The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    MrSmith1's picture

    America ala Carte

    By MrSmith1 on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 9:25pm |

    ocean-kat’s recent blog about secessionists, struck a chord with me and reminded me that I needed to finish writing this piece.  It is a topic which has been tumbling around in my mind for a long time.

    I was on Facebook a while back, having a discussion with a friend. She is a single mother living in the UK, and doesn't like being told she must get her child vaccinated. 

    Her argument is that individuals have the right to refuse to get vaccinated if they choose to do so.  I wrote back, saying that while we are all individuals, at the same time, we interact with each other in a society.

    I asked, “When does public safety, which affects millions of individuals trump the rights of the single individual? Never? Okay then, welcome back diseases like smallpox and polio as permanent parts of Life. Is there a trade-off? Yes. But, in my opinion, it’s a worthwhile one.”

    This irritated my friend, and she wrote back,  "A few people opting out is not destroying herd immunity … if vaccines work, then those vaccinated are protected. Human rights and the right of an individual to choose whether or not to be medicated is way more important."

    Of course, that pushed my button.  I wrote back, telling her that I believe there is another dynamic involved other than that of the individual. With a contagious disease, if enough people choose not to be vaccinated, asserting their "individual freedom", then the disease will continue to spread.

    Wiping out Polio and Smallpox to the point where they now occur only in very isolated cases, if at all, took vaccinating a high enough percentage of the population to stop the spread of the disease.

    I told her she was right that if vaccines worked they would protect the people being vaccinated, but I reminded her that the other side of the coin was that the disease will not protect those that refuse to take it, and the disease, rather than being eliminated, will linger and spread in greater percentages amongst the non-protected, putting those people at an even higher risk for getting the disease.

    She then decided it was time to try to change the subject.

    But I persisted in making the point that what is being asked, is for everyone to make a contribution to the community by giving up a small bit of personal freedom in order to serve the greater good; the wiping out of a devastating contagious disease.  Something that would benefit everyone. 

    At that point, I realized that this was a very similar argument to the one playing out in our current political arena; I call it, “the individual bunker versus the ‘it takes a village’ debate.”  It’s ‘I’ve got mine and screw you’ versus ‘We’re all in this together.’

    With that in mind, I began to think like a Republican.  I wrote to her; “Why do those that refuse to be vaccinated get to have a free ride and get the immunity from the disease without making the sacrifice that everyone else made on their behalf? I mean, if everyone decides to take the free ride and refuse to be vaccinated, the immunity collapses and the disease runs rampant. So refusing to take the vaccine is, in effect, taking advantage of the rest of the community's willingness to sacrifice for the greater good. So, those refusing to participate, end up having to hope that the rest of the community DOES do the right thing, even while they do not ...”

    This was my variation of the ‘Welfare Queen’ scenario … slackers taking unfair advantage of the rest of us.   

    That conversation brought me to this: It seems to me that there are a lot of people in the country now screaming about how they don’t want to be forced to do things by the Federal government; to buy health insurance, or to pay taxes, etc. 

    The trouble is, they seem to be a particularly intransigent bunch; unwilling to compromise, thumbing their nose at anyone trying to negotiate or come to any kind of resolution short of complete capitulation to their ideas. And they're willing to completely gum up the works for everyone else despite the majority of Americans thinking they are idiots.

    After the government shut-down, there were pundits talking about how the shut-down might have been necessary to teach these morons a lesson.

    Well, as we all now know, the people who caused the shut-down learned nothing.

    They don’t believe in learning lessons, only in continuing to try to impose their will on the majority.  So, perhaps we need to teach them an even tougher lesson, and at the same time, appear to give them exactly what they are asking for.

    So here’s my (tongue-in-cheek) suggestion:  Let’s give these people a taste of what it means to really live in a bunker.  Let’s create a new level of citizen; The No-frills citizen.   We would give every citizen, the opportunity to be rid of all the government interference in their lives.  They may chose to opt out of any tax or any law that they don’t wish to support.  The basic citizenship plan would involve only paying into social security and medicare.  Everything else the government will give citizens the choice to opt-out.

    Right now, you’re thinking, there must be a catch.  

    Well, of course, there’s a catch.  People who chose to be on the basic citizen plan, are ineligible to receive any benefit that comes from any tax or toll which they have refused to pay and must pay a single use fee on everything which has been paid for or is supported by the government.  It will be like cable TV, you can buy into different levels of government policies and benefits.  Everyone MUST pay for the basic package.  If they choose not to pay for anything else, then they MUST pay as they go … on EVERYTHING.  Don't pay Federal taxes?  You must pay a single user fee for every time you visit any National Park or landmark.  If your cell phone uses an American satellite on which to bounce its signal, you will be charged a single user fee each time you use your cell phone.  You get the idea. EVERYTHING in their lives that has been touched by government will require them to pay a single user fee.

    In a restaurant; your meal comes with a salad, if you want soup, fries and a dessert that’s extra.  In the future, America will be run like a restaurant.   Call it; America ala Carte. 

    If you want the full package of benefits, you have to pay the current level of taxes.  If you want to be free of government’s tentacles, then you have to pay each time you use something that government pays for, or government money has built; like access to the electricity from the Hoover Dam, or the internet that Al Gore invented, or the inter-state highway system or locally, their garbage pickup and their fire and police departments.  One time user fees will be assessed every time they use them.  And, like all  ala Carte menus, single use fees will be exorbitant.  (Think hotel mini-bar exorbitant.)

    Don’t want to pay for foreign wars? That’s fine. But then you have to pay for any damages caused by terrorists out of your own pocket.  Or you can pay a single user fee for national security on a day to day basis.  People who refuse to help pay for government protection and opt out of national security payments, will, due to the freedom of information act, have their names publicly displayed so that terrorists can know exactly where to strike in this country without fear of retribution from the Federal government.

