Measles Outbreak Tied To Texas Megachurch 622
New submitter the eric conspiracy sends this quote from NBC:
"An outbreak of measles tied to a Texas megachurch where ministers have questioned vaccination has sickened at least 21 people, including a 4-month-old infant — and it's expected to spread further, state and federal health officials said. 'There's likely a lot more susceptible people,' said Dr. Jane Seward, the deputy director for the viral diseases division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ... All of the cases are linked to the Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, Texas, where a visitor who'd traveled to Indonesia became infected with measles – and then returned to the U.S., spreading it to the largely unvaccinated church community, said Russell Jones, the Texas state epidemiologist. ... Terri Pearsons, a senior pastor of Eagle Mountain International said she has had concerns about possible ties between early childhood vaccines and autism. In the wake of the measles outbreak, however, Pearsons has urged followers to get vaccinated and the church has held several vaccination clinics. ... 'In this community, these cases so far are all in people who refused vaccination for themselves and their children,' [Steward] added. The disease that once killed 500 people a year in the U.S. and hospitalized 48,000 had been considered virtually eradicated after a vaccine introduced in 1963. Cases now show up typically when an unvaccinated person contracts the disease abroad and spreads it upon return to the U.S."
As usual. (Score:5, Funny)
Think of it as evolution in action.
Re:As usual. (Score:4, Insightful)
YES!! One of the oldest rules of survival - STUPID ANIMALS DIE!!!!
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the oldest rules of survival - STUPID ANIMALS DIE!!!!
Only up to a point. Natural selection works both ways. Stupid animals may die because they make stupid mistakes. But smart animals may also be under a disadvantage because their more active brain consumes more energy, and the curiosity that comes with intelligence may get them in trouble. If wild animals, such as rats, are captured, selectively bred to improve their intelligence, and then released, they will regress to their original level. So you want to be smart, but not too smart.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Funny)
One of the oldest rules of survival - STUPID ANIMALS DIE!!!!
Only up to a point. Natural selection works both ways. Stupid animals may die because they make stupid mistakes. But smart animals may also be under a disadvantage because their more active brain consumes more energy, and the curiosity that comes with intelligence may get them in trouble. If wild animals, such as rats, are captured, selectively bred to improve their intelligence, and then released, they will regress to their original level. So you want to be smart, but not too smart.
Not really, smarter animals are more often in trouble when stupid animals die because they used the stupid animal as a staple food source.
Not that I propose eating anti-vaxxers... Who knows what diseases they might have.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While my child got most of his vaccines, I specifically opted out of the chicken pox vaccine. The rea
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Funny)
Please check which option you'd like:
[ ] vaccinations
[x] Darwin Award registration
Re: (Score:3)
Poll Results:
3% vaccinations
25% Darwin Award registration
95% Jesus Christ Award registration
This poll is brought to you by Fox News and Friends and may not be scientific..
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. Too bad that idiots can spread diseases before they die of their stupidity (Yeah, they're not going to die, but it applies generally).
Herd immunity doesn't work if a bunch of idiots decides that vaccines are evil/dangerous/demonstrative of a lack of faith/useless/*insert absurd argument here*.
Let's also thank the media, for creating hysteria where there should be none, and not having the guts to admit they were just spreading FUD after it becomes obvious that their latest sensationalist bullshit is just that.
It's also nice how a "senior pastor" quickly becomes a medical authority for these people. Do they have their doctors fix their plumbing as well?
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Funny)
...Do they have their doctors fix their plumbing as well?
Most women do, yes.
cheers,
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most importantly, herd immunity doesn't work if you socialize almost exclusively with a herd lacking that particular immunity.
Which, incidentally, makes this just the most sublimely satisfying bit of news I've heard all week - Idiots reject vaccination on assorted bogus grounds, trusting that their baby won't die of some horrible disease because our society has largely eradicated it (through vaccination, no less). Idiots then hang out with other idiots following the same flawed logic. Idiots thereby have their gene-pool chlorinated.
Sadly, not fast enough, and really, quite a pity that these things mostly affect the young, not-yet-brainwashed members of their community. But - if you'll pardon the pun - baby-steps in the right direction.
/ Now if we could just find a disease that prefers people who drive too slow in the left lane...
