks did. Both sets of people are equally idiotic, though for slightly different reasons. The SPV refuseniks at least didn't deny the science of vaccines. They apparently thought the threat of disease would keep their daughters moral. I am not sure if that is better or worse to be honest.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

One difference is that I don't think you can spread STDs like measles, whereas a measles-infected infected child can infect another child in the same room.

So, by all means vaccinate your kid against the results of boneheaded decisions - because that's a definite risk where kids are concerned - but let's not equate it with measles vaccinations.

[John]

No it doesn't. But in both cases people refused effective vaccines.

[John]

And honestly, could 20 years ago anyone have foreseen this would be an issue? It is just incredible to think that people have gotten so stupid that requiring vaccines would even be an issue. You should never have to require vaccines because no one should be stupid enough to refuse one, absent a few cases of real health issues that prevent it. America really is getting dumber.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

And just think, it all got started because some overrated nitwit pinup girl had a kid who wasn't physically perfect.

[Robert]

Hell, 40 yrs. ago swine flu was political, so, yeah, I think people have foreseen this issue.

[Diane Merriam]

Actually it was 39 years ago. The winter of '76. I know exactly because, even though I *didn't* get the swine flu vaccine I was one of those rare cases who contracted Guillain Barre anyway. 17 days on critical, unable to do more than move a finger or two, not knowing if I'd ever be out of a bed again in my life. Plus watching it being on the news every other night talking about all the people that were dying from it.

It was real. The vaccine that year was triggering it. I can't take flu or pneumonia vaccines due to the risk of re-triggering it.

But, if you remember, there was no one held responsible for it happening, nor was anyone being forced to take the shots. That was as it should have been. It was an unforeseeable result and the immunizations were halted for the vast majority of people once the connection had been made. The most recent swine flu year vaccine did result in a few cases, but it was like 1.6 cases per million people vaccinated. Obviously, even though we still don't really KNOW what triggers Guillain Barre, a lot of progress was made in the intervening years on vaccine safety.

[The Late P Brooks]

People let the culture war think for them.

You can't make this shit up.

[Hoppities]

Shouldn't vaccines be voluntary? I think everyone should get them, but from a libertarian perspective, wouldn't we want people to have the choice?

[Rhino]

Yes. those who argue for mandatory vaccinations are conflating risk with actual harm. You cannot commit an act of aggression on against someone without doing them harm or putting them in imminent danger. Being unvaccinated hardly qualifies as an imminent threat. Maybe a more likely danger, but not imminent.

[Diane Merriam]

Thank you. That was the phrase I was looking for: *imminent* threat.

[DrZaius]

His quote speaks of hearing of kids having severe problems as a result of the vaccine. The CDC website lists as a side effects of the MMR vaccine, long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, or permanent brain damage.

So please for the love of fucking god tell me where he made an incorrect statement in that quote? If these side effects are real, and not just general cover your ass shit then it's entirely reasonable that he has heard of kids having a bad reaction. Especially if he's in the medical field. I mean holy fucking shit how is this even controversial? He made a mother fucking statement of fact.

Seriously, here's the link: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va.....ts.htm#mmr

[Mike A.]

"These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine."

[Stormy Dragon]

People get hit by lightening too. If Paul went on TV and said "people should consider never leaving their house because I'v head of people getting killed by lightening strikes", he would also be technically correct.

It would still be an insane thing to say.

[trshmnster the terrible]

people should consider never leaving their house

What, pray tell, is the analogue to this portion of your statement? Did Rand ever say that people should consider not getting vaccinated? Or did he simply say "we shouldn't force people to go outside when they're afraid of being struck by lightning?"

[Diane Merriam]

It wouldn't be smart to leave your house in a lightning storm if you're in the middle of open fields, and especially not if you intend to open an umbrella 🙂

[FreeTempe]

The United States Government pays out billions in Vaccine Court judgments.

It is perfectly reasonable and logical to state there is harm done by vaccines.

[CE]

Yeah, the anti-anti-vaxers seem to want to deny that there are any potential side effects. If they argue that the good outweighs the bad, fine, but too many are just calling legitimate concerns "crazy".

[Stormy Dragon]

There are side effects, but the side effects are so rare that it's like deciding to never leave your house because you might get hit by lightening.

It is crazy.

[Libertymike]

No, it is not.

[Robert]

Risks vary between vaccines. There are PSAs on the radio now encouraging adults to get vaccinated against whooping cough to avoid passing it on to babies. If I had or worked with babies I might decide otherwise, but no way I'm taking the pertussis vaccine?too dangerous by its track record. Maybe in another decade or two when I'm satisfied current vaccine preps are safe enough.

[See.More]

There are side effects, but the side effects are so rare that it's like deciding to never leave your house because you might get hit by lightening.

It is crazy.

* 2014 - 644 cases of measles
* Population of the US - ~320 million
* Percentage of Americans that caught the measles in 2014: 0.00020125%. That's 2 ten-thousandTHS of one percent.

[Response]

Here's the easy answer: If you are entering the US (citizen or not) then you have to prove you have been immunized. This then becomes a free choice.

[Libertymike]

No, that is totalitarian.

The right to travel is not cabined by your collectivist cravings.

[Diane Merriam]

You're in a gray area there. US Citizens are one thing, but the writ of US law does *not* apply to non-citizens. Even when immigration was pretty much wide open, there was one thing that would keep you out ... being sick. You could do isolation, but if you didn't get better fast you were on a boat back to where you came from.

[iupchris10]

He's being pretty libertarian about one thing here: It ultimately should be a parent's choice what goes into their children's bodies. What he should have said to expound on that though, is that the rest of the American people are well within their rights to reject unvaccinated children from enrollment in their public schools.

[CE]

"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

Let's hope that the senator misspoke and will soon clarify his remarks so as to not inadvertently mislead the public with respect to the safety of vaccines.

Misspoke? What is there to clarify? He has heard of cases where vaccinations have led to adverse effects. You can't "unhear" something that you've heard.

[Diane Merriam]

The clarification would be as to whether he was talking about the "normal" chances of bad results from any vaccine vs agreeing with the rabid anti-vaccination causing autism crowd. If he was trying to phrase it in a way that would pander to them that's not good and that's how it came across.

I'm glad for his kids that he was able to afford the individual vaccines so he could space them out a bit and not hit them with them all at once. That does reduce the already minimal risks even further.

[quinnsysmith]

So who do parents get to arrest/hang when vaccine manufactures are caught lying about vaccine effectiveness and what toxic additives they put in them? Will those of us who read the inserts in vaccines and research the toxic additives get to hang or arrest the project mockingbird media talking heads for threatening and forcing vaccines on everyone else? When will the traitors and anti-Americans in the media start criticizing the federal government for opening the borders and allowing millions of illegal immigrants who aren't vaccinated into the US population? When are the media talking heads (who are heavily funded by big pharma, just watch their commercial breaks) going to start criticizing, exposing, and demanding the arrest of the CEOs in big pharma who've lied, manipulated, and experimented on the public? (For example

[quinnsysmith]

: Bayer's HIV tainted Hepatitis B vaccine (factor 8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs , or the Tuskegee Syphilis Vaccine, Gardasil and HPV coverup, Merk MMR fraud, two different kinds of vaccines, one for the working class, and one for the politicians http://www.spiegel.de/internat.....56028.html and many more examples)

If you want to blame anyone for the anti-vaxxers distrust in vaccines, blame the big pharma vaccine makers and distributes. Don't blame the educated for being cautious of trusting known, and habitual liars, who choose profit over people, more often then not.

