Why are people still discussing vaccines?

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

How and why is this still an issue?

People are declaring that parents should have the right not to vaccinate their children. No. They should not have that right.

My local schools send notices that our kids have to be vaccinated in order to attend school. Period. No debates. No arguments. Get your kid vaccinated or you can’t send them to be educated. Welcome to home schooling.

Yes, yes, yes, I know there are certain instances where children have health reasons that preclude vaccines. I’m not talking about little Timmy’s leukemia which will cause the vaccine to kill him. I’m talking about parents who are still afraid of a long-ago debunked study that falsely links vaccinations to autism.

There are certain requirements on parenting. If your kid is under a certain age, he or she has to ride in a car seat. No matter his or her age, they have to wear a seatbelt. This isn’t optional. Governments do not hesitate to force basic parenting obligations on adults, and frankly vaccination should be included across the board. We shouldn’t be in a situation where a trip to Disneyland results in dozens, hundreds of people becoming ill from a disease that is 100% avoidable.

PAD

135 comments on “Why are people still discussing vaccines?”

      1. We had three Republicans questions the efficacy of vaccinations today, all inserting foot within the span of a few hours.

      2. Yes we did.

        Today.

        But the simple truth is that one day is just one day. The simple fact is that there are a number of anti-vaccine screamers on the left as well. They’re out there, they’re vocal, and several members of the GOP trying to out-pander to the stupid each other on any given day does not erase that fact.

      3. I know the Right can’t resist a good “Government == Tyranny” meme. But given that most Anti-Vaxx are inveterate Hippies and Hollywoods, I do wonder why they are so quick to throw their support behind them.

        (I guess it gives them the fig leaf of “Bipartisanship”. But given that the Right is pretty much Pro-Torture and Pro-GMO, I wonder if the H&H crowd really wants their help. Enemy of my enemy, and all I guess…)

      4. David,

        Because, as noted in this post below-

        http://www.peterdavid.net/2015/02/02/why-are-people-still-discussing-vaccines/comment-page-1/#comment-897026

        -it’s as much about being against whatever Obama says is a good idea as it is anything else. Honest to god I’m starting to think that if Obama said that breathing was the best thing in the world to do, Fox News, the Teapublicans, and the Tea-pandering idiots in the GOP would be in front of the cameras within the hour explaining how it was actually best for you to hold your breath until turning blue and passing out.

  2. They’re still discussing it for the same reason they’re still discussing AIDS denialism, homeopathy, creationism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Moon Landing hoax, ghosts, psychic powers, alien abduction, feng shui, Holocaust denia, or any other pseudoscientific or pseudohistorical topic, Peter. People do not understand the empirical methodology by which matters of fact are properly examined, tested, confirmed, revised, or debunked. So even when the Scientific Method confirms or debunks an idea unambiguously, those whose ideological worldview is inconsistent with what science says continue to hold onto it on promote. Neurobiologically, we’re hardwired to develop belief in an idea, and then defend it, even in the fact of disconfirming evidence, rather than revise or abandon it, which is what we’re sometimes supposed to do.

      1. Neil has it nailed. As far as some of these people are concerned, the Bible was written by God Himself, and is therefore 100% factual. If science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong; if common sense disagrees with the Bible then common sense is wrong; and if human decency makes you challenge the Bible’s edicts against homosexuality, then human decency is wrong.

      2. There is no prohibition against “homosexuality” in the Bible (as far as I know, the word isn’t in the book at all).

        The Bible prohibits “lying with a man the same way one lies with a woman” — anal intercourse — and the prohibition is attached to the Levitical degrees [Lev., chaps. 18, 20]. (The degrees also prohibit men OR women from having sex with a beast.) Stripped of their (claimed) divinity, the degrees are health measures, primarily but not exclusively directed against consanguinity (and the scientifically verified, related birth defects).

        Ancient peoples had no microscopes and therefore no concept of genetics or disease theory; but, they did have eyes to look, and it’s clear to me at least that the Jews under Moses did have some knowledge of health problems arising from homosexual activity.

        They would not, of course, have been able to distinguish those or their actual cause from genetic defect (all would be seen as manifestation of “God’s” displeasure), so it’s not surprising they lumped them all together.

        All right: They got the explanation wrong (so did Tyco Braehe). Does that invalidate the observations or experience?

        Considering that fearless leader started this thread as an adamant demand for enforced health measures, I find it fascinating that David 2 now is steering us the other way.

        ‘Twould seem there is a contradiction here.

  3. Of course, even preventing them from attending public schools if they are not vaccinated (a perfectly sensible position) IS allowing them to chose whether or not to vaccinate their kids. Taking away that choice would require new laws and if enough people are now listening to Jenny McCarthy, Rosie O’Donnel, Bill Maher and apparently now Chris Christy for medical advice, we may need those new laws. Or, at the very least, a card that one gets when fully vaccinated that allows you to go into any public venue that chooses to insist on it (which will be all of them once the others get sued for NOT demanding it and someone get’s sick due to Whole Food’s ill considered “Come on in and cough on our produce” ad campaign (STILL better than that Nationwide insurance Superbowl ad).

  4. We’re still discussing it because there are a lot of paranoid idiots out there who choose to live in their own carefully constructed bubble reality. It’s a world full of celebrities, pseudo-science, and quack medicine saying anything from just vaccinations are bad and cause autism to vaccinations are bad, cause autism, create mental retardation, and are connected to the secret government conspiracies involving contrails, fluoridation as a weapon against the people, GMOs, high fructose corn syrup, and other strange things as both mind and population control.

    I know people, otherwise normally smart people, who wave junk science “facts” around and scream to the heavens about cove-ups, the government lying to us, and the medical community deliberately making us sick in order to line their pockets by “making us better.”

    I know people who flat deny reality. Point out that we’re living longer than ever before and that more children actually survive to adulthood now, in large part thanks to vaccines wiping out diseases that killed infants and children by the millions, and they’ll tell you that we don’t live longer and we’re killing more children with vaccines and made up medical issues than the diseases we’ve all but wiped out with vaccines did.

    Humans don’t need sci-fi aliens or supernatural monsters to come along and wipe us out. We’re our own worst enemies and our own greatest threat.

    1. The thing you’re touching on here is (at least in large part) that real science is always expressed in terms like “To the best of our knowledge…” or “Insofar as the evidence indicates…” or “The Theory of Evolution”.

      Which leaves people who have no idea what that sort of thing means, and why science is described that way to fall prey to the snake-oil salesmen who say “This study {make that “study”- mw}without any kind of valid controls or protocols, of a group consisting of three people in West Bubblegumistan, proves conclusively that seven out of ten people have Twonk’s Disease – which has no symptoms at all until its final stage when it causes fallen armpits – without knowing it!”

      “And my brand of snake oil is your only hope!”

      And when real scientists or doctors ty to point out the illegitimacy of “studies” like that, the quacks and deniers point out that “all that so-called science” has is “theories”, which everyone knows means just ideas that aren’t proven … while they, the noble heroes devoted to protecting us from the scams and swindles of “scientists” have “proven facts”!

      =========

      Excuse me, i have to go somewhere dark and quiet and whimper until the terror that people who buy that stuff are allowed to vote on questions involving my health and safety.

      1. Pooh. I must have missed an HTML tag – i didn’t mean so much to be in italics.

        I think that this will come out the way i meant it to:

        The thing you’re touching on here is (at least in large part) that real science is always expressed in terms like “To the best of our knowledge…” or “Insofar as the evidence indicates…” or “The Theory of Evolution”.

        Which leaves people who have no idea what that sort of thing means, and why science is described that way to fall prey to the snake-oil salesmen who say “This study {make that “study”- mw} without any kind of valid controls or protocols, of a group consisting of three people in West Bubblegumistan, proves conclusively that seven out of every ten people have Twonk’s Disease – which has no symptoms at all until its final stage when it causes fallen armpits – without knowing it!”

        “And my brand of snake oil is your only hope!”

        And when real scientists or doctors try to point out the illegitimacy of “studies” like that, the quacks and deniers point out that “all that so-called science” has is “theories”, which everyone knows means just ideas that aren’t proven … while they, the noble heroes devoted to protecting us from the scams and swindles of “scientists” have “proven facts”!

