Measles 2015
 

2/3/15 - in 14 states and growing....

what does the caption have to do with the thread title?

It means having measles blows because you can't see anybody.

And what imbecile thinks Portland is in Nebraska?

[/CNN sucks]

:D All right you silly people... it was just a screen shot, not a legal exhibit in a court case

... try this one from Boston:

yup

It's a typo... Portland, Maine

Eh, lamp, nobody wants to deal with the fact that measles are a 'thing' again.

ffs

Yes, I'm aware of that.

But it's on it's way to being a political issue as well as public health,
so either way it's going to be around for a while.

I'm sorry if it makes people uncomfortable... blame Jenny.

Measles is *extremely* contagious. It's ten times more contagious than, say, ebola. And we lost our fucking minds when the shadow of ebola threatened to darken our shores. Jon Stewart has a brilliant piece about the "strange hospital bedfellows" made of people who show off for the camera their ignorant *and* mindful stupidity as anti-vaxxers. Civilians and politicians alike hold forth providing comic fodder for Stewart. I especially liked the part where President Obama was asked about measles, he said "parents should vaccinate their children". Which sent Stewart into a tizzy remarking that now half the population of the country will avoid vaccination, just on their political principles. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: duuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Which brings me to this related news item about a politician who thinks individual freedom from government meddling in things like public health should take the form of... different governmental meddling.

Thom Tillis: Keep Government Out of the Bathroom

So, a regulation requiring that a business has to post a sign saying that "We don't require our employees to wash their hands after they use the restroom" is OK, but a regulation an individual to wash their hands after using the restroom is some kind of burden. To me, it sounds like he wants regulations to be more like... suggestions, and "let the market decide" what's best. But we all know that the business will strive to keep their own costs and overhead down and push as much as possible onto anyone else. Why not opt out of all regulations? Be "upfront and transparent with the public" about the choice, what could go wrong?

Shit's spilled, people are sickened, or injured, or killed, but hey, we were upfront and transparent, so what?

You know? We're only having a conversation about an outbreak of measles, we only have an OUTBREAK of measles strictly because of the effectiveness of vaccination. JFC.

Things that were also very effective at their given purpose: asbestos, Thalidomide, DDT. The argument has never been over effectiveness, and it's a straw man to keep pointing it out.

Phil Plait, aka Bad Astronomer, has a good piece about all the anti-anti-vax polemics.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._all_this.html

In short, you are making your own problem worse with all your ranting and facepalming and JFChristing.

Thanks all the non-vaxxers! You've done society such a huge favor! Thank gawd measles are making a comeback. It gives the medical professions other things to worry about, like all the Munchhausen 'diseases' so they don't have to concentrate on the things that would be anti-money makers.

Next up: smallpox. Wheee, that'll be fun!

If the regulation was just to have the sign, he'd be trying to get that repealed.

The reality is the regulation makes Starbucks post the sign. It forces neither the employee to wash their hands, nor Starbucks to enforce it.

Yeah, no.

We, as a nation, are having a conversation about measles outbreaks. The reason it's noteworthy on a national scale is because it's novel. It's novel because it's uncommon and it's uncommon because of the effectiveness of measles vaccinations throughout our population.

This is not a straw man argument.

I am not doing anything like this:

Perhaps you're suggesting that I am making a straw man argument by oversimplyfing, calling all anti-vaccination supporters "stupid". That would be a straw man argument, but I'm not doing that. Stupid people are stupid, vaccinations notwithstanding. But opting out of vaccinations for stupid reasons is stupid. Like the woman in Stewart's clip (no link before, but here ya go: Liberal idiocy, Les Measlesrables) who chooses to avoid vaccination for stupid reasons, that's stupid. Science denial is stupid. There *are* circumstances where the choice to avoid vaccination isn't stupid, for children who have compromised immune systems. Not stupid.

Anyhow, I'm not making blanket statements.

While we're discussing each other's logical arguments, associating "asbestos, Thalidomide, DDT" with vaccinations is just throwing some unhelpful red herrings into the conversation. Not helpful.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful to you.

But you were though,Clod. He just didn't read what you meant...or what you didn't type.

Why aren't they fixing the problem? Why can't the vaccine be reformulated so that is does no harm?