[quinnsysmith]

21 Questions the vaccine manufacturers, their lobbyists, and their idiot drug pushers and their ignorant, apathetic, sucidial, cult members can't answer ~ http://www.naturalnews.com/048.....iples.html

"Editor's Note: If you have lately found yourself bombarded with the "I told ya so" and the"it's yer fault" or the "whaddaya say about vaccines now?" members of the public who have been led by the corporate whore media to believe that "anti-vaxxers" are to blame for the recent measles outbreak at Disneyland, please arm yourself with this CONFIRMED unsettling knowledge ? measles IS being transmitted by those who've been vaccinated for measles. That's not rumor; that's not Internet myth; these are the scientific findings of government-sponsored research."

http://truthstreammedia.com/re.....accinated/

[Craig K]

Who knows what he was talking about, but there can be complications from vaccinations. Otherwise this page wouldn't exist:

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecom.....table.html

That said, the benefits far outweigh the risks, and I think everyone should be vaccinated. Should they be forced? That's a more difficult question for me. I have no problem with schools kicking kids out who aren't though, or requiring it to attend.

[See.More]

The measles outbreak traced to Disneyland and which is being spread around the country by kids whose parents have refused to get them vaccinated is becoming politicized.

1. ) Where is the evidence that it, "is being spread around the country by kids whose parents have refused to get the vaccinated"? Unless zero vaccinated kids have been infected, then even the vaccinated are participants in the spread.

The spread is caused by the sick / infected regardless of their immunization status.

2. ) We have seen an uptick in measles cases, with 644 cases in 2014, and 102 for January 2015 which correlates to an uptick in illegal immigrant children.

According to the CDC, 88% of all measles cases from 2001 through 2011 were "import associated" [table on page 15].

[See.More]

3. ) The population of the US is 320 million+ people. So, in 2014, with 644 cases, 0.00020125% of the population got the measles. If 2015 is roughly ten-times worse, just move that decimal place back a spot... or even two. It's still just a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. That is statistically insignificant.

Catching the measles is such a non-risk that it does not warrant all this attention.

[Libertymike]

The facts you cite disturb Bailey's narrative.

[Simonb]

I like how there is a hit team series of websites and other media blasting Rand about his comments on Vaccines and Autism, but they only source "truth" from official government sites like the CDC or big pharma propaganda. His source is likely doctors that have researched this topic. Go read the white papers of Russell Blaylock, M.D. He says that over use of Vaccines on developing children causes Autism!! There are other doctors on board with this! This doesn't discredit Rand Paul, it gives him more credibility cause he tells the inconvenient truth! We need more of this kind of principled truth telling in DC!

[utspartan]

Thing is people...Autism was not mentioned...FIRST
He was talking about lettng parents choose the schedule...not getting 5-6 shots at on sitting...Rand said he got his extended. He said kids got really sick from having them all at once....NOT just because they got a vaccine

[Stormy Dragon]

"I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," he said.

This is covered in depth in Paul's self-started medical journal, Rumors of the National Medical Association.

[Robert]

whether kids should be vaccinated on the Laura Ingraham radio show and CNBC

Is that the current euphemism for those body parts?

[See.More]

It's astonishing that in any other case of "prior restraint" (e.g.: banning guns because they might be used in a crime; criminalizing the purchase of too much Sudafed because it might be used to make meth; etc.) libertarians are rightly opposed, but some are more than happy to apply prior restraint WRT vaccinations...

[Stormy Dragon]

Agreed. I think a more libertarian solution would be to make vaccines voluntary, but if you're unvaccinated and become infected, charge you with aggravated assault.

[Libertymike]

What about the more realistic situation of the vaccinated becoming infected?

What about all of the adverse side effects sustained by the vaccinated and the attendant externalities the cost of which are borne by the rest of us?

[Free Society]

but if you're unvaccinated and become infected, charge you with aggravated assault.

If you're wooded property isn't covered with wolf traps and a wolf crosses your land to eat your neighbor's cow, you should be charged with theft, cattle rustling and animal cruelty.

[Free Society]

your*

[Stormy Dragon]

Hey, I just pulled the trigger on this gun. The fact a bullet happened to come out and hit that guy across the room has nothing to do with me.

[Free Society]

The fact a bullet happened to come out and hit that guy across the room has nothing to do with me.

What fact? You made an "ought to" statement claiming it's a 'libertarian solution', which it isn't.

[Free Society]

Do you really think it's appropriate to compare aiming a gun and pulling the trigger as being the same thing as a biological agent doing what it has evolved to do?

[Stormy Dragon]

If you're aware you're infected with said biological agent and still go out in public anyways, then yes, I think comparing it to a gun is completely appropriate.

[Tak Kak]

Is that not just criminal recklessness?

[Charleston28]

Do some research before you suggest such ludicrous dribble. A gun? Are you serious? Assuming that said biological agent is a death sentence is irresponsible. Our bodies were designed to handle viruses/bacteria, not bullets.

[Diane Merriam]

Some biological agents are pretty close to death sentences, the most recent example being Ebola. Philosophical systems do have to take into account exceptions for lifeboat ethics.

There was a sports team, soccer I think, whose plane crashed in the Andes. By the time the survivors were rescued it was pretty obvious that there had been cannibalism. It was also obvious that without it, none of them would have survived. No charges were ever filed or even seriously considered.

The equivalent for disease would be enforced isolation, the minimal restriction that keeps the infected person from putting other people in imminent danger. Exactly where we draw the line in the case of any particular often deadly disease is a gray area. Fortunately it's not one that comes up very often.

As an almost aside, our bodies were "designed" just as much to heal from physical injury as they are to recover from diseases ... not at all. A species that couldn't heal from physical injuries or recover from illnesses isn't going to make it in this big bad world. No "design" to it.

[Free Society]

If you're aware you're infected with said biological agent and still go out in public anyways, then yes, I think comparing it to a gun is completely appropriate.

Since when is being infected the same thing as not having a particular immunity? Is a house without fire extinguishers the same thing as a house that's actually on fire?

[Diane Merriam]

If it was some really weird looking thing that you had no idea was a gun and you set it off, then you wouldn't be responsible. However most guns are pretty obviously what they are and any reasonable adult would be expected to know the possible consequences of pulling the trigger. Then you *would* be responsible.

[See.More]

Agreed. I think a more libertarian solution would be to make vaccines voluntary, but if you're unvaccinated and become infected, charge you with aggravated assault.

What if I am unvaccinated, become infected, but self-quarantine and don't infect anyone else?

What if I am vaccinated, but become infected anyway, and do not self-quarantine, thereby exposing and infecting others?

Vaccination status is irrelevant; it is the infection / infectious status that matters.

[Diane Merriam]

Just because someone is posting here doesn't make them a Libertarian. The Libertarians are the ones saying that it is *WRONG* to legally require vaccinations.

Refusing to allow unvaccinated children to attend public schools if there are other options available would be reasonable. It would also be reasonable to allow people and businesses to have a policy of no vaccination - no entry.

[Robert]

Why are people referring to "vaccines" as if they were an undifferentiated mass? Drugs are good too, but does that mean you should unreservedly say everyone should take all drugs? Why not evaluate 1 at a time? Why not discuss particular vaccines, rather than vaccination generally? Nobody seems to talk about drugs generally this way.

[Charleston28]

Excellent point. Most have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to inoculation. Yet they are quick to chop your head off if you insinuate anything contrary to what they have been 'fed' for years. Science teaches to question EVERYTHING. No one questions anything anymore.

[Free Society]

Why are people referring to "vaccines" as if they were an undifferentiated mass?

I know. When people make these claims I like to repeat their own logic right back to them; "Pills cause headaches!", "Skin cream causes cancer!" , "Shots cause AIDS!"

[Robert]

Everybody's looking for a simple answer for everything. What could Rand Paul have said about this that wouldn't've upset someone? He could talk long or short, and someone would still pick his answer apart for signs he was leaning one way or another.