        =========

        Excuse me, i have to go somewhere dark and quiet and whimper until the terror at the thought that people who believe that bunkum are allowed to vote on questions involving my health and safety.

      2. Pretty much.

        There’s a classic Goon Show episode titled Lurgi Strikes Britain that I used to love. well, still do really.

        Some scam medical experts convince a character that Lurgi has struck Britain, and the only defense against catching Lurgi, proven by exhaustive research into who does and does not have this horrible disease, is playing a brass band instrument. Of course, it turns out that the “doctors” are in fact traveling brass band instrument salesman.

        When I was 17 I thought that it was hilarious in the unrealistic absurdity of how easy the scam was played on the public. At 44, I log into social media on any given day and see that it was closer to reality than you would have ever been able to convince my teenage self that it was. Hëll, given some groups I’ve seen on the web, Lurgi Strikes Britain is practically a documentary.

      4. One of the things you’re touching on here is the PROFIT motive. Most of these quacks and C-level celebrities are doing this to make a buck through speaking engagements, book sales, and similar scams. Seriously, this is the only reason anyone knows who Jenny McCarthy is any more. She’s not going to let go of her income lifeline. She literally can’t do anything else to support herself.

        Ignorant people abound, and they encourage mendacious scumbags to prey upon them.

  5. Intellectually I agree that something that provides so proven a benefit to society (and puts society at such great risk if not used) should be mandatory. Emotionally, the idea of being required to let the gov’t inject my kids brings up echoes of Tuskegee and forced sterilization programs.

    And arguing for a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body (which I do) while simultaneously arguing that people don’t get a right to choose what happens to their bodies makes me feel like Mudd’s Norman.

    My preference would be that, sure, you get to choose what happens to your body but there are consequences. First, obviously, you don’t get to come to school. To that I’d add you don’t get to go to a lot of places. Like public parks and movie theaters and Disneyland. And no, I have no idea how you would enforce those other than school.

    I like, very much, the idea of an anti-vax registry similar to the sex offender registry and requiring those on it to go to mandatory seminars that present actual factual truth about vaccines. (Borrow the GOP’s tactic of forcing pregnant women to listen to certain info before they can proceed with an abortion, but this time it’s relevant and truthful info.)

    If you’re going to present a clear, intentional danger to your neighbors (which refusing to vax your kids absolutely does) then everyone near you is going to get to know that. There is much to be said for shunning and public shame.

    In short, when someone who chooses to not vaccinate their kids there will be consequences. Onerous ones, perhaps. But it does leaves it as their choice.

    1. “And arguing for a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body (which I do) while simultaneously arguing that people don’t get a right to choose what happens to their bodies makes me feel like Mudd’s Norman.”

      Which is a valid point to a degree. I don’t think you should be able to tell me what to do with my body so long as what I’m doing has no ability to directly affect you in a negative manner. Eat what you want and skip all exercise. Doesn’t stop me from doing my thing.

      But this risking other people’s health and lives. I’m not sure if the two really equate.

      I agree that there should be consequences, but I have no idea how something like such a registry could work. You’re talking medical information being made public. That’s going to be a bigger fight than anything that we’ve seen from the anti-vac people so far if for no other reason than even some of the people who think they’re idiots would line up against that one.

      It may be simpler to vaccinate everyone than fight that fight.

      1. ahh but then you’re dealing with people who say well seatbelts and helmet laws don’t affect other people etc etc.

        But they do in terms of taxpayer costs in dealing with accidents.

        You can potentially debate that, but vaccines are proven and they are necessary.

        I wish there was a possibility to sue on behalf of children against their parents and charge them with negligence.

  6. Agree 100%, PAD. Just because some people are brain dead enough to not trust vaccines doesn’t mean they have the right to endanger the health of everyone around them.

  7. Because dûmbáššëš on the left feel the need to compete with dûmbáššëš on the right?

    1. I should note that while I read Chris Christie’s stuff earlier today, I’ve only just now read Rand Paul’s comments…

      Jesus tap dancing Christ.

      This country is so fûçkëd.

  8. A-frickin’-men. I’ve never been fond of my governor (Christie) for most of his tenure — he encapsulates nearly every bad stereotype about New Jersey that exists — but I’ve very rarely thought him an actual danger to me and to my family. That just changed.

    Gov, when you’ve got the M.D. after your name you can tell me your opinions about vaccines as if it’s something I should care about. Until then, read a few peer-reviewed articles about herd immunity, and until you’ve read them and understood them kindly Shut The Fûçk Up [TM] on the topic.

    Plenty of people above are saying all sorts of wonderful and rational things, and I thank them for it. At the moment I’m too busy being furious at politicians more than happy to fiddle while measles burns … a hole through our population that we’ve invited it into.

    1. I hate to look like I’m defending the man, but I’m (sort of) defending the man.

      It’s not just him. He said some stupid stuff, but it seem like a politician thing. Too many of them on both sides of the isle seem to not know when to grow a spine and stand for something when it’s not politically beneficial for them.

      Case in point? This flashback from the past.

      In 2008, Barack Obama called science on vaccines ‘inconclusive’

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-vaccines-views-suspicious-114837.html#ixzz3QdlW7LOh
      “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate,” Obama said in April 2008 at a rally in Pennsylvania. “Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included.”

      (Shortly after the comments, Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor supplied a video showing that Obama had pointed to a member of the audience when he said “this person included.”)

      Obama continued, “The science is right now inconclusive, but we have to research it.”
      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-vaccines-views-suspicious-114837.html

      It wasn’t inconclusive by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a noisy issue and politicians pander, even when they shouldn’t.

    2. Tim: Gov, when you’ve got the M.D. after your name you can tell me your opinions about vaccines as if it’s something I should care about.

      Luigi: Argumentum ad hominem, Tim. I could explain why this type of argument doesn’t work, but I know that you already know, and were probably speaking a bit rhetorically, but since the topic has been brought up, here’s good, exemplary proof of why having an MD after your name is NOT a good criterion for this:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/30/amid-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-doctor-revels-in-his-notoriety/

  9. And Rand Paul comes out swinging for the title of “Ðûmbášš of the Debate” on the issue.

    “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued Monday that debate over whether to allow parents more choice in the vaccination of their children was a matter of “freedom,” citing personal knowledge of kids “who wound up with profound mental disorders” after receiving immunizations for diseases like Hepatitis B and measles.”

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6599560?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

    Keep talking, Rand, we have no issue at all with you burying your own run at the brass ring.

  10. What bothers me most, in the long run, are various studies that show that when someone is presented with a large list of facts contrary to their opinion (whether it is accurate information that no, vaccines don’t cause autism, no, there weren’t weapons of mass destruction found, no, the science on man made climate change is not in dispute, WTC, JFk, etc. etc. etc.) they often dig in and hold to their opinion even more, seeing all counter evidence as more evidence of a “conspiracy’ against the “truth” and are even less likely to vaccinate their kids, wear helmets, etc. etc. I wish rational discussions and evidence won the day, but we are too emotional to think along those terms. Sometimes I think we need a combination of evidence *end* appeals to emotion, as with Roald Dahl’s letter: http://io9.com/read-roald-dahls-heart-rending-endorsement-of-measles-v-1682995322

    1. What’s worse is that it’s almost impossible to show people facts anymore. There’s been a concerted effort over the years to turn The Information Superhighway into Ðûmbášš Drive. People have worked their áššëš off to ensure that, for the faithful at least, there are no such things as facts anymore.

      There’s been an electronic bubble reality created for every cause and every conspiracy where “experts” and “facts” are pulled out of the ášš of some charlatan or another and held up as knowledge that’s every bit as viable the real facts on the matter that have been presented and vetted by real experts.

      And social media is fast becoming the prime way that Ðûmbášš Drive gets it traffic. I got supremely fed up with it a while back and vented here.

      https://jjchandler.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/pulling-back-and-backing-away/

      Short version for those who want to take a pass on a giant, stream of conscious blowing off of steam… There’s nothing that can be done about it. It’s not just people fighting to ignore facts anymore. It’s the fact that people have created their own little bubble realities to hide from facts and reality in, complete with “facts,” “experts,” and “proof” to back anything no matter how insane. I mean, hey, the freaking Tea Party is now, in January of 2015, pushing the “fact” of Obama’s Kenyan birth again. Why and how? Because they know that they have stupid people to pander to and they know that they can pull out all sorts of “facts” from the bubble reality on the web.