Re: (Score:3)
You're forgetting cases where people cannot be vaccinated for real medical reasons - those people rely on others being properly vaccinated.
As for my supposed spread of FUD, you misunderstand me: I am merely speaking out against FUD-spreading, not suggesting the article is FUD. If some elements of the media didn't spread FUD, I'm sure the idea that vaccines cause autism would certainly be far less common.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're skipping MMR (Score:5, Informative)
then they're putting everyone at risk for mumps and rubella, both with reproductive implications.
Re:No they're not... (Score:5, Informative)
They're only putting those who are not vaccinated at risk.
1) Vaccination is not 100% effective in all subjects. It works almost always, but sometimes doesn't stick.
2) Some people are allergic to some vaccines so can't be vaccinated and have to rely on herd immunity to not come in contact with the disease.
3) Some people, eg. those being treated for cancer, have damaged immune systems and can't tolerate the vaccine; even if they were given it, it would not work due to their immune system being broken.
4) Infants can't be vaccinated immediately at birth; allowing diseases to become common may not affect vaccinated adults much but will still increase infant mortality.
5) More hosts around immune people means the disease has the chance to throw itself at the vaccine over and over until adapted strains that aren't prevented by the vaccine proliferate.
Re:No they're not... (Score:5, Insightful)
If not, then . . . who cares?
People who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons, for instance because they're babies and too young to get the vaccine yet, or they have compromised immune systems (for one reason or another). People in these groups have to rely on otherwise healthy people to do the right thing and get vaccinated.
Re:No they're not... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I must be missing something here. Are those who do not get vaccinated putting those of us who are at serious risk?
Yes. The measles herd immunity threshold for the MMR vaccine [wikipedia.org] is 92-94%. If more than 6% of the idiots around you go unvaccinated, measles becomes likely to spread among people who have already taken the vaccine or otherwise acquired immunity.
The reason is simple: the immune system is random. The B cells in each vaccinated individual produce different antibodies in response to the same antigen [wikipedia.org]. Since an antibody's response to antigen X1 doesn't correlate much with its response to antigen X2, and different lines of a disease have different antigens, no vaccine can be 100% effective. Any one person might have total immunity to some given line of the disease (called a "quasispecies"), yet be totally vulnerable to some other quasispecies whose antigens are invisible to the existing antibodies. Different people are vulnerable to different quasispecies, and there are thousands of quasispecies (grouped into 21 strains in the case of measles), so we usually just throw our hands up in the air and pretend that infection vulnerability is a wholly non-deterministic thing.
Herd immunity is the threshold where each infection produces, on average, one new infection. If the vaccination rate is above herd immunity, each infection produces less than one new infection (exponential decay). The outbreak reaches its peak quickly, then vanishes as the existing victims fight off the disease (or die). If the vaccination rate is below herd immunity, then each infection leads to more than one new infection (exponential growth). The outbreak then grows rapidly until so many people are already carrying the disease that the disease runs out of new hosts, reaching a new steady-state of one new infection per infection... at which point we say it has transformed from epidemic (an outbreak) to endemic (never going away on its own).
If vaccines were 100% effective, falling below the herd immunity threshold wouldn't be so worrisome for people who are vaccinated. True, among vaccine-refusing populations (and those who can't benefit from vaccines, e.g. babies, the very elderly, AIDS patients, and organ transplant recipients) the disease would perpetually rage, as there would be enough contact between vulnerable islands that the disease never quite burns out. But in reality (a) each person who is immunized has a small-but-nonzero chance of catching the infection (and passing it on), so everyone is potential virus-habitat regardless of vaccination status, and (b) more victims means larger viral population means more viral reproduction means creation of more quasispecies. More quasispecies means that, if there is some way that the antigens can change that will give the disease access to new victims without compromising the disease's ability to spread, evolution will find and exploit it sooner rather than later, so the virus can get its grubby little capsid proteins on fresh meat that other strains can't touch (i.e. you).
What we're seeing in Texas is an outbreak in an overall US population where vaccination rates are falling, but still above the herd immunity threshold... for now. If rates continue to fall, we can expect these outbreaks to become larger and more frequent, until they eventually reach criticality and the end of one outbreak always overlaps the beginning of the next, i.e. the disease becomes endemic again.