Should you believe every claim of the anti-vaxx? Of course not, but at least it's fairly easy to detect their propaganda as such. Should you swallow everything from the vaccine pushers? No way, because many of them have reason to slant their message too; however, at least some of those with a commercial interest are constrained in what they claim by legal liability. But anybody with any facts to impart, on wading into this duck pond, is likely to get shot at from all sides.

Then again, I'm frequently in that position on many issues.

[Robert]

And yet, people don't seem to have this problem anywhere nearly as badly when discussing drug policy. Yes, there is an unfortunate propaganda effect when people put a loop around a category of things and call them "drugs" and make up policy based on the category rather than the specifics, but fortunately drug reformers don't seem to have a problem discussing the properties of particular drugs as distinct from others.

But the vaccine-category problem is far from alone in discussion of medical-legal matters. Just a few days ago in a comment thread here, I mentioned "alternative health care practices", and someone responded based on the idea that I had quackery in mind, while I had in mind a range of practices that are sometimes called "allied health practices".

[Free Society]

Any medicine not specifically endorsed by government affiliated institutions, is quackery. Any drugs that haven't bureaucratically needlessly had billions of dollars attached to their development, are to be considered snake oils. Any healthcare consumers who don't wholly endorse the legitimacy of these government affiliated entities, ought to have their children taken away and forcibly treated with the medical regimen approved by the Top Men.

[Diane Merriam]

Good point. I think it's because the anti-vaccination crowd acts and talks as if they are all the same.

[Robert]

Remember the last presidential candidate who took a strong stand on a vaccine? Gerald Ford, who was also the sitting president, encouraging people to get the swine flu vaccine. Hardly anybody got the swine flu, but a fair number died or were crippled by Guillain-Barre syndrome from the vaccine before they stopped giving it.

Flu vaccines have gotten a lot safer since (and because of) that incident, and I take flu shots, but so far the record of presidential candidates on vaccination & outcomes would seem to favor the anti side over the pro!

[Diane Merriam]

Actually, quite a few people got swine flu and died from it. That's why the push for the vaccinations. Even after making the correlation, they still recommended those particularly at risk for dying from the flu still get the shot.

I remember it quite well, because I came down with Guillain-Barr? that winter. Nothing to do with the vaccine. I didn't take it. We still don't know what causes it to this day. That's why it's called a syndrome.

I was lucky. I was only on critical for 17 days. I made an almost full recovery, just don't have good balance anymore because of the scarring on the nerve ends (or that's the theory). It took almost 20 years before they could get a reflex response at all.

Maybe the flu itself was a trigger. There are theories that at least some cases might be tied to herpes family viruses. But I was VERY aware of everything being said and done about the whole situation. To this day I am excluded from taking flu or pneumonia vaccines because of the risk of triggering it again.

[Stormy Dragon]

This comment thread is a nice reminder of how many of the crazy "blue skin" libertarians are still hanging around.

[Ed Ucation]

Blue skin libertarians? What the hell is that? Smurfs libertarians? Libertarians that take too much colloidal silver?

[Jim Smithy]

your vaccine propaganda is destroyed here: http://www.naturalnews.com/048.....iples.html

[Jenna]

Why should the Senator clarify his remarks? People have most certainly had side effects from vaccines up to and including death. If Ron Bailey can prove that no vaccine has ever had a side effect in any case, I'd love to hear him make that case.

I would expect Reason to err on the side of freedom of the individual, no matter the issue. It is *very* disappointing to see any libertarian advocating that the choice of a substance injected into one's body should be a government mandate. It doesn't matter what your opinions are or how good you think something is or how fearful you are (and there is a great deal of fear-mongering going on with this issue) -- if it's MY body, it's not YOUR choice or the government's choice, it is MY choice. Period.

[Diane Merriam]

Even reading the associated articles, no one at Reason is promoting mandatory immunizations. At most they are saying that it is justified to refuse attendance at public schools or sending unvaccinated kids home for the full development/contagion period if there is any occurrence of the illness.

There are several, me included, who think it is totally insane NOT to vaccinate your children given the risk/benefit ratio. We also made sure that our son's day care and then school required vaccination.

But I have also stated, unequivocally, that I do not think the government has the right to FORCE parents to immunize their children. Freedom includes the freedom to do even really stupid things or it means nothing. The use of government force is only justified in RESPONSE to actions that have harmed others or put them in imminent danger.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

[Keith Jones]

Argh! Really? How about a note that non-vaccination of your child that leads to the death of another allow us to seek legal and civil penalties. Libertarianism is a philosophy stating that my rights end where your begin. You and your children should not be able to infect me or mine. Because if your child is patient "zero" in an outbreak, then all affected should have recourse against you.

[See.More]

Really? How about a note that non-vaccination of your child that leads to the death of another allow us to seek legal and civil penalties...

What about the vaccinated that expose others? Are they immune from you "seek[ing] legal and civil penalties"?

Answer: No, because vaccination status is irrelevant. It is their infected / contagious status (and whether or not they took precautions to avoid exposing others) that matters.

You and your children should not be able to infect me or mine. Because if your child is patient "zero" in an outbreak, then all affected should have recourse against you.

Only possible, however, if and only IF my child got infected / became contagious (asymptomatic carrier) AND made little to no effort to avoid exposing others. That possibility exists regardless of immunization status.

[hsaper]

A mere 60 years ago,EVERYONE got the measles and it rarely hurt anyone. Now we have 100 cases and the country is in a panic. A good excuse for the government, media, and politicians (the usual crowd) to get everyone on the bandwagon. And libertarians are joining in. So the libertarian position is that it's fine to have sex with a goat but criminal to have the right to decide if you or your children should have a measles vaccination? Great.

[Diane Merriam]

Less than 60 years ago. I had measles and chicken pox and most of the normal (at the time) childhood diseases. But I also have my smallpox vaccine scar and remember the polio sugar cubes (they actually WANTED us to eat straight sugar? No problem). I also had a neighbor only about ten years older who had had polio and could only walk with braces. So the dangers were a lot more obvious to us then.

Just because they comment here doesn't make everyone a Libertarian. The Libertarians are the ones arguing that the state does NOT have the right to force parents to have their children immunized. We may think it's really stupid not to. We may be very public and disdainful of those who don't.

But we do believe that they have the right to refuse. We also generally believe that we have the right to not put our children at risk by requiring proof of immunization (or medical reason why not) before attending public school. We also believe that it is the right of any person to refuse to allow unvaccinated children into our homes or businesses.

[AD-RtR/OS!]

Idiocy such as this is what gets good people killed.
And don't even get me started on what passes for his "foreign policy".

[Miner49er]

Am I missing something? The only people who are at risk of some refuse to be immunized are OTHER PEOPLE WHO REFUSED TO BE IMMUNIZED!

It seems like, by refusing immunization, they're knowingly assuming the risk of contracting that disease.

Other than the question of who should pay to administer medical care to those who assumed the risk and later acquired the disease, where is the problem?

[See.More]

Am I missing something?

Yes.

The only people who are at risk of some refuse to be immunized are OTHER PEOPLE WHO REFUSED TO BE IMMUNIZED!

Utterly false.

* Vaccines are not 100% effective. Even vaccinated there is still a chance of catching the disease.

* Some people, for various reasons (e.g.: allergies, immuno-compromised, etc.) cannot get vaccinated. Unable to be immunized != refusing to be immunized.

It seems like, by refusing immunization, they're knowingly assuming the risk of contracting that disease.

No. They are accepting the normal, natural risks of life as they are and simply refuse to take a particular precaution to reduce that risk. Getting vaccinated merely reduces the risk of contracting a particular disease. It does not eliminate that risk.