      It’s not new. The world has always been filled with people who believed the conspiracy no matter what the facts were. It’s just become easier to pull the wool over their own eyes and the eyes of others thanks to the world wide web and all its wonders. It’s easier to find like minded fools, it’s easier to find fake “facts” that confirm anything no matter how stupid, and it’s easier to promote the general stupidity over reality.

      As I said above, humans don’t need sci-fi aliens or supernatural monsters to come along and wipe us out. We’re our own worst enemies and our own greatest threat.

    2. I think Thomas Friedman said that the Internet is the best tool for making people smarter faster and for making people dumber faster. I agree. While we have the echo chambers of those who want to believe any pet idea regardless of the facts, most people (or at least most voters) are not buying the “he’s a secret keyan muslim” bs. Even the anti vaccine crowd isn’t a majority, from what I can tell. A loud and dangerous group, yes, but not in charge. As pessimistic as I can be (I think America has pretty much torn up the Constitution when we let government kidnappers, torturers, and murderers escape accountability) the overall evidence is that humanity is getting smarter, healthier and less violent. We have far too many counter examples and harmful trends (Iand I wouldn’t be too surprised if the consequences of climate change wipe us all out) but we are getting better, just not enough.

  11. As someone in the business of public health, I thank you for adding your voice to the cause of immunization.

    I won’t speculate on the motives of politicians, but I think for a lot of people it is a matter of weighing their own personal experience of a correlation as more meaningful than statistical inferences of causation. The first signs of autism spectrum disorders often don’t appear for a year or two or more; my own son was around 3 when we started wondering about symptoms that were eventually diagnosed as Asperger’s. Since the timing coincides with the bulk of the vaccine schedule, and since injecting anything into a baby can trigger instinctual emotions, it is convenient to associate vaccines with autism. There is also the fact that the research hasn’t provided an alternative explanation for autism that is just as straightforward. Unfortunately, that all means that the vaccine narrative about autism is the most compelling one, regardless of its scientific merits.

  13. It’s the “Fair and Balanced” effect.

    It’s become sadly common for news outlets to feel that they MUST give equal time to those with “opposing viewpoints”, even the jackhats who are so disastrously misinformed.

    Until this practice goes away, we’re gonna be up to our earlobes in this sort of idiocy. :/

    Thanks for a whole boatload of nohin’, Fox “News”!

    Wildcat

    1. “Thanks for a whole boatload of nohin’, Fox “News”!”

      And speaking of…

      Hannity: “I’m Not Trusting President Obama To Tell Me Whether To Vaccinate My Kids”

      http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/02/02/hannity-im-not-trusting-president-obama-to-tell/202389

      Yeah, because the science wasn’t already there and in place, in place, and well understood long before Obama came into office.

      The Party of No no matter how damaging it is to themselves or America.

      1. Hannity would benefit from the application of a line in my .sig on another board {No – not the one about “…ain’t nothin’ more peaceful than a dead troublemaker,” though there have been times…}:

        “Not even duct tape can fix stupid – but it can muffle the noise.”

      2. I *really* want Obama to come out and say how it really isn’t a good idea to jump off a bridge.

        Or that you shouldn’t throw yourself in front of a bus.

    2. I caught part of a discussion of some elements of this on NPR yesterday – the person being interviewed pointed out that this whole thing started up about the time that the media were cutting back on “frills”, like science reporting, and letting their science people go.

      So, when a-celebrity-who-shall-remain-unnamed (and others) began yelling that vaccines were Bad For Children, quoting a faked “study” and a lot of hysterical hooey … who covered the story?

      The reporters who hadn’t been laid off, because they worked in the “important” and “vital” entertainment divisions – whose remit is basically to make every story they cover look as big and crucial as they can.

      * le sigh *

    1. I’m really not going to bother looking because there are literally hundreds of sources that flatly and convincingly deny any linkage between vaccines and autism. And if you have children and have not had them vaccinated, your children should be put into foster care.

      PAD

    2. Okay, fine. I read them. One is an interview with a doctor whose research was unable to be duplicated by any other researcher and has been thoroughly discredited. And another is an essay from a mother who simply declares that vaccines caused autism without a shred of actual proof.

      Why in hëll does anyone listen to these people? Why is it that when thousands of accredited experts tell people one thing, they seek out the handful of contrarian voices and declare, “No, no, these other people must not know what they’re talking about. Let us instead give credence to random parents and the one guy in a thousand who provides unsupported studies.”

      Jesus.

      PAD

      1. Again, it’s the Belief Engine, Peter.

        Read the books and columns of Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer, who has examined this in detail.

        Good examples include Why People Believe Weird Things, How We Believe, and The Believing Brain.

      2. There is a very good book titled, “Don’t believe everything you think; the six errors we make in critical thinking.” The first error is that people prefer stories to statistics. Have thousands of documents showing that there is no statistical evidence that vaccines cause autism, and it doesn’t have the convincing emotional punch of “Here’s the story of my child suffering, and it’s the fault of vaccines.” That’s why I think we need to spread the emotional, true stories of those who have lost children to diseases (such as the Roald Dahl letter) in addition to the facts. You’re and an accomplished writer PAD; I think you could write a convincing story about this issue without coming off as a lecture, I just don’t know what venue would be best.

      3. Why? Because, in the words of a certain Centauri Ambassador:

        “Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of [them].”

        And I echo the sentiment in spite of the fact that I could serve as a cautionary tale for the other side, having apparently had a rather nasty reaction to a vaccine received many years ago while still in childhood. Or, perhaps it was a coincidence. Thing being, it didn’t alter parents’ nor my resolve to go ahead with future vaccinations as they became available.

    4. I’m on the autism spectrum myself, specifically Asperger’s, and yes I was vaccinated. I see the vaccinations as causing my autism about as likely as comics causing juvenile delinquency in the 1950s. The one good thing about that one study linking vaccinations to autism is that it seems to have resulted in so many studies proving the opposite that we now have one thing that we can conclusively say does NOT cause autism.

      1. As I get older, I find myself becoming more paranoid and distrustful of authority. I am sincerely relieved to read that the vaccines were analyzed and proven safe.

        Mr. Nystrom, thank you for your kind reply.

        (Written from the static warp bubble reality at the crossroads of the Information Superhighway and Ðûmbášš Drive.)

      2. I’m an Aspie. My daughter is autistic, as is my younger sister.

        Even if we grant this ludicrous claim of some nebulous linkage between vaccines and autism, are people really prepared to say that their children would be better off dead of some horrid disease than being like us?

        I find that rather insulting, to say the least.

    1. While I’m sure some of them are right-wing wackoes, I rather doubt that all of them are. Maybe not even most of them. The loudest voices of the anti-vax movement have generally not been those terribly friendly to conservative thought, unless one has a definition of the right-wing that includes, Jenny McCarthy, Bill Maher, Rosie O’Donnel, RFK Jr, Jim Carrey, Mayim Bailik, and other celebrity nit-wits. I’ll give you Donald Trump though. No, really I’ll give him to you. Please. Take him.

  16. Similar to little Timmy who has leukemia which will cause the vaccine to kill him, there could be other medical conditions that result in adverse effects.
    I think everyone should be vaccinated, but with a vaccine that will not hurt them.

    2. There are no guarantees in life except that it will someday come to an end. If an individual is at particular risk by getting vaccinated then by all means that person should not get a vaccine. However, such a risk is minimal for most people–if not zero.

  17. Part of this is “There must be a cause, and THIS is it!” syndrome.

    A number of years ago, autism rates skyrocketed. Realizing that there ‘Must be a CAUSE!” everyone looked around, and immunizations was one thing most of those with autism had in common. (Yes, I realize that, even in the controversy of today, immunization rates are in the 90+% range, so Everyone would have had that in common…) So, the linkage between autism and immunizations was formed.

    It could have nothing to do with the massive broadening of the autism diagnosis to include just about any child behavior problem under the sun (and EVERY child has SOME behavior problem!) and the money that big pharma was making treating all those new autistic kids. It just HAD to be immunizations!

