An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Ok, again playing devils advocate. You believe it is ok to trample on the rights of the few to protect the many? Just for example, lets pretend we can save 1,000 lives every year by preventatively jailing a small % of the minority population that incite the rest around them to violent crimes. Would you support trampling that small number of peoples rights? Just for arguments sake, the number of people whose rights are trampled are half the number of people who refuse to get their children vaccinated, and I think 1,000 lives is more lives saved than you would save with forced vaccinations vs the programs we have in place now.

If you don't support this, can I ask which rights you believe are inviolate even in the face of the greater good, and which can be thrown aside when the greater good can be proven?

I'm not going to get bogged down with hypothetical situations that do not relate to vaccination compliance, since this is the narrow focus of this thread. Arresting minorities or whatever is hardly what this thread is about.

Basically, I feel this is a policy question best left up to the CDC to determine. If an epidemic is imminent because ignorant parents are refusing to vaccinate their kids, then perhaps moving to a stricter policy is warranted and I would indeed support this action. You have to understand, I'm more perturbed and bothered by the extreme levels of ignorance behind this movement than I am concerned about a specific outbreak, although it remains a very real possibility if this continues.

My question relates directly to the idea that you can violate rights routinely for non emergency situations just because it will help a lot of people. I just want to be sure I am clear on your stance, that
A. You believe that a person has the right to decide what they do with their own body, and the government does not have the right to tell them what to do with their body.
B. Parents are the legal guardians of children and they make choices relating to what is done to their body until the child is 18 and considered an adult.
C. That you can force children to get vaccinated against the parents wishes because it will help other people.

If you haven't noticed, those 3 statements don't seem to be able to co-exist rationally, either A or B cannot be true, or C cannot be true. Or, you believe in rights, but you think you can just discard them at random for a certain perceived level of benefit vs a certain level of lost rights.

If I am failing to lay this out in some form please make it clear, but it seems to me that you are basically advocating a program that violates some of the very basic rights that have been at the heart of the abortion debate. Maybe I mistook you for someone else, but I thought you were a supporter of women's rights to control their own body.

Yes, stupid people who fail at good reasoning are a problem. But, I am fairly certain we don't want to just start ignoring people's rights just because we think we are smarter than them. A lot of this comes from problems with causation vs correlation. Immunizations are common around the age when children first start to show signs of autism. Some parents assume that the vaccine must be the cause. A lot of people look for reasons something happened, they believe that things happen for a reason, and vaccines just happen to be given at the wrong time. Other parents tend to trust their friends more than officials, and then you have all sorts of strange beliefs about parenting that pop up.

So, let me ask this more clearly, what rights do you believe we can discard or take away from people for the benefit of all? Which rights to you consider inviolate that can never be taken even for the benefit of others?

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: piasabird
There is no way that any of this health care reform is going to save any money or be any cheaper than before. One way or another you are going to pay for your health care. It may be higher taxes or the employers may have to pay fees to the feds. There is no way in hell the federal government beuracracy is going to save taxpayers money.

No Way!

No Hell!

Hell No!

Live in the real world!

And you believe that because you believe it, without a shred of evidence. Am I right?

Do you really believe that providing UHC to most of the uninsured is going to happen and we taxpayers are not going to pay for it in any way shape or form?

Good luck with that!

You are already paying for it now when they show up at an emergency room due to lack of preventative care and can't afford to pay.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5
Ok, again playing devils advocate. You believe it is ok to trample on the rights of the few to protect the many? Just for example, lets pretend we can save 1,000 lives every year by preventatively jailing a small % of the minority population that incite the rest around them to violent crimes. Would you support trampling that small number of peoples rights? Just for arguments sake, the number of people whose rights are trampled are half the number of people who refuse to get their children vaccinated, and I think 1,000 lives is more lives saved than you would save with forced vaccinations vs the programs we have in place now.

If you don't support this, can I ask which rights you believe are inviolate even in the face of the greater good, and which can be thrown aside when the greater good can be proven?

