Book Is Rallying Resistance to the Antivaccine Crusade

New York Times ^ | January 12, 2009 | DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

[MamaTexan]

So we can't force all of the above, but we CAN force them to be injected with some kind of government-mandated chemical slurry?

That's a total non sequitur if there ever was one.

----

No one can convince me it's a good idea to pump a baby's body full of anything when it's not even a year old.

I've seen the results of vaccines have on some children, and it's NOT pretty.

[TChris]

...but we CAN force them to be injected with some kind of government-mandated chemical slurry?

Why engage in the fear-mongering hyperbole?

The anti-vaccine hysteria is absolutely silly, panic-induced and harmful to the unvaccinated children as well as the public at large.

All of you, PLEASE STOP!

Vaccines are a MIRACLE and a blessing of the highest order. Suffering of a type and degree that you and I cannot imagine has been STOPPED by the creation and use of vaccines.

Polio, in particular, has been ELIMINATED in the developed world because of vaccination.

Here's a taste of what unvaccinated children face:

Girl with polio

Child with measles

Child with mumps

Infant with rubella

Child with tetanus (lockjaw)

Please seriously consider these very real, actual harms which are STOPPED by vaccination! Compare that to the disproven and imaginary harms that vaccines are accused of.

Real harms and real, widespread disease versus coincidence and fear. Make a thinking, reasoned choice.

[calex59]

It’s not 100%, I realize that. But the risk is there, and I simply want to try to void it if possible. I’m not telling anyone they should be forced into any vaccine.

To the contrary, I think no one should be forced to vaccinate their children. I think they should do it but I don't think the government has the right to force it. States rights, individual rights, it is what the country was founded on!

[Pharmboy]

I agree with you on the Hep B vaccine, but support all the others. There will be hell to pay for the unvaccinated 10 or so years down the road when measles and other diseases infect them.

And,autism has NOTHING to do with vaccines. End of story...

[Question_Assumptions]

First chicken pox. While it's true that the disease is relatively benign in children it's less so in adults, especially people with immune disorders.

"Immune disorders" being an issue, of course, becaue of AIDS. But if that's the case, why do we give the immunizations to very young children and immunize people with a vaccine where the immunity wears off instead of letting them take their chances as children to get the real disease, which confers lifetime immunity, and then vaccinate anyone who doesn't get it as a child as an adult? And let's not forget that 10%-15% of the vaccinations don't actually stop Chicken Pox, either.

Plus, zoster, which can be extremely unpleasant, occurs in people who have had chicken pox.

Sure, but how many 40 and 50 year-olds are checking up on their vaccinations and are getting booster shots for Chicken Pox, which they need with the vaccine, and what happens when they get Chicken Pox, instead, as an adult because they weren't immune? Or what if they just don't have immunity because the vaccine didn't take?

As for the HPV vaccine, the main purpose of this vaccine is to prevent cervical cancer in women. If most women are vaccinated it's hard to argue that vaccinating boys adds much value, especially considering the very high cost of the vaccine. Although I expect the FDA to soon approve vaccinating boys it's arguably not cost effective

As the original studies that showed the link between HPV and cervical cancer demonstrated, promiscuous men are the primary reason why there is so much HPV and how women get it. The argument for vaccinating boys is to stop the spread to unvaccinated women because no vaccine is 100%. If they are going to mandate it for girls, then they should mandate it for boys using the same "herd immunity" argument used to justify the other mandates. If it's only for personal protection, then any and all vaccines should be a matter of personal choice since that choice only affects the person taking or not taking the vaccine. If it's a mandate, it should be a mandate for everyone, just like Rubella (mainly a danger to pregnant women, not men) and Chicken Pox or Mumps (male sterility).

My main concern here is not with one particular vaccine or another. It's with the anti-vaccination movement in general.

And I'm not opposed to vaccination in principle. My kids have had most of theirs. I'm opposed to a government mandate telling parents what to do with their children and with vaccine companies who don't seem to care what the consumers think or want becaues they have the force of a government mandate behind them. It's the mandate that scares a lot of people, makes it difficult to opt out of a few vaccinations, or (most importantly) makes it difficult for parents to wait until their children are older and past the point where Autism and other problems set in to vaccinate their children.

The arguments against vaccination are based on bogus science that has been thoroughly debunked.