    (I decided after NCD's response, that the previous paragraph was unnecessary and off-topic and should have been edited out of the final draft of the post. )

    Let’s make people realize the value of full participatory citizenship; make them pay for every little thing that government does or has developed separately and see how long it takes before they are screaming “Uncle” … Uncle Sam, that is.  

     

    Comments

    Some good points but you lost me at:

    Don’t want to pay for foreign wars? That’s fine. But then you have to pay for any damages caused by terrorists out of your own pocket.

    The fact is that our recent major 'foreign war', the Iraq War, did not decrease terrorism. It increased it. A lesson we should never forget or ignore. The Iraq War made the US and the world less safe.

    Iraq was turned into a ungovernable terrorist playground, complete with targets (US troops), a cause (Jihad against the infidels) and the explosives to kill and wreak mayhem. Hundreds of tons of high explosives that were secured in UN sealed bunkers under Saddam, were not secured by US forces.

    Paul Bremer fired the entire Iraqi Army and police force less than 24 hours after his arrival as Grand Poobah of Iraq, to execute the edicts of the Bush administrations band of neo-cons.

    The chaos continues in the country to this day. 

    In addition the 'damages' done, the lives lost, of Americans, Iraqis and others, and lives ruined by the Iraq war could never be redressed by any amount of tax dollars.


    by NCD on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 11:34am

    Yeah, you're right.  That was a case of me trying too hard be too 'clever' and pushing things too far ... (sigh)  ... Looking back now over what I wrote,  I should have edited that paragraph out of the final draft.  Oh well. 


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 12:04pm

    Acceptance of vaccination assumes its effectiveness. In the case of the historically deadly Smallpox, we have a rather well-documented case of success, including an easy live vaccination discovered in the late 1700's using the less deadly cowpox.

    In the case of polio, we have a disease that first flared up to serious contagion numbers in the late 1800's, and the treatment was 2 different approaches - a live virus and a dead virus. The idea of group immunization comes more from the Sabin live virus, where moderate polio is infected in the gut and produces larger immunity as well as transfer to the community. Ironically, it is the resulting polio from this vaccine that keeps polio from being eradicated - perhaps 1 in 1.4 million cases, but over 7 billion people, that's still a few thousand getting polio from their vaccines (as of this year, the UN has finally switched to dead vaccine to try to reach eradication)

    At the same time, we have vaccination failure such as with Swine Flu, the catastrophic failure of testing for the morning sickness drug Thalidomide,  the rather bizarre suggestion of Hepatitis B for young children (sexual or junkie transmission primarily?). There's also reluctance to admit too much in the way of side-effects of vaccines. I had one experience that finally went away after 2 years, but I was never told receiving the shot of anything to worry about. Basically, we haven't had a hugely successful vaccine since the late 50's (plus penicillin as cure for syphilis), yet those expressing negativity are treated as anti-science.

    The vaccination crew is often like the neocons going into Iraq & Afghanistan - overconfident and unwilling to admit problems or issues. Yes, World War II was a success. Arguably only Grenada, Kosovo and halfway Korea have been since. Yet our country seems to still have a lot of faith in military solutions (barely missed on going into Syria), and still love us some those CIA/NSA intelligence capers despite bungling Iraq and 9/11 and having little to show from recent spying - say figuring a shady Bostonite going in and out of Dagestan might be dangerous.

    It's funny asking the anti-war, anti-spying or anti-vaccine crowd to take responsibility for their dissent, when the pro- side gets to make exaggerated claims that they never pay for. The pro-Iraqi crowd is still welcome on talk shows as "the grownups", while those who accurately predicted why there'd be disaster & ineffectiveness have been marginalized. Until Snowden, the only acceptable position was that our secret surveillance squads were keeping us safe, and to suggest anything different was to toss one's hat in with birthers and 9/11 doubters. Or to look into different ways the drug testing & approval system is rigged and influenced.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 2:41pm

     I'm not trying to argue the percentages of vaccination success, or whether or not, the anti-war or pro-war sides are justified or not in their actions.  This post was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek 'solution' to the problem of bunker mentality citizenship.

    I was using that vaccination anecdote about my friend only to try to illustrate the similarity in the way people who want to secede or do away with government, want to ignore the necessity of a citizens' obligation to contribute to society while, at the same time, they enjoy the benefits of that society.   

    That said, I would disagree with your statement that there have been no hugely successful vaccines since the 1950's.  There have been many successful new vaccines in the last 60 years. Meningitis, Rubella, Mumps, Lyme Disease, Pneumonia to name just a few.  At the turn of the 20th century, the life expectancy was, according to the U.S. Census,  47.3 years.  Due to effective vaccines that were developed in the 20th century, life expectancy at the end of the 20th century had risen to 77.8 years. So, yes, I would argue that most people who are anti-vaccination are anti-science; their rationale is based more on emotion and superstition or anedotes than facts..  Are there arguments against the efficacy of some vaccines to be made? Sure. Are drug companies in general and Michael Millken in specific, evil and not to be trusted?  No argument from me on that.  

    I thought Thalidomide was originally a drug used for leprosy, but I could be confused about that.  I do remember a rheumatologist in the late-1990's wanting to put me on it.  It was, at the time, being touted for use on some forms of arthritis.  Needless to say, my memories of the photos of all the Thalidomide babies from the early 60's made me very reluctant to try it. Fortunately the choice became moot when my HMO wouldn't approve paying for it, and a few years later, the biologic, anti-TNF drugs came along.  

     

     

     


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 5:10pm

    Thalidomide of course is not a vaccine, but it was a drug originally developed to combat morning sickness, it was later used in the 60's for to combat leprosy. It is now being used to treat multiple myeloma. According to cancer.org:

     Thalidomide is known to be an immunomodulating agent, which means that it affects some of the functions of the immune system. It also appears to work in part by slowing or stopping the growth of new blood vessels (angiogenesis), which tumors need to grow and survive. It may also have direct effects on cancer cells themselves. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 5:21pm

    I think Meningitis is recent & relatively moderate effectiveness. Mumps & Rubella might agree. Lyme Disease was withdrawn after numerous arthritis reports - including on animals from vet vaccination as one of the comments here indicates. Pneumonia vaccination seems 85% effective only on pneumococcus-related infection.