The qualitative differences between vaccination and imprisonment make your analogy very silly. But the questions remains: does the state have the authority to mandate vaccination for the purpose of public health? and is that moral?

Regardless of one's answer, we should all aim to increase the number of people who want to be vaccinated. That starts with education and may involve the marginalization of anti-vaccinationists.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: piasabird
There is no way that any of this health care reform is going to save any money or be any cheaper than before. One way or another you are going to pay for your health care. It may be higher taxes or the employers may have to pay fees to the feds. There is no way in hell the federal government beuracracy is going to save taxpayers money.

No Way!

No Hell!

Hell No!

Live in the real world!

And you believe that because you believe it, without a shred of evidence. Am I right?

Do you really believe that providing UHC to most of the uninsured is going to happen and we taxpayers are not going to pay for it in any way shape or form?

Good luck with that!

You are already paying for it now when they show up at an emergency room due to lack of preventative care and can't afford to pay.

Then, if they can get care at an emergency room, why does Congress need to pass some unreadable bill forcing people to be insured.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daishi5
My question relates directly to the idea that you can violate rights routinely for non emergency situations just because it will help a lot of people. I just want to be sure I am clear on your stance, that
A. You believe that a person has the right to decide what they do with their own body, and the government does not have the right to tell them what to do with their body.
B. Parents are the legal guardians of children and they make choices relating to what is done to their body until the child is 18 and considered an adult.
C. That you can force children to get vaccinated against the parents wishes because it will help other people.

If you haven't noticed, those 3 statements don't seem to be able to co-exist rationally, either A or B cannot be true, or C cannot be true. Or, you believe in rights, but you think you can just discard them at random for a certain perceived level of benefit vs a certain level of lost rights.

If I am failing to lay this out in some form please make it clear, but it seems to me that you are basically advocating a program that violates some of the very basic rights that have been at the heart of the abortion debate. Maybe I mistook you for someone else, but I thought you were a supporter of women's rights to control their own body.

Yes, stupid people who fail at good reasoning are a problem. But, I am fairly certain we don't want to just start ignoring people's rights just because we think we are smarter than them. A lot of this comes from problems with causation vs correlation. Immunizations are common around the age when children first start to show signs of autism. Some parents assume that the vaccine must be the cause. A lot of people look for reasons something happened, they believe that things happen for a reason, and vaccines just happen to be given at the wrong time. Other parents tend to trust their friends more than officials, and then you have all sorts of strange beliefs about parenting that pop up.

So, let me ask this more clearly, what rights do you believe we can discard or take away from people for the benefit of all? Which rights to you consider inviolate that can never be taken even for the benefit of others?

Yes, I would support a CDC decision to enforce mandatory vaccinations of children, if they deemed it a public health hazard. Just because I believe in this, doesn't necessarily mean I believe in taking people's rights away ad hoc, nor does it carry over into other areas. I think we're all smart enough to decide things on a case-by-case basis, and my opinion on this topic does not carry over into other areas no matter how much you want to imply that it does.

 

[DealMonkey]

A follow-up article:

Doctors May 'Fire' Parents Who Don't Vaccinate Children
Some Parents Fear Vaccines Cause Autism, but Doctors Fear Disease Outbreaks, Too

When Cathlene Echan walked into her pediatrician's office two weeks after giving birth, she was nervous about discussing her recent decision not to vaccinate her second baby.

But Echan, of Orange County, Calif., did not expect to be asked to leave.

"The doctor said it was too much of a liability to have us as patients," said Echan, a 28-year-old stay at home mom. Echan's oldest child, Josiah, now 5, had just been diagnosed with autism around the same time her second son Torren, now 2, was born.

Echan said she did research and read articles online about autism, she talked with other parents and then came to the pediatrician's office with doubts about vaccines.

"I hadn't come to a conclusion at that point when I saw the doctor, but I was so nervous because they're brothers, and I thought there could be a predisposition for it," said Echan. "As a mom, I can't knowingly do something to my second child when I believe it played a role in causing my older child's neurological disorder.