    1. To a degree you’re correct on the correlation thing. 15 or 20 years ago my son would not have been diagnosed with autism, it would simply have been a different diagnosis. Since then, the issue my son has, treated not with medication but simply by learning new ways for him to learn and for us to deal with him when his wiring wants to short out over something, was determined to be a minor form of autism.

      The idiotic anti-vax crowd doesn’t look at the autism figures and the other figures and say, “I see, the figures went up here while going down here and were obviously nothing more that the reclassification of these issues.”

      No, it truly idiotic fashion they look at one set of numbers, ignore everything else, and leap to the conclusion that they most want to be true rather than what actually is true. And then they set out to make everyone else a little less safe thanks to their ignorance and stupidity.

    2. CharlieE brings up a valid point. I have often thought that a lot of the autism diagnoses being given to kids were based less on actual verifiable science and more on someone’s ill-considered ideas on how children should behave, based in turn on their misguided thoughts on what is “normal.” Like, if your kid gets excited easily and has a “problem” settling down, then they’re hyper-active and need medication. If they get distracted in school then they have Attention Deficit Disorder and need medication. And I keep wanting to tell the people that advocate this, “No, they’re completely normal kids. They get excited easily, they have a lot of energy, and they get bored with things that don’t engage them, like a lot of the ritualized lesson plans they encounter at school. They don’t need your claptrap diagnosis or your medications. You need to adjust your expectations of what a normal child behaves like.”

      I’m not saying that autism isn’t a thing, but I do agree with Charlie that for a long time, autism was a catch-all for any behavior that doesn’t fit someone’s notion of what “normal” kids do.

      1. I might have been inclined to agree with this at one point, until my son was diagnosed and I did more learning about the topic. While the behavioral symptoms are the most obvious and most familiar, there is a lot more to autism than the behaviors. There are sensory and perceptual differences that result in outcomes that can be predicted and objectively measured. There is real science behind the diagnostic criteria that goes beyond “this kid isn’t behaving like the other kids.”

      2. Before the “autistic spectrum”, it was for a short time ADD/ADHD. My brother was ‘diagnosed’ with it, and so were many other kids. Not because they had a real problem, but because this country is all about pill-popping to solve every problem imaginable.

        But otherwise, yeah, the way things are going, EVERY kid is going to be diagnosed as autistic before long, and that’s certainly a disservice to the those families who need help.

      3. Craig: that’s precisely the point. When people who call themselves experts (but really aren’t) start using the label of autism to cover so many different things that actually aren’t autism, they do everyone a disservice because they blur the lines of what autism really is or is not. And they allow stupid people to make up their own reasons for why autism exists and what causes it, and then we have arguments like the one that’s come up now…whether parents should have the right to choose not to vaccinate their kids.

        I would be curious to learn how many truly autistic kids came about through the use of fertility drugs, to parents who chose to wait beyond the time when a woman is of optimum child-bearing age. Maybe that’s the link, or maybe not. I don’t know but it might be beneficial for someone to look into that.

        We do know for sure that it’s not vaccination.

      4. There was a study in Britain (I believe) where they gave doctors the case files for kids from the 50s and asked them to diagnose them. The rate of autism diagnosis was roughly equivalent to the rate today. That lends a lot of credence to the idea that the autism epidemic is largely about diagnosis, not actual occurrence.

      5. David,
        I also sometimes wonder if we don’t also have a self fulfilling prophecy effect – the kid has been diagnosed as autistic, and we are now going to force enough drugs and expectations to be sure that he is good and autistic!

        My brother-in-law is a pharmacological psychiatrist, and he diagnosed his son as autistic. After their ‘treatment’ he is now barely able to function as a janitor as Mickey D’s, when I remember just how brilliant, if a little focused, he was when he was younger. He reminded me a lot of myself at those ages.

        We discussed this once. They will no longer speak to my wife and I…

      6. I think there is something wrong with any diagnosis that takes a child who is clearly above average intelligence and WAY above average creativity and imagination and labels him as autistic. Granted, I haven’t been with him 24/7 but the only exceptionalities I see with your kids are good ones.

      7. If your brother-in-law attempted to medicate autism, he’s a quack and his medical license, if any, should be pulled immediately before he can ruin anyone else.

        Autism is a neurological disorder. It is not amenable to medication; the only “treatment”, barring some sort of futuristic nanosurgery on brain tissue, is to assist the autistic in dealing with the world (coping mechanisms, education on non-verbal communication, and such). Drugging someone who is autistic is pointless at best – at worst it’s abusive.

    3. CharlieE: A number of years ago, autism rates skyrocketed. Realizing that there ‘Must be a CAUSE!” everyone looked around, and immunizations was one thing most of those with autism had in common. (Yes, I realize that, even in the controversy of today, immunization rates are in the 90+% range, so Everyone would have had that in common…) So, the linkage between autism and immunizations was formed.

      Luigi: If only those pseudoscience adherents had been made aware that studies have been done on communities in which no one was vaccinated, and found that the rate of autism was the same, which would not be the case if it was caused by vaccines.

      (A previous example of this same illustration was the notion that silicone breast implants caused connective tissue disorders in women, a falsehood that resulted in DuPont declaring bankruptcy, despite the fact that when women without breast implants were examined statistically, it was found they had the same rates of connective tissue disorders.)

  18. Also, the simple truth was, immunizations didn’t really seem necessary. There were no big outbreaks, we had cured all those nasty diseases, anyway, Right???

    Why not show your rebellion to authority by not getting immunized!

    I hear doctors are getting a lot of kids in for their shots now…

      1. In case you don’t know (and/or it’s not obvious), the data that the graphic is based on word frequency; the 750 most used words in the page, scaled according to relative number of appearances.

        Notice that your name, Peter’s name and mine seem to be about the most frequent – after “February” – which appears at least once per post) and “People”…

  20. Why do people still debate evolution? Since nothing makes sense in biology without it.

    There are people who believe the vaccine, itself, is harmful. I agree with you that their evidence is thin, but I know enough about biology to know that a few might be adversely affected by it, in the same sense that there are egg or peanut allergies. And, if it’s YOUR KID who gets messed up by an injection he or she was FORCED to take, and you’re in a position to scream about it, don’t you think you would?

    Some vaccines are manufactured in eggs (it might not be the vaccine that’s the problem at all). Like with everything else in science, it takes careful investigation to nail down the cause of this or that malady, and a pìššëd-off parent probably is not the best person to put in charge of the inquiry. But, it’s a free country, and you have the right to bìŧçh. Occasionally that means the bìŧçh will go too far.

  21. I’m getting to the point with the anti-vax crowd that I just want to respond to them with one of two bits.

    #1- You say vaccines cause mental disorders. Most of you and most of your sources were themselves vaccinated. By your own logic, you have a mental disorder and therefore have a credibility issue when it comes to matters requiring the mental capacity for higher understanding of facts, figures, and reasoning.

    #2- You are against vaccines. So what you’re saying is that you’re for dead children. I mean, you say that there’s a chance that a vaccine can lead to autism, even though the odds of it doing so are spectacularly low, but we know for a fact that the diseases that the vaccines have helped to wipe out once killed children by the tens of thousands every year, and we know from the outbreak we’re seeing now that children without vaccines can still fall victim to those diseases even in these modern times.

    So in order to save a statistically insignificant number of children each year from the possibility of, sometimes very mild, autism, you would rather condemn hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of infants and children to painful deaths or lifelong suffering.

    Bravo, you’re an idiot.

    2. Jenny McCarthy pretty much said she favored diseases coming back, though she hedged by saying that it would be vaccine makers’ fault:

      “I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their fûçkìņg fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s šhìŧ. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism.”

      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-jenny-mccarthys-own-words/

      She’s not just an idiot. She’s a baby-killing monster.

  22. Here’s something I learned doing billing services for a phone company (and yes, it applies to this topic): If 99 people tell a customer that something is $29.95, and one person (let’s call them Fred) tells that customer that same thing is $19.95, the customer will treat Fred’s word like the direct Word of God, the 11th Commandment, and ignore or forget the 99 people who all said the same thing that the customer doesn’t like.

    People who want to believe vaccines are bad will ignore the hundreds or thousands of medical professionals who say they’re not bad in favor of the one uniformed crackpot who insists they are. Sadly, that’s human nature much of the time.