    However, seems the Measles portion of MMR has been linked to encepholopathy:

    In a UK Public Health Laboratory Service report published later in The Lancet, in 1995, the authors noted that the measles component of any MMR vaccine could also cause febrile convulsions, six to eleven days after administration of MMR, (in 67% of a group of hospital admissions studied). The study did not look beyond eleven days after administration as that was the limit of the scope of the study! In fact it is important to note that there was already a range of adverse reactions to the vaccine that are recognised by the manufacturers themselves, if not by Dr Salisbury’s Department.

    The latter insists that the vaccine is safe. However, the February 2000 edition of the manufacturer’s notes, issued by Merck & Co., lists the following possible adverse reactions reported during clinical trials:

    • (body as a whole) panniculitis, atypical measles, fever, syncope, headache, dizziness, malaise, irritability

    • (cardiovascular system) vasculitis

    • (digestive system) pancreatitis, diarrhoea, vomiting, parotitis, nausea

    • (endocrine system) diabetes mellitus

    • (hemic and lymphatic system) thromobocytopenia, purpura, regional lymphadenopathy, leukocytosis

    • (immune system) anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions, angioneurotic edema, bronchial spasm

    • (musculoskeletal system) arthritis, arthralgia, myalgia

    • (nervous system) encephalitis, encephalopathy, measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), Guillain-Barre Syndrome, febrile convulsions, afebrile convulsions or seizures, ataxia, polyneuritis, polyneuropathy, ocular palsies, paresthesia. On encephalitis, the Merck notes state that “the data suggest the possibility that some of these (reported) cases may have been caused by measles vaccines.”

    • (respiratory system) pneumonitis, sore throat, cough, rhinitis

    • (skin) Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme, urticaria, rash, burning/stinging at injection site, wheal and flare, redness, swelling, induration, tenderness, vesiculation at injection site

    • (special senses - ear) nerve deafness, otitis media

    • (special senses - eye) retinitis, optic neuritis, papillitis, retrobulbar neuritis, conjunctivitis

    • (urogenital system) orchitis

    • (other) “death from various and in some cases unknown causes has been reported rarely following vaccination with MMR; however, a causal relationship has not been established”


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 5:58pm

    Again, this is not the main point of my post.   

    You can pick apart nearly every drug or vaccine and find it having an adverse effect on someone. That is what clinical studies are supposed to discover; the level of efficacy vs. the adverse effect of a drug.  But I don't want to play that kind of tit for tat game with you about which drugs and / or vaccines work and which don't and by how much ...  That really has nothing to do with the point I was attempting to make.  

    tcmccarthy:  I know Thalidomide is not a vaccine.  I mentioned it only in response to Pericles' including it in his response to me.


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 6:25pm

    I know MrSmith that you were responding to him. I don't respond directly to him, except in rare cases, I was short. But in support of what you were wrirting. His comparison of vaccinations to thalidomide a non-vaccine is like comparing apples to oranges. I wasn't specific enough,  sorry about that. 

    I like your blog and I agree with it.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:34pm

    No shit Sherlock - thalidomide was a drug provided for morning sickness as I stated, not a vaccination. It was approved under similar circumstances as vaccinations were in the late 50's / early 60's with disastrous results. The procedures were changed as a result. We hit another speed bump with the rushed-to-market Swine Flu Vaccine.

    I also noted seldom-discussed side effects of our heralded vaccines, for example polio caused by the polio vaccine - yes, there is a risk, and probably many people don't realize they are taking that risk for "the common good" as folks like putting it. If you're 1 of the 750,000 getting paralysis "for the team", you might not be thrilled, but yeah, probably one of those tradeoffs that just suck. Fortunately it affects children more than adults, and they're less likely to complain or discuss in public policy circles.

    The rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) varies by region but is generally about 1 case per 750,000 vaccine recipients.[49] VAPP is more likely to occur in adults than in children. In immunodeficient children, the risk of VAPP is almost 7,000 times higher, particularly for persons with B-lymphocyte disorders (e.g., agammaglobulinemia and hypogammaglobulinemia), which reduce the synthesis of protective antibodies.[45] The World Health Organization considers the benefits of vaccination to far outweigh the risk of vaccine derived polio

    One of the issues that some of us dislike is the propensity to proclaim all vaccines a 100% safe endeavour and taint anyone who asks questions (I have similar problems with for example how global warming debate has developed, so if you don't assume that the latest hurricane was caused by global warming, you're an arch-conservative denier).

    A recent outcry is re: information on S40-tainted polio vaccinations during the early years - as I'm aware there are risks in fighting an outbreak of disease, it's more disconcerting that we have no way of actually discussing those risks, and instead disappear them - such as the 50-year late CDC response below. Of course if you're busy trying to disappear an issue you're less likely to research it thoroughly, and spend more energy debunking any possible dangers than unbiased evaluation of possible concerns.

    it-only-took-50-years-cdc-admits-polio-vaccine-tainted-with-cancer-causing-virus/

    cdc-disappears-page-linking-polio-vaccines-cancer-causing-viruses1

    As I hinted at, getting arthritis of the hip for 2 years from a not-very-needed Hep B vaccine pissed me off especially because no one hinted at side-effects - silly me. When they came to give the same to my toddler, I made the outrageous decision that her chance of frequenting a prostitute or shooting up drugs were less than the potential side-effects of that vaccine. I had to make similar less-informed decisions about other vaccinations because the industry doesn't seem to take these dangers seriously - shut up and take your vaccination, otherwise you're hurting not just yourself but also society. Do I believe the yearly flu vaccination helps society as a whole, or is terribly effective vs. developing your own immune system? Not really. Shoot me.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 1:37am

    "One of the issues that some of us dislike is the propensity to proclaim all vaccines a 100% safe endeavour ..."

