The sort of hysteria that Megan McArdle shows in this post would be automatically dismissed as mindless drivel were it to come from someone that is skeptical of the safety and efficacy of vaccines. That it is not dismissed as pure idiocy is simply due to the fact that she is on the "right side" in the eyes of many vis a vis the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Thus it may be regarded as merely eccentric or passionate, rather than as authoritarian, emotional poppycock.
Not all vaccines are created the same, and to believe that they are is to indulge in idiotic relativism toward science and the art of medicine making. New vaccines should automatically be subjected to skepticism until they have been proven through double-blind clinical trials because of the potential for unleashing a wave of undesirable side effects on a significant portion of the population. Wouldn't it be ironic if the relative safety of most vaccines today lead the vaccine cheerleaders to enthusiastically support the mandate of a vaccine that caused retardation, cancer or sterility in a large minority of those that receive it? I have to wonder what the proper punishment would be for the vaccine cheerleaders like McArdle should this ever happen, since they are so quick to assign draconian levels of personal responsibility for others' infections to those who forego vaccination. Personally, I would say that it should, at a bare minimum, include being pumped full of the vaccine and being put on a list of idiots that no hospital is legally obligated to give pro bono emergency care to.
Ok, ok, so McArdle is not supporting a government campaign to force vaccines on you, but rather to essentially consign the unwilling to house arrest. I confess, there is a difference, regardless of how pathetically semantic it might be, between the government, with all of the power to abrogate life, liberty and property, forcing vaccines on people, and merely having the government leave you in a state that amounts to house arrest until you decide to get a certain vaccine. See, that's the libertarian side of McArdle. She is very, very sure that the government should use every means at its command to prevent you from interfering with the theoretical rights of others, short of resorting to laying siege to your home with the Army, and placing an Air Force fighter wing on standby to carpet bomb your house, should you get the urge to speed past the blockade and go to the grocery store.
For many people, the regular vaccine schedule is healthy. Were it not healthy, America would be a wasteland of idiots and autists resembling the movie Idiocracy with a splash of Silicon Valley genius here and there for flavor. However, the rise in the rate of autism does tend to suggest that something is afoot in terms of causing the sort of brain damage that leads to autism. Maybe it's heavy metal poisoning (back away from the CFL bulb nice and slowly, tree-hugger) or a sudden and prodigious burst of autistic people reproducing in record numbers, but something is causing it, and no one has conclusively ruled out vaccines as a cause or contributing factor to my knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong. That's part of the reason why I keep my comments section open.
And is it really that hard to believe that pumping children full of chemicals that have mercury bonded to them might have negative side effects in some children? There are people in my wife's family who nearly died from alergic reactions to the regular vaccination schedule, so don't tell me that every physiology is just hunky dory with respect to the regular vaccination schedule. Considering that several of her family members have had severe alergic reactions to them, I'm a mite suspect of the passionate, evidence-free, wild-eyed assertions from people like McArdle that there simply could not be any credible reason to believe that there is a subset of children for whom the regular vaccination schedule is rather poisonous. Granted, McArdle would try to argue her way out of this by claiming it is a "legitimate medical reason" to avoid vaccination, but that does little to address the hypocritical irony of someone who suggests:ÂÂÂÂ
One of the things that should give the vaccine cheerleaders some humility is the fact that the government has taken bold steps to protect the vaccine manufacturers from liability for the effects of their products. Now, the federal government has a habit of regulating products that are very dangerous and placing the liability on the backs of the manufacturers. If the vaccines manufacturers were not producing products that were sometimes of dubious safety, why would this be needed? Surely if that were not the case, the simplest solution would be for Congress to place a higher burden of scientific evidence on plaintiffs.
It is also worth considering that Congress has a large number of lawyers, and one of the most active and influential lobby groups represents trial lawyers. Raise your hand if you honestly believe that a large number of congressmen would vote against their own professional interests, and that of many of their influential supporters, for no good reason. Always follow the money.