If the government weren't so intent on forcing parents to vaccinate their children as young infants, before things like autism become apparent, then manybe nobody would be blaming the vaccines in the first place. And maybe if parents were free to wait until their chilren were 4 or 5 and could give their kids separate Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccines, there would be less aniety and the connection would be broken. It's government policy that forced a schedule of MMR vaccines that coincides with the onset of obvious Autism symptoms and it would be a lot easier to show a connection or lack of connection if there was more flexibility in the vaccination schedule. The schedule created the correlation, which people see as causation.

But even then, the anti vaccination crowd have served a valuable purpose by getting the mercury out of childhood vaccines and by asking questions that should be asked about he safety of mixing and matching certain vaccines and about the cumulative effects as opposed to individual effects. People should always be allowed to raise questions like that.

Withholding vaccination from children places them at risk of enormous suffering. There have been several recent mini-epidemics of measles in the past few years due to failure to vaccinate. I'd hate to see polio return to this country.

Sure, but by defending every vaccine like Chicken Pox or HPV as if it were Polio or Small Pox undermines that argument because people know that Chicken Pox isn't like Polio and the idea of a "Chicken Pox epidemic" doesn't frighten people and the possibility of a bad epidemic of Chicken Pox is made worse by the vaccine because unless adults get boosters, they can lose their immunity while those who have had the disease as children (becoming more rare) will be immune for life.

[Question_Assumptions]

Again, I notice that a picture of a child with Chicken Pox seems to be missing from the list. Why? Because many have had it and few fear it because it was once a common childhood illness that parents purposely exposed their children to. As for the infant with Rubella, is that an infant who caught Rubella or a child born with Rubella because their mother had it? That’s a good case for vaccinating women of child bearing age for Rubella but not such a great case for vaccinating an infant. That’s a big part of the problem. They’ve gone well beyond Polio and Measles and Small Pox into diseases that aren’t nearly as much of a threat and are vaccinating children with them, in some cases, before the bigger risk factors (such as getting Rubella while pregnant — zero risk for my 1 year-old daughter) exist.

This is a case of government making things worse by pushing too far, which is what governments do. It’s like red light cameras and speed cameras. Most people support tickets for dangerous drivers and people clearly running red lights but camera enforcement is that step too far that turns everyone against it because it becomes abuse of authority. The push back against vaccines corresponds to the push for more and more vaccines at younger and younger ages and with government mandating them.

[PurpleMan]

The statement was, “Either we have an individual right to decide what’s best for our children, or our ‘freedom’ is just a sham.”

I don’t know how you can say that not obeying the law in one point because, “...we have an individual right to decide what’s best for our children” (vaccine) is OK but NOT obeying the law in a different point to protect the child (child labor, forced marriage) is OK.

Saying that it is a “liberal tactic” is not intellectually consistent but rather an Ad Hominem fallacy.

I don’t advocate child labor/prostitution but your argument has to be more intellectually honest than, “Oh, you’re just a liberal” which, if you knew me you would know to be false.

Make the case.

[prismsinc]

Isn’t that what I said?

[MamaTexan]

Please seriously consider these very real, actual harms which are STOPPED by vaccination! Compare that to the disproven and imaginary harms that vaccines are accused of.

Disproven? Imaginary? Tell that to my friend who now has two disabled children due to vaccines being given to babies at such a young age.

The accusation of 'fear-mongering hyperbole' doesn't work, because it was the PEDITRICAN that told her it was the vaccines.

BTW, I didn't say children shouldn't be vaccinated, I question the age at WHICH they are vaccinated an whether or not the vaccinations are against the wishes of the parents.

[MamaTexan]

I don’t know how you can say that not obeying the law in one point because, “...we have an individual right to decide what’s best for our children” (vaccine) is OK but NOT obeying the law in a different point to protect the child (child labor, forced marriage) is OK.

I never said that they were both okay, I questioned the fact you can't see the irony when you stated you can't force a marriage, but you CAN force a vaccine.

-----

Saying that it is a “liberal tactic” is not intellectually consistent but rather an Ad Hominem fallacy.

LOL! 'Equalization' IS a liberal tactic, whether you like it or not. Squalling 'Ad Hominem' because I won't let you slip by trying to compare apples [illegal acts like prostitution, child labor] to oranges [health related issue such as vaccinations] just makes you look silly.