    Please show me anyone in the medical or scientific community that has ever made that kind of statement.  It may be easy to assume that to be true, but I find it extremely unlikely that anyone with a medical or scientific background has ever made that exact claim. 

    If someone says the car you drive is safe, do you assume it will never ever get into an accident caused by a flat tire on a slippery rain-soaked highway?  Or do you take it for granted that the person speaking means relatively safe or safe under normal driving conditions? 


    by MrSmith1 on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 1:57am

    Of course if you're busy trying to disappear an issue you're less likely to research it thoroughly, and spend more energy debunking any possible dangers than unbiased evaluation of possible concerns.

    Funny but this is one reason why I generally don't bother responding to you. When you're just looking for an argument and googleing articles on subjects you know nothing about you tend to not research thoroughly.

    If you're 1 of the 750,000 getting paralysis "for the team", you might not be thrilled,

    That was the first thing that just didn't sound right to me. Luckily I didn't even have to research to debunk it. In the next paragraph you debunked it yourself. "The rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) varies by region but is generally about 1 case per 750,000 vaccine recipients." 1 in 750,000 is not the same as 1 of  750,000. But that still didn't sound right to me. I wondered exactly what your link is referring to. So I did some research.

    http://polio.emedtv.com/polio-vaccine/vaccine-associated-paralytic-polio...

    Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis is a rare adverse reaction that can occur following vaccination with the live oral polio vaccine (OPV). Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (the poliovirus vaccine currently used in the United States) does not contain live poliovirus, so it cannot cause vaccine-associated paralytic polio.

    It could be your link was referring to the use of OPV. which is no longer used in the US. Prior to the introduction of IPV there were about 10 cases a year of VAPP in the US. I couldn't find the outcome of those cases but since only 5% of wild polio result in death or some degree of paralysis its likely to be similar. 10 cases compared to 3,000 deaths and 21,000 cases of paralysis in 1952 before the introduction of the vaccine. I'd take those odds with the OPV, but I don't even have to. OPV is no longer in use in the US.

     


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 2:36am

    I don't live in the US, so at the time I was getting my children vaccinated, those were my odds - OPV given outside the US. Since that was the favored WHO approach up to January this year, after 50 years of distribution, I assume a lot of people around the world faced those odds.

    Note: "1 out of 750,000 recipients", not 750,000 developing polio - typing too fast, sue me, figured the concept was obvious in any case.

    "Funny but this is one reason why I generally don't bother responding to you. When you're just looking for an argument and googleing articles on subjects you know nothing about you tend to not research thoroughly."

    Who knows what your reference point is here - I'm typically looking to elaborate an issue and address points of view I think need expressing, not "argument" for the sake of argument. Frequently my opinions line up closely with Lulu - is he just arguing too? Who knows which subjects you're referring to - vaccines? Obamacare? surveillance state? Afghanistan? Wattree? Civil War, states rights & secession? handouts to Wall Street? protecting Social Security & deficit scolds? use of technology? Israel/Palestine? Immigration? Voting? War on drugs? Oh nos, somewhere PP didn't research thoroughly unlike the grownups in the group. Must slink to corner. No, I'm not an expert on health issues, for example - I think it was obvious where my POV was anecdotal & personal. Then again, I hear self-proclaimed "experts" come out with pretty jingoistic nonsense and deliberately misleading & trifling objections. But I seem to have struck a personal chord with you - whatever. I'll carry on somehow.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 5:28am

    Then again, I hear self-proclaimed "experts" come out with pretty jingoistic nonsense and deliberately misleading & trifling objections.

    Again, that's what I find so funny. You make these attacks on everyone you disagree with and I see your attacks as an accurate description of many of your posts. I attempted to show why I thought your post in this thread was deliberately misleading. I'll let others decide how effective my arguments were.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 3:46pm

    This particular conjunction was amusing:

    Of course if you're busy trying to disappear an issue you're less likely to research it thoroughly…

    Oh nos, somewhere PP didn't research thoroughly…


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 5:07pm

    No one gives a shit whether I researched thoroughly - they're looking to see if I touched the 3rd wire of the debunked polio-AIDS link or used a source somehow related to Fox so they can dismiss everything. "hey, where are the links that we won't read anyway".

    In the meantime, for the common good, I'm supposed to vaccinate a child with problematic medical history with increased risk of side effects that no one's informing me of, including for diseases she's extremely unlikely to have any encounter with behaviorally for at least 15 years. Instead I get scolded about how I should just listen to the CDC.

    I did think it interesting the parallels between the 2 large-scale establishments - the disease handling and the surveillance-counterterrorism-cybersecurity, and what are the ways we react to each, and whether there's more acceptance for flaws in one vs. the other, acceptance of mission and authority and vision, etc.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 12:27am

    Well, the fact is, you DID touch the 3rd rail (it's rail, by the way, not wire), of the debunked polio vaccine - AIDS link.  No-one forced you to touch it or go anywhere near it. But you did. Why are you objecting when someone calls you out on using it to support your argument? 

    Secondly, you've taken a generalized objection to being forced to have someone vaccinated for ideological reasons and turned it into a personal, specific individual health reason for not being vaccinated. That was NOT the question that was being discussed.  It may be what you want to rail about, but it had nothing to do with objecting to forced vaccinations on principle, which was, as I previously have stated, was not even the main point of the original post. 

    No one is telling you to listen blindly to the CDC, the FDA or your parents.  On the other hand, not all conspiracies are true, and not all things that are required are done so just to fuck with you personally.   

     

     

     

     

     


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 12:46am

    Where did i assert or link to 'contaminated polio caused AIDS'?