    1. James: your anecdote is certainly true, but there is one difference I would point out…in this case, what’s being debated is not scientific or medical knowledge, but the price of something as represented by an employee of a company. Whether or not the company has the right to enforce the true price over what an employee may have mistakenly quoted is a legal, not a scientific, matter. In such cases, the company will usually either choose to accept the lower price or be forced to (laws vary from place to place)as a customer service measure and to avoid the negative publicity resulting from a mis-quoted price. And people know this to be true, so it’s not really the same thing as the vaccine “debate”. In those cases, they are choosing…without any reliable proof…to believe in crackpots instead of scientists. That’s stupid on their part; rolling the dice on a mis-quoted price is not.

  23. Childhood vaccination, I’m all for it.

    Flu vaccines, that’s another issue. My uncle got severely ill on this year’s vaccine, to the point he was briefly hospitalized. I seriously doubt that anyone in my family will ever get another flu vaccination.

    But the childhood disease vaccinations, yes, they should be mandatory.

    1. This year’s flu vaccine isn’t as effective, as scientists guessed wrong on one of the three or four strains that went into the vaccine this year.

      But to go so far as to say you’ll never get a flu vaccination again as a result?

      2. Even the CDC acknowledges that there are rare allergic reactions possible to the flu vaccine. That doesn’t automatically mean everybody in your family will be allergic as well, however.

        In the end, you’re betting on a rare reaction happening again (with all the variables of why the reaction even occurred) versus all of you catching the flu the ol’ fashioned way and possibly ending up in the hospital anyway.

      3. I’ve had like one flu shot in manymany years.

        I have had the flu about three times in that period.

        That shot made me sick (relatively mildly) for a couple days, like all the ones i had before i stopped taking them did.

        Adding that to the fact that i have a SERIOUS needle phobia …

      6. However, i do not advocate against other getting flu vaccinations – in fact i encourage anyone who either has had them and know they didn’t react badly, or has never had them, and doesn’t know (on the basis that negative reactions are fairly rare, and that even what i get is basically a day or so of feeling not-quite well).

        If nothing else, if enough people get the vaccination – and if they guessed right this year – “herd immunity” will reduce my chances of getting it.

        I will also point out that your uncle and i are only two data points … and<blockquote.The plural of "anecdote" is not "Data".

    2. A week in the hospital, Mike, with viral pneumonia deriving from an influenza infection should cure you of your needle aversion; and, yes, for MOST people, it’s a very good idea to be vaccinated.

      The bottom line, however, Tom, is that, if YOU are vaccinated, no matter how many times you go to Disneyland, you WON’T catch the measles.

      So, it would appear you have no standing to insist that others be vaccinated per some compulsory requirement of law.

      After all, you have the key to the jail in your own pocket.

      1. Come again? I don’t understand you. What are you talking about? I AM vaccinated against measles.

        Are you saying flu vaccines should be mandatory?

        Someone help me understand this post.

      2. As I understand the original post, it’s not about whether vaccination is a good thing but whether schools should be able to force, via a denial-of-service attack, pupils to be vaccinated.

        Yes, in the overwhelming majority of cases, pupils should be vaccinated; but, when you reach the issue of forcing someone to do it, then the question becomes: In what way are YOU injured if Joe’s (or Jenny McCarthy’s) child is not vaccinated? The answer is: Not at all — IF you already are vaccinated (which you say you are).

        So, if your child goes to school (or to Disneyland, or anywhere else), provided it has been vaccinated, it makes no difference how bad a case of measles the other child has — YOUR child cannot catch the measles.

      3. “So, if your child goes to school (or to Disneyland, or anywhere else), provided it has been vaccinated, it makes no difference how bad a case of measles the other child has — YOUR child cannot catch the measles.”

        BZZZZTTTT WRONG ANSWER

        Even a doctor will tell you no vaccine is 100% effective all the time, but the unvaccinated are a danger to everyone else. It’s part of the price for living in a society, it’s your obligation to be vaccinated…

      4. Whoops. Not only did i mess up the HTML, but the reply is under the wrong comment. Look up for my response to your opening sentence.

      5. Bzzzzt, Bladestar: Wrong answer.

        A vaccination “takes” or it doesn’t. I’m one of those rare persons with a smallpox vaccination that may not have worked (I have no visible scar on my left arm). But, if the vaccination doesn’t take, it’s YOUR obligation to go back and get another one.

        Furthermore, the issue was standing to complain — the focus is on YOUR stake in the controversy, not some theoretical person’s. So, the first question to ask is: Did YOU get your vaccination?

        If your answer is “no,” the contributory negligence is your own, not Jenny McCarthy’s. If your answer is “yes,” then you have no standing to complain because you’re protected no matter what Jenny does. If your answer is “yes, but it didn’t work,” the next question is: Did YOU get your vaccination AGAIN?

        The judge is not going to let you out of the loop. After all, if Jenny’s child is unvaccinated and yours is vaccinated but the vaccination didn’t work and you made no effort to correct that, both children are an equal liability against the other.

        Finally, we need to remember we are talking here about measles, not smallpox or polio. For the host of those who, like me, DON’T have a measles vaccination (because I’ve had the measles), the punishment is two weeks of home schooling and being a genuine pain in your mother’s áršë. That’s hardly a terrible trade-off if your child is the one that has a serious reaction to the injection either because of the vaccine itself or (more likely) because it was cultured in eggs.

      6. You seem to hint at it, but are you claiming that the child is equally culpable if they are not vaccinated because of extreme youth or a compromised immune system? That victims deserve what they get because, well, they are already victims?

        And while two weeks of home schooling is the likely outcome, death is also possible. Not every drunk driver gets in an accident, but it is still something we feel strongly enough about to try and stop.

      7. I sense the objection is misplaced.

        This issue just came up with regard to an Illinois day-care center where the staff was caring for 1-year old infants (too young to be vaccinated). The center now will require its workers to be vaccinated.

        A couple points to be made here:

        The workers are adults; they have full capacity to weigh the risks against the benefits.

        No one HAS to work at the day-care center. If the policy be objectionable, get another job.

        The policy makes no sense for someone like me who is immune not for having a vaccination but because I once had the measles. I doubt I would have any significant reaction to the shot (I get a flu shot every year; it makes my arm ache for a day or two). However, my benefit from it would be zero, so why take the risk? Why be compelled to?

        This last raises the key issue for your main objection: The proposal was for ALL SCHOOLCHILDREN to be vaccinated or suffer denial of service. Adults were not included, nor infants under a year of age. Yes, there MAY be one or two school-aged children in that universe who suffer from a compromised immune system, but its probably precisely THOSE children who SHOULDN’T have the shot.

        At minimum, such cases do involve genuine weighing of risks against reward.

        So, the epidemiologist has to ask: How many children might have a reaction against the shot, and how many will be sent to school with compromised immune systems? When you hone the universe down to those groups, you do run into cost-risk-benefit analyses (whether that sounds heartless or not).

        Look at it another way: If it were just as simple as saying: All at public school must have their shots, the correct procedure is to bring in a squad of nurses unannounced with a bucket of vaccine, shout, “Ten Hut!” have all the kids line up, bare their arms, and march ’em through the line. That’s exactly how it’s done in the army (you DON’T get a choice!).

        But, that only works in the army. The sergeant is fully within his authority eventually to order you to charge a machine-gun nest so that someone else in the squad can sneak up on the side and toss in a grenade. If Sarge has that authority, he certainly can protect the squad from the beginning by ordering all to get shots before they ever reach the battlefield, and to hëll with those who might have a reaction (he had the right to order your death any way).

        Schools don’t work that way, and the fact they don’t work that way is proof positive the shots are not 100% safe. The superintendent is no more listening to the research physicians than Jenny McCarthy is; rather, he listens to the lawyers and decides how best to cover his butt. By using denial of service to coerce parents to get shots, he protects himself from the legal risk of an outbreak of measles while passing the risk of an adverse reaction back to the parents.

        And that’s how bureaucracies work.

