Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles

New York Times ^ | 1/30/2015 | JACK HEALY and MICHAEL PAULSON

[Jan_Sobieski]

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. — Their children have been sent home from school. Their families are barred from birthday parties and neighborhood play dates. Online, people call them negligent and criminal. And as officials in 14 states grapple to contain a spreading measles outbreak that began near here at Disneyland, the parents at the heart of America’s anti-vaccine movement are being blamed for incubating an otherwise preventable public-health crisis.

Measles anxiety rippled thousands of miles beyond its center on Friday as officials scrambled to try to contain a wider spread of the highly contagious disease — which America declared vanquished 15 years ago, before a statistically significant number of parents started refusing to vaccinate their children. In recent days, new measles cases popped up in Nebraska and Minnesota, New York and Marin County in California. Officials around the country reported rising numbers of patients who were seeking shots, as well as some pediatricians who were accepting non-vaccinated families but were debating changing their policies. The White House urged parents to listen to the science that supports inoculations...

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “We can’t measure the number of people who didn’t get the flu because they got vaccinated.” <<

.
Based on the readily available evidence, we have no basis to assume that there are any that fit that class.

Since incidence of flu is always lower among those that do not get vaccinated, why would you assume otherwise?

.

[ek_hornbeck]

A vaccination makes catching a disease entirely preventable.

There is no good reason not to get one.

Some vaccines are oversold - for instance flu vaccines. The flu virus mutates and evolves so rapidly that by the time a vaccine is developed, you're essentially protecting people against last year's strains rather than the current ones.

On the other hand, there is no rational reason to oppose vaccination for genetically stable viruses like measles, smallpox, etc.

Of course, the loons on the anti-vaccine crusade want you to believe that Jenny McCarthy's vast knowledge trumps several centuries worth of medicine and microbiology. Who would have thought that showing off your privates in glossy magazines confers expertise in epidemiology?

[ek_hornbeck]

Some things make me glad I didn’t have kids. Both sides of this argument are one of them.

There are two different issues here. The first is whether vaccinations are a good idea. The second is whether the Federal Government can mandate them. A lot of people have turned legitimate skepticism towards the latter into idiotic opposition towards the former, embracing hysteria and pseudoscience that would make most grade school kids blush.

[patriot5186]

yes, just ignore the deaths...it fits the agenda that way.

[patriot5186]

exactly! they ignore vaccine deaths (and who knows what other side effects).

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Don’t be so obtuse.

You have to weigh the pros and the cons.

With measles, a bad outcome can include pneumonia, nerve damage, or death.

Now, can a bad outcome occur with the vaccine? Sure; however, the probability is likely an order of magnitude or two LOWER than a bad outcome from measles.

Not only that, but measles is ridiculously infectious AND airborne: the vaccine is the only consistently reliable method of not getting the disease. You weigh the pros and cons, and getting the measles vaccine makes sense.

Now let’s compare measles to, say, HPV: you can only contract this virus through sexual intercourse, and the ‘vaccine’ doesn’t cover all strains. In this case, not getting the vaccine is sensible.

Pros and cons.

There are risks to everything in life. To imply that I ignore the deaths is shameful obfuscation, and you know it.