Of course the irony of McArdle's insistence that the unvaccinated should be barred from public spaces is that if she is vaccinated, she should be free of the risk of getting infected by whatever the unvaccinated get. If they infect her with something that she is ostensibly immune from, then it stands to reason that she has contracted a mutated strain of the disease, at which rate her whole argument about the necessity of vaccination is asinine from the gitgo because there is nothing that could be done.
Admittedly, there is a real danger of a return of serious infectious diseases, but it does not come from the unvaccinated, but rather from immigration. Uncontrolled immigration is the bane of public health, as proved by the increase in the rate of leprosy in the United States due to illegal immigrants bringing the disease across the border. It is easier in this politically correct culture to point the finger at a small group of Christian Scientists or Jehova's Witnesses, than at illegal immigrants from south of the border as the real health concern.
Not all vaccines are created the same, and to believe that they are is to indulge in idiotic relativism toward science and the art of medicine making. New vaccines should automatically be subjected to skepticism until they have been proven through double-blind clinical trials because of the potential for unleashing a wave of undesirable side effects on a significant portion of the population. Wouldn't it be ironic if the relative safety of most vaccines today lead the vaccine cheerleaders to enthusiastically support the mandate of a vaccine that caused retardation, cancer or sterility in a large minority of those that receive it? I have to wonder what the proper punishment would be for the vaccine cheerleaders like McArdle should this ever happen, since they are so quick to assign draconian levels of personal responsibility for others' infections to those who forego vaccination. Personally, I would say that it should, at a bare minimum, include being pumped full of the vaccine and being put on a list of idiots that no hospital is legally obligated to give pro bono emergency care to.
Ok, ok, so McArdle is not supporting a government campaign to force vaccines on you, but rather to essentially consign the unwilling to house arrest. I confess, there is a difference, regardless of how pathetically semantic it might be, between the government, with all of the power to abrogate life, liberty and property, forcing vaccines on people, and merely having the government leave you in a state that amounts to house arrest until you decide to get a certain vaccine. See, that's the libertarian side of McArdle. She is very, very sure that the government should use every means at its command to prevent you from interfering with the theoretical rights of others, short of resorting to laying siege to your home with the Army, and placing an Air Force fighter wing on standby to carpet bomb your house, should you get the urge to speed past the blockade and go to the grocery store.
For many people, the regular vaccine schedule is healthy. Were it not healthy, America would be a wasteland of idiots and autists resembling the movie Idiocracy with a splash of Silicon Valley genius here and there for flavor. However, the rise in the rate of autism does tend to suggest that something is afoot in terms of causing the sort of brain damage that leads to autism. Maybe it's heavy metal poisoning (back away from the CFL bulb nice and slowly, tree-hugger) or a sudden and prodigious burst of autistic people reproducing in record numbers, but something is causing it, and no one has conclusively ruled out vaccines as a cause or contributing factor to my knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong. That's part of the reason why I keep my comments section open.
And is it really that hard to believe that pumping children full of chemicals that have mercury bonded to them might have negative side effects in some children? There are people in my wife's family who nearly died from alergic reactions to the regular vaccination schedule, so don't tell me that every physiology is just hunky dory with respect to the regular vaccination schedule. Considering that several of her family members have had severe alergic reactions to them, I'm a mite suspect of the passionate, evidence-free, wild-eyed assertions from people like McArdle that there simply could not be any credible reason to believe that there is a subset of children for whom the regular vaccination schedule is rather poisonous. Granted, McArdle would try to argue her way out of this by claiming it is a "legitimate medical reason" to avoid vaccination, but that does little to address the hypocritical irony of someone who suggests:ÂÂÂÂ
Of course, I recognize that people have a right to abide by their conscience, and I would not want public health officials to force children to be vaccinated. I just think that people who are unvaccinated, unless they have a legitimate medical reason for same, should not be allowed to use public roads, public sidewalks, or public services. They have a right not to vaccinate their children. But they do not have a right to risk my health.Perhaps she would be so magnanimous as to allow my wife's family members to walk down the sidewalk without a hazmat suit.