Other than the question of who should pay to administer medical care to those who assumed the risk and later acquired the disease, where is the problem?

What about those that do get vaccinated and still get sick? Why should they get a pass simply because they used a metaphorical condom that broke?

[Diane Merriam]

There's no question that a school should be able to send a sick child home, whatever he or she has and not let them back until they are well again. Taking care of such situations is part of the responsibility of being a parent.

The one thing you don't address though, is that a child can be contagious for several days before they are symptomatic, before anyone knows they are sick and need to take precautions. You can't hold someone responsible for doing or not doing something they had no way of knowing there was anything they had to worry about. Personal responsibility does not extend to requiring omniscience.

[See.More]

The one thing you don't address though, is that a child can be contagious for several days before they are symptomatic, before anyone knows they are sick and need to take precautions...

I actually do in other posts. The one you quoted, knowledge of infectious status was not a relevant topic.

You can't hold someone responsible for doing or not doing something they had no way of knowing there was anything they had to worry about. Personal responsibility does not extend to requiring omniscience.

I absolutely agree.

[See.More]

The one thing you don't address though, is that a child can be contagious for several days before they are symptomatic, before anyone knows they are sick and need to take precautions...

I will, however, argue that, in addition to knowing your kid is contagious (and keeping them home), is also the "reasonable suspicion" that they might be contagious.

For instance, if your kid's school sends home a note that one of his classmates came to school with the measles, then you have enough information to reasonably suspect that your child was exposed and may quite possibly be contagious / become contagious soon. Therefore, you ought to take appropriate precautions.

[Kevin47]

He said nothing about autism and simply said parents should be free to make medical decisions and that vaccines have caused mental disorders, which is true.

And that last point is relevant to the discussion. The risk of brain damage from a vaccine is nominal, but so is the risk of contracting measles at this stage. Should we be good citizens and roll the (thousand sided) dice and vaccinate? Absolutely.

Should the government compel that action? No, and the risk factors are a big part of the equation.

He gave the right answer to the question.

[TruthInAction]

Mr. Bailey, you need to review Sharyl Atkisson's article with the CDC Director just last week. You might want to get some A-1 sauce for that crow.

[Voice of Reason]

http://sharylattkisson.com/cdc.....er-autism/

[squirl_55]

Few will say publicly that illegal aliens are responsible for the sudden out break of the measles. Reports of massive out breaks of TB, H1N1, the Enterovirus and other highly contagious illnesses. So the real villain is this Obama, and his administration.

[Kevin47]

Few will say that because it isn't true. Also, we should just ban people from coming here to work for their families because they might have measles? What kind of BS is that?

[See.More]

squirl_55|2.3.15 @ 6:35PM|#

Few will say publicly that illegal aliens are responsible for the sudden out break of the measles.

Kevin47|2.3.15 @ 7:00PM|#

Few will say that because it isn't true...

Let's see, in 2012 there were fewer than 100 cases; just under 200 cases in 2013; and, suddenly, it spiked to 644 in 2014. There is a very strong correlation in the spike in measles cases in 2014 and the spike in unaccompanied, unvaccinated illegal minor immigrants from third-world countries.

[Diane Merriam]

Even in the days of almost wide open immigration, there was that one criteria. If you came from somewhere that there was a lot of disease or were showing symptoms of being ill, quarantine was required. If you didn't get well, you didn't get in.

Modern medicine allows us to be a lot more lenient on that, but I see nothing wrong with requiring vaccinations. It's a standard part of the US immigration law for everyone applying for an immigrant visa.

[squirl_55]

Few will say publicly that illegal aliens are responsible for the sudden out break of the measles. Reports of massive out breaks of TB, H1N1, the Enterovirus and other highly contagious illnesses. So the real villain is this Obama, and his administration.

[Mickey Rat]

Law against texting while driving? Unacceptable!

Law against DWI? Authoritarian!

Quarantining a person who was exposed to known deadly pathogen just to be on the safe side. How dare you!

Law requiring you to take a cocktail of substances that have a small.but measurable risk of making you sick and possibly dead. Well, you know...

There are are any number of issues that the arguments against letting people make their own decisions regardless of what the potential dangers are to others and Reason has come down on letting people make their own choices, and I am not sure why mandatory vaccinatins are the exception other than dogmatic scientism.

[Diane Merriam]

I have gone through all three of the articles they've recently had here on immunizations and nowhere can I find anyone in favor of actual mandatory vaccination. Putting all kinds of social pressure on parents to get their kids immunized? Yes. Forcing them to do so? No.

People who write comments are not part of the staff and many commenters aren't even close to Libertarians.

[Mickey Rat]

Ron Bailey has been on a push for mandatory vaccination for about a year now,

[CN_Foundation]

WTFC

[Pimp Rand Paul]

YO IF YALL LIKE RAND CHECK OUT THE TWITTER ACOUNT PIMP RAND PAUL @PimpRPaul ITS HILARIOUS!!

[Ralph Fucetola JD]

Reason "weighs in" on the wrong side of this argument, starting from three wrong premises:

[1] that vaccine (sic) science is "settled science" [I suggest you read pharma whistleblower, Paul G. King, PhD on the nature of vaccine pseudo-science: http://www.Dr-King.com]

[2] that there is a valid "herd immunity" concept. This is just collectivism-in-science; not real science.

IF vaccines worked, the vaccinated should have no fear of the unvaccinated; but vaccines don't work. Check it out: all of the pandemic diseases were in decline before mass public vaccinations, due to better hygiene and nutrition, and individual human action with no nanny state needed, as the chart on this page shows: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=22573

[3] that you can trust the govt's crony scientists and bureaucrats to tell the truth about vaccination.

Are you really that naive?

Vaccination is an uninsurable risk. Let that sink in.

The experts on risk in our (sort-of) market economy have determined that there is NO insurance premium that can "clearr the risk" of vaccine adverse reactions. They are foreseeable harms.

Do you get it yet?

In a free market economy there would be no vaccination program. You "need" a powerful nanny state to impose such cruelties.

Vaccination is Violation.

'Nough said.

[PaulW]

Hmm, so how do people get the antibodies to fight off disease that they've never been exposed to after vaccination?

Oh, I know, aliens must have implanted the antibodies before tests were done so that Big Pharma could trick the humans!

[Sally Oh]

If you or your child has a compromised immune system, you need to self-quarantine rather than forcing everyone else to inject themselves with chemicals and toxins to protect you.

Who owns your body? You do and it's your job to protect it. You don't own mine and I have zero obligation to to protect yours.

[Diane Merriam]

True. You have no obligation to protect me. But I also have the right to exclude you from my property or business if you do not meet my standards, which can include vaccination status.

The issue of public schools crosses over into a different argument, but if it's a private school we definitely don't have to let your kid in if they don't meet our criteria.

[Diane Merriam]

My exact same response ... say it ain't so Rand.

Not vaccinating your children is a choice that parents should be allowed to make, but ... it then becomes the responsibility of those parents to ensure that their children do not endanger others under the principle of wanton endangerment.

Example: You can legally get as drunk as you want at home. But if you get behind the wheel of a car, you are putting the lives of others at significant risk. That's why drunk driving is a crime.

By the same reasoning, unvaccinated children should not be allowed in public schools or other public situations where the law requires others to be. A private school that allows unvaccinated kids? That's their choice and if it's in their rules then the other parents can decide on the risk they take for their own children.

But what about the unvaccinated children themselves? As much as my heart says "but it's for the children," my head says that's a slippery slope we don't want to go down. Not allowing others to be put at risk is very different from forcing people to do things to their children that they don't agree with, especially when it's highly unlikely to be serious in any specific case. It's not the lifeboat ethics of giving immediate life preserving emergency treatments to a child regardless of the parents' beliefs.