"She was very nice at first, but when I asked her to give him [Torren] a checkup, she said, 'you need to leave,'" said Echan.

Echan's situation is a growing problem for parents and pediatricians alike. Despite adamant statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Centers of Disease Control that vaccines have no link to autism, an anti-vaccination movement is growing online, from parent to parent, and through activist celebrities, such as actress Jenny McCarthy.

Now, more and more doctors are feeling compelled to say "no" back to these parents. The issue was raised Wednesday at the annual American Academy of Pediatrics meeting in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Gary Marshall, a presenter at the meeting, said there are some cases when it's ethical and legal to refuse to continue to see, or treat, a child.

"In the middle of treatment, you can't just say, I'm done," Marshall, of the University of Louisville School of Medicine, said during a session that addressed parental concerns about vaccinations and how pediatricians can respond.

Why Doctors Fear for Unvaccinated Children

"But if it becomes obvious that you and the family will never see eye-to-eye on a specific issue, there's no reason not to 'fire' them, providing you follow the steps necessary to avoid charges of abandonment," Marshall explained in the meeting. "Those include providing written notice that you will no longer treat their children and giving them a set time frame -- at least 30 days -- to find another physician."

Dr. Mary Fallat, chair of the Committee of Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said doctors should try hard to work with parents, if they refuse to vaccinate, by providing information and trying to come to an agreement about a vaccination schedule.

"If that doesn't work, and the pediatrician feels really strongly that they cannot care for the child -- which is not the norm -- then they need to find another pediatrician who can take care of that child," said Fallat.

In some cases, Fallat said, doctors may feel an ethical concern about families who don't vaccinate their children.

"Ethically, that is a real concern on the part of the pediatrician because there are some diseases that are really disabling," she said. "If a pediatrician says, 'OK, I agree, it's OK for you not to immunize your children' and they do come down with some of these diseases then? it makes the doctor feel like he's partly to blame."

Yet, while in theory, doctors should find another physician who will treat an unvaccinated child, in the real world, it can put families in a difficult spot.

After Echan left her first pediatrician, she said she could not find another doctor who would take her family, once she told them she was unwilling to vaccinate her children.

"I don't know what happened to my older one, I just know that he has autism and he wasn't born with it," said Echan. "So I don't know what to do then, I'm scared."

Dr. Steven Abelowitz, director of the Coastal Kids clinic where Echan was first turned away, says the process of dealing with parents who don't want to be vaccinated is evolving.

[...]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/A...inate/story?id=8894999

The fear-ridden ignorant parents at work. I'd almost feel sorry for them, but I feel sorry for their kids instead, who have a very real chance of ending up with an easily-preventable disabling disease because their parents were too ignorant to vaccinate them.

Maybe if more doctors fire these idiots, the message will start to get through to them.

 

[0marTheZealot]

The problem with vaccinations is that they were too effective. They've erased an entire generation's memory of the debilitating childhood diseases. Now, parents only see the shot and some random asshole on TV saying that vaccines cause autism. If they could see the ravages that measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough can inflict, they'd be running over each other to get their kids vaccinated. The law has to be uncompromising in this regard. The point of vaccinations is that the virus/bacteria has no natural reservoir (eg us) to lie in. This is why vaccinations are important. Below a threshold, you might as well vaccinate no one because the infection will have a foothold and be able to mutate and evade the vaccinations.

 

[1prophet]

Are Medical professionals and the makers of vaccines also among the ignorant?

Medical Professionals Refusing Swine Flu Vaccine

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html">Up to half of family doctors do not want to be vaccinated against swine flu
</a>

Nurses to sue New York over vaccination mandate

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: 1prophet


Are Medical professionals and the makers of vaccines also among the ignorant?

Medical Professionals Refusing Swine Flu Vaccine

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html">Up to half of family doctors do not want to be vaccinated against swine flu
</a>

Nurses to sue New York over vaccination mandate

Apparently, no one is immune from the stupidity.

