Vaccines

The Measles Outbreak and the Precautionary Principle

How U.S. public health authorities helped fuel the anti-vaccine movement

|

Smallpox boys
Gresham College

In 1998, the British researcher Andrew Wakefield and 11 co-authors published an article in the prestigious journal The Lancet claiming that 12 children had experienced the onset of severe neurological disorders shortly after being inoculated with the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. Wakefield's paper sparked widespread hysteria about the possible connection between the vaccine and autism. The study was ultimately discredited, and the journal retracted it in 2010; Wakefield has now lost his medical license for dishonesty and unethical practices.

Meanwhile, in the wake of several widely publicized methylmercury poisoning incidents, the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 included provisions directing the Food and Drug Administration to assess the safety of all mercury compounds in any of the products it regulated. Tiny amounts of thimerosal,  an anti-bacterial compound that breaks down into ethylmercury in the body, were included in several products, including eye drops, nasal sprays—and some vaccines. The FDA had just launched its inquiry into mercury containing products when Wakefield's article appeared.

In April 1999, the FDA asked vaccine manufacturers for data on the amounts of thimerosal contained in their formulations. In July of the same year, the United States Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a joint statement declaring that "thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible." The statement noted that "there are no data or evidence of any harm" stemming from the minuscule amounts of thimerosal in the vaccines, but the authors nonetheless recommended removing the preservative "because any potential risk is of concern."

The underlying notion here is known as the precautionary principle. The canonical version of the precautionary principle—the "Wingspread Consensus Statement"—was framed by a group of environmentalists in 1998. "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment," it said, "precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." In its 2001 analysis of the safety of thimerosal, the Institute of Medicine explicitly cited the Wingspread statement to justify the removal of the preservative from childhood vaccines.

VaccineDoctor
techarp

This invocation of precaution by public health officials and physicians quickly attracted the attention of autism activists who swiftly forged a connection between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. In 2000, two of those activists—Sallie Bernard and Lyn Redwood—co-founded the group Safeminds and began promoting the idea that autism is a novel form of mercury poisoning. Safeminds continues to push this idea, even as more recent studies find no connection between autism and the preservative.

As the fear that inoculations could cause autism spread to the wider public, it became a staple in the anti-vaccination movement. Many concerned parents reasoned that if public health officials are worried about the safety of vaccines, they should worry too.

Even though the Wakefield study has been thoroughly invalidated, with several scientific reviews conclusively debunking the supposed vaccine/autism connection, a YouGov poll in January found that some 13 percent of Americans believe that childhood shots can definitely or probably cause autism. Dishearteningly, the most credulous group is the youngest—adults aged ages 18 to 29—where 21 percent embrace the idea.

In that way, a "precautionary" measure a decade and a half ago helped kindle the current outbreak of measles. Public health officials thought it was a case of "better safe than sorry," but the consequences left us more sorry than safe.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Feisty New Greek Finance Minister Used to be a Video Game Economist

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. Meanwhile, Rand Paul has now also been caught lying about his college degree by the WaPost fact-checker — no doubt bought off by George Soros.

    Like father like son.

    1. That’s supposed to be a gotcha moment? Really, even if I were entirely opposed to Paul, I don’t see any motive whatsoever for an MD to lie about his undergraduate degree. It’s not like he was saying, “I majored in Military Science and am, therefore, a war expert.”

      The left is getting so far beyond ridiculous that I think they’re going to break light speed.

      1. The left really does let you know who they are afraid of. It seems they are terrified of Paul and Walker.

        1. Paul posts a potential threat to the Left’s Vader force-chokehold on minorities, and Walker could do serious damage in the industrial Midwest which are the only states mainly populated by blue-collar whites that the dems have managed to hold on to. Without both of those factors, Team Blue loses and loses big in 16.

          1. I’ve heard several political commentators–left and right–say that Paul is the scariest for the Democrats in the general, because he’ll destroy them on the moderate side. Of course, these same people say he’ll have a lot of trouble getting the nomination, the party elders being who and what they are.

            1. I’ve heard several political commentators–left and right–say that Paul is the scariest for the Democrats in the general, because he’ll destroy them on the moderate side

              A “moderate” would ban all abortions at the federal level, while claiming it’s a matter for the states, and rejecting a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty?

              He’ll have trouble getting the nomination because he’s a liar and a fool, like his dad, the other faux libertarian. But don’t let that get in the way of your grand conspiracy.

            2. A two party kleptocracy is only democracy to the delusional.

              1. Is that why third parties get so few votes?

                1. Yes, because the vast majority of voters are deluded!

                  1. Their delusion is basically this: “I can use my vote to rip off and shit on other voters and flaunt my self-righteousness in their faces, and they will NOT go and turn the exact same vote back on me and do the same thing to me”.

                    1. flaunt my self-righteousnes

                      (laughing hysterically at the self-righteous imbecile)

                  2. No-o-o-o … Arrogant assholes like you are why the libertarian label is rejected by 95% of libertarians.

                    Cato/Zogby Poll 2006

        2. It seems they are terrified of Paul and Walker.

          Walker yes. But they’d be cheering in the streets if the GOP ever nominates so extreme a social conservative as Rand Paul. Their “war on women” would be credible for once. Now add a homophobe President!

          1. Well, as a gay man, Rand Paul is OK with me; I’d rather have a “homophobic” president who abides by limits on federal power than another dishonest political opportunist like Obama.

            1. Ron and Rand Paul may have fatally damaged the libertarian movement. We can’t invent anything is wacky as this!

              I’d rather have a “homophobic” president who abides by limits on federal power

              He can’t even see the irony there!

              If anyone else is so clueless, it’s like sayig, “I’d rather see Adolph Hitler instead of some anti-semite.”

              1. Ron and Rand Paul may have fatally damaged the libertarian movement. We can’t invent anything is wacky as this!

                Actually, I used to be a progressive and a liberal, and I voted for Obama because he promised to restore the rule of law, stop killing people abroad, restore privacy, and stimulate the economy.

                As it turns out, Obama’s campaign promises were all lies, and his administration has turned out to be even worse than Bush’s on extrajudicial killings, spying, and crony capitalism.

                I neither knew nor cared about Ron and Rand Paul when I left the Democrats. My political views are largely a reaction to the dishonesty and failure of Democrats.

                If anyone else is so clueless, it’s like sayig, “I’d rather see Adolph Hitler instead of some anti-semite.”

                Given that Adolph Hitler was a progressive, that pretty much sums up the attitude of people like you.

                1. Win Bear
                  Given that Adolph Hitler was a progressive,

                  Hitler was a PROGRESSIVE? (OMG) Progressives defend the libertarian movement?

                  That’s ALMOST as wacky as you saying ant-vaxxers are RENT-SEEKING

                  http://bitly.com/1v3g6M2

                  Typical mentality of so many Ron/Rand Paul supporters who are also conspiracy freaks. (laughing)

                  Oh wait? Win Bear says RAND PAUL is rent-seeking!

      2. It’s not like he was saying, “I majored in Military Science and am, therefore, a war expert.”

        Umm, he said he had majored in biology so was an expert in biology.

        And you just made a fool of yourself.

        1. You mean he misstated his college major? How important is that, when he must’ve taken the pre-med requirements, which include a good deal of biology?

          1. That lie just gets added to the very lengthy list of provable negatives. Barry Goldwater said the “Moral Majority” would destroy his party. Reasonable people can disagree if that’s already happened, or damn close.

            So what would an extreme social conservative do to the infinitely more fragile movement libertarians, who are much less than 10% of the population, when the libertarian brand is already rejected by 95% of libertarians.

            1. you are a lunatic. please leave.

              1. jay_dubya|2.14.15 @ 1:47PM|#
                you are a lunatic. please leave.

                THIS is the level Ron and Rand Paul have sunk libertarianism to. Fucking bullies and censors.

                Storm troopers for liberty!

      3. That’s supposed to be a gotcha moment?

        One of many.

        The left is getting so far beyond ridiculous that I think they’re going to break light speed.

        That’s why I mentioned George Soros, for your grand conspiracy.

        And, of course, it’s a liberal myth to claim that Rand Paul is an extreme social conservative, like his dad, right?

