Vaccines

Shame and Shun Anti-Vaccine Parents

It's sad that it's come to this

|

Evil Vaccine
tuberose

That's the headline for my op-ed over at the New York Daily News today. My colleague J.D. Tuccille very kindly mentioned and linked to this op-ed in his insightful post, "Keep Vaccine Choice—Long as Families Pay Their Own Way." Below are some excerpts that lay out more of my argument:

Vaccination is arguably the greatest public health triumph of the past century.

The University of Pittsburgh's Project Tycho database quantifies the prevalence of infectious disease since 1888 in the United States. The data suggest that vaccinations since 1924 prevented more than 103 million cases of polio, measles, rubella, mumps, hepatitis A, diphtheria and pertussis.

Researchers estimate that vaccination saved between 3 million and 4 million lives.

Now this dazzling success over disease, disability and early death is in danger of being undermined. Bamboozled by misinformation spread by anti-vaccine hucksters, the number of parents who are refusing to get their kids immunized is growing. The predictable result is the resurgence of highly communicable diseases.

It is long past time to aggressively counteract this threat to public health — not by resorting to government mandates and political arguments, but more importantly, through a concerted campaign of person-to-person shaming and shunning.

In speaking to friends, co-workers and neighbors, we must upset the notion that choosing not to vaccinate your child is just a personal choice. I say this not as a progressive or a liberal but as a proud libertarian — a libertarian who understands that with freedom comes responsibility. …

So how to turn the tide? People who refuse to get themselves and their kids vaccinated should be treated as deadbeats by their neighbors. They should feel the consequences of their decision.

Day-care centers should make it a policy to refuse to accept unvaccinated children. Parents arranging play dates should make a point of asking if the other kids are fully up on their inoculations. If not, they should explain to the parents of the unvaccinated children that their kids will have to go play elsewhere.

When choosing a school, parents ought to make it clear to administrators that they expect them to make sure that other students are immunized. NYU legal scholar Richard Epstein makes the point that private schools regularly send unvaccinated kids home; all public schools should have the same policy.

If parent-to-parent engagement fails to turn the tide, government might step in. In the 1905 case of Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that Cambridge, Mass., could fine Henning Jacobson $5 for refusing smallpox vaccination.

Perhaps such fines — say, $250 — could today be levied against parents who refuse to get their children vaccinated.

I would prefer to live in a world where rational people take careful account of the evidence and dispassionately weigh the risks and benefits of vaccination to themselves, their families, and their neighbors. I am confident that if we did live in such a paradise of reason nearly eveyone who medically could be vaccinated would be vaccinated. Instead we evidently live in a world where politicized science is used to signal to other members of your tribe that you are on their side. Sometimes I despair that it's confirmation bias all the way down.

NEXT: Jordan Vows "Relentless" War Against ISIS After Execution of Air Force Pilot—Time for the U.S. to Decide Its Role for Itself

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “When choosing a school, parents ought to make it clear to administrators that they expect them to make sure that other students are immunized. NYU legal scholar Richard Epstein makes the point that private schools regularly send unvaccinated kids home; all public schools should have the same policy.”

    Er, uhm, there should be no public schools.

    1. There shouldn’t be any measles, either, but here we are.

    2. as a public school, the government then is forcing a child out of class based on immunization? isn’t this a de facto way of mandating vaccination?

      I mean, if you are mandated to both pay for and send your child to school but they won’t let you follow the law unless you take actions you aren’t legally obligated to take… isn’t this wrong?

      1. End compulsory schooling.

        1. There’s no such thing as “compulsory schooling” any longer. All states allow homeschooling.

          1. If someone in rural west Texas is a single parent a hundred miles away from the nearest private school, please explain how public schools aren’t cumpolsory.

            1. There are now homeschooling cooperatives. Perhaps the single mom could join one of those and offer to care for the other kids on her days off if they can help her when she works.

          2. Nonsense. Individuals are still extorted to pay for public schools regardless if they use them or not. They pay fed and state taxes, as both are heavily involved in education.

            So it is still compulsory education, as folks are forced to pay for it even if they don’t use it.

          3. homeschooling is still schooling

          4. Uh, if you’re “allowed” to homeschool… there’s compulsory schooling. There are VERY few states that allow you to homeschool your children without notifying the school district so you meet the states compulsory attendance laws. It’s school that should be opt-in, not homeschool. Home education should be the default.

    3. Exactly!

    4. Oh for chissake! Now there should be no public schools, please tell us why Mr. fucking god…something to do with Iceland in the Middle ages I am guessing, or some half-assed book written by some half-assed crank to appeal to dipshits.

  2. So what about a place like Disneyland? It’s impractical and probably illegal to require proof of vaccination for entry, so how does “shame and shun” work there?

    Don’t get me wrong… I like the idea in general, but since vaccines are not 100% effective we can’t have a significant population at a crowded gathering place unvaccinated for serious diseases.

    1. I think we may have to accept that?for the first time in history?we may just have to live with an imperfect solution.

      1. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Think of the CHILLLLLLDRENNNNNNNNN!

      2. Don’t be absurd, Hugh. If we just spend enough money and curtail enough liberties and use enough force, all problems can be solved!

        1. hey now, that’s one step away from the solution that liberties are, themselves, the problems that need solving! I think you’re on to something.

          1. It could be, dare I say, a final solution to the problems.

      3. We should just focus on making a better measles vaccine. 97% effectiveness isn’t good.

        1. The news is stating it’s more like 90% effective. We do need safer and more effective vaccines. Vaccine injury transparency would be nice too. Vaccine product liability exemption should also be revoked.

    2. It wouldn’t be illegal, and if it became a persistent problem of children getting sick at amusement parks families will stop going until the parks learn to mitigate the problem. Having morons doing things that put others at risk is, unfortunately, a fact of life, but just like you can not let your child drive in a car with someone who is a reckless driver, you can not have them play at an unvaccinated household, that doesn’t mean a shitty driver or unvaccinated asshole won’t come along and ruin your day in a public place, though.

    3. The insurers can create a private third party to do the verification Underwriters Laboratory style. Disney can then refuse entry to anyone without a Vaccine Verification Corporation record.

      1. Frankly, I’m suprised Underwriters Laboratory doesn’t come up more often in libertarian discussions as it’s a real world example of how private organizations can be used to create universal safety regulation without having to depend on government force.

        1. I use them as an example all the time, the result – blank glazed over dumbfoundedness

        2. UL is approved and licensed by OSHA. Surely they would do a fine job without the licensing, but it’s still there.

          1. UL was founded in 1894. OSHA didn’t exist until 1971.

            1. Right, but we usually deal with idiots who will say, “Yeah, but it only works because OSHA is keeping an eye on them.”

              1. Which is basically the government jumping in front of a parade and claiming they’re the drum major.

                1. Don’t forget the private ASME that was formed in 1880. The gov’t jumps in front of that parade all the time. Although the ASME parade has learned to turn the corner while those douche sheissers march on the wrong way with their instruments wagging from their sheisser bums.

                  If it weren’t for the goverent department of buildings, and the dept of energy though, everything would fall apart!! Folks wouldn’t know how thick a tube sheet needs to be, and no one would know jack shit about preventing boiler explosions if it weren’t for the gov’t!!!!! Cause RoAdZ!!! and WelDErZ!! and BoiLErZ!!!!