[See.More]

By the same reasoning, unvaccinated children should not be allowed in public schools or other public situations where the law requires others to be.

Why is it so hard for you people to comprehend that not being vaccinated does NOT equal being infectious?

Even the vaccinated can spread a disease. Why should they get a pass?

Regardless of vaccination status, the risk to others is from infectious people.

[Diane Merriam]

I agree to the extent that 97% is not 100%. Every school has, or should have, the right to send a sick child home and not allow them back until they're well. Part of the responsibility of being a parent is to make sure your children don't harm others or knowingly put them in harm's way and that includes diseases.

But ... just by doing the math, an unvaccinated child is more than 30 times more likely to catch the disease than a vaccinated one. That's a big difference and one that anyone responsible for the well being of children has to seriously consider.

But parents are required by law to send their children to a public school if they can't afford a private one or homeschooling on top of all their other expenses. As a Libertarian I am opposed to public schools, but I seriously doubt we're going to get rid of them any time soon though.

So since the government is forcibly taking away your freedom to make some decisions for the well being of your child, what is the best compromise to protect them in the area of physical health? Requiring immunization or proof of medical reason why not is one method. Another I've heard that also sounds reasonable is that if a case of an infectious disease occurs in the school, non vaccinated kids have to stay home for the length of the incubation period. Of course it still goes with sending any symptomatic kid home, vaccinated or not.

[ricbee]

Every kid in my neighborhood had measles-there is no need for that vaccination & that is true for some of the others too.

[ABQKel]

I doubt that vaccinations cause autism, but the fact of the matter is that autism is on the rise. Furthermore, it is clear that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risk. But with regards to the cause of the increasing rates of autism, what explanation can science offer? Seriously, why should I believe this mantra that so emphatically denies the possibility that it may be linked to vaccines?

[Diane Merriam]

There have been a dozen studies on the question and none of them (even those expecting to find a correlation) validate that theory. The closest, even plausible, connection is with the mercury that used to be in one of the commonly used preservatives. While the amount was so low that it shouldn't have been any danger, there *is* unquestionably a known connection between mercury and neurological conditions. That preservative has been banned since 2003 though.

Just how much autism is actually on the rise vs just that it's just being diagnosed a lot more is another question.

Looking back, given today's symptomatic diagnoses, I'm pretty sure my brother would have been considered autistic, maybe even with Asperger's. Just as my grandmother almost certainly had Alzheimer's. Back then it was just "senile dementia" though.

[Diane Merriam]

Interesting story that I've only heard once, but makes an incredible amount of sense on a similar situation ...

Towards the end of the Roman Empire, things got really crazy. One Emperor after another going off the deep end. Low birth rates. Regular mass riots over next to nothing.

One of the great achievements of the Roman Empire was the engineering of their extensive system of aqueducts and cisterns for their water supply. To minimize the losses from seepage, they were lined ... with lead.

[John Hicks]

So sorry that Reason has stooped to clickbait and twisting words to accomplish that. Paul didn't mention the word "autism." He accurately stated that vaccines, by their nature, are traumatic to the body, designed to trigger an immune response. So he considers it reasonable to stretch them out over time rather than giving them all at once. And he maintains that parents, not government, are the responsible parties for their children and should therefore be the ones to make that decision.

[Steve Buckstein]

I'm more concerned about Paul's statement that "The state doesn't own your children, parents own their children, and it is an issue of freedom."

I thought human beings owned themselves, no matter how young or old. I hope he just misspoke.

[See.More]

There is a certain degree of autonomy required to be a self-owner. Children are potential self-owners.

[Diane Merriam]

That's a hairy question and one that there are no cut and dried answers for. There is no question that, barring mental incapacity, adults are responsible for themselves and the consequences of their actions. There is also no question that infants are incapable of being responsible for themselves and their actions.

Someone has to be responsible for them. By obvious default, it's their parents. Responsibility requires control. Control is one definition of ownership.

I don't like that term being used because its other definitions include being able to do anything you want with what you own and that is certainly NOT the case with children. The state is perfectly justified in taking children away from their parents in the case of gross negligence.

But where to draw the line between child and adult? We use the age 18 as the final dividing line, but there are plenty of kids under 18 that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and unquestionably know the difference between right and wrong. There are also plenty of 25 year olds who should never have taken the training wheels off their bike. But part of law IS drawing distinct lines wherever possible, telling you ahead of time exactly what you can and can't do.

[Domina Elle]

Haven't had time to read the whole thread but haven't yet read any comments regarding what appears to be a clear subtext as far as I'm concerned.

The subtext: Allowing the government to mandate injecting us.

Numerous reports including the MSM Obama interview, the comments and questions (which you damn well know are vetted if not scripted) are focused on whether the government should FORCE people to be injected. The word used is mandated of course, it sounds much better.

I find it very amusing in the articles talking about how unvaccinated kids are putting vaccinated kids at risk. Did you catch that? I'll type it again- unvaccinated kids put vaccinated kids at risk. Uh......don't the vaccines work? If the kids are vaccinated aren't they supposed to be protected? Oh well.

In the last ten years ZERO people have died from the measles. However, 108 people have died from the measles vaccine. In addition, the measles is a very low risk factor. Extremely low. Yet the CDC is making a stink. Interesting, they played down Ebola which has a 99.9% mortality rate! as compared to the measles which has less than 1% mortality rate at this time worldwide. In a 2011 measles outbreak ground zero was traced to a 22 year old woman who had been vaccinated for the measles.

I smell something stinky.

[Diane Merriam]

Vaccines are not 100% effective (high 90's usually for kid's vaccines) and there are people who, through age or other medical necessity cannot be vaccinated.

Zero people have died from measles *in the US* out of how many cases? Maybe 1000 or so. 108 died after receiving the vaccine? it's only 69 by CDC records, the same place the 0 deaths came from. And even then, the reporting doesn't say the vaccine was the cause, only that they had received the vaccine within a certain time period before their death, meaning that in many, if not most of those cases, the vaccine had nothing to do with it. Plus that is out of how many MILLIONS of kids? Orders of magnitude difference. In some places measles still causes over 20% of the deaths of children under 5. According to the WHO, the measles vaccine prevented about 15.6 million deaths worldwide from 2000 to 2013

Ebola does NOT have a 99.9% mortality rate. This outbreak is running about 60 to 70%. Bad, really bad, but nowhere near 99.9%. If you got all those numbers from the same source, you might want to do a bit more checking on your own before blindly accepting them.

[Domina Elle]

There are so many parents screaming that vaccines harmed or killed their children. It isn't just a few, there are MANY cases. This is the very reason that resistance to vaccines has risen in recent years. Reading case after case where the parents thought they were doing what they were supposed to do to protect their children, just to lose their child within days or hours after getting vaccines. Many of the families have networked via the Internet. I think we need to listen to these people. Unlike the corporate interests behind vaccines, I can't think of hidden motives and agendas that these families could have. They've lost their children within hours or days of being injected, they are angry and hurt and want accountability. Can't say I blame them!

Here is a case of a baby whose death has been linked to vaccines (if there is one you know there are more, how many more we do not know because it appears that many of these deaths are categorized as SIDS deaths just as this one almost was, also there is no required reporting of vaccine related deaths-harm): http://vactruth.com/2015/02/03.....-vaccines/

[Diane Merriam]

Of course there are. Losing a child is about the worst thing that can happen to a parent. Emotionally someone or something has to be to blame. It's hard for anyone to accept that really rotten things happen, especially to an innocent child, just because.

Whether it's the wrath of God or an evil corporation, someone has to pay, someone has to be at fault.

If a child is given a prescription for an antibiotic and no one knew that they were allergic to it, taking it can kill. Does that mean that the doctor or pharmaceutical company are to blame? Of course not.