 

[shira]

I think we should fund "research" that concludes the listening to Rush and O'Reilly and Beck and Hannity and their ilk is the sole cause of the epidemic of autism and ADHD being experienced. The studies will include diagrams that showing how those radio and TV programs emit high-energy ultrasonic waves that disturb neural pathways, with the effect being contagious within families.

The studies will find that receiving regular vaccinations can stop the damage from increasing, but that the BEST best way to REVERSE the effects of right-wing broadcasts is for young, beautiful right-wing women to engage in romantic relationships with older liberal men.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
My question relates directly to the idea that you can violate rights routinely for non emergency situations just because it will help a lot of people. I just want to be sure I am clear on your stance, that
A. You believe that a person has the right to decide what they do with their own body, and the government does not have the right to tell them what to do with their body.
B. Parents are the legal guardians of children and they make choices relating to what is done to their body until the child is 18 and considered an adult.
C. That you can force children to get vaccinated against the parents wishes because it will help other people.

If you haven't noticed, those 3 statements don't seem to be able to co-exist rationally, either A or B cannot be true, or C cannot be true. Or, you believe in rights, but you think you can just discard them at random for a certain perceived level of benefit vs a certain level of lost rights.

If I am failing to lay this out in some form please make it clear, but it seems to me that you are basically advocating a program that violates some of the very basic rights that have been at the heart of the abortion debate. Maybe I mistook you for someone else, but I thought you were a supporter of women's rights to control their own body.

Yes, stupid people who fail at good reasoning are a problem. But, I am fairly certain we don't want to just start ignoring people's rights just because we think we are smarter than them. A lot of this comes from problems with causation vs correlation. Immunizations are common around the age when children first start to show signs of autism. Some parents assume that the vaccine must be the cause. A lot of people look for reasons something happened, they believe that things happen for a reason, and vaccines just happen to be given at the wrong time. Other parents tend to trust their friends more than officials, and then you have all sorts of strange beliefs about parenting that pop up.

So, let me ask this more clearly, what rights do you believe we can discard or take away from people for the benefit of all? Which rights to you consider inviolate that can never be taken even for the benefit of others?

Yes, I would support a CDC decision to enforce mandatory vaccinations of children, if they deemed it a public health hazard. Just because I believe in this, doesn't necessarily mean I believe in taking people's rights away ad hoc, nor does it carry over into other areas. I think we're all smart enough to decide things on a case-by-case basis, and my opinion on this topic does not carry over into other areas no matter how much you want to imply that it does.

Here is my problem with that idea. In non emergency cases, if we decide that the right to control ones own body is not absolute, and it should be decided on a case by case basis, then we open ourselves up to the tyranny of the majority. If a right cannot be violated, for any reason, by the state barring an actual emergency then it can be violated at some time if it is "worth it." The problem is that, depending on the make up of the congress or the supreme court at any one time, the definition of "worth it" can change wildly. I know you don't believe in carrying it over into other areas, but that doesn't mean other people believe the same. It is a lot like

Consider it like speech, Matthew Hale lived less than 10 minutes away from my home where I grew up, when I went to work I actually drove past 3-4 of his white power protests. I don't like them, I wish they did not exist, but I also believe that to protect the right to the freedom of speech we need to protect all speech. When the right to speech becomes protected only on a case by case basis, then it is no longer a right, but a privildge that the government can take away. Parents refusing to have their children vaccinated falls into the same category I believe. It is a stupid, wasteful example of the right to control one's own body. But, we don't defend rights by defending the sterling examples, we defend them by protecting the scum.

I would prefer the methods that I believe they use here in Illinois (I am not sure on this), to attend public schools, children must be vaccinated. If you don't want your children to be vaccinated, your children cannot attend public schools because of the threat they pose to the other children.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I got a few vaccinations as a kid (there weren't so many then), but I still got mumps, got measles and chicken pox at the same time because both were going around my school, and knew kids that were seriously affected by polio. But when I was in the military, I got so many vaccinations I felt like a pin cushion. there were times when we went down a line and got hit in both arms simultaneously. Can't say I've ever been damaged by vaccines, but I remember the misery of illnesses that are preventable today.