        3. Great point.

      2. That’s a good answer — this is why I posed the question. I’m a believer in “the right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins” liberty, and being unvaccinated seems closer to the nose than not.

        1. … and being unvaccinated seems closer to the nose than not.

          Then you’re sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

          1.) Being unvaccinated does not increase one’s risk to catching a disease. It simply does nothing to reduce the risk.

          2.) Being unvaccinated, in and of itself, does not equal being infectious. There are plenty of healthy, non-contagious, unvaccinated people walking harmlessly around out there.

          3.) Being vaccinated does not gaurantee immunity. Vaccines are not 100% effective and even fully vaccinated people can cause outbreaks.

          4.) There is functionally no difference between those that are not vaccinated by choice and those that are not able to be vaccinated (e.g.: immuno-compromised, allergic, etcetera).

          The unvaccinated are no more “dangerous” than the vaccinated UNLESS they are infected and/or contagious. Immunization status is irrelevant. What is relevant IS an individual’s infection / infectious status, and both the vaccinated and unvaccinated may become infected / infectious.

          1. Agree that being infected is of course the issue, and being unvaccinated means you have a much higher risk of getting infected (#1). And, if a significant number of people have this higher risk due to their personal choice, then any outbreak of infection is more likely to spread even for the vaccinated (#3) — and herd immunity breaks down such that people who are not able to be vaccinated (#4) lose their protection too.

            I don’t think vaccines should be mandatory. But there are real consequences to this liberty to make dumb choices for oneself when it impacts others on this scale.

            1. Agree that being infected is of course the issue, and being unvaccinated means you have a much higher risk of getting infected…

              Not getting vaccinated does not increase your chances of getting x disease. Taking no precaution against a risk does not increase that risk. It merely does nothing to decrease it. Their risk is no higher than it was before their parents chose not to vaccinate than it was before.

              … then any outbreak of infection is more likely to spread even for the vaccinated…

              No, any outbreak of infection is more likely to spread when infectious individuals go about in public taking few, if any, precautions against exposing others. Immunization status is irrelevant here since even the vaccinated can become infectious.

              Address that by addressing asinine absence/sick policies (from school or work) that grossly disincentivize self-quarantine.

            2. [continued b/c of character limits]

              … to make dumb choices for oneself when it impacts others…

              /sigh/ Again. Merely being unvaccinated does not impact anyone else. At all. Period. Look, there were only 644 reported cases of the measles in 2014, out of a nationwide population of ~320 million people; 0.00020125% of the population.

              Now, unless those 644 cases represent the exact total number of unvaccinated individuals in 2014, then that means that there likely were/are thousands(?)… tens-of-thousands(?)… more?… healthy, non-infectious unvaccinated individuals wandering around harmlessly (wrt spreading diseases).

              ONLY infectious individuals spread disease.

          2. You have no grasp of probability theory, do you?

            The unvaccinated are FAR MORE LIKELY to be infected than the vaccinated.
            Just because a risk does not have 100% probability, doesn’t mean I don’t want to avoid it.
            Just because vaccinated people have some risk, and so do unvaccinated people, doesn’t mean i should treat a 2% risk the same as a 30% risk.

            1. He should have started his post with, “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!”

              1. He should have started his post with, “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!”

                Because ad hominem attacks are so much more effective than reasoned rebuttal.

            2. The unvaccinated are FAR MORE LIKELY to be infected than the vaccinated.

              No argument, but so what? Both are still at risk, the latter simply have a far lesser (but still greater than zero) risk. Yes?

              Both, when healthy and non-infectious, pose no… zero… none… zilch… nada… risk to others (wrt spreading diseases). Conversely, both pose a roughly equal risk to others when they are infectious.

              The only functional difference between the two is how likely they are to become infectious; the former has the natural likelihood while the latter enjoys a grossly lower likelihood.

              Just because a risk does not have 100% probability, doesn’t mean I don’t want to avoid it.

              And I will honor, respect, and defend your choice. I will also honor, respect, and defend, in the name of liberty and self-ownership, others’ choices to not take a particular measure to reduce their / their kids’ risk. Just like I will defend the rights of motorcyclists to choose to wear, or not, a helmet…

              1. Oh look, someone found the tag.

                1. Sigh, the < b tag.

              2. “Just like I will defend the rights of motorcyclists to choose to wear, or not, a helmet”

                Those who drive without helmet put themselves at risk. Those who refuse to be vaccinated put other people at risk.

                That’s pretty simple. I hope you will try to understand that.

                1. What if a bug flies into the eye of a helmet-less motorcyclist and he veers into traffic, causing a multi-car pile up with numerous deaths and injuries?

                  That’s pretty simple. I hope you will try to understand that.

          3. Pedantically almost correct, but practically very wrong.

            By the numbers:

            1) Being vaccinated substantially increases one’s *relative” risk of catching a disease compared to the vaccinated. Although the absolute risk is important, the relative risk is much easier to determine.

            2) Obvious and irrelevant

            3) When one is determining the risk of infection, the herd immunity around them is a critical factor. Vaccination greatly increases herd immunity. Furthermore, the risk of disease spreading through the population is exponentially related to the percentage of unvaccinated.

            4) So what? Someone who cannot be vaccinated is not avoid vaccination by choice. Someone who chooses to avoid it without good reason is choosing to be a hazard to those around them. That’s not a good trait to have in society. You right to avoid vaccination without a good reason is right up there with your right to drive drunk, and just as wrong.

            5) Many diseases are contagious before symptoms show. That means that the unvaccinated *are* more dangerous than the vaccinated because they have a higher probability of being sick.

          4. Thank God there’s a sane mind in the crowd.

  3. So how to turn the tide? People who refuse to get themselves and their kids vaccinated should be treated as deadbeats by their neighbors

    Umm, why diddle daddle around about it? Let’s just go straight with stoning them to death or burning them at the stake.

    I think it’s totally stupid to not get your kids immunized, but you’re going full on slippery slope there.

    1. Yep, it’s a short and inevitable path from telling someone you don’t want to hang out with them to murdering them in the street.

      I certainly can’t think of a single public shaming campaign that hasn’t resulted in someone’s violent death.

      1. I can’t think of a single public shaming campaign that’s worked.

        1. Because the general public is shameless.

        2. it works pretty well for the Amish. The rest of us, meanwhile, have become ashamed of shaming. Not that long ago, shame used to be a powerful means of backing societal norms. A lot of today’s social ills were not nearly as prevalent; not saying they didn’t happen but no one celebrated them.

          1. examples?

            You mean like shaming an interracial couple out of town?

            1. teenage pregnancy was far less common not that long ago. Something like the UVA fake rape story would not have happened. There were no Occutards, there was no welfare bureaucracy subsidizing bad decisions.

              Just how many examples do you need?

              1. but is that shaming? teenage pregnancy was MORE common not that long ago, the babies were just hidden away and sent off for adoption. See catholic church for examples.

                The fake rape story would not have happened, but so many real rape stories were never told, right?

                Again, I was asking for examples of shame campaigns that worked.