        1. And, of course, it’s a liberal myth to claim that Rand Paul is an extreme social conservative, like his dad, right?

          It makes little difference what these people privately believe, what matters is what they actually do.

          Obama’s social liberalism is a great charade. If it served his political objectives, he’d imprison homosexuals because he simply doesn’t give a f*ck.

          1. Obama’s social liberalism is a great charade. If it served his political objectives, he’d imprison homosexuals because he simply doesn’t give a f*ck.

            One more brainwashed Paulista.

            Ummm, even Obama never tried to ban all abortions … or ban the Court from hearing any appeals of DOMA, thus making homosexuals the first class of Americans denied constitutional protection since slavery … to serve political objectives. (lol)

            But your puppetmaster will give you a cookie for loyal tribalism.

            1. Ummm, even Obama never tried to ban all abortions … or ban the Court from hearing any appeals of DOMA

              I’m not interested in getting an abortion, and I’m not interested in getting married, so I don’t care about either of those. They are non-issues that Democrats like to use to create controversy in order to cover up the other crap they do.

              What does affect my life quite directly is the anti-Americanism I face when I travel abroad over Obama’s extrajudicial killings and espionage, the fact that my medical insurance is getting more expensive, the fact that it’s much harder to get a mortgage, and the fact that Obama has propped up badly run businesses that I am forced to deal with.

              But your puppetmaster will give you a cookie for loyal tribalism.

              Well, my former puppetmaster Obama never even gave me a cookie, and his minions are obviously after me with pitchforks. So I consider that an improvement.

              1. They are non-issues that Democrats like to use to create controversy in order to cover up the other crap they do.

                So,on this page (so far)
                1) Constitutional rights are a non-issue.
                2) Hitler was a progressive.
                3) Anti-vaxxers are rent-seeking

                Thank you, Reason for making people like THIS welcome in the libertarian movement. (the dark side of Ron/Rand Paul)

    2. Gee, Mike, I also heard he parts his hair on the wrong side!
      You’re really on to something there! I hope you stay up nights posting about it.

      1. Sevo|2.13.15 @ 1:55PM|#
        Gee, Mike, I also heard he parts his hair on the wrong side!

        You equate that with lying???
        (laughing)

    3. Yeah, he’s not even a real doctor, he’s just an eye surgeon!
      Idiot.

      1. he’s just an eye surgeon!

        Wow, dude, you’re SO smart!

    4. He was enrolled in the honors program at Baylor, and had scored approximately in the 90th percentile on the Medical College Admission Test. Paul left Baylor early when he was accepted into the Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned an M.D. in 1988, and completed his residency in 1993

      Yeah, he left Baylor EARLY, eschewing the BS for an MD. How awful!

      1. Uneducated hick!

      2. But he still lied. Many times. (chuckle)

    5. I’m not seeing substituting “I have a biology and English degree” for “I studied biology and English in college” as nearly as bad as substitution “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” for “You absolutely cannot keep your doctor.”

      1. I’m not seeing substituting “I have a biology and English degree” for “I studied biology and English in college” as nearly as bad as substitution “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” for “You absolutely cannot keep your doctor.”

        One more loyal tribesman.

        Obama’s a liar so that excuses anyone else on your team.

    6. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $12600 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.

      http://www.navjob.com

    7. Paul has made no secret out of his academic history. If anything, going directly from an unfinished Bachelor degree to medical school is more impressive than if he had stayed for four years in college.

      So, no, Paul hasn’t been “caught lying”.

      You and a bunch of partisan reporters have been caught lying. But we already expect that from you.

      1. So, no, Paul hasn’t been “caught lying”.

        “So” means there is a logical connection between your LAME alibi and the lying. That’s like saying he didn’t lie because a triangle has three sides.

        And now we see your true nature:

        You and a bunch of partisan reporters have been caught lying. But we already expect that from you.

        The vast media conspiracy!!! (gasp)
        Go to the history of the Libertarian Party and do a page search for my name.

        bit.ly/1diJC3X

        It’s there twice, despite your wacko conspiracy theories.

        Umm, I’ve been a libertarian since the late 1960s. Are you REALLY too stupid to know that libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially LIBERAL … by definition … only since 1969.

        But your puppetmasters will be SO proud of you.

        “Partisan reporters” (lol)
        Try to not disgrace the ENTIRE libertarian movement.

  2. Ok, there are kids out there that have autism that were NEVER vaccinated. This PROVES that autism is not caused by vaccines.

    Can we lay this myth to rest yet.

    I heard a story on NPR about a “Crunchy” mom who didn’t vaccinate her kid because she was concerned about autism. Her damn kid wound up with autism anyway.

    She said she feels like an idiot. Well, that’s because you are one, lady.

    1. My son was born with autism (Aspergers version). In his particular case, he carries a dual copy of a MHTFR genetic mutation. This inhibits his body’s production of methyl folate. Methyl folate is involved in a number of different chemical pathways but most significantly it is necessary for the body’s primary system of toxin excretion.

      So when you vaccinate him, you are introducing a significant amount of aluminum directly into his body that he cannot excrete on his own. We did not understand this for years until we had him tested because of his sickly nature and excruciating headaches. He tested positive for acute aluminum poisoning along with other issues. The effects of this poisoning will likely linger with him for life, affecting his neurological system and well, you can look it up.

      1. Aluminum is included in vaccines as an adjuvant to increase the immune response (not the MMR vaccine interestingly). Although exposure to aluminum is greater from other sources, those sources do not get to the bloodstream easily as they pass thru the gut or wash off the skin. It becomes a trade-off on the benefits of the vaccine versus the guaranteed regression in health from metal contamination and required treatment after the fact.

        My point is that while vaccines do not cause autism, they sometimes can aggravate the underlying conditions that do (along with a host of other things that can as well).

        Given that Ron has covered genetic testing and profiling so thoroughly in the past (and I believe specifically in regards to choosing the best medical treatment), I would think that he might consider for a moment that not all people are going to respond to vaccines in the same way based on their genetic makeup.

        1. If this was the case then autism rates would be statistically higher in vaccinated populations versus unvaccinated ones.

          They are not.

          1. I did not make the claim that the vaccine caused the autism, in fact I stated clearly at the beginning that was not the case. I said that the aluminum bearing vaccines had significant side effects that were directly related to his autistic condition.

            1. I didn’t say you did. However IF aluminum bearing vaccines aggravated some randomly distributed genetic condition, then you would expect autism rates to be higher in vaccinated populations.

              They aren’t.

              1. No. You would expect metal poisoning to be higher in autistic populations. And they are.

                1. But if vaccination led to statistically higher rates of metal poisoning, which led to autism, then that would be statistically detectable. Which it is not.

          2. This assumes that the only relevant adverse event from a given vaccination is autism.

            It’s not at all unfounded that the FDA’s statistical methods for drug testing are pretty onerous and frequently misguided/wrong.

            Throw stuff like VAERS into the mix and you have a science hopelessly polluted by government (once again).

            1. Regardless of what type of adverse events you think it causes, if vaccination makes those events more likely, then rates of those events will be higher in vaccinated populations.

              This is a simple mathematical inevitability.

              if there’s no statistically significant difference in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Then vaccines CAN’T BE in any way related. If they were you would see a difference.

              Come on. this is basic stuff.

              1. Metal poisoning and autism are two distinct conditions even though they may share some of the same symptoms. My point is that many autistic children cannot excrete the metals as well as the general population.

                In which case, you would expect autistic children to have higher levels of heavy metals in their system.

              2. Basic stuff and you sure don’t know it. There could, in principle, be many subgroups within a population for which the null hypothesis does not hold, while still retaining the null hypothesis for a population. It all depends on the estimated population variance.

                I think you are dead wrong Hazel, and I do my fair share of statistics.

                1. HazelMeade also implies (below) that lung cancer rates are the same among smokers as among those who never smoked. I’m still waiting on a citation for it. But I’m starting to think Hazel holds a number of unsupportable opinions when it comes to epidemiology/pathology.

                  1. That isn’t what I implied at all. My point was that IF there was no correlation (contra the actual evidence) that would rule out a connection. There is no correlation between vaccination and autism.