Because that would mean admitting that it does harm, even if only implicitly, and that will cause a massive lost of trust from the public. Would you listen to someone who said, "Oh yeah, oops, I was totally wrong before, but now, this time, I swear we got it right?" They have no choice but to hold to the party line, and hope that the numbers (i.e. incidence of autoimmune disease) stop rising soon. My personal guess, however, is that the numbers won't stop rising for a long while to go yet. They could have done it right early on and retained the majority of participants in the program, but now they've shot themselves in the foot.

Because look, everything else aside, it's not long before they admit that autism is an autoimmune disease. Kids with autoimmune disease should not get vaccinated, that's a given from both sides. Except the most "current" data (which is to say, medical surveys which are about 8 years behind the curve due to the time it takes to first diagnose a cohort of children born in a certain year, and then collect and analyze that data) says that 1 in 36 boys has autism. That's almost 3% of the male population right there, and herd immunity for measles requires 83-94% of the population be vaccinated. Nevermind the percentage of the population that has celiac (another 1% diagnosed, suspected anywhere from 3-10% undiagnosed,) rheumatoid arthritis (another .6%,) etc. Soon it will get to the point--if it hasn't already--that it won't matter what did or didn't cause it, the number of children who can't get vaccinated will make herd immunity impossible anyway.

Are auto immune conditions definitely increasing, or is it that they are being more readily diagnosed as such?

Definitely increasing, across the board. Deadly-strength allergies are the easiest example to see--school nurses with literal file cabinets full of epi-pens--but all of them have increased to some degree. Some like to dismiss the celiac increase specifically as better diagnosis, but other diseases like Type I diabetes are really obvious and can't have gone undiagnosed in the past.

Interesting.

Allowing myself to be involved just at the periphery of this, because it's three days on and I cannot stop thinking about this one matter:

Phil Plait is like the A-Number-One Super Shamer when it comes to anthropomorphic global warming. He loves it, he's all over it.

So what Plait is now anxious about is that the rhetoric he loves so well on his favorite topic is now being co-opted -- for example the word "deniers" is now being applied to anti-vaxers.

I'm in agreement with him on the science and the skepticism. But he's a hypocrite, and part of the problem.

Ah, I didn't know that. I don't generally follow his stuff, I've just come across it in passing a few times. That would indeed make him a giant hypocrite.

Reading clod's link I see "denier" used once, and that's the reference to Chris Mooney's article which uses the word in the title. If he was concerned about the word being cooped why would he link to a place doing that? I think your reasoning is faulty on that point. Just because he is rabid about anthropomorphic global warming and not rabid about vaccinations, doesn't make him a hypocrite so I don't follow your reasoning?

Phil's whole point is that being rabid about an issue (in this case vaccination) further polarizes the opposition and does not, in fact, bring about the change you desire. Yet that is according to Undertoad exactly the tactic he uses on a different issue (global warming.)

OK, got it. Thanks.

Nothing measly 'bout that.


Oh wait ...

They already took thimerosol out, just to quell these fears, and, as Clodfobble said, the anti-vax people just took that as an admission that vaccines are dangerous, and refuse to believe that any others are safe.

From The Economist of 31 Jan 2015: To so many, Kim Kardashian has more credibility than a doctor. Because a child uses feelings to make decisions. Facts and numbers cause a child's eyes to glaze over.

Herd immunity means more than 92% must be vaccinated. Another number that glazed over the eyes of strippers (Jenny McCarthy) and other adult children.

It just isn't that simple tw.

The medical and scientific community need to do some serious house clearing before they place blame onto hysterical parents. The Wakefield scandal did not happen in a vacuum.

You should google "CDC whistleblower," tw. Or you can just wait for the congressional testimony sometime later this year. There are certainly some valid arguments against what he claims, but regardless, you will find that it is more than just big-breasted starlets who are involved in the debate. Some of them are the real scientists who actually performed the very studies you are referring to.

This is a moderately long article deserving of a read..

Andrew Wakefield, father of the anti-vax movement, still insists MMR vaccine causes autism
Newsweek 2/10/15

@Clod: I am truly not trying to pick a fight with you about your children and
how they are responding to the diet you are using to improve their health.
I do believe parents know their children better than anyone else,
and physicians should (and do) pay attention to them.

I do just have trouble with the more recent statistics that are being advertised,
and used to justify the attacks by some on vaccination programs, etc.

If the definition of "autism spectrum disorder" is spread wide and thin enough,
we can have those numbers come up to 1 in 15, or to 1 in 5, or 1 in 3...
of all children meet the "current definition of ...".