                1. Teenage brides were much MORE common not long ago. Out-of-wedlock births werren’t.

            2. Smoking cigarettes.

              1. People used to be ashamed to live off of charity. Now they just get an anonymous check and nobody even needs to know. They even try to make the EBT cards look like credit cards, so the people using them won’t be embarassed.

              2. I was looking for this one. This is one of the best examples out there right now.

                1. Well that was worthless. I was responding to shamalam. The Anti-smoking campaigns and treatment of smokers by non-smokers is a great example of how public shaming changes attitudes. Long before governments started banning smoking in buildings, businesses started doing it on their own due to demand. Back in my law school days, our classrooms had ashtrays built in the desks. Smoking wasn’t officially banned, but there was no way in hell anyone was ever going to smoke indoors. This was in the early 90’s.

        3. I can’t think of a single public shaming campaign that’s worked.

          I think the public shaming of Anti-Gay people has been a huge, huge cause of the change in SSM attitudes. Every day, people in public, on facebook and in the media are calling anti SSM people bigots and it has done quite a bit to change things. The same is true for smoking- essentially pushing smokers out onto cold street corners.

          In fact, what are protests if not just organized shaming in many ways?

          Shaming and Shunning are not 100% effective, but they are 1) still effective and 2) better alternatives to mandates.

          1. Shunning and shaming can also be horribly abused. See that guy with a cheesy T-shirt.

            However, shunning someone for being unvaccinated is actually one of the MOST legitimate possible uses of shunning. I mean, we’re talking about literal, actual, non-figurative communicable DISEASE here. Coming into contact with them objectively increases your risk of death. This sort of thing is the biological ORIGIN of shunning.

  4. Probably Bailey’s best article written here to date.

    Unlike the manmade global warming bunkum, which is completely fabricated agenda-driven politicized science, this is all too real, and potentially very dangerous if it isn’t nipped in the bud fairly quickly.

    1. “i think the articles he writes i agree with already are great- and the ones I already disagree with are bad.”- paraphrase.

    2. No, alas, this vaccination obsession is just as much bunk as the idea of global warming as an anthropogenic phenomenon.

      Do a little reading. Consider the fact that every disease for a which a vaccine was developed had declined in rate of incidence from its peak incidence to less than about 10% of that ? and sometimes much less than that! — BEFORE the vaccine was introduced.

      Every. Last. One.

      http://www.whale.to/a/graphs.html
      https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

      Consider the fact, definitely never reported, that most “outbreaks” of diseases for which a vaccine has been developed affect roughly equal proportions of both the unvaccinated AND the vaccinated.

      Here’s an article about the phenomenon involving whooping cough. It’s currently happening in California involving measles.

      http://www.newswithviews.com/T…..rri128.htm

      1. Review the history of the smallpox vaccine. Note that epidemics continued to rage on and off throughout England throughout the 19th century, despite widespread, mandated vaccination. In fact, vaccination was briefly made illegal circa 1850 because it was painfully obvious to those without vested interest in vaccination that the vaccine itself was causing the disease. Note also that those areas which fared best were those in which the local potentates opted out of vaccinating.

        http://www.vaclib.org/legal/MTstate/smallpox.pdf

        1. The worst smallpox outbreak in world history occurred in the Philippines in the 1910’s, during the U. S. occupation, ten years AFTER the U. S. introduced a mandatory smallpox vaccination program.

          What really knocked these diseases down? Improvements in public sanitation, personal hygiene, and nutrition. Indoor plumbing!— and vitamins, especially C.

          Note that no one in this comment section is even mentioning the fact that vaccines still contain mercury or aluminum, as well as other highly unsavory substances.

          Remember, science doesn’t give two sh*ts about WHAT you think. It’s all about what you OBSERVE. As Einstein once said, when he heard that Hitler had arrayed a panel of 100 scientists to counter his findings, “It doesn’t take 100 scientists, it only takes one fact.”

          Consensus means precisely NOTHING to science. Browse around at vaclib.org. It’s jaw-dropping.

          http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index2.htm#1
          http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index3.htm

          How has this happened? Watch this groundgreaking, full-length documentary about AIDS, including interviews with the world’s leading bio sleuths ? some Nobel laureates among them — both for and against. It’ll flip your wig.

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

          Shame? Shame on this author for being an ignorant pedant.

  5. I certainly can’t think of a single public shaming campaign that hasn’t resulted in someone’s violent death.

    or at least loss of someone’s beard.

  6. I posted this comment on another site yesterday.

    “ernieyeball says:
    Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 20:41
    Those who “feel” vaccines are “not right” for their families and the politicians who pander to their dangerous crusade are unashamedly pro disease and should be considered pariahs.”

    1. pariah pariah, pants on fiah.

  7. So should all people immigrating to the US be quarenteened until they receive all of their vaccinations? I ask because in Columbus this is a larger issue with the Somali population than the natives. I’m guessing that population isn’t on the list of folks to be shamed becaue tolerence and stuff.

    1. For legal immigration, you must submit vaccination records and see a USCIS approved doctor.

    2. TB vaccination is a requirement for US immigration.

    3. Yes. Next question?

  8. We should do it because we’re the majority.

    1. that’s sound reasoning to me!

  9. As is amply displayed here on a daily basis, people tend to dig in when their incorrect dogmatic beliefs are challenged, rather than be persuaded. Humans are such a useless excuse for an intelligent species that they tend to care more about not feeling the sting of being proved wrong about something than, say, protecting their own children from disease, or the environment from catastrophe. It’s why I don’t believe in gloating when someone admits he got something wrong–that’s the height of intellectual integrity, and should be celebrated in an advanced culture.

    1. when someone admits he got something wrong–that’s the height of intellectual integrity

      That puts you in the underground sewer of intellectual integrity.

      1. I’m definitely not immune to the phenomenon, but at least I acknowledge its existence. And at least most of my views are noncontroversial enough that I don’t end up defending full-on absurdities to the point of total embarrassment. Poor libertarians.

        1. Argumentum ad populum. Poor Tony. Can’t even make it one post without a fallacy.

          1. As opposed to the standard libertarian “I’m right and nobody, not even the entire global scientific establishment, can tell me different. I’m that fucking special.”

            1. it’s easy to claim you are correct when your opposition deals in absolutes and hyperbole.

        2. And at least most of my views are noncontroversial enough that I don’t end up defending full-on absurdities to the point of total embarrassment.

          a religious man would say that begs for a lightning strike. You’re here defending the excesses of govt at every turn.

        3. my views are noncontroversial

          Oh ok.

          1. There’s not really much debate on this board that Tony is an idiot. So yes, from that perspective, his views aren’t all that controversial…the overwhelming majority agrees they’re stupid.

    2. As is amply displayed here on a daily basis, people tend to dig in when their incorrect dogmatic beliefs are challenged, rather than be persuaded.

      That’s pretty much your whole raison d’?tre.

      1. But why did he have to dig in here?

    3. actually, most people here favor vaccines, you idiot. But hey, don’t let that stop you from the usual mindless trolling.

      1. Congratulations for getting one thing right.

        1. do you even realize how stupid this makes you look? You posted an opinion in a thread about a story where your opinion is defeated by the evidence. Since you are so blatantly wrong on this, one might assume you are wrong about most other things. I’m sure a 97% consensus here can be found.

          1. wareagle|2.4.15 @ 5:35PM|#
            “do you even realize how stupid this makes you look?”