        The alternative is to place the responsibility squarely in the hands of the parents from the beginning. We ASSUME they have the interests of the child at heart (otherwise, they wouldn’t care about being barred from the school). And, if they also have a one-year-old infant in the house, they have to think about it too. If they know a child of theirs has a compromised immune system (AIDS?), that also has to figure in. But, if your child has AIDS, my guess is that whether it realistically will be exposed to measles at school is among the least of your worries. Indeed, you might not want that child in the school system at all (so, again, in terms of standing, we have a theoretical child).

        It’s probably not possible to make your school system (or public-health system either) 100% safe for everyone, and it’s certainly not economical — there’s always going to be some kid somewhere with a milk or peanut allergy, and what do the administrators do then? Ban milk and sandwiches from the lunchroom?

        A judge only cares whether the school officials took REASONABLE care to guard their charges when they were in loco parentis. The superintendent knows this and asks: “How best can I cover my ášš?” So, the policy comes down, whether it’s a good policy or not, and most will comply because, GENERALLY, it is a good idea; but, some will not, and then Jenny and Rosie and all their ilk, PLUS the parents of the child with AIDS, will have their chance to present their reasons and, perhaps, have them tested. Some may be given exemptions, others not; but, don’t be surprised when, after she’s denied consideration, Jenny McCarthy or Rosie O’Donnell then goes on national television to scream like a banshee.

        You’re in a no-win situation.

        Bottom line: You and Peter and Jerry and everyone else on this blog has every right to tell me Jenny McCarthy’s a jáçkášš (I already know Rosie O’Donnell is). When you take the leap from that to saying, “Because Jenny’s a jáçkášš, ROBERT is required to immunize his kid no matter what or we will not allow it to be educated, that steps over the line, especially when you and yours will be fully protected by the simple expedient of getting your inoculation — what you’re DEMANDING that I do in place of that.

      8. Guys, seriously–don’t bother talking to Crim. I stopped long ago. I’m pretty much close to disemvoweling him so we don’t have to be subjected to him anymore.

        PAD

  24. So, Rand Paul now claims he didn’t actually say what he’s on video saying (and has said before) while claiming it was all the “liberal media” making it up.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand-paul-clarifies-vaccine-stance-rips-liberal-media-misreporting/

    So, basically, he is, once again, aping the Sarah Palin technique that’s helped to make her such a joke over the years. At this rate, good old Rand should eliminate himself from serious contention in the Republican primaries before they actually have any.

      1. No – he’s playing the Gene Talmadge card – “Who you going to believe? Me – or them lyin’ Atlanta papers?”

        Or, perhaps, the tactic of the guy whose wife came to the office and found him playing mattress polo with is secretary – “Who are you going to believe – me, or your lying eyes?”

        And he figures his base is gullible enough to buy it – as witnessed by all the comments on other sites about how the Eevul Librul Meed-ya are lying or quoting him out of context.

      2. He’s more like trying to play the Sarah Palin game, blame the “lamestream” media and hope for cover by the conservative punditry and Fox News rolling out a #FoxNewsFacts defensive, but I don’t think he pulls it off as well or even illicit the same level of support for it she did. Palin could get away with breaking down and needing a good, strong, conservative media shoulder to cry on about being picked on by that mean old reality and still get called a strong candidate/presidential hopeful/whatever. Guys can’t do the same. He’s going to short circuit his presidential aspirations in short order if he plays that game now as he has in the past.

  27. This is a matter control and pure paranoia, and “feeling” over reason. Some folks, and a number of folks who inhabit the right (coff…FOX NEWS…coff) have really spent time whipping this sentiment up, like to imagine that the government is out to get them. And they’ve decided that childhood vaccines are a means to that end. Somehow. There are others who are just contrary by nature and don’t want to vaccinate their kinds simply because other people tell them it’s a good idea. I’ve heard grown adults make a similar stand against, get this, washing their hands after using the bathroom for the same reason. There are people out there who are willing to spend upwards of 5 grand to refit their trucks to take deisel fuel expressly so they can blow black smoke in people’s faces (check youtube; this is a real thing). Some folks, as my grandma used to say, are just ornery.

    And then there are, sorry to say, the mothers who believe, because they’ve given birth, they automatically know best regarding every aspect of their child’s welfare. By magic, apparently. These are hard to contradict, because our natural inclination, I think, is to cut mothers some slack. But, for instance, my wife’s mother, for a while, refused to take her to the doctor when she had pneumonia as a child because she “knew better” and, as a result, by wife has persistent lung problems to this day.

    In short, people, frequently, are idiots. And if there are idiots, unfortunately, there are people willing to pander to them for their own ends.

  28. What amazes me is people seem firmly anti-vaccine no matter what any doctors say (on a DAILY SHOW segment with Democrats/liberals who refuse to have their children vaccinated, one mother sounded proud when she said, “You could line up doctors all around the building who said vaccines are good, and I still wouldn’t do it”) — but they seem to trust doctors in almost other areas. I haven’t heard people refusing to believe doctors when they say smoking can cause cancer, or fatty foods lead to heart trouble and obesity; yet somehow vaccines are the one area they seem to think doctors are wrong about. Go figure.

  29. Why did people(specifically, guys) listen to Jenny McCarthy about vaccination in the first place?

    Because she was naked in Playboy and looked hot. And if they continue to listen to her and support her, then maybe she’ll be pleased and…uh…get naked again and maybe…um…do a pørņø or something.

    I fully realize how stupid that sounds, but believe it or not, that’s pretty much it.

    1. I don’t know what made people listen to Jenny McCarthy in the first place, but it wasn’t being in PLAYBOY. Men aren’t reading PLAYBOY, watching movies from Wicked Pictures, or looking at Victoria’s Secret catalogs and thinking “I should take medical advice from these women.”

      My guess is that it’s a combo of her being famous (which had an odd authority for many people) and her having an autistic child (which doesn’t make her an expert on causes of autism, but may make her seem like one).

      1. You’ve got it backwards: guys weren’t listening to her because they were thinking “medical advice” when they saw her bøøbìëš in Playboy; they listened because they thought she was so hot that they’d listen to or watch anything she did in the hopes that maybe a body part might pop out. It’s basically the same reason why so many guys were always watching Paris Hilton no matter what she did, despite the obvious evidence that she was talentless in everything except amateur pørņ.

    2. Nope. Not even close to the reason. As James pointed out, no one is looking at Jenny McCarthy’s naked breasts from however many years ago and thinking that they should be taking medical advice from her, let alone i the hopes that she gets naked again. Beyond that, it fails to take into account the large number of straight women, gay men, and people who respond to statements like that with a legitimate “Jenny who?” that make up the anti-vax movement.

      I mean, I’m more than willing to credit Michele Bachmann with any number of dûmbášš things she’s actually said, but even I’m not going to attribute her anti-vax stances to be from wanting to see how well Jenny McCarthy has or has not kept up her naked body through 2015 and beyond.

      1. I made clear in my first post that I was referring strictly to straight men who saw her in Playboy(and yes, you’d be surprised how many of them would still follow her for years just for that reason); I wasn’t trying to answer why gay men, women, etc. would listen to her.

      2. “Why did people(specifically, guys) listen to Jenny McCarthy about vaccination in the first place?”

        “I made clear in my first post that I was referring strictly to straight men who saw her in Playboy”

        Not really…

        “You’ve got it backwards: guys weren’t listening to her because they were thinking “medical advice” when they saw her bøøbìëš in Playboy; they listened because they thought she was so hot that they’d listen to or watch anything she did in the hopes that maybe a body part might pop out.”

        And it’s still a ridiculous point. No one is watching her discuss anti-vax nuttiness on a recorded, network television show with hopes that something pops out. Certainly no one is actually taking her medical advice in the hopes that while giving it something pops out.

        If you truly believe that men are following her anti-vax advice for that reason, you’re either 13 or you stopped mentally developing at 13.

    3. In general, I think people are influenced by what they see in the media because of the subconscious way we treat information as having the imprimatur of validity or truth when it is presented in a medium where we get our news and other information. In particular, I think we are influenced by these people because skepticism, reserving judgment and double-checking the facts are the exception rather than the rule, and that what we actually do is assume that those who present the information went about vetting it properly before promulgating it, much as I did with the crap Oliver Stone put in JFK, or the stuff Budd Hopkins put in his alien abduction books, back before I learned about scientific skepticism.