(Pertussis is also stupid contagious and thus has a high threshold for herd immunity, but pertussis is about 10 times more likely to kill a baby than measles is. Like measles, pertussis is also seeing big ugly outbreaks these days: the Denver metro area, Northern California around Marin, Washington state, i.e. basically the places where the cultish and vaccine-refusing Waldorf School has a notable presence
Re:As usual. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. It's the same disease that killed almost a fifth of Hawaii's population [wikipedia.org] because they'd never encountered it before and had no immunity. It can be really, really nasty in cases like that and I'm almost surprised that more haven't died yet in this outbreak.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it as evolution in action.
The parents are fine, because they were all vaccinated when they were kids. It's their children who are made to suffer their stupidity. If anything, a special child-abuse team should be set up to ascertain whether the parents have learned from their mistake and are willing to make changes to their beliefs, or if they are still a danger to the future health of their children.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a deliberately unvaccinated child dies as a result of his parent's "choice", when the advice came from the pulpit of the parent's church, should anyone be held responsible for manslaughter? Keep in mind these are the "it's a child, not a choice" people.
As the saying goes, "Life is sacred from the moment of conception until the moment of birth. After that you're on your own."
But I was wondering about liability too. If your child catches it but doesn't die, is this grounds for a lawsuit?
Re:As usual. (Score:4, Funny)
Against whom? The parents? They're the only ones in the decision loop, after all.
And suing yourself for your own bad decisions is, well, just another bad decision.
Re:As usual. (Score:4, Interesting)
But I was wondering about liability too. If your child catches it but doesn't die, is this grounds for a lawsuit?
Against who, the minister who advised against it? You might as well try to sue because you died and there was no heaven...
Actually, I've been expecting to hear that someone is suing because they had a near-death experience and it didn't match the promises of the religion they now feel like they've wasted their life on.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer to think of it as child abuse. And before you say it, no, there is no correlation between low intelligence and believing stupid things. Intelligent people are, in fact, quite adept at coming up with elaborate justifications for believing the most incredibly stupid things. So this is not just killing stupid kids.
Furthermore, it's not just the children of these deluded fools who are at risk. There are a lot of children who cannot get standard vaccines because of various allergies. Normally, these children are protected by herd immunity [wikipedia.org], but when enough people begin to refuse vaccinations based on stupid, insane, and utterly discredited theories, the herd immunity protection goes away.
Frankly, I think the anti-vaxxers are shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and should be treated accordingly.
Re:As usual. (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, to put it another way - The lord is my shepherd, but I ain't a sheep!
vaccination should be mandatory, legally (Score:5, Insightful)
of course the morons will then WHARGARBBBL about fascism and tyranny, as if the only threat to life and liberty comes from the government, and not from the morons living around you
no one should have the "freedom" to kill children, whether theirs or their neighbor's. they might not realize that their beliefs are doing that. and you're certainly entitled to your beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts
when the issue is life and death, it's time to force the morons to stop killing children. if they can't be reasoned with, they need to be forced
scientific fact is not tyranny
Re: (Score:3)
If measles was limited to the people who didn't vaccinate due to "it'll lead to autism" scares, I'd agree.
Unfortunately, everyone who doesn't vaccinate due to misplaced fears of autism or "toxins" in the vaccines weakens herd immunity. That means that people who can't vaccinate for legitimate medical reasons (immune system problems, too young, allergic, etc) can get the diseases and die. These people aren't just putting their kids at risk, they are putting every other person their child is in contact with
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Informative)
I assume you are trying to imply that the measles outbreak came from Mexico. Too bad you are full of shit. One of the members of the church visited Indonesia and brought it back.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Funny)
One of the members of the church visited Indonesia and brought it back.
Seems like a fair trade. One of them got a virulent disease that's been plaguing mankind for thousands of years, and the other one got measles.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As usual. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's far less shocking when much of the rest of the world is no more enlightened than we are. Standards should be applied equally or not at all. Although some people just want to engage in mindless America bashing.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
You understand how Customs works, right? By the time they allow you on "US soil", you've already spent ten hours with 100+ people packed into a flying sardine, landed somewhere inside the US, made your way from Terminal F to terminal D, spent 15 minutes mixing with a different group of 50 people on a rolling sardine can, spend another half hour packed in line with hundreds of people so some minor official can wave a blacklight over your passport with no clue why... And only then do they allow you to mingle with the far less densely-packed US public.