            The looks are not deceiving.

        2. about the mindless trolling?

          Man, a few years ago you were better than this, Tony.

  10. What the heck is happening to this place? Did Sheldon Richman bite everyone in the office?

    I’m not going to treat unvaccinated folks like “deadbeats”, even if they bought into the anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. I’ll try to engage them in a debate, but only if they’re open to it.

    If people refuse to be vaccinated, they should be denied entry to schools and amusement parks? That doesn’t sound very….. “libertarian” to me. Measles are not as fatal as Ebola. Something like 50 people were infected in Disneyland, and 20 of them left. Oh, the terror!

    If you were known to hang around with people who were discovered to have measles, then I would support limitations on your travel. Otherwise, I see little reason why schools should bar students who refuse to be vaccinated.

    1. they should also confescate and burn all of your velveteen stuffed rabbits.

      1. Dude. Why do I not have velveteen stuffed rabbits!

        1. The velveteen rabbit probably was infected with scarlet fever in the first place.

          The moral of the story is, it sucks to be a fithy disease ridden animal toy.

    2. Amusement parks, as private entities, can (or should be able to, anyway) refuse service to whoever they want, including the unvaccinated. That’s plenty libertarian.

      Private schools would have the same rights.

      Government schools get a bit more complicated. However, one can argue that since children are forced to attend school, they shouldn’t be forced to attend with people who may get them or their too-young-to-be-vaccinated siblings sick.

      1. But if they are forced to attend school, they shouldn’t also be forced to do other things as a condition of doing the other thing they’re forced to do.

        1. A good argument against any compulsory service, but once it is compulsory, you shouldn’t then shoot down good policy in the hopes of regaining some autonomy. I don’t want to be forced to buy health insurance either, but since I am, I don’t think I could complain that an insurer would charge me extra if I were a smoker.

          If your kid must go to a school, is it fair to force them to a school with unvaccinated children? There must be a trade-off one way or the other, and it’s not clear why it should be in favor of parents that choose not to vaccinate for non-medical reasons. And why shouldn’t the public school (and the local government/taxpayers) get to have policies that limit its liability?

      2. Can a place of business have the right to reject service to someone who doesn’t vaccinate for religious or medical reasons?
        I think they may have a problem with ADA on medical, and being persecuted for your religious beliefs seems a lot like a lawsuit waiting to happen too.

        1. A place of business should be able to refuse service for any fucking reason they can pull out of their ass. They are not a public service. They are private. If they don’t want to trade their product for your cash, tough luck.

          1. Agreed. But there is a whole lot of lawyerin’ money to be made with ADA lawsuits.

    3. I’m not going to treat unvaccinated folks like “deadbeats”, even if they bought into the anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. I’ll try to engage them in a debate, but only if they’re open to it.

      Rational argument cannot hope to change an opinion that wasn’t arrived at rationally to begin with.

      1. Don’t be silly, Stormy. There was a doctor who figured out that big pharma wanted to make your kids autistic with their vaccination hoodoo for mysterious reasons, but he was silenced by the medical community because everyone’s in on it.

        Totally. Rational.

        1. And that doctor stood to gain financially in a big way, too.

          Science!

        2. This really reminds me of the anti-nuclear nuts.

          1. I hadn’t thought of that, but the “anti-vax” (could they have come up with something more annoying?) have a lot in common with anti-nuclear people. Massive overestimation of risk, minimization of benefit, conspiracy crap, ignoring science (Science!).

            It is settled. They are equal.

        3. Uh, yeah. Thanks for illustrating conspiratorial thinking. I am hoping that was your intent.

    4. If people refuse to be vaccinated, they should be denied entry to schools and amusement parks? That doesn’t sound very….. “libertarian” to me.

      When the locations are private, this sounds nothing but libertarian to me. If I require vaccination paperwork to enter my house that’s my right. It’s also the everyone else’s right to refuse, but they don’t get to come into my house.

    5. Measles can often result in terrible complications. Keeping the little incubators out of school is good policy.

      1. Measles is indeed a shitty disease, and that’s just if its plain measles. Doesn’t count the potential pneumonia or meningoencephalitis that can be associated with it. Or, more interesting, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis.

        Like I said, shitty. And as noted before, the measles vaccine isn’t perfect, and the virus is quite contagious. It is a disease that easily becomes epidemic in a poorly-vaccinated population.

        1. The sad thing is that nobody remember the days when diptheria or polio or measles used to wipe out entire families.

          In those days of course, people had lots of back-up children, just in case 2-3 of them were killed off by disease.

    6. I’m not going to treat unvaccinated folks like “deadbeats”, even if they bought into the anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. I’ll try to engage them in a debate, but only if they’re open to it.

      I’d rather sue their pants off instead.

    7. Measles are not as fatal as Ebola.

      Measles is far more infectious. Without medical intervention, someone with Ebola infects 2 other people on average (this is the R0, if you want . So, if you have 1 person with Ebola, that person will infect 2 people, those 2 will infect 4, those 4 will infect 8, so on and so forth.

      Someone with measles, on the other, will infect an average of 18 people. So instead of 1, 2, 4, 8, etc., you have 1, 18, 324, 5,832, 104,976, 1,889,568?

      Measles is one of the most infectious diseases known to man.

      1. (this is the R0, if you want to Google it)

        FTFM!

      2. Infectious and dangerous are two different things. When I was a kid (1960s), everybody got it. It came with being a kid.

        Everyone I knew had to go through it. I know of not a single one who died of it.

        1. I remember when a kid got measles everyone that knew about it would bring their kid to visit so their kid could get it too. That is the way we used to immunize against measles. Getting as an adult was much worse, kids could handle it better.

          1. That practice was even more popular with German measles for girls. Doctors used to facilitate it. The disease itself was milder than regular measles, but it was among the teratogenic TORCH infections, so getting it before one was of child bearing age was a benefit before there was a vaccine for it.

        2. Plenty of people did die from it. A whole lot others sustained permanent damage from it and related disease, including myself.

      3. Measles is far more infectious.

        Math lesson!

        Approximately what percentage (z) of the US population was infected with the measles in 2014?

        x = 644 (the number of reported cases of the measles in 2014)
        y = ~320 million (the approximate population of the USA)

        z = (x / y) * 100 = ~0.00020125% or ~ two ten-thousandths of one percent.

        1. Um, the low risk is because of vaccination.

          1. Um, the low risk is because of vaccination.

            I said nothing about “the low risk”. I only demonstrated mathematically that, even with the spike from under 200 cases in 2013 to over 600 cases in 2014, it only affected a miniscule fraction of one-percent of the population.

            Am I wrong?

            1. it only affected a miniscule fraction of one-percent of the population because most people are vaccinated.

              Get it?

              1. Wow…I’m so glad *herd-immunity has saved us!

                *Sarcasm

    8. Amusement parks are private property. They should be allowed to discriminate against the unvaccinated just like anyone else.

      1. And lose some of their best customers?

        1. Well, if parents start getting scared to take their kids to amusement parks, they might want to.

  11. shame-and-shun-anti-vaccine-parents

    I will get on this as soon as I finish shaming and shunning climate alarmists.