[TChris]

Again, I notice that a picture of a child with Chicken Pox seems to be missing from the list. Why? Because many have had it and few fear it because it was once a common childhood illness that parents purposely exposed their children to. As for the infant with Rubella, is that an infant who caught Rubella or a child born with Rubella because their mother had it? That’s a good case for vaccinating women of child bearing age for Rubella but not such a great case for vaccinating an infant. That’s a big part of the problem. They’ve gone well beyond Polio and Measles and Small Pox into diseases that aren’t nearly as much of a threat and are vaccinating children with them, in some cases, before the bigger risk factors (such as getting Rubella while pregnant — zero risk for my 1 year-old daughter) exist.

My list was not meant to be all-inclusive, so the fact that it is not means precisely nothing. Don't try to make something of nothing.

Also, the images I found were from a quick Internet search. They were not meant to be an exhaustive gallery of the suffering caused by disease.

But, as with most emotionally-driven folks on a crusade, you seem to have lost perspective. Now it's all about being right, isn't it?

Vaccination isn't eeeeevil. It really does work, and literally millions of people today owe their very lives to the application of vaccines.

Parents, get your children vaccinated. The cost/benefit analysis completely, clearly, totally and without a doubt demands it.

[TChris]

Disproven? Imaginary? Tell that to my friend who now has two disabled children due to vaccines being given to babies at such a young age.

*sigh*

Anyone can find one or two examples of literally ANYTHING. But such isolated cases don't mean a thing when you're considering the overall value or harm of something.

As an example, a few kids have been killed by drinking too much water. Does that make water a wicked monster foisted onto unsuspecting children by a heartless government?

FAR, far more children have been saved from untold suffering and death by vaccines than have EVER been harmed by them. Vaccines are such an overwhelmingly positive thing that it's not even close.

The accusation of 'fear-mongering hyperbole' doesn't work, because it was the PEDITRICAN that told her it was the vaccines.

Doctors are wrong sometimes. I'm sure you know that, don't you?

Besides, even if it really was the vaccine in that case, it's insignificant compared to the MILLIONS of children who have been protected by them.

Do yourself a favor and look up how many children used to get polio before the vaccine was invented. Now, multiply that by generations over time and tell me that a couple of POSSIBLE (doubtful) bad experiences with vaccines outweighs saving that many children from being crippled.

It just doesn't.

BTW, I didn't say children shouldn't be vaccinated, I question the age at WHICH they are vaccinated an whether or not the vaccinations are against the wishes of the parents.

Children are the most vulnerable to disease. Their immune systems are the weakest, so protecting them early only makes sense.

And as for going against the wishes of the parents, that sounds an AWFUL lot like the argument of a pro-abortion mother who thinks it should be her choice to allow her baby to live or not. It's certainly not as extreme as being pro-choice, but it's the same logic.

Should parents be allowed to choose whether or not to protect their children? Should they be allowed to choose whether or not to feed them? ...shelter them?

Vaccinating children against horrible, painful, crippling REAL diseases has such an overwhelmingly positive result that there's no reason at all not to require it.

None.

[tpanther]

For the most part your observations are correct. I worked in an immunizations clinic for years in the Air Force. I’ll never forget the child that had a severe reaction from DPT and nearly died.

If a child has a history of reactions, is very sensitive to the environment, multiple allergies, I’d proceed with extreme caution to the point of with-holding them depending on severity, but otherwise, there’s simply no argument, except flu vaccines. Also worth mentioning: egg allergies would factor into the equation since egg yolks are used in some formulations of flu vaccines.

That is the only one that I have no confidence in, simply because it’s a crap shoot and they so often guess the wrong type of flu to target.

[jalisco555]

While men are certainly the vectors for HPV they are, by and large, not harmed by the virus, at least the oncogenic (cancer-causing) types. At $360+ for a course of Gardasil it may not be cost-effective to vaccinate males if we're already reaching females, the true beneficiaries of the vaccine. And a major reason we vaccinate children rather than adults is that children regularly see doctors and adults don't. It's just reality. That's why we vaccinate children against Hepatitis B, for example. It's an adult disease for the most part but how many young adults see their doctors with any kind of regularity?

And as someone who was vaccinated the hard way against measles, mumps and chicken pox I can tell you that these diseases are far from benign. Measles almost killed me. I'd hate to see others go through what I went through unnecessarily.