    What i referred to were several theories re whether increased vaccination and hygiene in 50s made us more susceptible to diseases like AIDS, whether smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS or contrarily whether success of smallpox program and less use of vaccine made room for AIDS, and side effects of polio vaccine (but not AIDS). So sorry, a lot of theories but not that one. (wrote '3rd wire' at 6am, not awake to bemember proper term)

    I dont see how you can completely separate general policy from people's specific issues and side effects, unless you're completely heartless ina Mao 'to make an omelette...' kind of way. For some things, the side effects or risks are worse than the intended result, and there are other places where a few educated exemptions fit fine with mass adoption. My point was that we don't seem to educate and evaluate - we create universal health rules, and discourage debate. The recent volley re cervical cancer vaccination evolved into party affiliation and never really touched on whether the risks of specifically known side effects lowered the acceptability of demanding universal vaccination. and i dont think this was a case where universal adoption was expected to wipe it out.


    by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 2:36am

    Note, HPV extended to vaccinations for boys, and i believe the possible diseases for boys were fluffed up to get universal vaccination rather than just female.


    by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 2:49am

    And your knowledge about fluffing comes from ...?


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 7:52am

    The idea of giving the vaccine to boys is that males can transmit the virus to women. Women are placed at risk of cervical cancer. The vaccine also decrease the risk of Condyloma acuminata in males. Do you have any reputable data that there is a conspiracy among infection disease specialists, epidemiologists, public health officials and pediatricians to lie about the vaccine? What is the data you use to support that the numbers are being skewed?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 8:49am

    "I dont see how you can completely separate general policy from people's specific issues and side effects, unless you're completely heartless ..."

    Please tell me you aren't that dense.  In the story I told in my post about my friend, she was not asking to get out of vaccinating her child because her child had any specific health issues, she was arguing that everyone should have the right not to be forced to be vaccinated for ANY reason, simply because they didn't want to be forced to do it on principle.  That is what I was arguing with her about, not whether or not she had the right to opt out of a vaccine if her child would knowingly be harmed by it. YOU took the argument about whether or not someone could opt out on principle to instead mean could they opt out if there was a justifiable reason.  I never argued against a parent opting out IF there was a justifiable medical problem that would affect the child were they to be vaccinated.  

    Of course, the problem with giving parents the right to opt out for their children, is,   that parents are not always the best source of sound medical facts; for every parent who comes up with Lorenzo's oil, there are twenty Jenny McCarthys using pseudo-science and internet medical conspiracies to do more harm than good to their own children. Should we allow stupidity to trump medical science?  Do we, as a society, have an obligation to save innocent children from the actions of stupid parents?

         

     

     

     

     

     

     


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 7:47am

    But I persisted in making the point that what is being asked, is for everyone to make a contribution to the community by giving up a small bit of personal freedom in order to serve the greater good; the wiping out of a devastating contagious disease.  Something that would benefit everyone. 

    ...

    With that in mind, I began to think like a Republican.  I wrote to her; “Why do those that refuse to be vaccinated get to have a free ride and get the immunity from the disease without making the sacrifice that everyone else made on their behalf?...”

    I can't speak for your friend who may just have a knee-jerk "i don't like it so I won't". But I have objections to the glib "small bit of personal freedom". If your child is paralyzed from the side effects of a vaccination, it's not "small". True, it doesn't happen often, but it is a risk, and for some medical histories it might be a greater risk. Others might have objections based on freedom issues, and I don't think it good to dismiss out of hand. (I posted about the guy suspected of drugs who had several anal probes before he was released with a hospital bill - for some cavity searches or workplace urine tests are just a small price to pay for the greater good - others think different). Many of these public policy decisions (and others) make a sweeping assumption as to other people's sacrifice. Something like the voter ID issue - sure, for white folks who have a car and have never been threatened with false arrest or discriminated against, showing an ID is no big deal. For most people probably vaccinations are no big deal - at least 1. Some people might start to be concerned with the 5th or 6th vaccination in a short period of time (how do these interact?). Some people might be irritated with the presumption that you're not allowed to ask or object. I understand sweeping public policy is difficult, but I also understand problems with unchecked bureaucracy. I'm not a libertarian, don't have a problem with speed limits, limits on environmental dumping, reasonable limits on campaign contributions, etc. - but I also appreciate that these are encroachments by the state and while for the 'greater good' we always have to keep in mind just how much greater good vs. the negative repercussions, and often as those greater goods get extended, the number of negatives increase. Not always, but worth keeping in mind.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 12:37pm

    "If your child is paralyzed from the side effects of a vaccination, it's not 'small'".

    Again, you continue to focus on a specific which is very different than a discussion of an abstract.

    Here's what the CDC website says about multiple vaccines: "A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects. Consequently, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend simultaneous administration of all routine childhood vaccines when appropriate."

     

    Notice the words "when appropriate" at the end of the quote?  Call me glib, but I interpret that to mean, their recommendation is not a blanket one and when a child has health reasons for not getting vaccinated, exceptions can be made.

     


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 1:18pm

    Although I disagree with PP's conclusion, I think his point is that you don't always know ahead of time which child will be paralyzed as a side effect of a vaccination.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 3:14pm

    We also don't know if a truck will hit us as we cross the street. Yet, most of us still find the courage to cross the street. 


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 3:43pm

    Like I said, I don't agree with PP, but was merely trying to clear up what I think was confusion about his point.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 3:44pm

    But if we feel it is a dangerous street to cross, especially at night when vision is impaired, and we see no compelling reason to be on the other side, we might not choose to send our children across even if we know that the neighbors kids made it in one piece. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 4:06pm

    And there are traffic lights to regulate when you should and should not cross. But that doesn't stop people from crossing when they shouldn't.  