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

From ignorant and angry blow-hards at town hall meetings spouting off about health care reform before they've even seen page one of any bill, to creationists blocking efforts to teach evolution in our schools, to bible-pounding parents trying to stamp out sex education in our schools in favor of just telling our kids not to have sex, we have a serious number of people with a huge disconnect between fact and fiction. A huge disparity between what these people believe and what actually works. A pervasive, willful ignorance concerning science and intellectualism in general.

But now, these people threaten us all. A grassroots movement that opposes the systematic vaccination of children and the laws that require it is growing in America. These people are refusing to vaccinate their children for fear it causes autism, despite absolutely no credible evidence that supports this belief. As a result, diseases that were relegated to third world shithole countries are now making a come-back in America.

Nice way to turn this into an anti-right/republican/conservative/religious/christian rant. Take your partisan blinders off next time. From the article.

This isn?t a religious dispute, like the debate over creationism and intelligent design. It?s a challenge to traditional science that crosses party, class, and religious lines. It is partly a reaction to Big Pharma?s blunders and PR missteps, from Vioxx to illegal marketing ploys, which have encouraged a distrust of experts. It is also, ironically, a product of the era of instant communication and easy access to information. The doubters and deniers are empowered by the Internet (online, nobody knows you?re not a doctor) and helped by the mainstream media, which has an interest in pumping up bad science to create a ?debate? where there should be none.

US senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Chris Dodd of Connecticut have both curried favor with constituents by trumpeting the notion that vaccines cause autism. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a scion of the most famous Democratic family of all, authored a deeply flawed 2005 Rolling Stone piece called ?Deadly Immunity.? In it, he accused the government of protecting drug companies from litigation by concealing evidence that mercury in vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids. The article was roundly discredited for, among other things, overestimating the amount of mercury in childhood vaccines by more than 100-fold, causing Rolling Stone to issue not one but a prolonged series of corrections and clarifications. But that did little to unring the bell.

Scientists need to find out what's causing the autism. I know too many people at work who have kids with autism or they know someone with autistic kids. It's a tremedous and frustrating responsibility for the parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism

Attention has been focused on whether the prevalence of autism is increasing with time. Earlier prevalence estimates were lower, centering at about 0.5 per 1,000 for autism during the 1960s and 1970s and about 1 per 1,000 in the 1980s, as opposed to today's 1?2 per 1,000

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

...

Dangerous levels of ignorance are epidemic in American society today.

...

But now, these people threaten us all. A grassroots movement that opposes the systematic vaccination of children and the laws that require it is growing in America.

Take off your highly partisan hat, and check out who says what starting at the 2:45 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSg6lG3cvTE

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Nice way to turn this into an anti-right/republican/conservative/religious/christian rant. Take your partisan blinders off next time. From the article.

Unfortunately those idiots are beyond all hope at this point

When there are sufficient numbers of "media" sources pounding the notion that all of this country's problems originate from Republicans and conservatives... I don't know...

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Scientists need to find out what's causing the autism. I know too many people at work who have kids with autism or they know someone with autistic kids. It's a tremedous and frustrating responsibility for the parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism

Attention has been focused on whether the prevalence of autism is increasing with time. Earlier prevalence estimates were lower, centering at about 0.5 per 1,000 for autism during the 1960s and 1970s and about 1 per 1,000 in the 1980s, as opposed to today's 1?2 per 1,000

My questions would be:

-In that time has the definition of autism changed?
-In that time has the training of doctors to find autism changed?
-In that time has ability of parents to have autism diagnosed changed?

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

My questions would be:

-In that time has the definition of autism changed?
-In that time has the training of doctors to find autism changed?
-In that time has ability of parents to have autism diagnosed changed?