[jalisco555]

Actually, now that I think about it, there are arguments for vaccinating males against HPV. Men who engage in anal intercourse are at extremely high risk for developing anal cancer and would be protected by Gardasil. In fact we’re seeing more and more Pap smears on men (anal Paps) because of this. Also, we’re coming to realize that a significant number of cancers of the head and neck are caused by HPV. So the cost-benefit argument concerning vaccinating males is a complicated one.

[jalisco555]

You are absolutely, positively correct. The irony is that many of the people arguing against vaccination are alive and well today thanks to vaccination. Who know how many of us would have succumbed to polio, diphtheria, etc. had vaccines never existed?

[usmom]

Anyone can find one or two examples of literally ANYTHING. But such isolated cases don’t mean a thing when you’re considering the overall value or harm of something

Children becoming disabled don’t mean a thing? You’d be singing a different tune if it was YOUR child, now wouldn’t you? Or do you actually suppose you would happily write it off as a sacrifice needed for the ‘good’ of others? If so, you are much worse than any of the parents you ridicule for not vaccinating. Judging from your many outrageous posts on this subject, I suspect you are either a CDC-brainwashed doctor or pharmaceutical company shill.

[TChris]

Children becoming disabled don’t mean a thing? You’d be singing a different tune if it was YOUR child, now wouldn’t you?

That's exactly the point! Even if a FEW children have become disabled from vaccines, that cannot compare to the MILLIONS (REALLY!) of children who have been disabled and KILLED by the diseases they prevent!

You're trying to mix up the general with the specific. That's ALWAYS going to lead to the wrong conclusion.

For example: I used to be a police officer. I have personally seen the horrible damage that a car accident can cause to a person. Such accidents criple and kill men, women and children every hour of every day in our country.

Those are real, specific occurrences.

Do those specific harms lead us to conclude that motorized vehicles are generally a Bad Thing, and that they should be avoided or outlawed? Of course not.

For one thing, motorized vehicles also save lives every day. The benefits they provide far outweigh even the thousands of lives lost each year.

Similiarly, some cases of children being harmed by vaccines does not lead to the conclusion that vaccination is generally a Bad Thing.

Or do you actually suppose you would happily write it off as a sacrifice needed for the ‘good’ of others? If so, you are much worse than any of the parents you ridicule for not vaccinating. Judging from your many outrageous posts on this subject, I suspect you are either a CDC-brainwashed doctor or pharmaceutical company shill.

Do you allow your children to go outside?

There's approximately a 1 in 500,000 chance that your child will be struck by lightning this year. Do you consider it a sacrifice of some sort to endanger your child by allowing him to go outside?

Do you allow your children to ride in cars?

There's a 1 in 7000 chance that your child will be killed in a car accident. Are you an irresponsible parent for subjecting him to that risk?

The risk to your child and his health is ENORMOUSLY higher from crippling diseases than it is from the vaccinations which would protect him from those diseases!

[usmom]

While I agree in theory that vaccination is a good thing to protect from disease, the problem I have is that it has gone too far, too fast with negative consequences. From the research I have done (and what I have seen), it seems obvious that the dramatic increase in vaccines has corresponded to a dramatic increase in chronic dieseases/problems in children- asthma, food allergies, diabetes, neurological complications and yes, autism. At some point, the developing immune system becomes overwhelmed by the onslaught and problems occur. Even with the evidence, they just keep pushing more and more. Where will it stop? Are we going to vaccinate against everything, and what will be the consequences?. The point is, we don’t know what the long-term effects of this many vaccines is or will be, and you can’t just write-off the evidence that harm is being caused. there does come a point of diminishing returns, and I think we have reached that point. The sad thing is, while vaccines probably have done good in the past, it is the over-reaching and greed and disregard for evidence of harm that is causing so many to distrust ALL vaccines.

My children have been vaccinated, and I have personal experience with the negative consequences. It’s a long story, but I have seen the effects myself and I know they are real. I also know a doctor who (with several nurses) got out of general practice because he could no longer deny what he was seeing and live with himself for being part of it. He got into an alternative practice to help those harmed by vaccines and their effects. The waiting list to see him is over 4 months.

[BuffaloJack]

> My husband and I chose not to have our son vaccinated.
Then you and your husband are complete idiots.
Before childhood vaccinations it was common for a large number of children to become cripples or to die in childhood.
There may be a small number of bad side effects associated with vaccines, but without vaccines the number of deaths of children far outnumbered the number of children who had adverse side effects.