Somehow, I question the efficacy of bothering to send the one symptomatic visitor back, at that last point in a whole chain of weakest links.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
I took him to mean that US customs or border enforcement or some such should have been keeping an eye out
No, they should be keeping an eye out for ebola - Not for diseases that citizens of no 'western' nation should ever get in the first place.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don’t be dense. “Should” in this usage has nothing to do with “deserve.” Poster meant that citizens of any continent where a disease has been almost entirely eradicated shouldn’t get that disease, much as you shouldn’t be attacked by a crocodile in the Himalayas.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
. Granted, there's a lot of reasons he could pass through and it wouldn't be noticed, but I'd think there's some protection.
Apparently measles is not strictly on the list, if I'm reading this right.
There is some protection, its called vaccines, and pretty much the rest of the US population has taken them. So why bother?
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I like it. It is easy to spot non-immunized people, they are the ones that glow green.
Re: (Score:3)
But their beliefs aren't in their genes.
This is probably false. Religiosity is strongly and negatively correlated with IQ [wikipedia.org], and IQ is heritable [wikipedia.org].
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Correlation does not imply.. etc. etc."
To be perfectly frank, I think a lot of skeptics are too ready to stop there and just infer the rest.
That forgets that childhood poverty and subsequent poor educational environment are highly negatively correlated with IQ, while the distressing situation is highly correlated with forming a religious community and the comfort that can provide.
It's way too complicated at present to ascribe that to genetics. It stinks of the same easy answers religion is blamed for providing.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Interesting)
That forgets that childhood poverty and subsequent poor educational environment are highly negatively correlated with IQ
The standard deviation for IQ is about 15 points. Fraternal twins, even when raised apart, have a SD of about about six. Identical twins, even when raised apart, have a SD of about three. So your IQ is about 80% inherited. Of course it can be affected by other things, but overall, IQ is more strongly inherited than height. Height can certainly be affected by environmental factors like nutrition, but the overwhelming factor is the height of your parents.
Re:As usual. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I disagree with you, but just because it is inherited, does not mean it is genetic. You can inherit poor nutrition, and the subsequent shortness, poor education, and worse IQ (without ever bringing genes into it).
Re:As usual. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm inclined to doubt that the difference in IQ between a human and a chimpanzee is characterised by poor nutrition and poor education, rather than genetic differences. So, if that's the case for the difference between a human and a chimp, why would genetics stop being a factor in the differences between one human and another?
It's not that they don't factor, very obviously, in other aspects of human behaviour and morphology; it therefore seems that the argument against genetic factors for IQ is a case of special pleading predicated on the obviously untrue canon that 'All men are created equal'.
Re: (Score:3)
How does an identical twin raised apart inherit poor education? By being adopted inside US so all schools are equally bad?
A btter critique for these twin studies is that the children "reared apart" are probably mostly reared in a relativety similar environment. Meaning that if you sent identical twins e.g. from the most poor areas of Africa to a good place in US you might get more environment effect then 20%. But still IQ is partly hereditary and the hereditary part about half or more.
Re: As usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also content in my beliefs of a deistic reality, as it does not contradict available data and satisfies the psychological need for purpose in life and the possibility of an afterlife. Blind faith is absurd, but on the other hand so is atheism; the premise being that if life is purposeless, why would one subject themselves to the trials and tribulations of life? As life is a death sentence right from the start, logic implies that one should end their life once they belief atheism as fact, however society correctly asserts that this is a mental defect because one can not know with absolute certainty that life is pointless. Belief in abrahamic religions is equally delusional, harm others, and should also be assumed to be a mental defect.
Atheism is just a lack of faith. Life is worth experiencing for it's own sake. Why would the enjoyment or purpose of life depend on the promise of an afterlife? And a promise dependant largely on which culture you were born into.
Re: (Score:3)
Atheism is just a lack of faith.