All drugs and all vaccines have a certain level of risk. But then so do some foods. Who is to blame if a kid's first peanut butter and jelly sandwich sends them into anaphylactic shock? Or their first bee sting?

I don't doubt that there have been cases where there was a tainted group of bottles and a company tries to hide it. Maybe a doctor (probably not in the US, but...) who saves money by re-using needles without even sterilizing them. Or their refrigerator quit and they didn't throw out the vaccine that had been in it.

Any one of those situations could lead to a death that could justifiably be blamed on getting the vaccine. Yet the vaccine itself isn't the real cause. The risk/benefit ratio is still way way balanced to the positive for getting the vaccines.

[[e-mail]]

The question is who gets to chose ?

innumerable situations part of ordinary life as individuals and parents require decidions on risks we will take and even what risks we take that effect others.

We as individuals and as parents are not going to make those decisions perfectly

Nor is it possible for the state to do so either.

who gets to decide ?

Does my child get the MMR vaccine ? Combined or separately ? or not at all ?

Can my child go down the sliding board ? are they old enough to walk to the local park ? Mature enough to get behind the wheel of a car ?

The left seems to think the state is our co-parent. That the fact that individuals will make mistakes, and those mistakes will rarely harm others is a justification for the state to dictate. Nor does the left care that the states one size fits all approach rarely does. It is apparently unaccepatable from a progressive perspective for an unvaccinated child to pose a threat to adults who are free to choose to get re-immunized if they wish. But it is perfectly acceptable for the state for impose vaccination on all by force, in a single specific way that might cause serious harm to a very small number of children.

It is acceptable to the left for thier one size fits all solutions imposed by force on the rest of us to be less than perfect, but not ok for free individuals to impose small risks on others without the use of force, that those others have the opportunity of avoiding.

[Domina Elle]

This book lays out why I don't trust the medical 'establishment' it's free on the web to read and is titled: 'Rochefeller medicine men (capitalism and medicine)' I'd link to it but can't paste the link here. Excellent book.

[Domina Elle]

There's a few people in Africa who are upset over finding HCG in a tetanus vaccine, a vaccine for tetanus which was geared towards females ONLY. HCG is a drug developed in the early 1990's as an experimental birth control, the manufacturer ensured that the vaccine was pure but as it turns out the vaccines tested all came back positive for HCG. HCG can cause a pregnant woman to miscarry. There's no reason for HCG to be in a tetanus vaccine. Of course the usual suspects weigh in to do damage control. Move along nothing to be concerned with everything is being done for the greater good.

[Sky Captain]

So you're saying that Russel Blaylock is a liar and a cheat? Your references to meta studies (which I have read) are not scientifically conclusive at all. You, as journalists, should be more savvy in making assesments and not just toe the lie in there matter!

http://articles.mercola.com/si.....pment.aspx

[Knarf Yenrab!]

It's tow the lion, rook.

[stz93974]

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.jobs700.com

[Sorgfelt]

Your statement "thoroughly discredited" is simply not true. Even the CDC has made a study in which a small subset of the population exhibited a statistical correlation between vaccines and autism.

[Marc Allan Feldman]

Too many newborns to 12 month olds are not immunized against measles.
They are not candidates for vaccination, but get passive immunity from the mother via breastfeeding. But if parents decide not to breastfeed, they are deciding not to immunize their infant. This also has an effect on "herd immunity".
Should government mandate breast-feeding?
Should infants who do not get immunized through breast feeding be allowed to attend day care?
Should mothers be certified that they are breastfeeding their kids?
The risk/benefit ratio is far more conclusive for breastfeeding than it is for vaccination. Why is it that breast feeding is only recommended for "every mother who wishes to breastfeed" but vaccination is being mandated by the State? I would be shocked, shocked, to find that corporate economic interests had a role. #VotesNotForSale

[[e-mail]]

Any risk here is born by children who are not vaccinated - which should not be the states business, and adults whose immunity has faded.
They are capable of getting revaccinated if they are concerned.

[[e-mail]]

There has been much misrepresentation, obfuscation and malfeasance with respect to vaccinations.

The UK doctor and study that purportedly linked vaccines with autism has been thoroughly discredited.

HOWEVER, it is my understanding that the CDC study that purportedly demonstrated no link, was ALSO misrepresented, and atleast one of its authors has come forward and noted that there was a small but statistically significant link between autism and MMR vaccines in Black male infants vaccinated in a very narrow time window as infants.

One of the other disturbing aspects of this is that potential threat is narrow and avoidable.

Government has aggressively and artificially made this binary - all or nothing.

There are plenty of parents who would vaccinate their children if the vaccines could be administered separately, rather than all at once.

Ultimately the state of the science is NOT important relative to government being able to impose vaccines on our children by force.

It is only relevant to the choices we as parents make.

The state is not our co-parent.

[patskelley]

I am not anti-vaccine. My problem is with what lies just behind all the hubbub.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/0.....rma_votes/
http://www.acrreform.org/resea.....-politics/

[patskelley]

A might tempting these days: (From drugwatch.com) "in 1986, Congress responded to dwindling vaccine supplies by passing federal "no-fault" legislation. The legislation protected vaccine makers from legal claims, encouraging them to get vaccines on the market quickly. In 1998, Congress halted state court lawsuits over injuries caused by certain medical devices and implants. Some states, such as Michigan, have also passed their own laws limiting personal injury claims." http://www.drugwatch.com/drug-lawsuits.php

[Duelles]

I have heard of good people becoming complete morons after taking elective office. Ah!! The science of anecdotes !!

[TheAtomicOption]

It's one thing to back anti-vaxxer radicals on freedom of choice grounds. It's quite another to imply that any of their claims have any truth behind them. Considering Rand is an MD, these words are in extremely poor taste.

[Erwinhaaslibertarian]

It turns out that there was a fairly severe complication of "atypical measles" and failure with the original Killed-Measles vaccine which was tested in Grand Rapids in 1961 and used on most kids in the USA and elsewhere from 1962-5. (The live vaccine occasionally results in this atypical measles immunologic complication.) I was privileged to be the lead author in a 1976 account of the first occurrence in an adult;
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ar.....eid=347850
Vaccinations have been plagued ab initio with unforeseen complications like Jenner's vaccination for small pox leading to progressive vaccinia and Kaposi's varicilliform eruption, and with Koch's disaster with a vaccine for tuberculosis. The early live polio vaccine was grown in cells that had been contaminated with an sv40 polyoma virus, shown to be associated with brain tumors.
I knew one of the two women who developed the original Whooping Cough vaccines in Grand Rapids in the 1940s and know much unpublished material about its development; it was much more effective than the current slop, but caused a few kids high fevers and seizures that must have been terrifying for the parents-leading, I suspect to the current disdain for vaccinating kids. This current whooping cough vaccine has a much shorter duration of effectiveness and is not effectively providing herd immunity. This failure in itself strips away the hallowed argument for the "mandatory vaccinate everyone to provide herd immunity crowd."

[Erwinhaaslibertarian]

Vaccine screwups cont. When I was in the US Army in the early 1970s (low standards in those days),1/3rd of army officers died of cirrhosis because of "drinking." Then it was found that the yellow fever vaccine (administered to all WW 2 soldiers deployed to the Pacific theater) had been diluted with pooled plasma, admixed with Hep b and c virus; they died early from their unrecognized vaccine-associated hepatitis and liver disease.
We still don't know for how long these vaccines are effective. It is possible that the measles or chicken pox vaccine wears off after 50 years, leaving millions of aging adults liable to infection and leading to a massive public health disaster.
Our writer and the younger Paul probably do not know the history of the many screw ups from vaccines, but those of us who have informed ourselves view this bruhaha with more than the usual skepticism with public health authoritarianism. (I attended the graduation ceremony of the Univ of Mich School of Public Health; talk about wackos....)
My own stand is similar to Paul's; if you want to protect your kids, vaccinate them, they belong to you and not to the state.
We vaccinated our kids to protect them from the predictable failure of the state. I cite the 60,000 central American kids who were introduced infected with every 3rd world disease including measles, lice, TB, leprosy.... into the USA, courtesy of Obama's Dreamer political scam. No one waxed eloquent over our freedoms to be protected then...