                2. There would have to be subgroups for which vaccination actually reduces the autism risk in order for them to cancel out. Given a large enough sample size, if there is a small fraction that has increased risk, without any counter-balancing group that has decreased risk, that would become detectable.

                  1. There would have to be subgroups for which vaccination actually reduces the autism risk in order for them to cancel out.

                    No. These were not groups of people selected at random to be vaccinated or not. These are people who, for various reasons, got vaccinated or didn’t. It may well be that those various reasons had something to do with their getting an autism dx that could cancel out an effect from the vaccine.

              3. This is a simple mathematical inevitability.

                if there’s no statistically significant difference in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Then vaccines CAN’T BE in any way related. If they were you would see a difference.

                Come on. this is basic stuff.

                This is the ‘you agree that CO2 traps sunlight; therefore AGW/IPCC/Carbon Trading’ agrument.

                These are all pretty basic so, I’ll talk slower;

                I didn’t say vaccines cause autism.

                I didn’t say they are even associated with them.

                Neither did Nerfherder.

                Aluminum in the vaccine CAUSED acute Al poisoning.

                Vaccines not causing autism doesn’t justify government meddling/monopolization of vaccines and/or medicine.

                Especially not WHO mandates and the world over.

                Vaccines have known and unknown risks, disclosure of which occurs not between the consumer and the producer but through a byzantine bureaucratic matrix. A byzantine bureaucratic matrix that has consistently proven itself to be among the most despicable of human inventions. This last is the cause of the anti-vaxxer movement with the measles situation being a direct result. Lastly, and most importantly, you are free to disagree with any/all of my assertions so long as you don’t, by law, tell me I’m wrong.

                Shaming the vaxxers is and may be valid, voiding the government and crony capitalists of all blame is not.

                1. That is interesting information about the aluminium adjuvants. I am more concerned about the relationship between peanut adjuvants and peanut allergy. It looks scientifically well supported to me but like everyone I am vulnerable to the occasional canard.

                2. My mistake the statement, “is the cause of the anti-vaxxer movement” represents a dose of my personal bias.

                  It isn’t the cause but is certainly a contributing factor.

                  The rest you can take or leave so long as you aren’t trying to tell me I’m wrong, by law.

              4. Regardless of what type of adverse events you think it causes, if vaccination makes those events more likely, then rates of those events will be higher in vaccinated populations.

                This is a simple mathematical inevitability.

                if there’s no statistically significant difference in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Then vaccines CAN’T BE in any way related. If they were you would see a difference.

                I see you’re not familiar with confounding phenomena in retrospective studies. It is very easy for a real but small difference caused by a treatment to disappear between groups when the only controls you can apply to match them are after the fact.

                I could very easily see a drug as producing autism, while some other factor causes autism to be more likely (or more likely diagnosed) in those who didn’t take it, or less likely in those who did.

                1. Yes, that is correct, there could be a small group that had increased risk and it would not show up in the global correlations IF there was a another group that had decreased risk that canceled it out.

                  In other words, the only way that vaccines might increase risk for some children is if they also reduce the risk for others. Otherwise, you would see a correlation, which we don’t.

                  1. No, you don’t understand. In a retrospective study, there may be some other factor that distinguishes those who got vaccinated from those who didn’t and that affects the risk of getting autism, and that factor may work to cancel the effect of the vaccine on autism risk.

                    1. What other factor could there possibly be that would correlate not getting vaccinated with autism?

          3. Correlation is neither necessary nor sufficient for causation.

            1. Correlation is neither necessary nor sufficient for causation.

              Please explain that to Rand Paul.

      2. What kind of testing did your son have that uncovered the genetic mutation you mentioned? My son (also ASD) had a fragile X test (showed nothing) but we haven’t had any other genetic testing done. I wonder what, if anything, it would show.

        1. He says MTHFR (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase), but any geneticist today would probably look more exhaustively and/or just run a panel of markers.

          1. You know who else likes to say something that could be abbreviated MTHFR a lot?

            1. If you think I spent more than a decade working with the MTHFR gene and never heard that joke before you are sadly mistaken.

              Respectfully, you have not yet begun to plumb the punny depths of the phrase ‘MTHFR assay’.

        2. He was tested specifically for the MHTFR markers as well as a few others that I cannot remember at the moment. The MHTFR was the only positive genetic mutation that he tested for.

          In general, he had acute aluminum poisoning, mildly elevated mercury, uranium and lead, severe lithium depletion (a side effect of metal poisoning), and a severe systemic yeast infection probably as a result of his compromised immune system and multiple antibiotic treatments from when he was an infant.

          1. Wow. Sorry to hear, but I do thank you for sharing.

        3. There are a few specialists in this area who can help. I would not recommend trying to interpret the tests on your own. We spent several thousand dollars overall on diagnostics (the doctor received no portion of the fees by the way). We paid the doctor to provide guidance and interpret the information as well as recommendations on treatment.

          Our son is supplemented with methyl folate daily along with a host of other things.

          The yeast has been the hardest to deal with. It’s tenacious and when it dies, it releases a host of toxins into your system.

          1. Sadly I’m ignorant on this. Do you go to an independent lab to have this done, or need a referral from your pediatrician? I’d have Zero percent chance of interpreting any lab result (stupid Liberal Art degree *Shakes Fist**)

            1. Our pediatrician was useless in this regard. We went to a specialist. Here she is.

              There are other doctors scattered throughout the country who work in this are. Megson could provide references.

    2. Ok, there are people out there that have lung cancer that have NEVER smoked. This PROVES that lung cancer is not caused by smoking.

      See, that’s just not how the science works.

      1. If I told you that lung cancer rates were indistinguishable between people who smoked and people who never smoked, what would your conclusion be?

        Smoking must cause lung cancer, because … ?

        1. If you told me this… I wouldn’t believe you. Got a citation?

        2. To be clear. My previous post was meant to point out the logical fallacy being used by Jorono. I chose the link between smoking and lung cancer because it is one of the most well-established links in the history of pathology. The CDC, American Cancer Society and everyone else worth listening to agree that the odds of getting lung cancer is at least 10x greater for current smokers vs. never smokers. I see no reason to believe that all that data was faked by all those scientists over all those decades.

          1. Nor do I see a reason to believe that the data showing no statistical correlation between vaccination and autism has been faked.

        3. If I told you that lung cancer rates were indistinguishable between people who smoked and people who never smoked, what would your conclusion be?

          Nothing. You can’t conclude anything from failing to observe a correlation.

          Mind you, I think MMR is safe and effective, and everybody should choose to get it. But you, HazelMeade, are just as scientifically illiterate and dumb as the anti-vaccine people.

    3. “Ok, there are kids out there that have autism that were NEVER vaccinated. This PROVES that autism is not caused by vaccines.”

      No, it doesn’t.

      It only proves, at best, that vaccines could not be the ONLY cause of autism.

      I am by no means claiming that vaccines DO cause autism, but your reasoning here does not work.

    4. Autism was under-diagnosed for decades/centuries (unless somebody was obviously way off, s/he was just “slow”, “dumb”, “weird”, etc.). We got much better at diagnosing it at about the time vaccines usage went up. So it correlates perfectly. The causation… not so much.

      1. It doesn’t actually correlate if you actually look at populations that did get vaccinated and those that didn’t.

        Just because autism diagnoses kinda sorta started going up in the 80s at the same time that vaccination rates rose, doesn’t mean that if you look at who actually got vaccinated there is going to be a real statistical correlation.

    5. In New Zealand and Germany there is also studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids. In New Zealand the autism rate for unvaccinated kids is about 4 in 13,000+. Some of the 4 had mercury in the mother or the child. The USA is 1 in 68.
      Whether or not vaccines *can* cause autism is still up for debate until the CDC does their own study of vax vs unvax. Even if the CDC did such a study they’ve already betrayed the american public by lying on the studies disproving autism/mmr links. I don’t think they will easily regain trust.

      1. In the USA, Autism may be more frequently diagnosed compared to Germany or New Zealand, that statistic means nothing.

    6. “Ok, there are kids out there that have autism that were NEVER vaccinated. This PROVES that autism is not caused by vaccines.”

      What kind of retarded logic is this? That’s like saying “There are people that have died that have never eaten mercury. Therefore, mercury is not poisonous.”