Interesting you should ask. TV show I saw recently said that doctors were now able to diagnose autism at a much earlier age and that some children who normally wouldn't have been called autistic were now mildly autistic. The benchmark has moved, but I bet you knew that.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Autism may also turn out to be several things that get diagnosed as the same thing because the symptoms are similar.

There also appears to be early evidence of a genetic marker for it (one possible variety of it). More work is needed.

Autism is not diagnosable before a certain age, and that happens to be a similar age when kids are vaccinated. Those that do not understand correlation and causation get confused.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Scientists need to find out what's causing the autism. I know too many people at work who have kids with autism or they know someone with autistic kids. It's a tremedous and frustrating responsibility for the parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism

Attention has been focused on whether the prevalence of autism is increasing with time. Earlier prevalence estimates were lower, centering at about 0.5 per 1,000 for autism during the 1960s and 1970s and about 1 per 1,000 in the 1980s, as opposed to today's 1?2 per 1,000

My questions would be:

-In that time has the definition of autism changed?
-In that time has the training of doctors to find autism changed?
-In that time has ability of parents to have autism diagnosed changed?

yes to all

its not like the scientific community WANTS to give people autism ...the paranoia about there being some kind of cover up is moronic

there very well could be some problems with vaccines, but the facts dont point to autism being one of them

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

From ignorant and angry blow-hards at town hall meetings spouting off about health care reform before they've even seen page one of any bill, to creationists blocking efforts to teach evolution in our schools, to bible-pounding parents trying to stamp out sex education in our schools in favor of just telling our kids not to have sex, we have a serious number of people with a huge disconnect between fact and fiction. A huge disparity between what these people believe and what actually works. A pervasive, willful ignorance concerning science and intellectualism in general.

But now, these people threaten us all. A grassroots movement that opposes the systematic vaccination of children and the laws that require it is growing in America. These people are refusing to vaccinate their children for fear it causes autism, despite absolutely no credible evidence that supports this belief. As a result, diseases that were relegated to third world shithole countries are now making a come-back in America.

Nice way to turn this into an anti-right/republican/conservative/religious/christian rant. Take your partisan blinders off next time. From the article.

This isn?t a religious dispute, like the debate over creationism and intelligent design. It?s a challenge to traditional science that crosses party, class, and religious lines. It is partly a reaction to Big Pharma?s blunders and PR missteps, from Vioxx to illegal marketing ploys, which have encouraged a distrust of experts. It is also, ironically, a product of the era of instant communication and easy access to information. The doubters and deniers are empowered by the Internet (online, nobody knows you?re not a doctor) and helped by the mainstream media, which has an interest in pumping up bad science to create a ?debate? where there should be none.

US senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Chris Dodd of Connecticut have both curried favor with constituents by trumpeting the notion that vaccines cause autism. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a scion of the most famous Democratic family of all, authored a deeply flawed 2005 Rolling Stone piece called ?Deadly Immunity.? In it, he accused the government of protecting drug companies from litigation by concealing evidence that mercury in vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids. The article was roundly discredited for, among other things, overestimating the amount of mercury in childhood vaccines by more than 100-fold, causing Rolling Stone to issue not one but a prolonged series of corrections and clarifications. But that did little to unring the bell.

Scientists need to find out what's causing the autism. I know too many people at work who have kids with autism or they know someone with autistic kids. It's a tremedous and frustrating responsibility for the parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism

Attention has been focused on whether the prevalence of autism is increasing with time. Earlier prevalence estimates were lower, centering at about 0.5 per 1,000 for autism during the 1960s and 1970s and about 1 per 1,000 in the 1980s, as opposed to today's 1?2 per 1,000

So I mention "these people" and you launch into some partisan tirade? WTF?

And so scientists need to find out what causes autism. Duh, we knew that. But jumping to stupid conclusions about what causes autism based on faulty logic is just the sort of ignorant decision-making that disgusts me.

Just because there's a vacuum of scientific knowledge about autism doesn't excuse the morons who insert all sorts of idiotic theories into the gap. These people are endangering their own kids and potentially the rest of us too. They need to be collectively bitch slapped until they come to their senses.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

...