  12. I’m way ahead of the curve. I already have anti-vaxxers on my list of top 1000 people to shame. They are at 931 just behind people who don’t know who originally recorded Ballroom Blitz, and just ahead of people who do not like bologna.

    1. I like bologna. It’s ok. But I understand completely if someone doesn’t like it.

      1. That’s why their at 932. It’s not like I seek them out, but if someone tells me they don’t like bologna like out of the blue I’m going to shame them.

        1. Bologna is okay, but only if you haven’t tried Lebanon Bolgona.

    2. who originally recorded Ballroom Blitz

      It was Wayne’s girlfriend, Cassandra, right?

      1. shame:)

      2. No, she just did the good version

        1. SHAME!!

    3. What do you mean ‘originally recorded’.

      I only know of one. Saw them play it.

      Now you k now how up to date I am on pop culture.

    4. I have anti-GMOers at the top of my shunning list. I shun any product with a non-GMO label at the supermarket.

      Anti-vaxxers are #2. Sad thing is they are as easily identifiable, so it is harder to shun them.

      Personally i think all the vaccinated people should get a small tattoo – like on the neck or something, so you can tell who to not shun.

    5. “They are at 931 just behind people who don’t know who originally recorded Ballroom Blitz, and just ahead of people who do not like bologna.”

      Wait, it’s not Tia Carrere?

  13. If parent-to-parent engagement fails to turn the tide, government might step in.

    With flashbangs, and no knocks, kidnappings, cagings and killings.
    Fucking science-denying anti-vaxxers can hang out in the attic with Anne Frank, right Ron?

    1. Just a little nudge!

    2. You mean Helen Keller?

    3. That is where I tuned out. A real libertarian, never, EVER advocates the government step and do anything unless their a fake libertarian like Glenn Beck. Libertarians are not for physical or governmental force, period.

  14. I’ve been quite surprised to learn how many weirdo righties are anti-vaccine. I’d always thought it was a particularly granola phenomenon. But checking out Brietbart, there seems to be a big (or at least vocal) contingent of the Creationist/Jesus Rode a Dinosaur wing of the repubs that also thinks vaccines are some kind of elitist conspiracy to make their children less inbred or something.

    1. There’s a portion of the right where, if the federal government said people shouldn’t shoot themselves in the head, would instantly become Russian Roulette hobbyists purely out of spite.

    2. I think the anti-floridation groups are largely right, also.
      But I’m surprised the propaganda image at the top doesn’t have the kids in chains. I mean, why miss a single appeal to emotion?

    3. It’s a thing for both the left and right. What’s interesting is watching some lefties try to place all the blame on the right – as if a significant contingent of anti-vaccers isn’t on the left.

      Weird.

      1. Less intelligent/less educated people are more likely to fall for the anti-vax clap-trap. They are also more likely to fall for political clap-trap and so gravitate to the far ends of the spectrum. It is probably a toss up which way they go.

        1. In my experience, it’s the more intelligent & educated with those tendencies.

        2. I was watching a news report on this very same thing on CBS (trust me I don’t watch lame stream media reporting unless I am on lunch break on overnights and the channel on the break room tv is locked on there) in this report they claimed anti-vaxers were mostly white, middle class, upper middle class or wealthy with college degrees. Yeah I was surprised too, look it up.

  15. Hey, everyone-we can all pack up and go home! Rick Newman has just provided us with the definition Liberty, so there’s no more need to quibble.

  16. Ronald Bailey, are you a parent?

    Your idea is stupid. Do you have any understanding of the social dynamic that works between parents with young children?

    There’s absolutely no need to directly confront or actively shame the anti-vac people. The social interaction between parents and the groups the form will take care of this all on its own.

    Imagine for a minute you have a toddler and want to join and Mommy and Me play group, take swimming lessons at the YMCA, enroll your kid in a pre-school or homeschool group. Unless you immunize you will find your options and social group incredibly limited. Now, that’s fine with some people but most want the social inclusion that comes from being accepted, well, pretty much anywhere. There will be some who won’t vaccinate and who will be fine with the social consequences but, for the most part, they are a danger mostly to themselves and each other. I understand herd immunity and know that some vaccinated people and Disney got measles but, hey, we live in an imperfect world.

    1. Bertrum-

      You basically seem to be endorsing Bailey’s point.

      Imagine for a minute you have a toddler and want to join and Mommy and Me play group, take swimming lessons at the YMCA, enroll your kid in a pre-school or homeschool group. Unless you immunize you will find your options and social group incredibly limited.

      Isn’t that exactly the shunning he recommends?

      1. No. There’s no need for individuals to try to convince their friends and neighbors they must vaccinate. Subtle peer pressure is the answer, not direct conflict.

    2. for the most part

      There’s the rub — vaccines are not 100% effective. If they were this wouldn’t be an issue. But people are making personal choices that directly harm other people who have taken every reasonable precaution.

      I don’t think vaccines should be mandatory, but I do think it’s a much tougher question than the “eh, life sucks sometimes” crowd here wants to admit. Where do you draw the line when balancing personal liberty and public health? Anyone can do whatever they want, including walking around in a crowded public place with a highly contagious disease — we’ll just sue them for damages later?

      1. But people are making personal choices that directly harm other people who have taken every reasonable precaution.

        Not vaccinating certainly does NOT “directly harm other people”. That preposterous statement makes the horribly false assumption that being unvaccinated equals being infectious. That is simply not the case. There are droves of perfectly healthy, non-infectuous unvaccinated people walking harmlessly around out there.

        If that statement had any grain of truth to it, then there would have been a fuck ton more than 644 reported cases of the measles last year.

        Unvaccinated individuals are not the problem. That is just a red herring. INFECTIOUS people [and the vaccinated can get and be infectious] walking around exposing others are the problem / threat.

        1. No, being unvaccinated equals being at a higher risk for infection by definition, and thus more likely to spread an infection once one breaks out in a population.

          I agree we wouldn’t need to be vaccinated at all if we could just quarantine people as soon as they are infectious, but that’s unrealistic. Lowering people’s risk across a population prevents wider outbreaks, and choosing not to participate in this risk reduction by free-riding is certainly an indirect harm at least.


          1. But he likes BOLDFACE

            1. But he likes BOLDFACE

              Because ad hominem attacks work so much better than reasoned rebuttals.

              1. No but the stupid bold type makes you bait, dude…

          2. No, being unvaccinated equals being at a higher risk for infection by definition…

            True, but only in comparison with the vaccinated.

            However, the unvaccinated are at no higher risk than before the choice was made not to vaccinate. Taking no action to reduce a risk does not increase the risk.

            … and thus more likely to spread an infection once one breaks out in a population.

            False. While they are more likely than the vaccinated to get infected, they will not spread it unless they get infected / become infectious and take few or no precautions against spreading it. And in that, their “threat” is roughly the same as the vaccinated that manage to get infected / become infectious and take few or no precautions against spreading it.

            Infectious individuals spread disease regardless of their immunization status.

            … and choosing not to participate in this risk reduction by free-riding is certainly an indirect harm at least.

            False. Not reducing my risk (by not participating) does not increase your risk whatsoever and certainly does not harm, directly or indirectly, anyone else.

            Now, if I lose that gamble, get sick / become infectious, and take few precautions against spreading it then I pose a “threat”. And so do you if your gamble fails and you take few precautions against spreading it.