  3. Wired had a great piece yesterday about how to convince anti-vaxxers to change their minds.

    Very well written and logical.

    http://www.wired.com/2015/02/g…..nge-minds/

    Anti-vaccine stories are so powerful because they capitalize on both of those persuasive techniques. But two can play at that game. With this major outbreak?which has racked up 103 cases at last count?to play into the fear of parents, and a potent narrative to boot (Wow, we’re not even safe in the Happiest Place on Earth), this might just be a pro-vaccine story that can change some minds.

    1. Anti-vaccine stories also play to the conspiracy freaks.

      1. No, we just think it’s rent seeking. It’s the economically illiterate left that you seem to belong to that doesn’t understand the difference between “rent seeking” and “conspiracies”.

        1. the economically illiterate left that you seem to belong to

          Ever hear of the Von Mises Institute?

          http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

          Rent-seeking is a concept used to describe the activity of individuals or firms who attempt to obtain or maintain wealth-transfers, primarily with the help of the state.[1] More specifically instead of making a productive contribution to an economy, a rent-seeker attempts to obtain benefits for themselves by manipulating the political environment.[2] Rent-seeking has also been defined as the process whereby one is able to obtain a greater rent, i.e. return, than would have been possible on the free market, through activities such as government lobbying or taking advantage of other connections to the state.

          Why do you REPEATEDLY make a public fool of yourself?
          Let the record show, THIS is the mentality of so manuy Ron/Rand Paul puppets.

          1. As I was saying: you are economically illiterate, because you accuse libertarians of seeing conspiracies when libertarians are usually talking about rent seeking. You evidently still don’t understand what that means.

            1. You evidently still don’t understand what that means.

              OMG! Win Bear says the von Mises Institute doesn’t know what rent-seeking is … because HE says anti-vaxxers are rent-seeking!!..

              Since you suffer severe denial, may we assume you’re also a Birther?

              because you accuse libertarians of seeing conspiracies

              Liar. I said anti-vaxxers are conspiracy freaks. At this time-stamp
              2.13.15 @ 4:57PM

              And I’ve been a libertarian since before you were born. (lol).

              On this page (so far)
              1) The von Mises Institute is wrong on rent-seeking, but you are correct.
              2) Constitutional rights are a non-issue.
              3) Hitler was a progressive.
              4) Anti-vaxxers aree rent-seekers.

              This is what Ron/Rand Paul have brought into the movement — conspiracy freaks and bullies. The price we pay for shitting on the Constitution.

    2. Deaths from measles declined way before the vaccine:

      http://www.targetliberty.com/2…..ostly.html

      1. Deaths from measles declined way before the vaccine:

        So you link to a wacko conspiracy website, where all its sources are other wacko websites. Are you also a Birther?

        “And they vote”

    3. But two can play at that game

      Two have been playing at that game, for a long time: the pro-vaccine crowd is overstating the dangers of measles, and the anti-vaccine crowd is overstating the dangers of the vaccine.

      1. Ummm, measles can be fatal.
        Explain again how ant-vaxxers are RENT-SEEKING!

        https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5090125

        1. Ummm, measles can be fatal.

          Of course, measles can be fatal. So can the flu. So can walking down the stairs. So can recent dental work or a papercut during sex. What’s your point?

          1. Of course, measles can be fatal. So can the flu. So can walking down the stairs. So can recent dental work or a papercut during sex.

            An even BIGGER fool!! What if somebody else caused me to die from
            1) Walking down the stairs
            2) Dental work
            3) Paper cuts

            Umm, would that be murder? Am I going too fast for ya?

            What’s your point?

            That anti-vaxxers are mostly as crazy as you. On this page (so far)
            1) You’re okay with somebody killing me for walking down the stairs, having a tooth pulled or having sex.
            2) ) The von Mises Institute is wrong on rent-seeking, but you are correct.
            3) Constitutional rights are a non-issue.
            4) Hitler was a progressive.
            5) Anti-vaxxers are rent-seeking

            I really don’t have time for this, but you’re doing much better than I could ever do .. showing how wacky the anti-vaxxers are.

            I’ve linked this page, and the individual message, on my blog. People will be coming here from all over, to laugh at you.

            And if you REALLY believe anyone can get a paper cut from sex … try masturbating wihtout the paper.

            1. I grew up in the 50s & 60s and I don’t remember hearing about any child in any family I knew of dying from measles. I know there were children who died, but it must have been a rare event. Same about mumps. Mumps has the added feature that, though no ill affects from a child getting it, if you get it a an adult it will sterilize you. I don’t know why these low fatality childhood diseases need a vaccine.

              1. I grew up at the same time. The families we knew personally has some significance for you?

                I don’t know why these low fatality childhood diseases need a vaccine.

                How high must the risk be for your own child?

                As we saw in the Disneyland event, a single person can cause well over 100 infections. Do you accept personal responsibility if YOUR action causes 150 infections? How high would the medical bills be for so many, even without a death?

                though no ill affects from a child getting it

                Umm, this is from the WebMD website. My emphasis.
                http://bitly.com/1CCConS
                =======
                Mumps can lead to hearing loss and aseptic meningitis (an infection of the covering of the brain and spinal cord) in about 10% of cases. Painful, swollen testicles occur in 20% to 30% of males who have reached puberty (orchitis)

                Severe complications are rare. However, mumps can cause:
                Inflammation of the brain and/or tissue covering the brain and spinal cord (encephalitis/meningitis) …
                Spontaneous abortion particularly in early pregnancy (miscarriage)
                Deafness,
                usually permanent

                =====
                If you aren’t vaccinated yourself, and you were in Disneyland on that day, you could now be sterile. I assume you’ve reached puberty. How great would the risk of sterility be before you were concerned? 20-30%?

                if you get it a an adult it will sterilize you

                CAN sterilize you.
                Any more questions?

                1. I’m beginning to wonder. Mumps can be a crippling illness when contracted by adults, so why prevent infection during childhood. And the point about the fatality rate of measles is this: The MMR does cause problems. And Deaths. We are not told the rates of probable deaths or permanent damage of these diseases verses those of the MMR vaccine. This is telling. One can conclude that the main purpose of vaccines is to make money for these corporations, not as you seem to believe, to improve the health of the people.

  4. We need to find a vaccine for “Beating A Dead Horse Disease” before too many other ostensibly libertarian writers become infected like poor Ron here.

  5. And what do so called “doctors” use to establish causality between a microbe and disease? Koch’s postulates!

    See? Denying the link between vaccination and autism is one big Koch Brothers/libertarian/teabagger conspiracy!

    Tell me I’m wrong!

    1. The fact that you mentioned Koch tells me that you can’t be wrong. It is a conspiracy.

    2. KOCHTOPUS!!11!!!

    3. *picks up mic that HM dropped – puts it back in mic stand*

  6. OUCH

    what does that kid on the left have?

      1. They don’t look very small to me.

        1. You really don’t want to see bigpox.

      2. Yep. Smallpox. Whenever anyone even questions giving the smallpox vaccine to their otherwise healthy kid they should be shown this picture… then 10,000 more pictures like it.

        1. I meant measles. Whenever someone doesn’t want to give a measles vaccine they should be shown pictures of kids with measles. Because measles isn’t pretty either. Measles.

    1. Freedom from his parents brutally having him stuck with needles against his will, violating the non-aggression policy.

    2. what does that kid on the left have?

      A coyote?

      1. Damned my English heritage…

        A coyotaje?

  7. 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.jobsaudit.com

  8. Okay, Ron. I’m not on board with the thimerosal equals autism argument and never have been. I’ve worked with the stuff, it’s not some magic poison. I have family members who are anti-vaxxers of the completely nuts variety.

    That said, Measles was declared eradicated by ‘Top Men’ in this country 2000. IL suffers 3-4 cases every year despite vaccinations and eradication (and well before the anti-vaxxer movement was full on). Considering many of the current hotspots in the state are in Chicagoland and traced to places like Supermercado Guzman and El Famous Burrito, might the shaming of anti-vaxxers be a little misguided?

    I don’t mean to escape anti-vaxxers from shame but lend credence to the notion that eradicating this disease (and presumably all others) by vaccine inherently advances social collectivism. If the CDC didn’t literally give people syphilis at it’s first opportunity and the CIA didn’t co-opt the movement at a moments notice, there would be even less reason for anti-vaxxers of every stripe to be suspicious.