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 5:05pm

    sorry, I don't attack "everyone I disagree with". I actually was subtly referring to TMac who has a very dogmatic "I'm right you're wrong" style, even when folks thoroughly discredit her. (see Dijamo for example in days gone by). Here she dismisses for example the Times of London because it's filtered through a site she doesn't agree with - if they altered the text she might have a point - while insisting the CDC is one of the prime gold standards even as they deep six controversial material.

    as I noted, I was typing fast I think after midnight, so didn't mean "750,000 infected" but more "1 of every 750,000 vaccinated who develop polio".- deliberately misleading? yeah, I'm just trying to spread conspiracy.

    Like Emma, I'm conflicted on issues of vaccination and as a parent simply wanted useful information to make rational decisions. Instead I got quite a bit of bunk (on both sides - certainly a lot of hackneyed info on the anti-vaccination side) and had to make more finger-in-air choices than I wanted to.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 6:50pm

    I'm sure you've listened to those television commercials where all the possible bad stuff is sped through at the end, some of it so awful the effect is comical. Yes, my restless leg syndrome will go ahead, but I might spend the night vomiting.

    More seriously, though, you have to look at the % of people who will ever experience these side effects. And you have to balance this against the severity of the illness or condition being treated.

    ALL medicine has SOME side effects with SOME people. It's the nature of the beast as far as I can tell.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:06pm

    In terms of your list, fear of being sued may cause them to list every possible side effect even if it is an extremely remote possibility.

    Otherwise, they could be accused by someone who experienced the side effect of "hiding the truth" about the drug.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:24pm

    I am quite familiar with those disclaimers.  What I try to remind people is that disclaimers are talking about POSSIBLE side effects and not PROBABLE side effects.   Taking the biologic drugs like Enbrel and Remicade (I've been on Remicade for over 12 years) is a calculated risk.   On the positive side, recent studies have indicated that the risk of cancer is not as great as was initially reported.


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 11:28pm

    For one of the vaccines, there was significantly higher risk of paralysis & other disorders if the recipient had had a history of epilepsy. My daughter had epileptic fits as an infant, and several weeks later medical staff was pushing vaccinations on her without mentioning any hazards - which is pretty absurd considering the extent of her medical history. It was only my looking up side effects and correlating it with her recent history that allowed me to realize the danger, and update my criteria for making a decision (which might be vaccinate, don't vaccinate, or wait until she's older and a bit more stable).

    However, the general attitude towards vaccinations has been "do it unquestioningly". Okay, they don't say it's 100% effective, but they hardly ever talk about side-effects as a real issue - instead it's the single issue re: autism that seems to be refuted so any hesitation is considered "irrational" or anti-science.

    I'm still impressed with the folks who expect whatever disease to be wiped out 100%. Mother nature frequently comes back with a vengeance, and mutations tend to make sure there's no final curtain. There's 1 theory that AIDS arose from lack of immunity built up from fighting off other common diseases. Of course theories abound, who knows - hopefully we'll be much wiser about disease & epidemics in 50 years, but at the moment I still feel for example the mix-3-strains yearly flu vaccine is a rather crude approach to handling public health - perhaps expedient, but not elegant.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 4:08am

    You wrote:

    There's 1 theory that AIDS arose from lack of immunity built up from fighting off other common diseases.

    You sure about that? I notice you provide no links for that statement. Is there a reason you have provided no links for that statement, because you can't back that up with any kind of evidence. From the beginning AIDS has been known as a sexually transmitted disease, not a disease caused by a lack of immunity from fighting off other diseases. The disease itself attacks TCells in the infected person's blood and this affects their bodies ability to fight off other diseases.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 9:34am

    Of course I'm not "sure" of that - I'm not a doctor or field expert. But yes, there are a ton of references to it if you'd bothered to Google a little bit before getting snide and suspicious - even contradictory theories that 1) say wiping out smallpox helped AIDS or 2) decreased smallpox vaccine helped AIDS.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8686750.stm

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/aids_smallpox_vaccine_triggered_aids_virus.htm

    http://www.wanttoknow.info/870511vaccineaids

    As it is, after I scan 2 dozen articles, I may not remember the exact article. And since I noted it was a *theory*, not an accepted one, who cares?


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 12:22pm

    Infowars, the Alex Jones site, you are linking to that site, Wow.  Infowars is a well known site the deals in conspiracy theories. Since you haven't linked to a CDC, WHO or any peer reviewed medical journals everything you wrote can be summarily dismissed as crackpot theories.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 1:54pm

    You've got to be fucking kidding me - it refers to a 1987 Times of London piece. Everything you wrote can be dismissed as simple piss-antedness.

    Note that elsewhere the CDC is blasted for removing controversial material from its site, and has had a rather uneven past in terms of trustworthiness and unbiased reporting, but sure, if you make these your qualifications to be accepted for discussion, might as well stop talking - only institutional opinions need apply. Forget say medical marijuana, jumping genes, chiropractic work... not approved by the government so doesn't count.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 6:45pm

       They are required to tell us the possible side effects, but the effect is indeed comical, since the bulk of the commercial is them talking about the terrible things that could happen if you buy what they are trying to sell you.


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 6:54pm

    PP: "Acceptance of vaccination assumes its effectiveness."

    PP's comment is a good jumping off point. From where I sit, and maybe I don't have a good view of it, we are seeing a rash of resistance to ALL vaccination (AFAIK), including the ones that have proven effective.

    Smith's friend wanted a blanket right to refuse any and all vaccinations she deemed "bad," not just those that were ineffective.

    I think this movement got rolling when folks claimed that certain vaccinations caused autism. I believe this connection has been debunked, but the resistance continues along multiple lines of attack, especially in pointing out all the "poisonous" chemicals found in vaccines, particularly the flu vaccine.

    The flu vaccine is the most notorious whipping boy at the moment.

    My question is, what is this resistance all about? It isn't really based on an assessment of effectiveness (I don't think). Vaccines have worked; they've eliminated once very deadly diseases.