[PatrickB]

Shocking that Reason has been paid off by the pharmaceuticals or just too stupid to research the issue thoroughly. Rand didn't say Autism he said mental disorders. There is no question the MMR shot can do this and families are awarded compensation on a regular basis for this. Sad, Reason should provide hope that the "control us" people haven't infected all media.

[See.More]

== HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ==
According to this paper there were an average of approximately 530,000 cases of the measles reported annually for the decade leading up to the measles vaccine (1953 - 1962). Wow! That sure looks like a big number.

But let's put it into perspective. According to this source the population in 1953 (the lowest of the decade, so the bigger numbers to come) was 160,184,192. I'll round it down to 160 million, just to give a more generous result.

Using the decade average cases, and a population of 160 million, that means that only 0.33125% (that's one-third of one percent) of the population caught the measles.

Of that, according to the afore-linked paper, deaths in that period were less than 1 per 1,000 cases, so fewer than 503, but, for the sake of scarier, bigger numbers, I'll use 503. That means that in 1952 approximately 0.00033125% (that's one-third of one-thousandths of one percent) of the population died from the measles.

In perspective, those are miniscule numbers. And with todays' medicine... arguably far more advanced than between '53 and '62... complications and death are far less likely.

So... why are so many people absolutely losing their shit in irrational, abject terror of the current outbreaks of the measles?

[GFreedom]

I dare you to find a single quote from Senator Paul linking vaccines and autism.

[See.More]

Dear Reader,

Some, on nearly all of these vaccine-related articles, have suggested that a "libertarian" alternative... compromise?... to mandatory vaccination would be holding the voluntarily unvaccinated civily liable, in one manner or another, for the damages caused by spreading a disease. This proposition is patently intellectually dishonest.

Before I continue, it must be noted that healthy, non-infectious people, regardless of their vaccination status, do not spread the diseases for which vaccinations exist. Only infectious people spread those diseases.

The proposition on liability is intellectually dishonest, first, because it gives a pass to the involuntarily unvaccinated (those that are medicaly unable to be vaccinated). The fact that they did not choose to be unvaccinated does not matter. They are functionally identical to the voluntarily unvaccinated. In other words, the unvaccinated are unvaccinated regardless of "why".

You cannot, with any intellectual integrity, hold the voluntary liable for damages caused by getting sick and infecting others while excusing the involuntary of liability when they get sick and infect others. Declaring the former "guilty" and/or "liable" and the latter "innocent" for the exact same act [getting sick and infecting others] is simply not logically or ethically consistent. Either both are guilty, or neither are guilty.

[continued below]

[See.More]

[continued from above]

This proposition also grants a pass to the vaccinated. For the exact same reason as above, it too is logically inconsistent and, therefore, intellectually dishonest. It would hold one group (the unvaccinated) liable for damages caused by getting sick and infecting others while excusing another group (the vaccinated) for the exact same thing.

In terms of damages caused by spreading a disease, it does not matter what was done, or not, to avoid getting sick and/or becoming infectious. What matters are the precautions taken to avoid infecting others after becoming infectious. Thus, it is intellectually dishonest to hold the voluntarily unvaccinated to a higher standard of liability for not taking a precaution against getting sick, ignoring precautions they may take if/when they are infectious, while simultaneously, blanketly excusing the others.

The only intellectually consistent and honest approach is to hold everyone, regardless of vaccination status, liable for damages caused by spreading a disease when they are infectious.

[Maverickw]

I can't believe that a publication like reason would be so pro statist and in favor of vaccinations. This view is contradictory to choice and freedom

[GFreedom]

You can be in favor of vaccination without advocating that the government hold people at gunpoint, strap them down to a table against their will so that they cannot move, and jab them full of virii while they are screaming in horror. Rand Paul is in favor of vaccination, without advocating such madness.

[GFreedom]

Oh look! Ronald Bailey has still not corrected his blatant lie implying that Rand Paul has EVER in his ENTIRE LIFE connected vaccines to autism. Imagine that.

[buybuydandavis]

RB: However, the senator seemed to lend credence to the thoroughly discredited claims that vaccinations are associated with autism. From CNBC:

RP: "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

RB: "Let's hope that the senator misspoke and will soon clarify his remarks so as to not inadvertently mislead the public with respect to the safety of vaccines."

Honest readers will note that RP did *not mention* autism.

Is RB claiming that children have never had reactions to vaccines causing profound mental disorders?

Let's hope RB will soon clarify his comments, and recant and apologize for his mischaracterization of RP's comments.

[TxJack 112]

The real tragedy is parents are willing to risk the health and life of their children based on a discredited report by a discredited doctor. It is true there has been a "rise" in the number of children diagnosed with autism, not because there are more of them, but because the tools for IDENTIFYING them have dramatically improved. The actual name of the condition is Autism SPECTRUM disorder. The reason the word spectrum in part of the name is Autism is not a single issue. Autism is a person exhibiting a specific number of problems in a wide range of areas and together they indicate the presence of the condition. However, how autism affects a person is as individual as the child. When the current DSM-5 was being compiled, a HUGE war broke out over including ADHD as part of autism. Adults with ADHD and parents of children with ADHD fought hard to stop it for one reason, the amount of misinformation throw around in the media about autism and how children and adults are treated who carry the diagnosis. The problem is not Autism, the problem is how society treats adults and children with autism. We treat them no different than we treated Vietnam vets when the returned home. We want to isolate, forget and pretend they dont exist. Vaccines are a very small part of the real issue. The real issue is ignorance..

[Kevin47]

How dare he tell an antagonistic TV pundit to calm down! Doesn't he know the press is king?

[Diane Merriam]

Social conservatives? Libertarians are social liberals and financial conservatives. I have no idea what you're referring to on that. Authoritarianism?

Granted, he's not a complete Libertarian, just a Libertarian leaning Republican, but I don't think I've heard anything from him that would classify him as an authoritarian.

[Robert]

Reason's no propaganda ministry for the Pauls! If anything, they seem to come down hard on them for mere peccadillos.

[PaulW]

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

[PaulW]

So, basically Rand Paul said what the Senior Scientist at the CDC said.

What an extremist!

[See.More]

(laughing) It's about aggresssion, but nice try.

The aggression argument is total horseshit.

1. NOT being vaccinated DOES NOT EQUAL being infectious. In and of itself, it aggresses against no one.

The healthy and uncontagious unvaccinated put zero people at risk of and damned sure commit no aggression. Hint: IF they are not infectious they cannot spread the disease.

2. Being vaccinated DOES NOT EQUAL being immune.

Vaccinations are not 100% effective. Therefore, even vaccinated there is a greater than zero risk of catching the disease(s). Furthermore, the vaccinated can still be asymptomatic carriers and infect others.

The aggression argument might ONLY be applied IF AND WHEN someone is knowingly, or has a reasonable suspicion that they are, infectious and take little to no precautions (such as self-quarantine) to minimize their chances of exposing others. Their immunization status is totally irrelevant.

[See.More]

IF the voluntarily unvaccinated are committing aggression then, by simple deduction, so are those that are unable, for various reasons, to be vaccinated.

After all, if the former is committing aggression by the simple act of not being vaccinated then latter must be as well.

Why they are not vaccinated is irrelevant.