I also have trouble with the Jenny McCarthy-type phenomenon in which
"This is what happened to my child, and it must be true for others..."
One case does not prove cause and effect, but it's very easy to believe,
especially when that person is popular or politically powerful to the public.

Likewise, some cases of "ASD" may or may not be an autoimmune disease,
and in some situations, a child with existing autoimmune disease
truly should not be given a vaccination. But that is a contradictory argument
to whether a given vaccine "caused" the autoimmune disease in an otherwise healthy child.

Even if the argument is against "live virus" vaccines, there is still the question as to the specific virus.
That is, by the time a child has reached one year of age, they have essentially been
exposed to viruses from other members of the family and the public.
And while parents may associate the on-set of a chronic illness with the vaccination,
it still is not necessarily a cause and effect.

While it is completely understandable for parents to search for someone or some thing
to blame for their child's disease, it is hard for me to be patient with the those
who condemn or accuse the world's public health community with foisting
vaccination programs onto the public just to protect reputations or incomes, or whatever.

.

You know, for kids!

The user reviews are fun.

1,195 reviews, and my wife says it made it to "The View" today !

If housecleaning is necessary, then posted are specific facts that define that housecleaning and where. With the all so important reasons why.

The Wakefield scandal only proves again that many adults ignore facts to instead entertain their feelings. Why did a majority of Americans know smoking increases health? Same concept. It did not happen in a vacuum. It happens where and because so many adults think like children. It was the first thing they were told. Resulting feelings somehow prove an "irrefutable truth".

Many 'feel' vaccines cause autism when facts clearly say otherwise. No way around that reality - if thinking like an adult. But a stripper said otherwise. Amazing how many adults who are still children can be brainwashed by a stripper. A truly responsible adult ignores or rejects statements that come without the required reasons why. Same applies to an unfounded housecleaning accusation.

If you have a fact (that housecleaning is necessary), then post it. Using statements devoid of the "always required reasons why" is disrespect to adults who think like adults. Similar soundbyte is why so many adults who think like children believe Jenny McCarthy. Same logic also proved smoking cigarettes increases health. That Saddam had WMDs. And that extraordinary rendition of any non-Americans is good. Fox News said so. It also must be true.

Furthermore, since required details were not included, then I can also assume you said anything I want to believe. Just another reason why the housecleaning statement is best ignored by adults who think like adults. Otherwise we must have a pissing contest.

We know vaccines cause autism. Saddam still has WMDs. And that housecleaning is necessary. Because soundbytes order us what to believe - also called brainwashing. Please do not use such soundbyte logic to insult adults who think like adults.

Jenny McCarthy lied as we should expect of an adult who thinks like a child. Those housecleaning accusations are unfounded as also proven by the missing 'always required reasons why'.

Because (paid) doctors and dozens of (questionably funded) published peer-reviewed studies said so.

Stick with the WMD parallels, tw, because smoking is really not the example you want to use here. It is THE prime example of the medical establishment overtly failing the public for decades, before finally admitting that nicotine is addictive, smoking causes cancer, and dozens of sound, rigorous, impartial, medical studies had been faked.

I did just that. So I should wait for a Congressional investigation by a Science Committee chairman who is a wacko extremist, a religious extremist, and who has publically stated he is not a scientist and does not know how to be one? I should wait for that Kangaroo court and believe Clodfobble's statement that is devoid of any supporting facts and numbers? Hardly. Otherwise I too would have so hated the American soldier as to believe Saddam had WMDs. Know that Airborne cures the common cold. And that childhood leukemia is created by electrical fields.

I did what Clodfobble suggested. Resulting fact said Clodfobble lied.

Clodfobble did as Jenny McCarthy also did. Make statements devoid of any supporting facts and numbers. Junk science reasoning is alive and well. No wonder so many know MMR causes autism because a stripper said so. It must be true because she has big hair, big boobs, and no education.

These lies and myths do not occur in a vacuum. Each is invented by emotions that prove it is true. Same logic also proved communists were hiding out in the State Department and US Army. We know that was true because we were told it was true. Adults who think like children never provide the 'always required reasons why'.

You... should not have googled it? I am truly a master of deception.

I have neither the time nor inclination to gather up evidence for a fairly broad point about the ways in which the scientific communities have helped to create a culture of suspicion or unease about medical testing and medical products.