Dangerous levels of ignorance are epidemic in American society today.

...

But now, these people threaten us all. A grassroots movement that opposes the systematic vaccination of children and the laws that require it is growing in America.

Take off your highly partisan hat, and check out who says what starting at the 2:45 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSg6lG3cvTE

It's not partisan to call ignorant people ignorant.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's not partisan to call ignorant people ignorant.

It is when you single out only examples of stereotypical conservatives.

Look, it really is very hateful to say:

"I think it's time to stop coddling these people. They must be marginalized, discredited and stopped from reversing the progress we've made in this country by any means necessary."

And reflects very negatively on yourself.

And following your own twisted logic, one of the "any means necessary" could involve letting those who refuse the vaccine to accept their own risk of death. What better way to marginalize, discredit, and stop someone than by death! You achieved your end goal by any means necessary.



The only way to stop such people as you would prefer it, would be to sacrifice our rights to free speech and free thinking. Is it worth it? You just can't have it both ways.

Really is funny how this fits in with what Glenn Beck was talking about on his show the other day. You have no rational logical argument to achieve your position, so you revert to the standard "progressive" tactics of saying the enemy is "wrong thinking" and a "danger". If you could be so kind to reply with an argument saying these people somehow being persuaded by those making too much "profit" - we'd have the whole trifecta!

 

[sandorski]

There was a time when getting a Vaccination was considered One's Patriotic Duty.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dangerous levels of ignorance are epidemic in American society today.

From ignorant and angry blow-hards at town hall meetings spouting off about health care reform before they've even seen page one of any bill, to creationists blocking efforts to teach evolution in our schools, to bible-pounding parents trying to stamp out sex education in our schools in favor of just telling our kids not to have sex, we have a serious number of people with a huge disconnect between fact and fiction. A huge disparity between what these people believe and what actually works. A pervasive, willful ignorance concerning science and intellectualism in general.

But now, these people threaten us all. A grassroots movement that opposes the systematic vaccination of children and the laws that require it is growing in America. These people are refusing to vaccinate their children for fear it causes autism, despite absolutely no credible evidence that supports this belief. As a result, diseases that were relegated to third world shithole countries are now making a come-back in America.

Consider: In certain parts of the US, vaccination rates have dropped so low that occurrences of some children?s diseases are approaching pre-vaccine levels for the first time ever. And the number of people who choose not to vaccinate their children (so-called philosophical exemptions are available in about 20 states, including Pennsylvania, Texas, and much of the West) continues to rise. In states where such opting out is allowed, 2.6 percent of parents did so last year, up from 1 percent in 1991, according to the CDC. In some communities, like California?s affluent Marin County, just north of San Francisco, non-vaccination rates are approaching 6 percent (counterintuitively, higher rates of non-vaccination often correspond with higher levels of education and wealth).

That may not sound like much, but a recent study by the Los Angeles Times indicates that the impact can be devastating. The Times found that even though only about 2 percent of California?s kindergartners are unvaccinated (10,000 kids, or about twice the number as in 1997), they tend to be clustered, disproportionately increasing the risk of an outbreak of such largely eradicated diseases as measles, mumps, and pertussis (whooping cough). The clustering means almost 10 percent of elementary schools statewide may already be at risk.

In May, The New England Journal of Medicine laid the blame for clusters of disease outbreaks throughout the US squarely at the feet of declining vaccination rates, while nonprofit health care provider Kaiser Permanente reported that unvaccinated children were 23 times more likely to get pertussis, a highly contagious bacterial disease that causes violent coughing and is potentially lethal to infants. In the June issue of the journal Pediatrics, Jason Glanz, an epidemiologist at Kaiser?s Institute for Health Research, revealed that the number of reported pertussis cases jumped from 1,000 in 1976 to 26,000 in 2004. A disease that vaccines made rare, in other words, is making a comeback. ?This study helps dispel one of the commonly held beliefs among vaccine-refusing parents: that their children are not at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases,? Glanz says.