No, atheism is disbelief in something they have no indication that exists or doesn't exist. Atheism takes faith. Agnosticism is the lack of faith; the agnostic says says "I don't know". Religion for someone who has had a near death experience or a religious revelation, takes no faith that the deity exists; he has seen proof. The only faith he needs to have is faith that said deity loves him or her.
Life is worth experiencing for it's own sake.
Not if you lack sufficient food, w [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Just take a look at all of the seemingly healthy people who get handicapped parking permits.
I just assume that if it's not a physical handicap ...
Just goes to show... (Score:3, Insightful)
...that you shouldn't listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that you shouldn't listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about.
How do I know that you know what you are talking about?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Through inductive reasoning. Either he knows what he is talking about or he doesn't.
If he does, it is the case that you shouldn't listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about, therefore you should listen to him because he does.
If he doesn't, it is not the case that you shouldn't listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about and thus, you should listen to him. But then you shouldn't listen to him, because in that case he is the kind of person he's warning you away from. So you
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
You could start by refusing medical advice from a pastor...
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Funny)
You could start by refusing medical advice from a pastor...
What a silly statement. Was it not a pastor who discovered the very principle of vaccination? Louis Pastor, I believe.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Funny)
Why would anyone go to a church for medical advice anyway? Do they go to their doctor for religious advice . . . ?
But I guess some folks believe that their church has answers for everything.
Should I buy a Chevy or a Ford truck . . . ? Let's take a look at the Bible Consumer Reports and see what Jesus would buy . . .
Re: Just goes to show... (Score:5, Funny)
Well his disciples preferred Honda. "They were all with one accord - Acts 2:1"
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would anyone go to a church for medical advice anyway?
A couple thousand years ago when their book was written, it was a useful document to run a society. It was used to bind followers under a common religion, sure, but it included diverse topics ranging from a code of laws regarding behavior through history, economics, and plausible-enough explanations of natural phenomena.
It also contains a few sentences of health information. These include lists of what to eat and what not to eat, and how to keep a kosher kitchen, which was a somewhat practical way of avoiding contamination and sickness. Other medical advice included the idea of quarantining a leper and burning his clothes and possessions, and to wash in running water after coming in contact with a dead body. Hyssop was a biblical era cleansing agent, which is not a bad choice for a plant recognized today for its antiseptic properties.
So because it offers a few words on the topic, that provides enough "authority" for the preacher to talk about it. And what a preacher says on the subject will be taken seriously by ardent followers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, it was a record of proven best practices of the time. The same was true of the Bible's social advice. And people have changed much less than our knowledge of medicine and hygiene. It amazes me how quick people are to reject the ways of living suggested by any major religion in favor of some idea that sounds good. These were not arbitrary codes of behavior, these were proven ways of keeping society working over time. That doesn't mean everything is right or that one could improve upon mo
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:4, Insightful)
...that you shouldn't listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Emotional solutions usually trump rational ones. A lot less energy required for thinking, and a lot more self-righteous feel-good dopamine rush.
Re:This rule applies to EVERYBODY (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair, SETI (the organisation) does not say "we believe there is intelligent alien life out there". They say "We think there is a good chance that there is intelligent alien life out there, and we're trying to increase our chances of finding it if it does exist".
Now, some (even many) members of/contributors to SETI may be 100% convinced that there is intelligent alien life out there right now that wants to communicate with us, despite zero evidence so far. They're the nut jobs. But someone who contributes isn't necessarily a nutjob.
FWIW, I don't contribute to SETI. I think that it is a near certainty that there has been or will be intelligent life somewhere in the universe other than us. I also suspect the chance of encountering signs of intelligent alien life in my lifetime is close to zero (too far away; missed them by a million years, etc). But I do think many of their activities are worthwhile even if they don't result in success in their stated aim.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, some (even many) members of/contributors to SETI may be 100% convinced that there is intelligent alien life out there right now that wants to communicate with us, despite zero evidence so far. They're the nut jobs. But someone who contributes isn't necessarily a nutjob.
Current estimates is that the universe has 10^22-10^24 stars and that on average they have >1 planet/star so 10^22-10^24 planets as well. So it takes 1/1000000000000000000000000 planets with alien life that wants to communicate with us (note: that doesn't mean the same as able to) for that statement to be true. Or we can believe that we're alone in the universe. My impression is that there's a lot more people who firmly believe that, despite no evidence to support that the rest of the universe is uninhab
Muhahaha (Score:4, Funny)
Where is your god now??