This though sets out some of the problem:

Oh and a really interesting follow up to that:

I don't want to put words in her mouth but I believe Clod's current take on this is that Autism may be an autoimmune disease caused by other factors. The vaccinations could be the trigger for the immune response which exacerbates the symptoms but are not the cause of the autism.

With a previously missing detail, I am reading something completely different. Now you are saying the scientific community has not presented facts accurately.

What science has done is not the problem. But so many people need things presented in a politically correct manner. Wakefield lied. Then science did what science always does. It exposed his lies. But what does an adult child named Jenny McCarthy (and others) still do? Continue to promote lies exposed by science.

Being an enemy of mankind, scumbag bitch can only believe the first thing she is told. She is a child; she cannot admit the scam. A scam was not created by science. A scam created because so many children would promote harm by even hiding the science. Those others only do what business schools teach.

You should be attacking wacko extremists who openly encourage fraud such as ginko biloba. A fraud that exists because fraud is legal. They need not report what is being provided. Most ginko biloba only contains rice, beans, and pieces of house plants. Science did not create this fraud. Science exposed it. It exists due to contempt for science. Adults who corrupt - who claim the purpose of a business is only profits - create this problem. As if black tea is another miracle drug.

The science community is not guilty. Business school graduates run many drug companies. Wacko extremists in government now make it legal or acceptable to hide science facts even from doctors. And then to keep drug prices 40% higher - to further enrich those liars. Since that gets bigger campaign contributions. Government even protects a scam called ginko biloba.

Why did they blame Paterno for pedophilia? Investigation was by someone who previously destroyed data on Vioxx. Science proved Vioxx caused strokes and other problems. Was Frazer disbarred for legal misconduct (perverting the discovery process - hiding the science)? No. He was given the presidency of Merck - the drug company whose purpose is now profits - not better drugs. Then Frazer was the head investigator for Penn States BoDs ... who did no investigation and blamed Paterno. Had he used science principles, he would have never made such conclusions. But he gets promoted by deception, lies, and manipulating adults who are still children.

Science community did not lie. Management educated in corruption (what is taught to business school graduates) creates your problem. Why do you blame science for what is taught in business schools? They created a bogeyman so that you would not blame bean counter management. They have you blaming their bogeyman for corruption. They have successfully scammed you. Even your own citation does not blame science. It blames corruption that keeps doctors from learning the science.

The science is accurate and honest. But scumbags such as Jenny McCarthy, Frazer, Wakefield, and even Carly Fiorina successfully play you for a fool. They have you blaming innocent science and not corrupt business school graduates.

Meanwhile science says MMR does not create autism. Only lovers of the scumbags believe lies created in the tradition of business school graduates: purpose of a business is only your profits - others be damned. Making the ginko biloba scam even legal. Even Wakefield lied to do what is taught in business schools - profits - the product and public be damned. Why do you blame science for what is taught in business schools?

Had the 'always required reasons why' been provided, then that 'take on this' would have been obvious. Unfortunately, only a soundbyte was posted. So your 'take' can only be speculation.

She's been posting about this for 8+ years. That's how Griff was able to get so much out of that "soundbyte." If you joined the community here, you might understand better what people are talking about.

Bwahahahahahaha
.

I'm gonna go with environmental pollution and the tens of thousands of untested chemicals that have become the 'background radiation' of our lives as the cause of just about all the fucked up stuff that is happening to everyone and the bees, right now. Vaccines, with or without thimerosal barely have a walk-on role in this play.

I don't see why changing the make up of an immunisation is like saying there was something wrong with the first one. There is only progress. All businesses change the make up of their product. Modify, improve etc. If people were to argue that drug companies were selling a faulty product just because they made improvements to it, then pretty much every other business on the planet should be sued too.

It's just not a valid argument, and any lawyer worth half his salt would put that one to bed pretty smartly.

eta: I say that because at this stage, there is no proven scientific link between autism and vaccination (regardless of whether it is a fact or not), so there can be no argument in a court of law about this issue. With regard to the other associated risks, consumers have been warned at every vaccination point about the risks, so that is not arguable either.

Oooh. You go girl!

Hmmm...reading my post back, it comes across as being a lot more in your face than I had intended.

I clearly don't need to weigh in on why we should or shouldn't vaccinate. everyone here knows my point of view. I just think that if improvements can be made to vaccines so they are safer and more effective, then there shouldn't be a reason not to offer them, and the response to any opposition seems clear to me.