  30. Neither. I simply acknowledge that there are a rather large number of guys who would follow/listen to her(or any other model who got a substantial response from appearing in Playboy)about anything she said or did about any subject just because she appeared in Playboy. And yes, a big chunk of them certainly would hope to see something pop out regardless of the circumstances. I never claimed this was intelligent behavior!

    If you can’t bring yourself to believe that guys like this actually exist, I suspect you live in a bit of a bubble, or maybe you just hormonally stopped developing before you hit 13 and therefore you can’t figure out why any guy would be interested in ladies in Playboy to begin with.

  31. I’ve noticed something in the comments essentially defending the GOP leaders/politicians with their anti-vaccination comments that the defenders are obviously missing. Unlike the “lefty” CELEBRITIES who are anti-vaccination (or at least, “vaccination-choicers”), the GOPers who’ve been (ironically) defending the “choicer” movement are in a position to MAKE LAWS to allow parental “choice.” The celebrities can go on all the talk shows they want to, but, in the end, they can’t write a single law or vote in the legislature/Congress to make policy–unlike Christie (who, it should be noted, has veto-power as Governor; he certainly used it on the marriage equality issue a couple of years ago) or Rand Paul (who can introduce a Senate bill to allow parents to opt out of vaccinating their children).

    When the likes of Bill Maher or Jenny McCarthy actually decide to run for–and win–Senate or House or Governor or President, THEN their stances (on all issues) can be considered to be equal to Christie and Paul. Until then, these people, despite their celebrity status, are just private citizens who, under the Constitution, are free to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe. If you don’t like what these celebs are saying, then you can stop watching or listening to or reading their works (and certainly stop “following” them on Facebook, Twitter, etc) and offer YOUR position to your friends to counter the celebs’ positions and, if that fails and you feel strongly enough that the celebs are truly out of their minds but your friends insist on forwarding the celebs’ positions to you, you can always “unfriend” your pals. Unfortunately, we can’t “unfriend” politicians quite so easily. Politicians are elected for specific terms, and just because they utter stupid, unscientific crap, that alone isn’t enough to remove them from office. You have to hope their constituents come to their senses and vote them out of office. Unfortunately, that can be anywhere from 2 to 6 years, depending on the term of office.

    Oh, and for what it’s worth, Christie’s anti-vaccination stance came under criticism for the way he attempted to force a quarantine on a nurse who’d been in an Ebola area just a few months ago. And Ebola is, by all standards, far less communicable than measles (or most other diseases for which vaccines are available).

  32. JosephW, both Obama, and Hillary, questioned the link between vaccines and autism. In their defense, it was back in 2008. Of course, a tiny bit of research even in 2008 would have been enough to convince most fair minded people that there was no there, there. And yet, some of those now tut tutting about anti-vaccine foolishness allowed people to spout that ignorance without any decent response.

    But now it’s 2015 and foolish GOP politicians are not jumping on board making vaccines mandatory while Democrats are…um…

    Garrett: Does the President think this should be federally mandated, vaccines across the country for this set and other sets of childhood diseases?
    Earnest: Well, Major, we do have a tradition and there’s a long track record in this country of these kinds of health issues being administered by state and local officials. This is something that we went through at the end of last year related to Ebola, that the monitoring that was in place was something that was strongly recommended by federal public health officials at the CDC, but ultimately, we are relying on state and local partners to carry out that monitor.
    And that is a good indication of how federal public health officials and state and local public health officials work together; that the federal government can be relied upon for good scientific advice — there’s a whole wealth of institutional knowledge that’s contained at the CDC, that there are significant resources that are devoted by the federal government to doing the kind of research at the NIH and other places where we can make sure that the best scientific advice that is known to man can be made available to state and local public health officials — and ultimately that’s the way that this system has operated for generations.
    Garrett: Should it change?
    Earnest: Well, what I also know is true is that there is a lot of case law around this, and this is something that people have challenged I think on both sides of this issue. And as I mentioned earlier, I did have a chance to speak to the President about this issue shortly before the briefing, and he was clear that we don’t need a new law, we need people to exercise common sense.
    Garrett: The federal government does not need to establish a mandate for vaccines, just recommendations and advice to states and parents on the facts?
    Earnest: I think what the President is saying is we shouldn’t have to, that the science is clear. And it is irresponsible for people to not get their children vaccinated — not only because it puts their children at risk of getting the measles, it also puts at risk other children in their community, if it’s infants who are too young to get the vaccine, or children who have compromised immune systems that they can’t get the vaccine. So people need to take responsibility — not just for their kids, but for the kids in their community.

    Doesn’t sound all that different than what Christie or Paul are saying, does it? Apparently only Mississippi and West Virginia, those two liberal enclaves, don;t allow exceptions for kids to be vaccinated before attending public school.

    This would be a GREAT opportunity for a candidate–Hillary or any GOP candidate not named Christie or Paul–to be the first to point out that the Obama position makes no sense since, if common sense were enough we would be in this pickle, and therefore he or she will make it their goal to make sure every american child is protected against the horrors of infectious disease. They would not lose any votes because the eventual nominee on the other side will almost certainly be forced to adopt the same stance.

    Mark–I think you are mistaken in thinking that most or even a significant number of men were influenced by Jenny McCarthy for any reason. Her platforms have been mostly in women’s magazines and on women’s chat shows like THE VIEW. I believe the women/men ratio of VIEW viewers to be around 3 to 1.

    Since Jenny, at least as far as her opinions go, seems to be more a woman thing than a guy thing, the question really ought to be Why did people(specifically, women) listen to Jenny McCarthy about vaccination in the first place?

    I don’t know. The good news is that the actual number of actual anti-vax people is pretty small, unless one includes those opposed to mandatory vaccines, in which case you have to add the President. Personally, I would not but it’s your call.

    1. Oh, I fully realize that out of the total number of people that listen to Jenny McCarthy, the women certainly outnumber the men. I just explained why the straight guy part of that total bother to pay attention to her(although some people apparently can’t handle that explanation–I’m guessing these folks also think straight guys follow Miley Cyrus because they appreciate her “art” and not at all because she simulates sex on stage).

      1. So you think that the straight white guy reasons MUST be different from the straight white woman reasons? Why? Or do you believe that all the women who listened to her did so for sexual reasons? It isn’t that people can’t handle your argument, it’s that you offer not logic or evidence and get huffy if anyone points that out.

        You seem to regard straight guys as people solely motivated by sexual urges, even when whatbtheybarevteporting doing is also something women and gay men do…presumably for different reasons.

      2. “whatbtheybarevteporting”

        ???

        “even when what they are reporting doing is also something women and gay men do”

        Do I get a prize for solving the puzzle?

  33. Hey, remember when autocorrect would actually correct it to something that,while not what you intended, was actually a real word?

    Or maybe I will just never get the hang of this onscreen keyboard.

    You were close. “Even when what they were reportedly doing”. Huh. I watched while I typed that and almost the same thing happened. It tries to complete the word “what” which, I’m pretty sure, I could have done on my own, and as I keep on typing everything gets mashed up into an unintelligible mess altogether different from the unintelligible mess I intended to write.

  34. Bill, I never claimed to know why any woman with an IQ over that of kelp would listen to McCarthy’s ignorant nonsense(I’m guessing the reason is the one cited earlier in this topic–just plain stupidity). I also don’t think that 100% of straight guys(why did you stick that “white” in there? I never claimed that the straight guys paying attention to McCarthy were all white) are motivated strictly by sexual urges…but, no matter how many folks don’t like to hear it,a big chunk of them are. That’s the prime reason why those particular straight guys follow talent and/or intelligence-deficient people like Miley Cyrus, Iggy Azalea, Ke$ha, Paris Hilton, Jenny McCarthy, et al. Because they saw them getting naked(or extremely close to it), got their horndog switch turned on, and proceeded to follow them anywhere. I exclude Lady Gaga from that list because now that we’ve seen her in her de-glamoured state, I suspect her set of straight male followers collectively went “Whaaahh?” and left.

    And as for me being “huffy”…if you did read the posts responding to me, Jerry Chandler hurled some unprovoked insults at me at the tail end of his(I have to wonder if he does this to people face-to-face, or how many teeth he has left if he does), so he received some right back. If he(or anyone else) expects to be treated as if they’re sacrosanct, then, boy, are they dealing with the wrong person.