    Is it a general distrust of anyone in authority a la Chris Hayes's Twlight Of The Elites? I do find it worrisome, especially in the area of vaccines.

    I read not too long ago about a school official somewhere who was vehemently anti-measles vaccine for all the usual reasons. But then, a lot of the school's kids started coming down with measles, a very contagious disease. She changed her tune as much as she could without losing her credibility (which she was in danger of anyway) or appearing to change her views too radically and quickly.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:21pm

    You wrote:

    we are seeing a rash of resistance to ALL vaccination (AFAIK), including the ones that have proven effective.

    I'm going to need you to back that up with some actual evidence. While there is evidence that certain bacterial and viral infections have become resistant to vaccines. And while there are bacterial and viral infections that have become resistant to antibiotics, antibiotics are not vaccines. I am not aware of childhood disease that are resistant to vaccinations, so are there cases where children come down with polio or whooping cough even though they have had their vaccines? 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:48pm

    The increase in Whooping Cough cases has been tracked to communities where vaccination levels feel. Herd immunity among humans is lost when the vaccination rate falls below 95%. Vaccinated people are at risk because they are coming into contact with a higher viral load from prong not immunizing their children

    There are a multitude of studies that support the role of vaccination in eradicating disease. "Deadly Choices" by an infectious disease physician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) presents many of the studies. He also includes the data on side effects of vaccinations. The data supports vaccination overwhelmingly. 

    One of the problems we face is that vaccination is a memorable event. If an illness occurs after a vaccination, we maybe quick to blame the vaccine (autism) . The connection may just be in our minds and would not stand up to scientific scrutiny  We can take Jenny McCarthy's "Healing and Preventing Autism" as  a prime example of the junk science available on vaccines.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 8:10pm

    Sorry, I should have been clearer.

    I meant a rash of resistance to getting one's child vaccinated.

    I don't know, in fact, how widespread this resistance is, but it seems to be growing.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 9:49pm

    Yes its growing but I guarantee that it won't grow too much more. Enough people have stopped vaccinating their kids that the signs are already there. Just a few more percentage points of people opting out and people will remember why we spent all the time and money creating vaccines and why there are laws requiring children be vaccinated. Even though those laws are sometimes too weak.

    Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it.

    • Before 1985, Haemophilus Influenzae type b (Hib) caused serious infections in 20,000 children each year, including meningitis (12,000 cases) and pneumonia (7,500 cases).1 In 2002, there were 34 cases of Hib disease.
    • In the 1964-1965 epidemic, there were 12.5 million cases of rubella (German measles).2 Of the 20,000 infants born with congenital rubella syndrome, 11,600 were deaf, 3,580 were blind, and 1,800 were mentally retarded as a result of the infection.2 There were 9 cases of rubella in 2004 and only four cases of congenital rubella between 2001 and 2004.
    • Before 1963, more than 3 million cases of measles and 500 deaths from measles were reported each year.2 More than 90% of children had measles by age 15.2 In 2002, there were 44 cases of measles
    • In 1952, polio paralyzed more than 21,000 people.2 In 2002, there were no cases of polio in the United States.
    • In the early 1940s, there was an average of 175,000 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) per year, resulting in the deaths of 8,000 children annually.2 In 2002, 9,771 cases were reported.
    • In the 1920s, there were 100,000 to 200,000 cases of diphtheria each year and 13,000 people died from the disease.2 In 2002, there was only one case of diphtheria in the United States.

    by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 12:54am

    I will admit that my comment about polio being the only modern success was off-the-cuff and incorrect.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 1:02am

    Where I come down on this often depends on the issue or day.  You're right, we underestimate the costs of opting in and out of everything.  No man is an island and we do need each other in order to survive.  I'm reminded of a Heinlein short story set in an extreme Libertarian land for exiles from polite society.  Those sent there are free to do whatever they want but most people there quickly find themselves exploited by those who are bigger, stronger and better armed.

    At the same time, while I get and agree with something like the social obligation to safely vaccinate against spreadable illness, I often think that we stretch our boundaries too far, at times, when we argue that certain private choices affect others.  The right, for example, to gamble comes to mind.  There is empirical evidence that convinces me that, on the whole, legalized gambling isn't great for communities or society.  But individuals are not averages.  Their choices shouldn't be regulated asif they are.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 10:24pm

     

    "But individuals are not averages.  Their choices shouldn't be regulated as if they are."

    So, can we then assume that you do not believe in majority rules as a way to govern?  ;-)

    When do private choices become societal irresponsibilities? 

    When does opting out as a private choice become selfishly taking advantage of everyone else's willingness to keep you safe from disease?  And why should we, as a society, be forced to condone private choices that could affect public safety? 

    I think a better analogy than gambling for your argument might be forcing people to wear motorcycle helmets.  It is a case where society tries to protect an individual from their own reckless and irresponsible behavior.  Society benefits, but the main benefit is to the rider who doesn't die from a head injury. 

     

     

     


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 10:57pm

    There are some things that are bad for society that cannot be stopped even if they are illegal. Gambling is one, prostitution is another, drug use is a third. And I mean all drugs including alcohol. There are probably others. Making them illegal simply funnels the money to criminals who use it to fund other illegal activities.

    I think most things enough people want to do that they can't be stopped should be legal. But legal doesn't mean one has the right to encourage them. We could legalize, regulate, enact severe penalties to those who attempt to sell outside the legal system, and forbid all advertising of the products. I would include banning beer or state lottery  commercials on TV. We could use tax money from sales to discourage use and help those who have become addicted.

    There would still be alcoholics, drug addicts, gambling addicts etc. But it would be less of a problem than trying to stop people by making it illegal.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 12:45am

    A review and some spoilers of Coventry is here: http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/shortstories/coventry.html


    by Donal on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 1:07pm

    Nice piece, Smith. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 8:16am

    I do not know enough about the vaccine controversy to be comfortable picking a side in it. Too many open questions about the efficacy and long-term effects remain. 