One of the things that should give the vaccine cheerleaders some humility is the fact that the government has taken bold steps to protect the vaccine manufacturers from liability for the effects of their products. Now, the federal government has a habit of regulating products that are very dangerous and placing the liability on the backs of the manufacturers. If the vaccines manufacturers were not producing products that were sometimes of dubious safety, why would this be needed? Surely if that were not the case, the simplest solution would be for Congress to place a higher burden of scientific evidence on plaintiffs.
It is also worth considering that Congress has a large number of lawyers, and one of the most active and influential lobby groups represents trial lawyers. Raise your hand if you honestly believe that a large number of congressmen would vote against their own professional interests, and that of many of their influential supporters, for no good reason. Always follow the money.
Of course the irony of McArdle's insistence that the unvaccinated should be barred from public spaces is that if she is vaccinated, she should be free of the risk of getting infected by whatever the unvaccinated get. If they infect her with something that she is ostensibly immune from, then it stands to reason that she has contracted a mutated strain of the disease, at which rate her whole argument about the necessity of vaccination is asinine from the gitgo because there is nothing that could be done.
Admittedly, there is a real danger of a return of serious infectious diseases, but it does not come from the unvaccinated, but rather from immigration. Uncontrolled immigration is the bane of public health, as proved by the increase in the rate of leprosy in the United States due to illegal immigrants bringing the disease across the border. It is easier in this politically correct culture to point the finger at a small group of Christian Scientists or Jehova's Witnesses, than at illegal immigrants from south of the border as the real health concern.
Where does the doubt and hysteria regarding vaccines come from? I don't believe the internet and mom's groups bear the sole responsibility. The rapid turnout of junk science studies to exonerate vaccines as a having a causal relationship in ASD's is attempting to squelch doubts about vaccines so parents continue to get there info from the vaccine pushers. I am happy that the level of discontent present is having an impact on people mindlessly pumping their children with dangerous levels of toxoid. Those of us who know how to weed through scientific literature understand why the doubts are increasing. On the other hand, we don't require science to see the distinct decline in health in our country. I commend you on your blog. Fear mongering and ignorance have to end in order for us to move ahead .
They have a right not to vaccinate their children. But they do not have a right to risk my health.
This oxymoron* made me laugh out loud. If vaccines work, your health is not at risk no matter what others do. If they do not work (which is the only way your health could be at risk) then there is no argument for anyone to get them at all. If you are claiming your health is at risk by others not getting vaccinated, you are claiming that vaccinations don't work while at the same time insisting that everyone get them.
This is typical collectivist idiocy which argues that everyone must be in the same boat or no one is safe, everyone must make the same decisions or no one is free. Whether vaccines work is beside the point; all that is important is that the collectivist is afraid and so everyone must join in to assuage her fears.
* Or maybe just moron. Sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing.
Another thing that is ironic about it is that it is exposure to the vaccinated that is likely to cause the diseases to mutate because the diseases get exposed in small quantities to the antibodies, and mutate.
I had a thought while skimming thru this earlier at work. The rate of autism went from 0 in 1930 to almost 1 in 100 just a few short years ago. It has since been declining. The Vaccine-Pushers don't offer a good reason for this but I came up with the following:
Autism came out of the blue and became a true public health menace. A potential link was found between autism and vaccines. Therefore certain people have started to avoid them (From McArdle's linked article it is now the "well educated" who are now the exempters) This is perhaps the biggest reason for the recent decline in seen autism.
The NYTimes article states that "nationwide over 90 percent of children old enough to receive vaccines get them" This doesn't state which ones they get or if they stick to the schedule either. In our society it isn't possible to get exact numbers but I would imagine that a good deal of those kids don't get them in the short timeframe that is recommended.
Food for thought. I think that logically it stands up, but I doubt that we will ever see numbers to really prove it.
I think if it could be proved that autism were caused by the vaccination schedule, it would create such a terrible public uproar such that we have never seen before.