    1. “…if you did read the posts responding to me, Jerry Chandler hurled some unprovoked insults at me at the tail end of his”

      “If you truly believe that men are following her anti-vax advice for that reason, you’re either 13 or you stopped mentally developing at 13.”

      Yup, that’s what I wrote. Less an insult and more an assessment of the mentality required to make the deceleration you did about why people, sorry, just men even through you also said people, would listen to someone giving anti-vax bûllšhìŧ advice.

      “(I have to wonder if he does this to people face-to-face, or how many teeth he has left if he does)”

      I have all my teeth left, and, having hit my forties, I have in fact gotten to the point where truly asinine comments made face to face are met by me with responses like that. Yes, I have in fact told people that the thought process they’re using, the idea they’re laying out to explain something, comes across as if they stopped developing (emotionally or mentally) at 13, 14, 15, or 16.

      Not knowing you, you may in fact be 13, 14, 15, or 16. You may be in your twenties or thirties, but if you are and you truly believe that people, sorry, again, just men even though you said people, are watching pre-taped PG/PG-13 cable or network airings of chat shows with Jenny McCarthy fully clothed, possibly wearing several layers, in the hopes that something would “pop out” while they’re watching or, even better, are actually taking her advice on serious medical issues because they hope that she’ll get naked on their TV or do Playboy again, then yeah, you probably stopped mentally or emotionally developing at 13, 14, 15, or 16.

      Look, I know some stupid people. I encounter a lot of them while working, some of them writing Virginia law. I can totally credit someone for making an accurate statement that guys will watch a really šhìŧŧÿ movie or TV show for no other reason than it advertised that large amounts of nudity is involved. There’s a reason that pørņ videos sell in such good numbers but “pørņ acting” or “pørņ directing” are insults only one fraction of a scale better than “Mexican soap opera acting” or “Uwe Boll” in most social circles. But putting forward the idea that many people are taking medical advice from Jenny McCarthy in the desperate hope that something will “pop out” while she’s giving it in a controlled, pre-taped, PG-13 environment or that doing so will send her back to the pages of Playboy once again? That pretty much just gets credit for being the most ridiculous thing said in an anti-vax discussion not actually said by an anti-vax proponent.

      2. Hate to break this to you, Jerry, but “stopped mentally developing at 13” is indeed an insult. Since you evidently don’t believe it is, you’re probably spending way too much time online and not enough time with actual flesh and blood human beings. And, yes, those straight guy fans certainly are watching her statements hoping to get a glimpse of something regardless of her appearances being PG/pre-taped/edited/whatever. Like I mentioned before, I didn’t claim this was intelligent behavior. They simply don’t care! All they’re thinking as they watch her is “Jenny McCarthy…bøøbìëš in Playboy…Homer Simpson drooling noise…”. They’re certainly listening to her nonsense, though I doubt that any of them are actually practicing it after her face goes off the air. I doubt many of them have kids to practice her advice on.

        You say you know “some” stupid people? If you still can’t believe guys like the ones I’ve described exist, then you obviously haven’t met too many. Don’t underestimate the depths of stupidity out there…for example, there’s gotta be a reason why so many folks thought those Southern Hillbilly Bášŧárdš on “Duck Dynasty” WOULDN’T be revealed to be bigots eventually.

      3. Oh. no. I absolutely believe that there are many stupid people out there. But you’re advocating a level of stupidity that is beyond ridiculous.

        I can easily see people who think she’s hot seeing her on TV and looking at her. It is however absolutely absurd to suggest that there’s any sizable group of males in the population who are going to sit and watch her fully clothed self gibber on about something on a pre-taped, PG/PG-13 chat show like The View (or even a live news program with a delayed feed) in the desperate hope that something pops out. It’s equally absurd to suggest that these guys believe that if they listen to her anti-vax goofiness she’ll maybe “be pleased and…uh…get naked again and maybe…um…do a pørņø or something.” But let’s give you the existence of an incredibly small group of idiots who stare at her in desperate hope that her bøøb popped out during the show taping and the show editors decided, fûçk it, let the FCC jam their áššëš up over some bøøbágë or a Basic Instinct camera shot moment.

        In this insanely microscopic percentage of men over the age of 17 who act like this, odds are good that the barest fraction of them have gotten married and had kids. Out of this now even more laughably small group, you’ve now got to find the idiots who are actually listening to and taking her advice rather than just staring and drooling in the desperate hope that her bøøb falls into her tea while chatting.

        Now that you’ve narrowed that down to, realistically, maybe fifteen guys in the entire country who might suddenly think that refusing to vaccinate their kids because Jenny might have a wardrobe malfunction, you have then go the extra step of narrowing it down to the guys who have wives who are dumber than they are by a huge margin.

        I mean, seriously… Hey, Honey, can we talk a minute? Yeah, let’s not vaccinate our kids because if we don’t then Jenny might pop her bøøbš out again for Playboy or even do a pørņø. Sound good? I knew there was a reason I loved you.

        So now we’re down to, what, maybe two guys total in a movement filled with thousands of men? The last time I looked, the anti-vax movement was also filled with a huge number of women who wouldn’t give a dámņ about Jenny’s bøøbš one way or another.

        Even if we were to go along with your… interesting… assertion here, the actual amount of men that would fall under the umbrella of your description of the anti-vax men would be so statistically irrelevant as to be nonexistent.

        Either way, as this is getting Ben Bradley level stupid now, done with this.

    2. You are 100%correct about the “straight white guys” thing. I guess I’ve been arguing with folks who use it too much, I see “straight” and “men” or “guys” and just assume they will stick “white” in between. My bad.

      I still think it’s highly dubious that some of the talents you list owe their success to straight men, white or not, hoping they will pop their tops. Their are far more attractive women who are willing to do far more than that and their antics can be seen for free on the internet. Or so I am told.

  35. the Daily Beast called my attention to an interesting site selling t-shorts, tote bags and other such tchotchkes that say “VYFK”. Well, SOME of them do. Others say “Vaccinate Your F*ck*ng Kid”, and the actual site name, being starless, is NSFW.

    50% of our proceeds will go to the Sabin Vaccine Institute. http://www.sabin.org

  36. Sorry, all, but count me in on being against the necessity of a federal immunization requirement law. Why? Several reasons. First, this is best left to the state and local official who will have to actually implement it. Why create some unnecessary federal bureaucracy to administer what is already legislated and administered locally. (What? You don’t think it will take several hundred federal administrators, up to the Prez’s new Immunization Czar, to enforce this?)

    Really, immunizations are already required, just they made it too easy to opt out for crazy parents. Reduce the ability to get a waver to at least require a doctor’s permission or pastor’s signature (in a sect that actively preaches no immunizations.) If that fails to motivate them, publish on a website which children are not immunized, put them in special ‘at risk’ classes, and otherwise shame the parents to get their act together.

    Why does it always seem to require a law to get folks to practice common sense?

    1. Because it is evolutionarily advantageous to cheat, as long as enough people are following the rules. Society makes being a Lone Wolf feasible.

      (But in this specific case, it is also in Evolution’s best interests to find parents who won’t protect their child, and not let them contribute to the gene pool. Sucks to be that kid, however.)

      1. I’m afraid you lost me on that one, David — “Evolution’s interests”?

        Bottom line remains that, if YOU immunize your child, other children (or the whacky parents of them) cannot put your child at risk.

  37. Sorry, Jerry, but that level of stupidity certainly does exist, regardless of how absurd or impossible or ridiculous you think that is. I can almost sympathize with your position; I used to believe there was no such depth of stupidity that would allow Dubya to be elected(much less reelected). That turned out to be wishful thinking on the parts of myself and several hundred million people. Unlike Dante’s Hëll, stupidity doesn’t stop at a Ninth Ring.

    I’m not sure why you think I’m asserting that those guys are listening to Jenny AND following her instructions. My initial post said “I know why people(specifically guys) listened to Jenny McCarthy in the first place”. I never claimed that those guys scrambled to obey her commands after they finished watching her breathe. As I said earlier–and which you seemed to agree with–those guys don’t have kids to follow her orders on. Maybe you think I believe those guys are practicing anti-vax on their pets to avoid getting, say, autistic hamsters?

Comments are closed.