    I do wonder about the mothers who are choosing not to vaccinate. How sure are they that their children will not develop their immunities to the more common childhood diseases the old-fashioned way -- by acquiring them and possibly some of the disfigurements, disabilities and even mortalities that can accompany them. And what about the possibility of passing the infection onto another child in utero and the risk to it of birth defects and/or spontaneous abortion?  How then do you explain to them your choice to not follow the herd?

    We forget or never learn enough history or maybe we just cannot understand it without some first-hand experience to put it in perspective.

    Whatever. All I really wanted to do was pass on this link for you to relay to your friend:

    http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccination

     


    by EmmaZahn on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 12:09pm

    Thanks for this Emma. Within that article is this quote pertinent to our discussion:  "One of the most striking instances of vaccine suspicion in Africa has concerned the polio vaccine. In 1999, British journalist Edward Hooper wrote The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV/AIDS. He speculated that the virus that causes AIDS transitioned from monkeys to humans via a polio vaccine. He argued that the polio vaccine was made from the cells of chimpanzees infected with the primate form of HIV (Simian immunodeficiency virus, or SIV), which adapted in humans and caused disease; and that there were coincidences in the sites where the polio vaccine was first administered and where the first cases of HIV originated.  Although scientists and medical scholars have provided plentiful evidence to discount Hooper’s ideas, media attention has sparked conspiracy theories and concerns globally."  Following the footnote accompanying the article leads to this abstract on the NIH website:

    CHAT oral polio vaccine was not the source of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 group M for humans.


    by MrSmith1 on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 2:11pm

      I don't know the science myself, but I don't think anyone can dispute that vaccination has saved many millions of lives. I mean, do the anti-vaccination people have an alternative explanation for why there was such a substantial drop in morbidity and mortality once we started vaccination? As to whether there is any basis for their claims about the harmful effects of vaccines, I also am  too ignorant of the data to say anything about it.


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 3:03pm

    I think you will always hit a brick wall with more than a few in trying to relate required vaccination to a general principle of common good because: the actual medical practice of Public Health is actually based on dictatorship principles where disease is concerned, and not civil rights and also not the will of the majority. Including the principle that to save the many you may have to sacrifice the few. I.E., there are plenty of scary science fiction stories that include forced quarantines against a sudden massive disease outbreak where all civil liberties are called off in order to save as many people as possible.

    Sure, everything works out relatively fine where the majority have been convinced by time and trial and error that it's a good thing whatever they are doing, i.e., vaccines.

    But what about something like the problems when Public Health experts decide that it's really really wrong for society to keep giving women under 50 mammograms every year when the majority doesn't believe it:

    New Mammography Guidelines Hit the Wall of Public Opinion

    I remember lots of TPMCafer's, some who are supporting required vaccines here, screaming bloody murder at a post by member Fred Moolten on this very same issue. Many who didn't know Fred was a respected Public Health specialist on cancer in particular, who had worked for the VA and NIH. As matter of fact, I always thought of the special problems of Public Health in a free, democratic society when lots of TPM Cafers didn't like Fred's opinions on a lot of things. I couldn't help but wonder how they would feel if in a real serious Public Health crisis, Fred were one of those in charge of their lives and things like whether they would be free or quarantined or live or die. I'll throw some other examples in there just to be devilish: would you like a Fred Moolten deciding what kind of fats Americans should be allowed to sell and buy and eat depending upon the latest scientific evidence? Or if you were gay and dying of a mysterious new "gay disease," would you like him deciding what drugs should be available to you to treat it?

    Edit to add: Or back to fats, how about if you are a mother with a son with a rare disease and doctors like Fred decide there is no treatment but you think there is one? Very much depending upon the individual issue, fighting the medical powers that be can be quite popular with liberal types who usually go along with "common good." (There's an extremely prominent example of the latter as regards vaccines, as a matter of fact: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Anti-Vaxxer.)


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 3:45pm

    It is hard to be a consistent Libertarian because so much of that language is used by those who are not interested in "letting the chips fall where they may" but in not letting the chips fall on them.

    One way to think about this is to consider the differences between the rhetoric of Goldwater and Reagan. Goldwater argued that imposing a mandate to change the relationships between individuals in society crippled a process of sorting that occurs when individuals freely exchange with each other under rules of fair markets and laws. Reagan did not embrace this absolute rejection of social engineering but promised that its benefits could be delivered by minimally restricted capital exchange. As he liked to say, Liberals could have good intentions regarding social change but not understand how to actually bring those changes about or administer the process if they did. Debating the pros and cons between government or "free markets" delivering a desired product is far away from the country Goldwater saw himself living within. Goldwater didn't talk about "privatizing" government.

    From the perspective of markets acting as forms of social change, the different sorts of plans you describe are well underway. The people who most vehemently oppose the recent changes feel that they have already signed up for the "basic" plan. They paid up to receive the minimum and now the deal is being extended to those who did not "earn" it. Any increase in cost is now seen as carrying those who did not bother to carry themselves. The feeling is understandable, maybe somewhat true in terms of who shares the burden of risk within a selected pool of insured. But the whole idea of risk and protecting oneself against it is a peculiar model for a Libertarian to invest in. All insurance is a socialization of loss.

     


    by moat on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 5:21pm

    Yes, you can usually count on the fact that when people talk about "personal responsibility", they're not talking about their own personal responsibility.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 4:11pm

    I think this reflects the fact that there has not been a major epidemic in the last 55 years.  People feel safe to opt out and cling to their ignorance.  I am old enough to remember polio in the early 1950's and how scared my mom was that we would come down with it. I was a very sick for the first 4 years of my life from childhood infectious diseases that now have shots for today. 

    As a society we have recently given to much political power to this ignorance.


    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 3:37pm