?I used to say that the tide would turn when children started to die. Well, children have started to die,? Offit says, frowning as he ticks off recent fatal cases of meningitis in unvaccinated children in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. ?So now I?ve changed it to ?when enough children start to die.? Because obviously, we?re not there yet.?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience

Ignorance is a dangerous thing. These people are dangerous people. They believe things simply because they do. There is no logic here. No reasoning. Just pure magical thinking. I think it's time to stop coddling these people. They must be marginalized, discredited and stopped from reversing the progress we've made in this country by any means necessary.

How can you support in one hand, a womans choice to kill her un-born child, and in the other hand, oppose a parents choice to not give their kid a vaccination?

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dangerous levels of ignorance are epidemic in American society today.

From ignorant and angry blow-hards at town hall meetings spouting off about health care reform before they've even seen page one of any bill, to creationists blocking efforts to teach evolution in our schools, to bible-pounding parents trying to stamp out sex education in our schools in favor of just telling our kids not to have sex, we have a serious number of people with a huge disconnect between fact and fiction. A huge disparity between what these people believe and what actually works. A pervasive, willful ignorance concerning science and intellectualism in general.

But now, these people threaten us all. A grassroots movement that opposes the systematic vaccination of children and the laws that require it is growing in America. These people are refusing to vaccinate their children for fear it causes autism, despite absolutely no credible evidence that supports this belief. As a result, diseases that were relegated to third world shithole countries are now making a come-back in America.

Consider: In certain parts of the US, vaccination rates have dropped so low that occurrences of some children?s diseases are approaching pre-vaccine levels for the first time ever. And the number of people who choose not to vaccinate their children (so-called philosophical exemptions are available in about 20 states, including Pennsylvania, Texas, and much of the West) continues to rise. In states where such opting out is allowed, 2.6 percent of parents did so last year, up from 1 percent in 1991, according to the CDC. In some communities, like California?s affluent Marin County, just north of San Francisco, non-vaccination rates are approaching 6 percent (counterintuitively, higher rates of non-vaccination often correspond with higher levels of education and wealth).

That may not sound like much, but a recent study by the Los Angeles Times indicates that the impact can be devastating. The Times found that even though only about 2 percent of California?s kindergartners are unvaccinated (10,000 kids, or about twice the number as in 1997), they tend to be clustered, disproportionately increasing the risk of an outbreak of such largely eradicated diseases as measles, mumps, and pertussis (whooping cough). The clustering means almost 10 percent of elementary schools statewide may already be at risk.

In May, The New England Journal of Medicine laid the blame for clusters of disease outbreaks throughout the US squarely at the feet of declining vaccination rates, while nonprofit health care provider Kaiser Permanente reported that unvaccinated children were 23 times more likely to get pertussis, a highly contagious bacterial disease that causes violent coughing and is potentially lethal to infants. In the June issue of the journal Pediatrics, Jason Glanz, an epidemiologist at Kaiser?s Institute for Health Research, revealed that the number of reported pertussis cases jumped from 1,000 in 1976 to 26,000 in 2004. A disease that vaccines made rare, in other words, is making a comeback. ?This study helps dispel one of the commonly held beliefs among vaccine-refusing parents: that their children are not at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases,? Glanz says.

?I used to say that the tide would turn when children started to die. Well, children have started to die,? Offit says, frowning as he ticks off recent fatal cases of meningitis in unvaccinated children in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. ?So now I?ve changed it to ?when enough children start to die.? Because obviously, we?re not there yet.?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience

Ignorance is a dangerous thing. These people are dangerous people. They believe things simply because they do. There is no logic here. No reasoning. Just pure magical thinking. I think it's time to stop coddling these people. They must be marginalized, discredited and stopped from reversing the progress we've made in this country by any means necessary.

How can you support in one hand, a womans choice to kill her un-born child, and in the other hand, oppose a parents choice to not give their kid a vaccination?

Define: SHEEP