        2. So as long as you anti-vax freaks promise to not get sick, we’re all just fine, right?

          That works well with something like smallpox – oh wait, we eradicated that because VACCINES.

          1. So as long as you anti-vax freaks promise to not get sick, we’re all just fine, right?

            Sure, as long as all you dumb cunt vaxxers promise to not get sick too!

            Oh wait… you can’t… because… oh!… vaccinations are not 100% effective

            Dumbass. Infectious people spread diseases regardless of their immunization status.

            1. Infectious diseases commonly become infectious BEFORE symptoms appear. How do you know you harbor an infectious agent before showing symptoms? Do you think the patient zero who started the Disney outbreak had a fever and rash when he went on the outing? Maybe some kid who knew he’d have to stay home if he was sick didn’t let on–but it’s just as likely he wasn’t sick yet.

              This makes your point that danger comes from being infectious moot. That isn’t the issue. I don’t think parents should be forced to vaccinate–but I do think it’s OK to point and laugh and refuse to have anything to do with their potentially lethal children.

              Personal family history: early in the twentieth century, my father’s youngest brother died of measles complications at the age of three. My grandmother LOVED vaccinations when they came along.

    3. You do not understand the vaccine-related fallacy known as “herd-immunity”.

      The same “experts” who came up with that phrase are the same type of “experts” who testified in court that smoking is not addictive, nor does it cause cancer.

  17. People who refuse to get themselves and their kids vaccinated should be treated as deadbeats by their neighbors. They should feel the consequences of their decision.

    Fuck you, Bailey.

    Since have vaccines been proven to be godlike in their efficiency at preventing disease. Are they useful? Yes. Maybe.

    My two kids have been vaccinated but as a concerned and thoughtful parent I was just fucking not happy with my pediatrician pumping 12 vaccines into them at once so I staggered it throughout their early years. My pediatrician was a wonderful and circumspect Indian man who happily worked with me. And I have two super smart and healthy youngsters.

    I think parents who don’t trust pharmaceutical companies are very normal and quite OK. I also think parents who trust medications and vaccines from pharmaceutical companies are also quite OK.

    Big pharma has made some really fucking serious errors over the years and they deserve critique and suspicion even WHILE they deserve being lauded for creating some truly great shit that has immensely forwarded mankind as a whole.

    Point is, our modern culture can handle a measles outbreak in the hundreds. Settle down.

    1. “Point is, our modern culture can handle a measles outbreak in the hundreds.”

      I’m not real concerned with the health of the ‘culture’; it’s when a kid dies as a result of anti-vaxxers that gets my attention.
      I’m on the fence regarding requiring it, but I don’t think we should trivialize the effects of the decision/

      1. Moving this to the lowest common denominator – i.e. children or adults who are immune compromised is an extremely high hurdle. Based-on that metric, we should mandate 100% vaccination (adults/children), plus isolate individuals with any disease that might be contagious.

        1. RAHeinlein|2.4.15 @ 8:47PM|#
          “Moving this to the lowest common denominator…”

          I don’t think anyone is asking or pursuing a “100% solution”.
          We have a simple and cheap process that gives us, what, 95% results and there are folks griping about silly crap like the anti-GMO luddites.
          As mentioned, I’m far from persuaded that coercion (“legal requirement!”) is the proper response, but I’m more than convinced that any sort of shunning, persuasion, social pressure is appropriate.
          Disclosure: I was ‘quarantined’ early in life when my sibling caught polio. Obviously, that was not a result of my parents’ choice (pre-vaccine), but neither they nor I griped about it; people could die.
          I can see no reason if you voluntarily put your kids at such risk, that others should not ‘quarantine’ them.

      2. Trust the government.
        Trust the cozy relationship between big pharma and the government.
        Trust that big pharma has zero liability.
        Trust that taxpayers pay for damages caused by vaccines (billions of dollars).
        Trust that “herd immunity” is a real thing.

    2. The assertion that we only have small measles outbreaks is predicated on most people being vaccinated. So those of us who are responsible get to indirectly product the anti-vax morons.

      Shame is correct here. Fuck the anti-vaxxers.

      1. And fuck autocorrect too. “Protect”, not “product”.

    3. So, are you totally cool with your kids playing with unvaccinated children?

      1. Do the unvaccinated children have some sort of disease?

        1. If P(disease|unvaccinated) is much greater than P(disease|vaccinated), why should I not be allowed to choose between the two?

  18. Before I moved to,Texas, I distinctly remember the left going batshit about the GOP-run state requiring women to get a vaccination against cervical cancer or something down here.

    Now they claim any person not in lockstep with their demands for compulsory universal immunizations is a right-wing Nutball?

    Could at least ONE MOTHERFUCKER at reason write an article about the hypocrisy coming from the left? Just One? Please?

    1. sloopy, I don’t think those were left-wingers.

      The thing that protects against cervical cancer is the HPV vaccine. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. It also happens to be the single biggest risk factor for cervical cancer (as in, if you don’t have HPV, you have approximately 0% chance of getting cervical cancer). The big uproar is because Christian conservatives think that vaccinating girls against STDs will make them promiscuous.
      Because if they get cervical cancer later in life, that’s God’s punishment for sleeping around.

      I don’t know of ANY left-wingers who were opposed to the HPV vaccine.

      1. AFAIK there was no controversy about women‘s being required to be vaccinated vs. HPV, but children. Since the effect of the vaccine is not expected to last a great many years, vaccinating children would do them no good unless they were sexually active! But apparently it would be too embarrassing to vaccinate only the risk groups. 😛

        1. Uhhh, that’s not my understanding of how the vaccine works. The vaccine is for life. it does not need boosters.

  19. “Vaccination is arguably the greatest public health triumph of the past century.”

    Absolutely true. Vaccinations have saved more lives than refrigeration and indoor plumbing. Oh, and antibiotics.

    The only reason this is an issue is because no one alive today remembers the devastation of the diseases we vaccinate against. Those threats don’t seem real to them. If they keep this anti-vaccination shit up, it will be.

    Which reminds me to bang on this drum again; If the green cult were able to impoverish us all they way they want to most of the diseases of the past would come roaring back. I never hear anyone mention that.

    1. I believe that the “green” types would have us all living back in the 15th century.

      And yes, take a walk through a cemetery. Check out the graves from entire 19th century families wiped out by disease.

    2. Yes, as i noted upthread, back in the day people use to have lots of extra kids because you could expect a few of them to get killed off by disease. Not even that long ago.

  20. Vaccines cause libertarianism!

  21. I hope Ron Bailey is as fervent arguing for the government to set an extremely high hurdle regarding which vaccines should be required, and provide clear data supporting efficacy, safety, and rationale for same.

    Bailey and Gillespie berated Rand Paul’s statements regarding vaccinations. His comments were completely rational – any physician or similarly-trained professional would acknowledge a small percentage of individuals experience adverse reactions (some extremely severe) – generally due to allergic response.

    1. Yeah, I’m not too hot on the whole rounding-people-up-to-vaccinate thing.

      Shame is good, though.

  22. Just saw this via facebook with a lot of “finallys” and general giddiness.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/p…..story.html

  23. Idea. Medical professionals could issue a wallet sized vaccination card that documents a person’s vaccination history on a chip.
    This would make it easy for people to check vaccination status at schools, gyms, amusement parks, days cares etc.

