Harvard Trained Immunologist Demolishes CA Legislation That Terminates Vax Exemptions 2016 Circle of

[duncan]

Speaking of rhetoric...perhaps equating a theory or an argument to a myth - straight out of the starting gates - is a wee strong.

 

[TiredSam]

Just out of interest, where is your second David Gorski quote from? The one under:

He did a great job capturing the essence of anti-vaccination rhetoric too.

It's not from the article that your David Gorski link leads to. Thanks.

 

[barbc56]

Just out of interest, where is your second David Gorski quote from? The one under:

It's not from the article that your David Gorski link leads to. Thanks.

David Gorski has two blogs, Respectful Insolence and Science Based Medicine. Could that be the mix up?

 

[Undisclosed]

In the United States, prior to the 1950's, whooping cough, measles, polio, Haemophilus influenza epidemics and rubella killed thousands of infants, children and adults.

As vaccines were developed the rates of these diseases declined dramatically to almost nothing in countries where vaccines are routinely administered.

Prior to the measles vaccine nearly everybody got the measles in the United States and hundreds died from it. Measles can also cause blindness, encephalitis, severe diarrhea and dehydration, pneumonia, ear infections and
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). SSPE is a progressive neurological disorder that is caused by a defective measles virus. It is rare and the incidence of SSPE declined by a least ninety percent in countries that practice wide spread immunization. SSPE progresses until the person is a comatose state and then a persistent vegetative state. It is fatal and death is usually the result of fever, heart failure, or the brain's inability to control the autonomic nervous system.

In 1965, a rubella epidemic infected 12 1/2 million Americans. Two thousand babies died and 11,000 miscarriages were reported. In 2012, 9 cases of rubella were reported.

In 1921, over 15,000 Americans died from diphtheria prior to an available vaccine. Since 2004 only one case of diptheria has been reported.

This is what happens when immunization rates drop. Take Japan for example. In 1974, approximately 80 percent of Japanese children were getting the pertussis/whooping cough vaccine and that year there were 393 cases of pertussis reported. Vaccination rates began to drop until in 1979 only about 10 percent were being vaccinated. In 1979, more than 13,000 people got whooping cough and 41 people died. Routine vaccination resumed and the numbers again dropped.

Vaccines are not without risk and nor are they 100 percent effective. Some are over 90 percent effective some 80-90 percent effective. So because of this it's still possible that an immunized person is susceptible to infection, this is why herd immunity is important to those who the vaccines don't work for. There are also those who can't be immunized at all who need protection.

I suppose at the end of the day choosing not to vaccinate your child means that you are potentially increasing the risk of disease in your child, along with the potential complications for someone other than your child.

In 2013, measles killed 82,100 children world-wide. It's easy to become complacent when you don't see these kind of deaths on a daily basis. In the developing world, measles kills approximately 225 children per day because vaccinations are not available. Children under 5 make up more than fifty percent of the 145,000 deaths attributed to measles annually. In the most impoverished and malnourished areas, measles has a fatality rate of over 10 percent. I wonder what the people who lose their precious children to measles in the third world would think about people opting out of being vaccinated related to a decision made based on pseudoscience and ignorance? The point of immunization campaigns is to reduce global measles deaths. There are people out there begging for these vaccines.

The author of this ridiculous article is spewing forth dangerous and ill-informed nonsense.

 

[PeterPositive]

Vaccination at its core is neither a safe nor effective method of disease prevention.
- Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD Immunologist

That says it all right there. In case there was any doubt that these discussions are pretty much never about actual issues in vaccine safety. Anyone who is familiar with the anti-vaccination movement has heard these arguments before in one form or another. It's the same nonsense they have been spewing for years.

Throwing around denigratory labels (anti-vaxxers, spewing nonsense, etc...) and gross generalizations won't move this debate an inch forward.

You're basically saying that if a scientist attempts to have a civil conversation about a specific issue (mandatory carpet-bombing style vaccination), he/she is in reality an evil handlebar mustache-twisting anti-vaxxer (as per your snarky citation) trying to put all society at risk of killer epidemics... congrats for the twisted logic.

 

[Large Donner]

Doctors generally don't understand immune problems neither do patients. Many of us may have immune problems that are not understood. I think this is one of the areas where no one knows how to make the right decision.

But the whole point is that the state is making the blanket decision for people in California.

 

[Large Donner]

It depends on whether the person has immune problems. I don't think we all have that. So that decision would be between the patient and the doctor.

But this is the very problem in essence Barb. Its not down to the patient and doctor once its mandated to the effect of public exclusion. As you pointed out early, and sourced for info us, there are a large number of people who cannot receive vaccines.

So now take the cases whereby a parent decides to delay or opt out of certain vaccines on the basis of their own understanding and knowledge alongside their doctor - perhaps they have even seen a previous child suffer an instant and even long lasting reaction to a vaccine, perhaps that parent is aware of genetic or hereditary risk factors.

The state is mandating to them that they must fulfill a vaccine schedule and not only that but also its down to the state to decide what should be added and how often to that schedule. Its a simple fact that the overall vaccine schedule has not been scientifically tested but instead each individual vaccine goes through some amount of safety testing on a single basis.

This is like mandating peanuts, gluten or soya to everyone. There is something quite wrong with that process.

 

[Undisclosed]

there are a large number of people who cannot receive vaccines.

Would you care to provide some numbers?

 

[duncan]

I cannot help but think of compulsory vaccines as akin to the draft: an act that can be volunteered at times for the good of others, but never forced on anyone.