    I’m all for shame and I agree vaccinations are a very good idea, I just find plenty of the mind that vaccines = liberty.

    1. The CDC DIDN’T give anyone syphillis.

      The Tuskeegee experiment was a long-term study of latent asymptomic syphilitics. People who already had syphillis. They just didn’t TELL THEM that they had syphillis.

      1. The US government lives up to my despicable false impressions/poor memory nonetheless;

        In October 2010 it was revealed that in Guatemala, U.S. Public Health Service doctors went even further. It was reported that from 1946 to 1948, American doctors deliberately infected prisoners, soldiers, and patients in a mental hospital with syphilis and, in some cases, gonorrhea, with the cooperation of some Guatemalan health ministries and officials. A total of 696 men and women were exposed to syphilis without the informed consent of the subjects. When the subjects contracted the disease they were given antibiotics though it is unclear if all infected parties were cured.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…..experiment

        1. Think up the most un-human atrocity you can dream up and there is a government person sitting there already done it.

    2. Considering many of the current hotspots in the state are in Chicagoland and traced to places like Supermercado Guzman and El Famous Burrito, might the shaming of anti-vaxxers be a little misguided?

      Measles still exists in many third-world locations. The general consensus is that most US cases are caused by unvaccinated US residents travelling abroad and bringing the disease back with them. If enough people around them also haven’t been vaccinated either then you get a little outbreak a la Disneyland. In some cases the original victim couldn’t get vaccinated due to an underlying immune disease, but this is pretty rare. Most of them chose not to get vaccinated for some reason (cost, time, irrational fear, etc.)

      That’s another thing to keep in mind. Most of the unvaccinated aren’t anti-vaxxers. Their just some combination of poor, lazy and uneducated.

    3. It might have been eradicated in other countries, but we have “undocumented” people coming into this country from places where it wasn’t…

    4. I don’t mean to escape anti-vaxxers from shame but lend credence to the notion that eradicating this disease (and presumably all others) by vaccine inherently advances social collectivism.

      I think this is the real point: people who love collectivism point to measles as an example of how wonderful and necessary collectivism is. They think they have a scientifically iron-clad case.

      Of course, there are two things wrong with that. First, most people I know who oppose mandatory vaccinations don’t do so because they believe they aren’t useful, they do so because the believe there are better ways than government mandates to get people to vaccinate themselves.

      Second, the case isn’t very ironclad to begin with. Vaccines aren’t dangerous, but they are a nuisance because if they are working they do make you feel ill; the arguments for the need for “herd immunity” are weak; and the diseases they protect against are quite benign.

      1. most people I know who oppose mandatory vaccinations don’t do so because they believe they aren’t useful, they do so because the believe there are better ways than government mandates to get people to vaccinate themselves.

        Is that why you call it rent-seeking?
        Should we instead sue them for negligence, if their child causes an outbreak like we see now?
        Have you learned yet that measles can be fatal?

        1. Is that why you call it rent-seeking?

          Mandatory vaccinations in general are rent seeking by doctors. Sometimes, they also serve a useful function.

          Have you learned yet that measles can be fatal?

          Are you a four year old who thinks that life is without risk and you’re going to live forever? Have your parents talked to you about the facts of life?

          If you get infected by measles, your risk of dying from it is so small in developed nations that we can’t estimate it reliably. That makes it a non-issue.

          1. Mandatory vaccinations in general are rent seeking by doctors.

            (snicker)You said anti-vaxxers are rent seeking
            Are you finally ashamed of yourself for that?

            Are you a four year old who thinks that life is without risk and you’re going to live forever?

            One more time for the mentally challenged. WHAT IF SOMEBODY ELSE CAUSES ME TO DIE????

            Are you a selfish asshole who refuses to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of your own actions?

            Thanks AGAIN for showing us how totally wacky are so many anti-vaxxers. (Mike walks away laughing)

  9. Alt text: “Guess which one was vaccinated”

    Answer: “The Retarded one” — Jenny McCarthy.

  10. “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,” it said, “precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

    Individuals should be free to abide by the precautionary principle if they choose. I’m fond of the Popper/Fallibilistic observation that the things that are most likely to be true least likely to cause harm are the things that have survived the most scrutiny. The idea that something relatively new hasn’t caused harm yet isn’t–by itself–an excellent reason to take an unnecessary risk. It certainly isn’t unreasonable to try to quantify the risks both ways.

    The problem with the precautionary principle is that it wasn’t invoked as a principle individuals might use to help guide their own individual choices. It was invoked by government regulators as a decision that should be imposed on people.

    I should say there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with suspecting that our government is in cahoots with big pharma either. The idea that large companies tend to colonize their regulators and start using the regulatory authorities to limit their own liabilities and rent seek isn’t a paranoid delusion. That’s Applied Libertarianism 101.

    Regardless of whether the government limiting the liability of vaccine developers is a necessary evil, it’s also an another source of some of the distrust we’re seeing, as well.

      1. If there’s an exemption to be had, then that should be the exception that proves the rule. There must be a rule somewhere that says all those kids in Washington State must be immunized. I guess that rule is pretty ineffective.

        I’d rather see a map showing how many schools people in various districts have to choose from. Seems like someone could charge a fortune in tuition for excluding all the kids who aren’t immunized. …either that or not enough wealthy people care.

        Look at how red the San Juan Islands are on that map. I’ve been to the San Juan Islands. Those aren’t all rich people, but I bet a lot of them can afford to send their kids to any school they choose.

        Public schools shouldn’t be very good at excluding people, and they aren’t.

        We should also remember that the effectiveness of these vaccines isn’t anywhere close to 100% for MMR.

        This study says that the mumps vaccine can be as little as 64% effective.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803

        If another 10% of the kids out there are not vaccinated in any particular district, it’s not like they’d necessarily be the cause of a mumps outbreak. Actually, the mumps vaccine would be ineffective with 36% of them, too. At best, you’re talking about taking the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine from 64% to 70% by vaccinating the unvaccinated.

  11. Great point. I see this all the time with respect to other issues.

    GMOs: “If rBGH isn’t bad for you, then why did Canada ban it?”

    Nuclear power: “If X amount of radiation isn’t cancer causing, then why is that the NRSC limit?”

    In all sorts of cases, the fact that some government regulates or bans something is taken as defacto proof that there is something wrong with it.
    Nobody ever bothers to look at the facts.

    1. “Nobody ever bothers to look at the facts.”

      Most people just trust the facts of whomever they trust.

      Most people just look to someone they trust to tell them what to do.

      A lot of them trust the government. A lot of them don’t.

      A lot of them don’t trust corporations.

      It isn’t really about facts. It’s about who they trust. Of course, that’s not the way it should be, but that’s the way it is.

      1. Principals, not principles.

      2. No, that is the way it should be, although probably not to the extent it is. Learning requires study, study requires work & time. They have a considerable opp’ty cost. We do well to rely on experts for advice, rather than trying to learn every fact that could affect our lives. The time you spend trying to learn about the effects of hormones could be better spent on your becoming better at whatever you do.

        1. Um…no.

          There is no PhD that trumps other people’s qualitative preferences.

          Illiterate hillbillies have a more authoritative opinion on their own preferences than any expert ever could.

          This is a fundamental observation, too.

          No one knows what you want better than you do.

          In fact, the quantitative stuff is relatively unimportant in such considerations–since quantities are tied to qualitative considerations.

          A man dying of thirst will pay you a fortune for a glass of water, but someone being waterboarded will pay you a fortune not to give him another drop. Who’s to say more is always better? That’s a qualitative consideration–depending on oh so many other factors.

          That being said, defer to experts whenever you like–if that’s what you want to do. But as for me? I’m not interested in what experts have to say on a lot of issues–unless they’re looking at our preferences as demonstrated in a market. In which case, we’re not really looking at the opinions of experts–the experts are looking at our authoritative personal opinions.

          1. Nobody knows better than you what you want & how bad you want it. But some people know better than you the facts on which you’ll base your judgment of course of action to achieve what you want.