[PaulW]

Oh, autism isn't a mental disorder anymore?

What is it, then, exactly?

[PaulW]

Of course there are adverse effects to vaccination.

One is the well documented Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

That is what these anti-vaxxer idiots do though, they cause scientists to suppress information due to the public hysteria that would ensue if there was a .00001% chance that their kid would develop some disorder.

The simple fact of the matter is it is better to vaccinate your children, just like it is better to wear your seatbelt even though sometimes the fact that you wore it cost your life.

So now we have more "The science is settled, there is a consensus!!2111" people, and sadly many of these seem to be libertarians on this issue.

The science isn't settled, and the only thing that is worse than not vaccinating your children is not studying adverse side effects and researching ways to minimize those side effects.

[PaulW]

Well, I shouldn't say it is worse, but you get my point.

[Domina Elle]

The science isn't settled?! But wait! During his MSM interview Obama stated (regarding the safety and science of vaccines) that 'it is based on UNDISPUTED SCIENCE".

Wow. Very sad to know that instead of scientific method they are now pushing 'undisputed science' another term or 'newspeak' for 'THIS IS WHAT THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS DECLARED AS UNQUESTIONABLE FACT'.

What science should ever be held has undisputed? Someone made an excellent point- how the wright brothers would never have flown had they not challenged the scientific status quo. How Louis Pasteur went against commonly accepted 'scientific fact' establishing that germs cause illnesses. Great discoveries have usually been met with resistance based on ideologies and hard set beliefs around what people believe is 'undisputed'. It seems to be the way people are as the NORM- arrogant and stubborn and full of themselves, lol.

[PaulW]

How does a 1 year old volunteer to not be vaccinated, exactly?

[PaulW]

Another fucking retard who doesn't understand what fascism is.

[See.More]

In that case, the it is their parents volunteering, but that neither alters nor refutes the point as a response to Michael Hihn's reference to "aggression".

[Diane Merriam]

Now that you've included the criteria of knowing that you are or likely are contagious, I can support everything you're saying in this one.

[Robert]

There's also the special case of those who've received live attenuated virus inocul'ns passing them to immunosuppressed persons, for whom the attenuation isn't great enough.

[Kure'i]

That is probably true. But the thrust of my argument is that there aren't simply the two alternatives the original poster described: Faultlessly and unknowingly passing the disease, and Knowingly and Intentionally passing it. My original point was that fault lies along a continuum, and that there may be a duty to others to avoid spreading the disease to them between those two points.

[Robert]

I've never heard Ralph discuss that one.

[Robert]

It's not the only mental disorder, so we don't know (and I doubt) that he was referring to that.

[GFreedom]

Logic score = 0

"people have been known to wear shirts" != "everybody wears a blue tunic."

You have committed a hasty generalization. Just because autism is a mental disorder does not make all mental disorders autism. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[See.More]

Bullshit (lol)

Uhm, nope. Just because you can't grasp the concept doesn't mean it it bullshit.

2) Failure to vaccinate does not RESULT in the "foreseeable harm". Rather, it merely it does nothing to reduce the risk of contracting said disease IF exposed.

Only because our President was born in Kenya.

Riiiiighhhtt.... because that's a reasoned rebuttal...

Proof?

How about the number of healthy, non-infectious unvaccinated people that have never caught x walking around out there?

Failure to vaccinate does not cause someone to catch the disease. Indeed, an unvaccinated individual could potential enjoy their entire life without being exposed to x and, therefore, never catch x. Therefore, failure to vaccinate does not result in "the foreseeable harm".

[GFreedom]

Encephalopathy, Encephalitis. Claimed by the CDC, NIH, Merc, GlaxoSmithKline, etc

[See.More]

@Michael Hihn

When do you accept responsibility for the consequences of your own actions?

Hmmm... let's see... how about, when my actions have an observable, negative impact on the equal rights of others against their will. To put it into this context, how about after I become... I dunno... sick and/or infectious and I fail to take responsible steps to minimize others' exposure to my contagion.

There is no consequence to being unvaccinated to accept responsibility for. There is only the consequences of negligently or willfully exposing others if I am infectious.

[See.More]

@Michael Hihn

And stop the obvious mindgames? Like this:

Vaccinations are not 100% effective.

(gasp) What's the percentage?

Therefore, even vaccinated there is a greater than zero risk of catching the disease(s)

Umm, how much greater than zero?

How is stating facts "obvious mindgames"? Or are you so attached to your own biases that any facts to the contrary confuse you?

What percentage, you ask? According to the CDC (I think they would know, right?) The MMR vaccine is more than 95% effective. You do realize that means that there is a less than 5% chance that it will be ineffective, right?

How much greater than zero, you ask? It is irrelevant. The point stands. Vaccines are not 100% effective. Therefore, even the vaccinated still have a chance, no matter how small, of catching, and spreading, the disease(s).

[See.More]

@Michael Hihn

When was the last case of polio in the US? What is the incidence of measles before 1963 and now? How many measles epidemics trace to a single unvaccinated child?

All irrelevant to my points refuting the "aggression" argument.

Interesting how none of your points actually attempt to refute by rebuttal of the "aggression" argument...

[See.More]

@Michael Hihn

You never defend Rand's bullshit about "profound mental disorders".

Uhm... that's because I don't agree with it and never said I do... duh! So the rest of your red herrings about Rand or Mississippi or anything else is irrelevant to my points re: not immunizing is not aggression.

Try harder. Please.

[See.More]

@Michael Hihn

Acting intentionally irresponsible is a tort...

Only when it causes real damages to another/others. Not vaccinating does not cause damage to anyone else [continue]...

When parents start suing other parents whose kids infected their kids, all the bullshit will collapse.

Sure, but they can only sue parents of a kid who was infectious... 'cause... only infectious people spread diseases.

It doesn't matter if they were vaccinated or not. That's not the irresponsible/responsible act that spreads diseases.

It only matters if they sent sick little Johnny to school. That is the irresponsible act that spreads diseases.

[See.More]

Michael Hihn|2.4.15 @ 2:22PM|#

IF the voluntarily unvaccinated are committing aggression then, by simple deduction, so are those that are unable, for various reasons, to be vaccinated

By even simpler deduction, it's the parents who would be guilty, not a helpless baby!

Hmmm... it's interesting that you don't actually address the point being made.

Either walking around unvaccinated is "aggression", or it isn't. The reason someone is not vaccinated is irrelevant. So, if you refuse to call those who are, for whatever reason, unable to be vaccinated "aggressors", then you are an intellectually dishonest dumb-cunt.

[See.More]

Michael Hihn|2.4.15 @ 2:29PM|#

Why is it so hard for you people to comprehend that not being vaccinated does NOT equal being infectious?

(lol) Who and where? Why is it so hard for you people to stop playing word games?

So, using words according to their definitions is "playing word games" now? You really don't want to be confused with facts, do you?

vaccinated: noun - a person or persons who have received innoculations against one or more diseases, but may or may not have developed an immunity to those disease(s).

unvaccinated: noun - a person or persons who have not received innoculations.

infectious: adjective - to have, either symptomatically or asypmtomatically (a "carrier"), a contagious disease.

Perhaps not dictionary.com worthy definitions, but close enough.

It is important to note that the words "vaccinated" and "unvaccinated" do not, in any way, reflect upon whether or not an individual is "infectious". Those words only describe the state of innoculation, not infection.

Infectious people spread diseases. And fully vaccinated people can, and do, become infectious.

[See.More]

Michael Hihn|2.4.15 @ 2:29PM|#
... You just want an excuse to ignore personal accountability.

Pay attention. Read this r e a l l y s l o w l y...

I am not against holding people accountable when they get sick -- ya know? are infectious -- and take few to no precautions to avoid exposing others