    1. So to take the bus I need to show you my papers? Do I need to sit in the back too?

      Want the rest of my medical history so I may be permitted to eat at McDonalds?
      Perhaps you can take away my guns because someday they could be stolen and used in a crime.

      Ok, I’m done being sarcastic……
      A feel good law like this would be stepping on my privacy rights. Even if it were the right thing to do I don’t think you’ll get many adults to sign up. I’ve only had a few vaccines since college, and hep and tetanus during Katrina. I got the flu shot a couple times too. Most of my records are on paper, not digital. I don’t know how big brother recorded my vaccines administered under a tent, or in Kmart and Walgreens. I will not get any more vaccines until I see the need, and I’d like some say in my health care.

      1. “A feel good law like this would be stepping on my privacy rights.”

        I didn’t see a law proposed, merely a record for you to provide to commercial entities if you wish to engage in certain activities.
        To take a less formal and more current arrangement: Your kids want to play over here with mine? Uh, did your kids get the shots? If not, well, I’d rather not risk it.
        No law required.

      2. If a private entity wishes to discriminate against the unvaccinated, they should be able to. This just enables them to do so in a simple, easy way. It doesn’t impose any real burden on the unvaccinated, it simply makes it easier for those who ARE vaccinated to prove it, quickly, and reliably.

    2. Idea. Medical professionals could issue a wallet sized vaccination card that documents a person’s vaccination history on a chip.

      Great idea! Now… how to meet the black market demand for forged papers…?

      1. Sure, like any other form of ID. That doesn’t mean it has zero effect.

  24. Want more vaccinated children? End Religious and Personal Exemptions.

    If vaccinations are so effective why are people so afraid for their vaccinated children to mingle with non-vaccinated children?

  25. == 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?

  26. 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]

    1. [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.

      1. Exactly.

      2. Actually you can, and should, because they are idiots who VOLUNTARILY refuse to be vaccinated.

  27. My last pay check was $ 9500 working 10 hours a week online. My Friend’s has been averaging 14k for months now and she works about 21 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out
    OPEN THIS LINK IN YOUR BROWSER,,,,
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  28. If there are “anti-vaccine hucksters” out there, they are being pandered to by the likes of Rand Paul and conspiracy minded Libertarians. Well, at least that is the take of the conservative Wall Street Journal, who said this:

    “He will have to avoid these LIBERTARIAN DORMITORY PASSIONS if he wants to be a credible candidate,” the editorial says, adding that government requirements for vaccinating school children is “a legitimate use of state ‘police powers’ under the Constitution.”

    Not Maddow, the Wall Street JOURNAL.

    1. Ah, so Jerkin Ass is quoting the WSJ as a source of authority in support of his position. Tomorrow, however, it will return to being a biased, rightwing, 1%-er source of lies that he will feel compelled to expose for the good of the children.

      1. Tough to take, eh Kure’i, when even right wingers are getting sick and tired of the conspiracy theories?

      2. Hey, I’ll go you one even better:

        http://www.redstate.com/2015/0…..-paranoid/

        That’s right, Libertarians pandering to the paranoid!

  29. Vaccination problems starts after Congress granted the manufacturers immunity from product liability litigation. This removed a constraint and may have led to negligence, even criminal negligence.

    If the vaccinations are safe, why not just remove the immunity?

    Try it and you will discover who is correct in the vaccination debate.

    It’s more complicated than this, of course. Vaccination is a useful tool, but it’s only part of the picture. General health, nutrition, sanitation – all these affect infection risk and of course, as the USA slides into 3rd world status health, nutrition, and sanitation are declining.

    1. You are absolutely right. The companies don’t have any liability whatsoever. You would think a bunch of free-market people would understand what happens in these situations.

  30. I would prefer to live in a world where rational people
    take careful account of the evidence and dispassionately
    weigh the risks and benefits of vaccination to themselves,
    their families, and their neighbors. I am confident that
    if we did live in such a paradise of reason nearly eve[r]yone
    who medically could be vaccinated would be vaccinated.

    How do you know you don’t live in such a world? Or are people being rational and dispassionate, taking careful account of the evidence, only when they choose what you want them to choose?

    This series of articles runs so counter to libertarianism’s abhorrence for aggression that I’ve been ashamed to get Reason’s e-mailed newsletters the past few weeks. It’s embarrassing to have militantly aggressive articles such as these have been go out under Reason’s masthead.

    Frankly I’m not likely to continue reading Reason if it keeps spewing bile of this sort. I’d like to read a libertarian magazine, please.

    1. Hmm. Guess I don’t know how to put in a quote here; it ate my right-carets. Shoulda used double-quotes.

    2. Spot on Jonathan. I am beginning to think Reason is just another group with its own agendas that they will try to force on others by “non-violent” means.
      And most of the commenters are juvenile beyond description.

    3. Spot on Jonathan, for myself I have taken careful account of the evidence and have found the “theory” of gravity wanting (Newton was a known kook anyways) I no longer recognize gravity from this day forward.

  31. Public schools shouldn’t exist. Any private business should be able to refuse to service to anyone they please. But I am so sickened by this bully/gang mentality/mob rule bullshit. Fuck all of you who want to shame and harass and make lepers of those in our society for daring to ask mother fucking questions about things. For maybe not seeing where all the “facts” add up. Fuck both sides for muddying the waters and further causing people to question the “facts.” Fuck reason for all of your big government solution.We want to hold parents liable when the companies who create the medicine can’t even be held liable? For reals? If you all can’t see both sides of this, if you all can’t see that vaccines are both good and bad, safe and dangerous…

    1. Oh fuck you, you ignorant prick, you aren’t a libertarian you’re an anarchist, go join your friends in ISIS, it’s extremists assholes like you that discredit all libertarian ideas.

  32. Isn’t there someone, anyone, who can write a persuasive vaccine column based on libertarian principles ? which are based on PERSUASION rather than FORCE?

  33. I like this articles intent…but there are just so many people who simply do not believe in science and reason, I’m a little skeptical that it would work.

  34. The anti-vaxxers are just tryint to prove Nietzsche’s assetion: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”

    Who knows? He may have been right.

    “People who refuse to get themselves and their kids vaccinated should be treated as deadbeats by their neighbors.”

    Like people who live on “welfare” cheques, or their modern equivalent.

  35. So, the only reason people wouldn’t vaccinate is pure ignorance? Well, it’s nice that you have a set of state organized compulsory actions taking steps to save them from that ignorance. And us, too. Whew! Wait, what?

  36. “You are beneath me, so entirely undeserving of any kindness, friendship, or respect until you agree with me.I also will not acknowledge your dignity as a human being until you conform in a way that makes me comfortable.”

  37. I think the best way to shame such people is to have them wear a yellow star on their clothing so that everyone can see who they are at a glance.

    Oh, wait.

  38. Well, the first sentence says it all: “Vaccination is arguably the greatest public health triumph of the past century.”

    That is indeed the ARGUMENT. And since it is crony corporations and anti-freedom bureaucrats who are making the argument for vaccines while it is independent physicians, scientists and the parents of vaccine harm victims who are making the contrary argument, we need to be especially skeptical about the claims of safety and efficacy.