 

[Large Donner]

Would you care to provide some numbers?

Well below is a Barb direct quote as well as the fact that she included newborns in the list of people who cannot safely receive vaccines. Add them all up and that will give you the large number of people.

Whatever the "exact" figure is people could dispute the statistics all day long but it still qualifies as a large number of people.

The issue of how old a newborn has to be before its "safe" to receive a given vaccine is very spurious too so you will have to figure the high and low into your calculations if you want an exact figure. Just what age is a newborn immune system fully developed? How about "newborns" who have underlying immune issues that are yet unidentified etc etc? What age is the cut of for newborn? Not safe to receive a vaccine one day but safe the next day when one moves from new born to a baby?

Barb quote:

Some people in the community rely on herd immunity to protect them. These groups are particularly vulnerable to disease, but often cannot safely receive vaccines:

People without a fully-working immune system, including those without a working spleen

People on chemotherapy treatment whose immune system is weakened

People with HIV

Newborn babies who are too young to be vaccinated

Elderly people

Many of those who are very ill in hospital

For these people, herd immunity is a vital way of protecting them against life-threatening disease

You will have to pay particular interest to this statement from Barb.....

These groups are particularly vulnerable to disease, but often cannot safely receive vaccines:

.....and understand that its not down to the government to blanket claim who does or does not fit into this group on a mandate of public exclusion from education using public funds to pass onto private vaccines companies etc.

 

[Undisclosed]

@Large Donner all your reasoning just points to why it is so important for herd immunity to protect those that are vulnerable. Those vaccinated are providing protection for those who are not. If less people choose vaccinations, then more of these vulnerable infants, children, adults will be affected. Look at what happened in Japan.

Who is it down to re: vaccinations? The reason for governments is to make decision on behalf of the people not just one group or another. It really never works out that everybody can benefit from a law.

 

[IreneF]

Th

The article from the OP does not claim that vaccines don't work.
Measles vaccine in particular is subject to an interesting paradox:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8053748

That article is over 20 years old. Are we still using the same vaccine and vaccine schedule?

 

[IreneF]

The new law in California does not make vaccines compulsory; it eliminates personal belief exemptions. It actually protects children who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons.

 

[Large Donner]

@Large Donner all your reasoning just points to why it is so important for herd immunity to protect those that are vulnerable. Those vaccinated are providing protection for those who are not. If less people choose vaccinations, then more of these vulnerable infants, children, adults will be affected. Look at what happened in Japan.

Who is it down to re: vaccinations? The reason for governments is to make decision on behalf of the people not just one group or another. It really never works out that everybody can benefit from a law.

So who is vulnerable? Is that down to the "government" and not informed consent? People are not here to represent the government the government is here to represent them and their informed choices.

You are not addressing the issue of ...

These groups are particularly vulnerable to disease, but often cannot safely receive vaccines:

that Barb pointed out earlier in her quote.

 

[Large Donner]

The new law in California does not make vaccines compulsory; it eliminates personal belief exemptions. It actually protects children who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons.

The problem with this notion is that so many medical issues are claimed to only be "personal beliefs" as we with ME very well know.

Does this law cover a mother who wishes to delay, not uptake, or have single vaccination instead of a multiple one if she "believes" her child got seriously ill after a previous vaccination. Or is she just to be told she is wrong and all her observations are pure coincidence.

Again we have raised this issue......

children who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons.

....which is crucial and often overlooked with a broad narrative of "vaccines are safe". How does the state account for children who cannot receive vaccines as they have, yet to be identified, medical conditions.

What are the range of tests that the government carry out on each individual child to assure the parent the child is not in the group...

children who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons

 

[barbc56]

@Large Donner

You seem to be misunderstanding why I used the quote that lists the population who should not be vaccinated. It's because others who do not fall in that group need to be vaccinated to protect this group.

If vaccinations are mandated, these groups would be excluded from that mandate. For the most part, these health conditions are able to be diagnosed. But not always and that means that there will be people who do get a reaction. But the risk is very minimal compared to the odds that do not bode well for those children/adults who are unable to get vaccinations. My heart goes out to the families in both situations. The honorable action is to prevent harm to as many people as possible and that means getting vaccinated!

Are you thinking that mandated vaccinations mean everyone including that group?

If this is not what you mean, then I am at a complete loss as to what you are saying.

 

[Large Donner]

What I am saying is that it is readily admitted that their are groups who cannot safely receive vaccines....until the government reverts to "all vaccines are safe" when it suits them.

Further, its not down to the government to mandate who qualifies for the risk groups, that is down to individual informed consent for medical intervention.

The government cannot just switch their narrative as they please.

If vaccinations are mandated, these groups would be excluded from that mandate.

Who decides what group someone is placed in is the very problem in essence, when the government a big bureaucratic machine, has given itself the right to withhold public services from individuals.


Also what happens to those who believed it was safe for them to receive a vaccine when it wasn't as they had an underlying undiscovered medical issue?

 

[barbc56]

Also what happens to those who believed it was safe for them to receive a vaccine when it wasn't as they had an underlying undiscovered medical issue?

I most likely edited my post before you had a chance to see my answer to this very same question.

 

[IreneF]

When has anyone stated that all vaccines are safe?

 

[Undisclosed]

When has anyone stated that all vaccines are safe?

The government does admit that all vaccines are not safe for some people. If you read the inserts of vaccines you will see where pharmaceutical companies list all the known risks.