If there is hesitation associated with making these improvements main stream, then I would say there is a valid reason, and it's probably not associated with any conspiracy or fear of litigation.

Relevant points must be recently posted. Yes, one could assume she said that autism may be an autoimmune disease caused by other factors. However that was not specifically stated in the current discussion in a manner that also eliminates other possible interpretations.

I see near zero relationships between autism and autoimmune diseases in previous posts. Due to no supporting numbers that define a relationship, then that subjective speculation is ignored - until perspective (ie numbers) exists to make it relevant.

So, moving on to autism. First, we know from well proven science that little to no relationship exists between MMR and autism. A point that must be repeated due to some who just refuse to admit it. Because Jenny McCarthy lied and refuses to apologize.

More likely is a relationship between autism and environments containing higher levels of farm insecticides. But even that is currently speculation. Not enough evidence (apparently) exists even for a hypothesis.

Second, a newborn child is exposed to many thousands of foreign organisms. The resulting contamination is essential to health. Whereas a parent may be overwhelmed emotionally by so many vaccines, that is near zero compared to the number of foreign infections an infant must absorb to become/remain healthy. The intestines alone contain maybe ten trillion foreign organisms - all essential for health. Not billions - trillions.

For every human body cell, another ten are foreign cells that exist due to environmental contamination. Those many times more foreign organisms are essential for health. A parent emotionally concerned by near zero 'infections' from vaccines should therefore take on a 'Howard Hughes fear' of all bacteria? And then will create a child also at tremendous risk to autoimmune diseases.

This says nothing about a relationship between autoimmune diseases and autism. But it demonstrates that infection from vaccines is trivial to near zero compare to other infections a newborn must suffer and prosper from.

We know that a newborn's contamination begins in the birth canal. Ongoing research is whether autoimmune diseases are created, in part, by Caesarian births. But again, nobody is citing a relationship between autism and Caesarian births.

Third, these vaccines have been upgraded over decades to make a near zero risk even tinier - as Aliantha discusses . Due to some upgrades, some vaccines do not remain as effective as they once did. We know from economics 101 that upgrades to anything take that many years. In the case of drugs, minor improvement typically takes a decade or longer. Innovation takes that long. Improvements (we hope) are continuing.

Jenny McCarthy certainly knows none of this. IOW everyone (except classicman) is now more intelligent than Jenny McCarthy. And this is only a layman's grasp.

8+ years of sincere belief doesn't make it right. The evidence regarding immunization is in; there is no legitimate discussion or opinion anymore. The evidence is indisputable, ever since Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids didn't get smallpox. Immunization has saved millions upon millions of innocent lives.

As for autism spectrum disorders ... there is no evidence for an autoimmune cause, no matter how much some may wish it. I have two sons with ASD, and believe me, I have researched all possible etiologies and all possible treatments.

I delved into alternative medicine and investigated every possible route to health for my sons. I was prepared to jettison all of my allopathic teaching, but I was never willing to jettison my reason. In the end, I rejected the alternative interpretations and treatments, because they had no logical basis.

I have as much at stake as anyone, including Clod. I have two children with ASD. I feel for Clod, and I'm willing to support her as her children grow. But I don't support a rejection of immunization. That is not the hill on which to die.

Please, have your children vaccinated.

It's been pointed out to me that my comments might be too harsh coming from a mod. I want to be clear that I'm not speaking as a mod here. I just wanted to point out the difference between why tw didn't understand a statement, and Griff did. Griff has been paying attention to the people behind the posts, and tw appears to just be debating words on a screen.

It's all good.

Jesu le Christie, people, unless one of the mods says "If you do that again I am going to ban you," they aren't speaking as mods.

New user title up for grabs.

Well, who said that to glatt? Some barely disguised asshole, a keeper of all that is holy. Jebus Harold Cripes...

It's all OK.

So is 'mods' the new lingo for mom? Or is it this board's "Mom Or Dads".

In this new electronic society, what does one do when mom or dad says to go to our room till we are told to come out? If virtual rooms no longer have walls, must we also close our door? How?

Me

Well that didn't end well. ;)

I got defensive on glatt's behalf, as one who thinks he's about as 'above reproach' as you're going to find. glatt can certainly fight his own battles and make his own decisions, though. And this isn't even coming from a tw hater. I've always rather liked the t-dub, as I've said before. Though glatt is a moderator, he can speak as glatt and not be wearing his Glatt the Modbarian garb. At least I think so.