    And, by the way, here is a graph that shows the huge decline in epidemic disease BEFORE govt-sponsored mass vaccine campaigns. Hint: it was nutrition and hygiene that ended those diseases, not some govt program!

    http://drrimatruthreports.com/…..-graph.jpg

    Today Rima Laibow MD, my co-trustee at Natural Solutions Foundation, was at an All India Medical Congress getting ready to present a paper entitled “Regulation and Results” regarding the rosey claims of the vax drug pushers and horrific reality of dead and damaged children… far more harmed than “theoretically” (sic) saved.

    Her Paper is here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/…..and-death/

    Reason’s campaign of support for the uninsurable risks of vaccine pseudo-science is most unreasonable and I plan to shun you.

  39. you cite a number of the reasons many will not vaccinate, then write them off as crazy, unfounded, irrational, hysteria… meanwhile ignoring solid science and anecdotal evidencethat opposes your point of view. You are NOT doing the readership a good service in calling for a purely emptional response based on unfuonded or questinable data. What, are you guys shills for big pharma, big medicine, FedGov? How about “fair and balanced”? How about presnting the evidence as evidence? HOw about publishing the actual INGREDIENTS of the common vaccines, breaking them down into their costituent substances (such as mercury, aluminium, etc), and how about links to the phisiogical effects of these elements? You call yourselve “Reason”, but for what reason? There is no voice of “reason” in these articles, this being the second one in as many days.

  40. Is the return of rampant measles and even smallpox just a small price to pay for our “liberties”?

    It sucks that 1 out of 100,000 kids has a bad episode with vaccines.
    But do we really want to get rid of them? It’s an all-or-nothing bet.
    If we don’tall vaccinate, these diseases will spread, as they did 100 years ago.

    It really sucks. Oh well.

  41. And yet there are children horrible hurt by vaccines and will need intensive care for the rest of their lives. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..68343.html

    What do you say to those parents: Oops! Sorry. You can’t say it to the kids, because they are now brain damaged.

    How would you feel, Mr. Bailey, if it happened to your child? There has to be a way to identify those most at risk for adverse reactions. Until then, I can’t blame parents who don’t want to take that risk.

    By the way, large doses of vitamin A and C help to reduce, and sometimes reduce substantially, the symptoms of measles. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl…..e-consider

  42. Good ideas expressed in the article,at least it so strikes me. Strikes me that while the individual is entitled to place themselves at risk, they are not entitled to do the same to others.

    1. Numerous scientific studies indicate that children who receive a live virus vaccination can shed the disease and infect others for weeks or even months afterwards. Thus, parents who vaccinate their children can indeed put others at risk.

    2. So put your name on the list!

      What list?

      The list of people who volunteer to kill themselves if one of the children vaccinated suffers any complications from the procedure. Come on! It’s easy! Just put your name right here on the list to force people to vaccinate their kids. Nothing can possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.

      So come on! BET YOUR LIFE! Or is it just someone else’s life you’re willing to bet?

  43. Are you fricking KIDDING me?! A title and topic like this, on an individual rights based site? Shameful! What about one’s right over one’s own body. So you’re encouraging harassment of people for not submitting to the “good of the collective”?! Shame on you for this!

    http://www.judgenap.com/index……-vaccinate

  44. Prevalence of autism in U.S. children increased by 119.4 percent from the year 2000 (1 in 150) to 2010 (1 in 68). (CDC, 2014)

    The CDC claims, “we’re just getting better at diagnosing”.

    Really?
    119% increase since the year 2000!
    What the hell?!?
    Furthermore, I find those numbers to be severely under-reported.
    For instance–the CDC arrived at their most recent (1 in 68) total merely by counting the number of 8 year old children diagnosed with ASD in only 11 U.S. communities.

    According to the CDC the number of children identified with ASD varied widely by community, from 1 in 175 children in areas of Alabama to 1 in 45 children in areas of New Jersey.

    Notice I have not blamed vaccines…nor am I stating that vaccines are completely innocent. We are obviously missing something. I’ve studied this particular subject for over a decade…reading countless peer-reviewed journals. There are many possible reasons for the uptick in those diagnosed with ASD…but “better diagnosing” is a half-assed, cop-out answer.

    Has anyone read the book: The Invisible Gorilla?

  45. For parents to vaccinate their child, they must have complete faith in the system, from the manufacturer to the distributor to the clinic where it is administered, that it is pure, non-toxic, effective and SAFE! The FDA is no good, they are owned by the pharm. co. with their revolving door policy and there is no transparency, you have no idea what is in that hypo, it requires blind faith and that isn’t good enough for some people when their children’s lives are at stake.

  46. And what about the communicable diseases brought across the border by criminal aliens, Reason? You’re all for throwing the doors open to antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis, so long as they’re carried by criminals crossing our borders, but if a parent opposes what may be a dangerous action for their children, they they should be shamed?

  47. Charge non-vaccinating parents out the wazoo for insurance.

  48. Stop and think for a moment! Yes, including author, Ronald Bailey! The issue at stake here is not whether vaccines theoretically could stop life threatening diseases. I don’t think anyone is arguing that they cannot do that at all. But:

    The problem is the madness that has ensuded since the FDA and other watchdogs have been taken over my the corporations. Their testing, that is supposed to be ongoing and vigorous, is not happening. In the vaccinations industry as in biotech there are serious indicators that there is a problem. To those that are unaffected it’s not a big deal, but if your child was severley affected by a massive dose of vaccination, like MMR is for example, would you still be taking your hard-core attitude? To the person affected by it, it’s a big deal, so don’t brush them off as loonies. Rather out the corporations that don’t do proper testing and are selling lies to the public assisted by people like yourself. Reading your history, you should be doing better than this! If you are indeed a shill for one them, then just say so. If not, then stop being so opinionated and more levelheaded. Consider Russel Blaylock’s http://ow.ly/IBLxb (don’t nitpick minor trivial details, answer the core assertions, and don’t ad hominem). Provide a reasonable and considered answer as one would in a formal debate. That would be fruitful. The babble in this article is of no value.

  49. “Shame and Shun Anti-Vaccine Parents”

    Wow. Does that sound like a scientific headline, or something from a religious cult leader? Watch out for this Kool-aid folks!

  50. Reason.com: Free Minds and Free Markets… except when we’re talking about vaccines

    1. Wait, it’s not just vaccines. They also don’t think you have the right to know if your food contains GMO ingredients.

  51. “Vaccination is arguably the greatest public health triumph of the past century.”

    It would be a short argument, that’s for sure.

    I wonder if anyone here realizes that most of these diseases for which we’re coercively vaccinated had almost been wiped out pre-vaccine – through hygiene and nutrition and education.

    This whole measles thing is as know-nothing, low-infomation, anti-science as one can get – until recently, the measles were a fucking sitcom joke – hardly the End of the World Sky is Falling Hysterical fucking nonsense being spouted day and night, unless you’re some sort of pig-ignorant, undereducated potato who doesn’t know what a clue even is.
    Natural immunity to measles lasts a lifetime, whereas vaccines wear out after 2-5 years – aside from the toxic chemicals & heavy metals which induce autism. . . why would any sane person EVER choose short-term chemical immunity over lifetime natural immunity?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.