            1. Yeah, but we still shouldn’t choose which facts to believe based on which people we trust.

              Facts are true or false regardless of whether we find the person who gives them to us untrustworthy.

              I think Mark Fuhrman tried to frame OJ–which means I think some of his facts were untrustworthy. That being said, I think he was trying to frame a guilty man. Just because Fuhrman was untrustworthy doesn’t mean we should reject all of his facts.

              If we shouldn’t disregard facts just because they were stated by someone untrustworthy, why would we believe facts just because they’re coming from someone we trust?

              1. I can hardly believe you’re having so much trouble with this. We pay people big bucks to give us the facts in engrg., medicine, law, and other fields because it would take us too much study to find out those things directly. They, in turn are relying on the work of loads of other people who were trusted, because nobody in a single lifetime could’ve found out all those things.

                If the likelihood of getting truth from somebody were the same regardless of that person’s trustworthiness, what would trust mean? You might hit your target with a gun whose sight was misaligned because you too were misaligned, but is that a reason not to align gunsights?

                1. I work with engineers all the time.

                  I find problems in their reports that need to be fixed before we submit them.

                  Facts are trustworthy or not regardless of whether the people who espouse them are trusted.

                  This is what the ad hominem is about. This is what the appeal to authority is about.

                  I worked in a hospital for years. I don’t take a doctor’s word for anything–certainly not just because he’s a doctor. If a diagnosis or treatment doesn’t make sense to me, I’m not going to take it just because it was given to me by a doctor.

                  I can read a pathology report myself. Yeah, finders of fact–those are the facts we have to work with.

                  But the educated, PhD, M.D., P.E., what have you? His opinion is just as subject to the facts as the rest of us, and his qualitative judgements are inherently inferior to my own–when the question is about me and what I want.

                  You should see me tear into architect’s plans. The architect has his educated opinion, but he doesn’t understand my interests and the interests of my investors as well as I do. And if his educated, praised, design doesn’t suit my interests, I’ll send him back to try again–with my guidance.

                  1. Understanding this is essential to everyone from Smith to Hayek. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re having a hard time with it–a lot of other people do, too. But it’s essential to libertarianism. One of the reasons individuals should be free to make choices for themselves is because no one else can make consistently good decisions on other people’s behalf–certainly not taking their qualitative preferences into consideration.

                2. Robert, there are lots of people who don’t trust the facts coming from those people we pay big bucks to. Because they are busy listening to their sources who tell them those people are all part of a giant conspiracy to do various evil things. Mostly run by evil corporations.

                  I’m totally in favor of relying on experts for advice. But some people’s idea of an “expert” is Vandana Shiva.

        2. We do well to rely on experts for advice

          True, but I would like to have a personal choice of whether I trust Dr. Mengele or Dr. Pasteur, rather than have that choice imposed on me by government.

          The time you spend trying to learn about the effects of hormones could be better spent on your becoming better at whatever you do.

          Thank you, but as it affects me, that is something else I prefer to judge for myself.

      3. A lot of people’s trust is misplaced. In some really, really terrible sources.

        For instance, there are tons of people who will believe whatever GreenPeace tells them, because GreenPeace is a do-gooder environmentalist group fighting for “good causes”.

        Another big problem is the self-reinforcing conspiratorial mindset, which tells people that “the establishment” is suppressing the truth, such that any contradictory evidence coming from an actual scientific authority is taken as proof of the conspiracy.

    2. Nuclear power: “If X amount of radiation isn’t cancer causing, then why is that the NRSC limit?”

      I like the one in the 90s where they found the marble buildings in DC put out a higher REM than the limit demands.

  12. How can you expect any mom to trust the FDA with the sort of crap found in this new article in JAMA Internal coming to light. The new study documents that the FDA not only doesn’t report scientific misconduct but actively covers it up, and peer review goes on as if it never happened.

    So far, crickets in the media on what should be a blockbuster article if you ask me.

    Once you lose trust, it is hard to gain back. That is the problem in all anti-vax related issues. Shaming will not make the problem better.

  13. I’ve seen this positive feedback loop before. Concern over a potential danger leads to measures which then become evidence of the danger. But this is true regardless of the degree or probability of actual harm. That’s a problem both because it can lead to overestimation of dangers, and because of that possibility, to resistance to safety measures, leading to underestimation of dangers.

    This problem is intractable, inasmuch as reliance on authority is a valuable labor-saving heuristic. Division of labor is an advantage when it comes to knowledge like anything else. Ask people to do their own independent assessment of risk, and they can waste their lives trying to develop the necessary expertise.

    1. One of the places this phenomenon operates is in the ingredient labeling of cosmetics & toiletries. It’s been about 40 yrs. in the USA (with other countries following suit) that ingredient labeling has been required for such products. Has it improved safety? Not much.

      It had been hoped that the ingred. labeling requirement would be a tool for consumers to check for ingredients they were allergic to. Unfortunately it turns out that almost all such adverse rxns to ingredients are caused either by impurities which don’t appear as deliberate ingredients or by categories that aren’t required to be more specificially listed, chiefly fragrance.

      However, the appearance of just about any ingredient on a label is taken as a negative, something to avoid. And because there are some products which as to ingredients either don’t have to be labeled or are unlabeled in violation, these appear to some consumers to be safer. Consumers have also turned to 3rd party sources of info on ingredients, where for the most part no news is treated as good news, so that the less common an ingredient is, and the less that’s known about it generally, the less likely it will be treated as something to avoid.

    2. And how often is it assumed gov’t will cover up evidence of danger, “to avoid panic”? Like the presence of IRBMs in Cuba, or the news of the accident at Chernobyl.

      1. And a business may stonewall on safety improvements for fear that they’ll be used as evidence of previous dangers, hence fodder for damage suits.

  14. I took a precautionary approach over going outright anti. No way I was going to have my little ones pumped with up to 7 or 8 viruses at a time. I simply explained to my pediatrician that I believe in science but I trust big pharma as far as I can throw its glassy shiny ass and we simply agreed to shots scheduled over time. I was comfortable for no particular scientific reason, the pediatrician was cool with it, and they were current enough to attend the government soul-crushing farms.

    I see nothing wrong with being cautious and leery of massive power structures.

    1. This. The vaccine schedule is too aggressive and includes things that are not of major concern, like chickenpox.

      Also, do not give your kids Tylenol. Use ibuprofen instead.

      Although correlation does not equal causation, acetaminophen use by children correlates quite nicely with the rise in autism.

      1. Acetominophen also can cause liver damage.

        1. Acetominophen also can cause liver damage.

          And Ibuprofen to the digestive tract.

      2. Although correlation does not equal causation, acetaminophen use by children correlates quite nicely with the rise in autism.

        It does?

        The Tylenol study, published in the Journal of Restorative Medicine, also suggests that the other “epidemics” of ADHD and asthma have also been caused by acetaminophen, the drug’s generic name. Again, Jick emphatically says “no way.”

        The number of patients on treatment for ADHD increased in the U.K. in the mid-2000s, according to a study he published in 2004, but not in North America, where ADHD treatment has remained high and steady for decades. The timing of acetaminophen’s rise in popularity doesn’t coincide with the trends in ADHD or autism.

        Jick and his colleagues examined the General Practice Research Database, which includes data from about 3 million patients from across the UK ? roughly 5% of the nation’s population. Looking at 8-year-olds diagnosed with autism, they saw substantial increases in the 1990s, but a plateau between 2004 and 2010, the last year analyzed.

        http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2…..demic-over

        1. http://www.greatplainslaborato…..nophen.asp

          Way too much information there to quote, but worth reviewing.

      3. Heh. When I was in med school, we were told chicken pox was a very unattractive target to develop a vaccine against. 1st, the disease was so mild that the vaccine would have to be uncommonly safe to justify it. 2nd, if it were to be a live, attenuated virus vaccine (which would probably be the most useful type, as one would need long lasting immunity), so little was known about the pathogenesis of shingles that a decades-long test would be needed to show that the vaccine wasn’t more likely to cause herpes zoster than was chicken pox itself.

        What changed? AIUI, there’s now much more, and justified, confidence in the ability to engineer the virulence out of viruses while retaining their antigenic power. And they think they know enough specifically about zoster to predict that such an attenuated strain will have less likelihood of producing shingles than natural infection would.