Re: (Score:2)
Punishing churches with women pastors apparently.
Re: (Score:3)
and puts others in jeopardy.
[BZZZZT]. "Alex, I'll take Communicable Diseases for $500."
"The answer is: The Eagle Mountain International Church."
cases are in people who refused vaccination ... (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting!
It's almost as if these "vaccines" actually work!
Maybe these "vaccines" were intelligently designed or something!
Re:cases are in people who refused vaccination ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think these people are doubting that vaccines work. Rather they are more afraid of their kids having autism than measles. And they don't understand that vaccines don't cause autism.
Re:cases are in people who refused vaccination ... (Score:5, Insightful)
and probably do not understand how nasty measles can be and what kind of lifelong disabilities it can leave you (deafness, meniere's, ...)
Re: (Score:3)
MMR protects against worse than measles
Re:cases are in people who refused vaccination ... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think these people are doubting that vaccines work. Rather they are more afraid of their kids having autism than measles. And they don't understand that vaccines don't cause autism.
I think many have this false belief due to (at least) one now widely discredited study published proposing this link - this/these ideas are still pushed by some people and celebrities, like Jenny McCarthy [newyorker.com].
From Anti-Vaccine Body Count [jennymccar...ycount.com]:
The United States Anti-Vaccination Movement is composed of a variety of individuals ranging from former doctors who should know better, to semi-celebrities who have no medical training, to anti-government conspiracy theorists who distrust anything that the government says.
Unfortunately, some people would rather believe that some *thing* - the vaccination - caused their child to "get" Autism rather than living with the understanding that it was genetic - and came from them.
Re: (Score:3)
I think many have this false belief due to (at least) one now widely discredited study published proposing this link - this/these ideas are still pushed by some people and celebrities, like Jenny McCarthy.
Getting your medical advice from a Playboy Bunny isn't any smarter than getting it from your preacher.
Re:cases are in people who refused vaccination ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, over on Phil Plait's blog, an anti-vax commenter said "If by chance a death occurs... I personally would rather bear the dead than sustain the epidemic trend of life long chronic illnesses such as autism, asthma, diabetes, cancer." Yes, this person would rather see a child dead than have autism, diabetes, cancer, or ASTHMA!
Personally, my son is autistic (Asperger's Syndrome) and I know plenty of other parents of autistic kids (many with needs much greater than my own son). I know of NO parents who wish their kid was dead. I know a parent whose child has cancer (second or third time back - going to need a bone marrow transplant and even then it's not a guarantee) - I'm sure that they have NEVER wished their child was dead. I can't imagine ANY parent wishing their kid was dead (perhaps short some terminal illness where the kid has zero chance of recovery and is suffering greatly... and even then it's a "choosing between two evils" scenario). But this anti-vaxxer would rather see kids dead than risk the "horrors" of asthma.
One last point: I have Asperger's Syndrome as well so I was also personally offended by the implication that both my son and I were better off dead than autistic. I've done pretty well for myself and my son's future is quite bright. (The kid's a natural at math and computers. Scary good.) Even if vaccines DID cause autism (WHICH THEY DON'T), I'd rather have a hundred autistic kids than one child die of a vaccine preventable illness.
Re:Please Explain (Score:5, Informative)
The autism caused by vax was reported by a doctor doing research.
No, it was reported by a doctor perpetrating a fraud. "Doctor" Wakefield's paper was subsequently retracted by The Lancet and he was thrown out of medicine permanently.
Phil Jones has admitted to falsifying data
Sorry, no. He did no such thing. What you just said is the Fox "News" version of the story, in which the truth is far more complicated than you make it. There wasn't any kind of fraud going on, and to talk about this in the same manner as if Jones is equal to Wakefield is pure, unadulterated, bullshit.
There was an investigation spurred by a *republican* and the result was that Jones was vindicated. Which was a fact that you conveniently left out of your "just so" story.
I just can't figure that part out.
Because you are a moron. Full stop.
--
BMO
Re:Please Explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Please provide a link to any reputable source claiming that Phil Jones admitted to falsifying data and deleting it to prevent peer review. I very seriously doubt that you can. I also very seriously doubt that you care, because you seem to have made up your mind already.