        I’ve had shingles once, and would like to get the Zostavax, but can’t afford it.

        As to analgesics, it’s funny how they’re going down one by one: aspirin, acetaminophen, cox inhibitors. The only really safe ones are opiates.

        1. I don’t understand the issue with aspirin, outside of Reye’s Syndrome and ulcers, what’s the concern?

          1. That’s enough, isn’t it? I’m not saying it’s unsafe for most people in most circumstances, but in the USA it went quickly from something given routinely to children for pain or fever to something strictly avoided for children.

          2. I don’t understand the issue with aspirin, outside of Reye’s Syndrome and ulcers, what’s the concern?

            It *can be* a decent blood thinner and poorly predictable as such.

            As a teen, high dose aspirin was popular as an acute anti-inflammatory (rather than a pain killer). I could sustain one-off gram doses pretty readily.

            As an older adult, half an aspirin a day can help prevent heart disease as well as some other diseases.

            However, I was taking Vitamin E concomitantly and would wake up with nosebleeds regularly (like I did as a teen without aspirin). I didn’t cut it all out until I lost close to a pint of blood through my nose one night.

            This is all personal anecdote, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that aspirin is not a drug you would want to take at painkiller/anti-inflammatory doses for any longer than necessary.

      4. The vaccine schedule is too aggressive and includes things that are not of major concern, like chickenpox.

        The flu shot is the one that *kills* me.

        The side effects are, literally, the symptoms of the disease, the efficacy/coverage varies year to year but is often poor, and the immunity, if it is imparted, is only imparted for about a year.

        The worst part is I will get everything from a headache to an ingrown toenail and anyone can identify the business end of a hypodermic needle says, “Shoulda got a flu shot!”.

        It’s worse than when the Obama zombies invaded.

        1. But the number of people experiencing those adverse effects is much less than it used to be. 40 yrs. ago, flu shots were shit compared to now. Back then you had to be crazy to get one unless you were in a very high risk popul’n and couldn’t take other preventive measures.

      5. Autism correlates even better with the revenue of doctors and drug companies specializing in “treating” it. That’s why it has been increasingly overdiagnosed and overtreated. No mystery there, and it’s not related to vaccines or acetaminophen.

    2. If vaccines were available OTC, I guarantee they’d practically all be univalent. The only polyvalent ones would be vaccines against multiple strains of the same agent.

      We were taught recommended vaccination schedules in Pediatrics. Were there data behind them? Yeah, a little. (It would take vast resources to do studies to truly optimize vaccination intervals.) But mostly they were chosen for convenience, to both justify X many doctor visits and limit it to X many.

      1. But there can also be benefits to juicing the immune system with multiple challenges at once. In the regime I described above, that’d be achieved in some cases by adjuvants. However, I’ve consulted with a business trying to develop a vaccine cocktail as a short term immune-boosting treatment, there being evidence in animals for a combination of phenomena called collectively “paramunity”. For days or weeks after inoculation at low dose to an attenuated and then killed agent or combination of agents, one sees increased resistance to and better response to not only other infectious diseases but some non-infectious diseases.

        Unfortunately the sponsor is under-funded. One avenue they’re pursuing is development of it as a homeopathic nosode. It does have a strange dose-response in some tests such that increasing dilution potentiates it. It is possible that at the extreme dilution that would be used in a modern homeopathic proving (well beyond Avogadro’s number), it would give a positive result, even if by chance. Then on admission to the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the US, it would become an official drug which could be marketed at dilutions which were not so extreme.

        1. If this is satire, bravo.

          I’m not sure if I want to know otherwise.

          1. Which part are you having trouble believing?

        2. homeopathic says it all, just give them a sugar pill and be done with it.

          1. Yeah, but if homeopathic gets you onto the legal market, even for versions that are not at high dilution, why not take advantage? Why not exploit loopholes to bypass FDA, etc. wherever possible?

  15. I had measles as a kid. I don’t remember anything about it. I think it was about when I was in kindergarten.

    I say that to say something about something related to vaccines, cause otherwise, this is all played out for me. I got every vaccine I could, we gave our kids every vaccine we could….

    And that picture of the kid with the pox of whatever variety is TOTALLY GROSSING ME OUT!

    1. PS For some reason, I remember specifically getting the Measles/Mumps/Rubella vaccine a couple years later in elementary school. They gave it to us in the library of the elem school for some reason.

      I specifically remember wondering WTF “rubella” was…

      And needles have never bothered me.

      /making vaccine posts relevant to me

    2. So you’re saying you had one of measles’s rarer effects, amnesia? 😉

      1. Rarer?!?

        Do you remember when you had your last MMR?

        1. Damn, no, I…can’t remember ever getting it!

          I had measles & German measles each shortly before the vaccines for them came out. When I was going to start a rotation in Pediatrics, I asked for mumps vaccination. They made me get an Ab titer 1st. It was unmeasurable, so they gave me the vaccine. I never had an Ab titer taken since, so I don’t know if it took.

          1. My regular physician (Daddy) thought I was over-cautious in getting the mumps vaccine. He didn’t exactly say I shouldn’t take it, but he said my odds were extremely remote of catching mumps even in Pediatrics.

            When I got rubeola, I was kept isolated from my sister, who hadn’t had it yet. However, had I gotten rubella before she did, Daddy would probably have tried to get me to infect her. Maybe by having us bathe & sleep together if we weren’t still doing it routinely at that age.

  16. It’s easier to just get the measles and mumps and worry about shingles later. That’s what my generation did.

    1. We vaccinate because it’s nice not to have kids lose a few weeks of school and because measles and mumps can cause birth defects/sterility in adults. Of course, those down to earth justifications have been entirely forgotten by the hysterical mandatory vaccination crowd.

      For shingles, it gets even weirder: adults may be protected against shingles outbreaks by exposure to unvaccinated children, which is why some countries choose not to vaccinate. TB vaccinations are not carried out in many countries because even though the vaccine works in children and prevents deaths, it makes it much harder to diagnose infections in adults.

      1. . Of course, those down to earth justifications have been entirely forgotten by the hysterical mandatory vaccination crowd.

        It can also be fatal, so you’re in denial like Rand Paul.

        Let’s say you refuse to vaccinate your child, who then causes the infection of, say, 36 children. Will you assume personal responsibility for your actions, or must you be sued?

        And what if a death occurs?

        Does the Constitution guarantee that we shall be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects?

  17. Herd immunity

    1. Lack of herd intelligence kills a lot more people than lack of herd immunity.

  18. Yes, vaccines are safe. On the other hand, maybe if government didn’t lie about EVERY FUCKING THING ELSE…some people would have less cause to doubt the official line. I mean, it’s now safe to be in the same room as cholesterol, right?

  19. CDC Scientist Still Maintains Agency Forced Researchers To Lie
    About Safety Of Mercury Based Vaccines
    by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. ? February 12, 2015
    http://www.ringoffireradio.com…..-vaccines/
    In a taped conversation, Thompson confessed, “I have great shame now when I meet families with kids with autism because I’ve ? I’ve been part of the problem.”

  20. August 27, 2014 Press Release, “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism”
    http://www.morganverkamp.com/a…..nd-autism/

  21. Fraud: HHS OIG Most Wanted Fugitives
    Poul Thorsen, vaccine researcher
    https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/ profiles.asp#thorsen
    From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism… CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines…

  22. Lawsuits claiming Merck lied about mumps vaccine efficacy headed to trial
    A federal judge in Pennsylvania refused to dismiss the suits, filed by a pair of whistleblowers and a group of doctors and payers, and now, they’re on their way to trial.
    “This decision brings us one step closer to shining a light on Merck’s deceptive business practices so that new and more effective vaccines will ultimately be developed in the future,” Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi lawyer Kellie Lerner said in a statement.
    http://www.fiercevaccines.com/story/ lawsuits-claiming-merck-lied-about- mumps-vaccine-efficacy-headed-trial/2014-09-09

  23. “… with regard to the studies which allegedly demonstrably show no link between autism and vaccines, it has to be emphasized that once such studies undergo proper expert scrutiny, the “evidence” against the link becomes rather flimsy. In reviewing the published literature on measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine (139 studies), the respected Cochrane Collaboration review panel concluded that, “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate” [emphasis added] [48]. Moreover, none of the 31 studies that were included in the review met the Cochrane Collaboration’s methodological criteria. More specifically, referring to the 2001 Fombonne and Chakrabarti study [49] which was widely regarded by medical health authorities as most persuasive in disproving the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the Cochrane Collaboration commented the following: “The number and possible impact of biases in this study was so high that interpretation of the results is impossible” [48].”

    [48] Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Rivetti, A. and Price, D. (2005) Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD004407.

    [49] Fombonne, E. and Chakrabarti, S. (2001) No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism. Pediatrics 108, E58.

  24. I actually like this article a lot. Mostly because it is not anti-vaccination.

    Though it addresses potential vaccination safety concerns and lists examples of the poor study and testing methods for certain vaccinations. It doesn’t draw the line with, “Let’s stop vaccinating”. Instead, it posses the option that everyone really wants at the end of the day, let’s re-develop them to be safer.

    It sucks that people get so religious about vaccinations (both those for and against them), because their actions truly are abusive and hindering. It’s as though every article that I read has some religious backdrop, too bad it is more annoying then entertaining.

    I like this quote though, it is sort of like the voice of reason, when Reason isn’t getting it done…

    “Science should not be a religion in which dogmatic statements of faith can replace adequately powered, controlled, longitudinal vaccine safety studies in animals and people. Furthermore, such assumptions of safety, in the absence of actual experimental data, are not only dangerous but have historically hampered serious scrutiny of potential vaccine harms.”

    1. This is the article I meant to reference…

      http://2ndchance.info/onesize4…..ne2013.pdf

  25. Perhaps if the predatory big pharma hadn’t tried to make Trillions out of excessive unneeded vaccines that don’t work the public might trust them.
    The Flu vaccine is the classic, want to not get the flu… don’t get the vaccine.

  26. A doctor told me that the mercury based preservative for vaccines was developed during WWII. Seventy+ years and they can’t develop a preservative that doesn’t contain the most dangerous neuro-toxic element on the planet! The discrediting of the Wakefield paper has been exposed as a fraud and at least one medical license has been restored. The vaccine makers insert papers in their product listing possible side effects and dangers and neurological sicknesses are there. Death is there. Japan and other countries have broken the MMR into two or three vaccines because MMR caused increased neurological problems. We need to wake up to the fact that the owners of these huge corporations do not have our well being on the list of what they want to accomplish and they have bought off our government so there is no check on them. People should think hard and long about whether to use vaccines, not because of the scientific theory, but because of who is manufacturing them.

  27. **Happy valentines day**
    My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!
    ……….. http://www.Moneykin.Com

  28. Caden. I just agree… Patrick`s st0rry is astonishing, last tuesday I got a top of the range Land Rover Defender sincee geting a check for $6814 this last 4 weeks and in excess of 10k last month. it’s certainly the coolest job Ive had. I actually started……………

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  29. Principled objections to government-mandated vaccinations have nothing to do with the precautionary principle or whether vaccines are “safe”. They have to do with whether the government has the right to decide to force you to inject stuff into your body or undergo medical procedures against your will. If you believe it does, then you’re not a libertarian.

    As a libertarian, you accept that other private parties have the right to exclude you from their property for any reason; in particular, if they believe vaccinations are important, they can exclude you if you can’t show that you are vaccinated. That is likely a much more effective means of deciding as a society which vaccines are important and who should get vaccinated; it relies only on voluntary agreements between private parties. Vaccination rates would likely be higher than they are today if we adopted that principle and private parties, not governments, took over this responsibility.

    In addition, while vaccines are “safe” in the sense that serious long term complications are extremely rare, vaccines do make you feel like crap for a couple of days if they are working well, since they do activate your immune system; that’s what they are supposed to do. So it’s not like vaccines are just a needle prick.

    1. As a libertarian, you accept that other private parties have the right to exclude you from their property for any reason; in particular, if they believe vaccinations are important, they can exclude you if you can’t show that you are vaccinated.

      Then we agree that a refusal to vaccinate your child can hold you legally liable for the consequences of your decision.

      And looking down this page, you are among the last persons on earth that I’d ask about libertarianism.

      1. Then we agree that a refusal to vaccinate your child can hold you legally liable for the consequences of your decision.

        I’m sorry, are you incapable of reading? I said people have a right to exclude you from their private property, no more and no less.

        And looking down this page, you are among the last persons on earth that I’d ask about libertarianism.

        Well, it’s quite obvious that you don’t know anything and aren’t interested in learning anything, so that is hardly surprising.

        1. I said people have a right to exclude you from their private property, no more and no less.

          So, you confirm your denial that nobody can be held accountable for CAUSING the death of another?

          Well, it’s quite obvious that you don’t know anything and aren’t interested in learning anything, so that is hardly surprising.

          Here’s what I refuse to learn on this page (so far)

          1) Nobody can be held accountable for causing the death of another,
          2) The von Mises Institute is wrong on what rent-seeking means, according to you.
          3) Constitutional rights are a non-issue.
          4) Hitler was a progressive.
          5) Anti-vaxxers are rent-seeking

          Oh yeah, you voted for Obama, and still a sucker.

          PLEASE keep trolling for the anti-vaxxers, and proving they are PRECISELY as wacky as I said.

  30. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998,
    If you are interested,
    Visit this web-site…….
    ———- http://www.Workvalt.Com

  31. I think showing a picture of a kid with smallpox in a discussion on MMR vaccination nicely illustrates what kind of irrational fear mongers we are dealing with here.

    1. Win Bear|2.14.15 @ 10:49AM|#
      I think showing a picture of a kid with smallpox in a discussion on MMR vaccination nicely illustrates what kind of irrational fear mongers we are dealing with here.

      Did you reverse your own principle AGAIN? That it’s about mandatory vaccinations?

      Most folks know Rand Paul is crazy as a loon as this, even worse when he lied about what he said.

  32. 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.jobsaudit.com

  33. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $12600 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.

    http://www.gowork247.com

  34. My reaction to those who oppose vaccinations can be summed up in one word: evolution.

  35. my classmate’s mom makes $82 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $16174 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can check here……………
    ????? http://www.netcash50.com

  36. Marin County Moms Hosting “Swingsets and Trampolines” Party from Roof of Marin County Civic C? http://wp.me/p31sf8-1AW

  37. my classmate’s mom makes $82 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $16174 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can check here……………
    ????? http://www.navjob.com

  38. I’d like to see an article about disease outbreaks that mentions both SOURCE and vaccination. Vaccination is only part of the issue; if a vaccination existed, not vaccinating one’s children could certainly contribute to the SPREAD of a disease but vaccination (or not) ALONE cannot explain how the disease arrived in the U.S. Measles, for example, was declared “eliminated” from the U.S. in 2000; “eliminated” means that every case of measles in the U.S. could be traced to exposure in a country OTHER THAN the U.S., brought in by a U.S. citizen returning from another country or a non-citizen traveling to the U.S. For thirteen of the years since 2000, the number of measles cases remained constant and THEN, in one year (2014), the number of measles cases TRIPLED. Does it make sense that there was NO change in the number of people being exposed and that the increase can be explained SOLELY by a change in the number of children not having been vaccinated? We know that tens of thousands of children from other countries crossed our southern border in last year. How come we’re not talking about that, as well? It seems to me that uncontrolled immigration is an especially important factor for diseases for which there is NO vaccination, such as EV-D68, which made more than 1,000 children VERY sick in 2014, killing eleven. Just sayin’ ….

    1. We know that tens of thousands of children from other countries crossed our southern border in last year. How come we’re not talking about that, as well

      Yet another reason to mandate vaccinations. Thanks.

  39. The kid in the picture has Smallpox not Measles.

  40. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing, http://www.wixjob.com

  41. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself……….
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  42. my neighbor’s sister makes $83 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for six months but last month her payment was $13320 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit http://www.jobsblaze.com

  43. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Get Paid Up To $37.75 Per hour
    Easy Work, Excellent Pay. Work Flexible
    Hours. No Experience Required.
    Move to a better life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    If you are interested,
    Visit this web-site,
    =============?? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  44. 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.jobsblaze.com

  45. 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.jobsblaze.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.