Re:Please Explain (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to even bother with any reputable source. The simple fact is this. If you want to beat an anti-vaxxer in an argument, simply give in to them. Admit every single thing they said is true.
Now, with that said. We are going to assume that measles causes 10 autism cases per 1000 kids. A 1% rate.
Measles alone, and JUST Measles, in a first world country, has a 0.3% mortality rate - http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full [oxfordjournals.org]
Now we have 3 dead kids, against 10 autistic ones. This doesn't factor in the kids maimed and permanently blinded by complications of just measles.
Now throw in rubella, diphtheria, polio, smallpox, pertussis, hep b, influenza, mumps and chicken pox.
How are those 10 autistic kids looking against the pile of dead, blind and scarred kids.
Exactly. I can concede every single point to an anti-vaxxer and still show the outcome is better with vaccines.
Re:Please Explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. I can concede every single point to an anti-vaxxer and still show the outcome is better with vaccines.
The other angle to take is that with most people immunising, their position is relatively safe. They can protect their little darlings from the "horrors of immunisation", while the fact that the rest of us continue to immunise protects their little darlings from the disease itself. Seems like a fairly selfish position to take, and certainly doesn't scale.
Re: (Score:3)
The facts of global climate change, however, are backed by many independent studies, including global average temperatures, changes in weather patterns, and the rapidly shrinking polar ice caps. The global measurements of steadily rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere are beyond dispute.
It's not quite so clear-cut as all that. To argue for AGW, not just "climate change" (climate change is normal throughout Earth's history), you need more than the facts you mention: you need to show the causal link between the specific CO2 concentrations and the specific amount of global warming. There are plenty of computer models to that effect, but they have a pretty bad track record so far in actually "proving" themselves by making surprising falsifiable predictions which turn out to be true. You can
Re:Please Explain (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, I just don't get how you can deny AWG. American Wire Gauge has been the standard for wire diameters since 1857, and doesn't look to be going away any time soon.
Soon to follow (Score:2)
A river of blood, locusts and frogs.
Seriously, though, frogs has to be the oddest possible plague. They are about the least threatening creatures ever (perhaps along with sheep) and eat bugs. Also, they look nice.
Plague of frogs == awesomest thing ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they were actually Toads [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to vaccinate your children... (Score:5, Insightful)
...so long as you keep the little plague bearers quarantined away from me and mine.
Vaccines are science, if you think they are causing health issues use real science, not a personal feeling. This issue is MUCH bigger than a simple personal choice.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There was some blog article somewhere. This woman decided she didnt want her kid vaccinated. All was well and good. Then some other kid caught the measles, and the school board told her that her child had to stay at home for 8 months in case he/she was a carrier now (or some such length of time... it was however long it takes the disease to run its course). At first she thought they were joking ("how am I supposed to work?), but now, they were serious.
^^ this is the solution for people who refuse vaccin
I wouldn't throw stones. (Score:3)
Yet you base your response to them on personal feelings... rather than science. Except in extraordinarily rare cases, measles vaccinations confer immunity for life.
Re: (Score:3)
How so? Actually if vaccinations did confer lifelong and perfect immunity I wouldn't care as much, it is precisely because they don't that I am so worried.
Look at it this way, there are several diseases we have effectively eradicated because of public vaccination policies. But in some cases these have become political footballs in a nation, for various reasons, and eradication has stalled. I know we all like to have personal choice and hate it when we are made to do something, but this IS one of those th
Re: (Score:3)
Also I have to add, there are some people who really can not have the vaccine for legitimate reasons. Should these kids be quarantined instead?
The goal should not just be control, but eradication of these diseases. There is a greater public goal involved.
Re:You don't need to vaccinate your children... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh dear.
That's not how vaccinations work. They don't, and never claim to, offer 100% life-long immunity to recipients.
What they DO offer, is herd immunity [wikipedia.org] - many recipients will become immune for a decent period of time. Therefore a community of vaccinated people will have a much higher proportion of immune people so the virus will have an exponentially lower chance of successfully spreading. Introduce someone from outside the immunized community who has become incubus plague and you've introduced a new chain of infection for those with whom the person directly interacts.
This is basic epidemiology.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually we kind of do. In fact there is a whole bonus fun round.
Repeatedly exposing viruses or bacteria to vaccinated people can act just like half treating a disease with antibiotics.
It is very unlike a disease might mutate to overcome a particular vaccine in a non vaccinated population. In fact it may well be impossible, as a gross rule of thumb defenses against an attack an organism won't ever be exposed to is often a genuine evolutionary detriment.
However repeatedly exposing vaccinated people is an o
The media is also responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
And God will strike down the unbelievers... (Score:2, Insightful)
...and (today) God's name is MEASLES.
Poor fools listened to a man on a pulpit.
It's obvious. (Score:5, Funny)
The only logical conclusion is god hates these people.
I have no measles, so I know god loves me.
God's punishment (Score:3)
Looks to me like measles is God's punishment for MegaChurches [wikipedia.org].
Which seems fair, or at least practical. Seriously, if you need parking lot traffic directors, you've got too many members.
Prominent figure reversing her incorrect opinion?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Terri Pearsons, a senior pastor of Eagle Mountain International said she has had concerns about possible ties between early childhood vaccines and autism. In the wake of the measles outbreak, however, Pearsons has urged followers to get vaccinated and the church has held several vaccination clinics.
I respect the hell out of the fact that she actually went against her own original beliefs and recommendations and, in the wake of the outbreak she reversed her opinion no matter the fact that it may have made her look 'stupid'. High five to Terri Pearsons for doing the right thing.
Re:Prominent figure reversing her incorrect opinio (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please. This is a religion. They do everything to cover their asses. On one hand they may be running the vaccination clinics but on the other hand nobody is attending them, that seems like they continue preaching their idiotic viewpoints from the pulpit while legally and publicly covering their asses. All cults do it, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, ... They preach one thing within the rank and file and then publicly state the opposite.
Here we go again... (Score:4, Funny)
Dumbass religious fanatics spreading disease. Even the Black Death wasn't enough to convince these cretins they should quit inflicting the consequences of their ignorance on rational people.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Interesting)
Flagellants (religious fanatics who liked to whip themselves) traveling from town to town helped to spread the disease.
And then, there's this:
In the early thirteenth century Pope Gregory IX (1145â"1241) declared that a sect in southern France had been caught worshipping the devil. He claimed the devil had appeared in the form of a black cat. Cats became the official symbol of heresy (or religious beliefs not advocated by the church). Anyone who showed any compassion or feeling for a cat came under the church's suspicion. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, Europe's cat population had been severely depleted. Only semi-wild cats survived in many areas. In 1347 the bubonic plague swept across Europe. Called the Black Death, it killed twenty-five million people (nearly a third of Europe's population) in only three years. Thousands of farm animals died as well, either from the plague or from lack of care. The death rate peaked in the warm summer months and dropped dramatically in the wintertime because the plague was being spread to humans by fleas on infected rodents. The plague revisited Europe several more times over the next few centuries. In addition, millions of people are thought to have suffered from food poisoning during the Middle Ages because of the presence of rat droppings in the grain supply. Centuries of cat slaughter had allowed the rodent population to surge out of control.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2149/History-Human-Animal-Interaction-MEDIEVAL-PERIOD.html?ModPagespeed=noscript [libraryindex.com]
Anything else I can help you with?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No this is why you don't listen to Hollywood actors when it comes to vaccination.
"Actor" (actress).... rather a stretch when it comes to describing Ms. McCarthy, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Bill Maher has said some anti vaccination stuff as well so that's not actually true.
Furthermore, most people indifferent to religion get vaccinated about as much as anyone else. You have to appreciate that the anti vaccination people are always a fringe group and rarely represent any significant portion of the population.
Beyond that, these things spread through human contact. Its just a biological fact. Someone at work coughs and everyone gets a cold. Hospitals sadly are often the source of most minor seaso
Re: (Score:3)
I don't remember any quarterbacks or pitches preaching to the crowds about how they should avoid vaccinations
Gotta be careful about saying that kind of stuff, because no matter how unlikely it seems, there will soon be someone who matches. Rodney Peete is a quarterback who does exactly that.
Re: (Score:3)