# \[b\]Interested Observer\[/b\] and other vaccine disinformers: ARGH! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 15, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971 "2009-02-15T18:13:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/121 "2009-02-19T15:23:20Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > Just a minor correction (from another childfree person) - herd immunity affects _all_ of us, including those without children. I was immunized with the standard immunizations of the 60’s and 70’s\*, but if some nasty bug breaks free, I don’t want to depend on my decades-old immunizations - I want other people to keep on doing the right thing and keeping these diseases down. > > \*Which included getting no smallpox vaccination because doctors were convinced all smallpox was eradicated for all time. I’m still a little :dubious: about this, because I seriously don’t want to get smallpox. You are right, of course…I was thinking more about the potential negative effects, all of which I’ve heard talked about (both real and imaginary) only affect the vaccinated person. I’m glad you brought this up, because that makes **curlcoat’s** accusations of “hysterical mom-ism” even more nonsensical. How is it hysterical mom-ism to take risks that only threaten their own children, in order to benefit society as a whole (including the childless)? Seems to me these mommies need to take some lessons in hysterical selfishness, because they are really not living up to **curlcoat’s** expectations. ---
**Author:** ![Jayn\_Newell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Jayn\_Newell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayn_Newell)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/122 "2009-02-19T15:46:40Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > eir own children, in order to benefit society as a whole (including the childless)? Seems to me these mommies need to take some lessons in hysterical selfishness, because they are really not living up to **curlcoat’s** expectations. I have to agree. The selfishness really seems to lie on the other side of things, as it is those who are against vaccinations, in part or in whole, who put the rest of us in danger. Most particularly, those who, for whatever reason, can’t get vaccinated. Someone who chooses not to vaccinate is taking a gamble that herd immunity will protect them, while weakening the effect that that immunity can have, which puts not only themselves but the rest of us at greater risk. I recall not too long ago hearing about a country in Africa (?) that had almost eliminated polio when an anti-vax movement caused the disease to resurge, setting the program back. Whatever side effects a vaccine may have, it’s never as bad as the illness itself–that’s why why get those shots in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/123 "2009-02-19T15:57:52Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I have one unaltered pet, if that matters. Not sure why it would. I was just screwing around. Spaying and neutering is a hot-button topic hereabouts (like vaccination, circumcision, and tipping). Ignore it, it was just snark. But AFAICT, there is not evidence that getting immunized against a bunch of diseases is any more damaging than contracting a bunch of childhood diseases. Less so, overall, which is the point of my anecdote about measles. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/124 "2009-02-19T18:46:43Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > This one appears (it was hard to read) to only address where a particular vaccine will cause problems with the immune system, not whether getting 35+ before the age of 7 would… (Why I am bothering I do not know.) Let me highlight the sentence that directly addresses that point for you to make it easier to read: > [@](#): > > Cumulative received vaccine doses were inversely associated with eczema severity (P = 0.0107). If that is still hard to understand then let me rephrase it at a simpler reading level: the more total vaccines kids received the _less_ likely they were to have signs and symptoms that go along with severe allergies. There was no increased risk of allergic signs and symptoms with having more vaccines. The next sentence > [@](#): > > The immunization coverage of infants before and after the onset of atopic dermatitis was similar. demonstrates that this result was not due to what is called “a selection bias.” That is to say that this result did not occur because those with allergies were avoiding immunizations or health care in general. BTW **Jackmannii** , Offit has made the point another way too. In the standard shots that **curlcoat** and others of the late 50’s and 60’s received there were about 3200 different antigens. Smallpox alone had 200 and the other vaccines were quite crude by today’s standards, whole cell and the like. Now vaccines protect our society from many more diseases but improvements in vaccine technology have reduced the total number of antigens that children are exposed to down to about 123-126 (depending on the exact brands that are used). Pediatrics. 2000;109:124-129. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/125 "2009-02-19T21:01:47Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Your ignorance does not become less striking with repetition. > > Earlier I quoted distinguished pediatrician and vaccination expert Dr. Paul Offit to you on the “normal” everyday exposure young kids have to antigens in their environment, which overwhelmingly dwarfs the antigen exposure they get from vaccines. Are you too dumb to see that the question is whether _adding_ 5-7 vaccinations at once, frequently, over a relatively short period of time, to the every day exposure might be the reasons that so many children these days have immune problems? Maybe that’s the problem - you just don’t have enough smarts to understand the question. > [@](#): > > \*"If the alleged ill effects of the vaccine are due to too many antigens, or too much antigens, or too frequent antigens, the diseases should be far worse than the vaccine in causing autism and autoimmune diseases. So, it is better to not get chickenpox and end up with a potentially life threatening food allergy? It is better to immunize babies against diseases they are unlikely to be exposed to and then spend their lives dealing with asthma? We should give them boosters they may not need and let them deal with the IBD later? This quote is just dealing with the issue in broad terms, as if all of the diseases children are vaccinated against are going to kill them for sure, and that living with autoimmune problems is a walk in the park. And it doesn’t address at all the question of whether or not the children actually need all those shots in order to be immunized against the diseases. > [@](#): > > Your misinformation still potentially threatens other people’s kids and the population as a whole.This protestation lost validity around the _n_th time you spewed falsehoods from the antivax playbook. _What_ misinformation? The questions I asked? The data I cited about pets? If you weren’t so, er, paranoid on the subject that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am coming from an antivax position, you might have a few brain cells left to actually understand what I post. You know, that I’m not antivax? Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/126 "2009-02-19T21:36:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I was just screwing around. Spaying and neutering is a hot-button topic hereabouts (like vaccination, circumcision, and tipping). Ignore it, it was just snark. Ah. So, which side does the board come down on the spay/neuter question? > [@](#): > > But AFAICT, there is not evidence that getting immunized against a bunch of diseases is any more damaging than contracting a bunch of childhood diseases. Less so, overall, which is the point of my anecdote about measles. Which, of course, wasn’t my question. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/127 "2009-02-19T21:59:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > So, it is better to not get chickenpox and end up with a potentially life threatening food allergy? It is better to immunize babies against diseases they are unlikely to be exposed to and then spend their lives dealing with asthma? We should give them boosters they may not need and let them deal with the IBD later? This quote is just dealing with the issue in broad terms, as if all of the diseases children are vaccinated against are going to kill them for sure, and that living with autoimmune problems is a walk in the park. And it doesn’t address at all the question of whether or not the children actually need all those shots in order to be immunized against the diseases. Did you miss the cite DSeid provided showing that vaccines are associated with _reduced_ rates of allegies? ---
**Author:** ![Claptree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58f4c7/32.png) [@Claptree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claptree)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/128 "2009-02-19T22:06:40Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > So, it is better to not get chickenpox and end up with a potentially life threatening food allergy? It is better to immunize babies against diseases they are unlikely to be exposed to and then spend their lives dealing with asthma? We should give them boosters they may not need and let them deal with the IBD later? This quote is just dealing with the issue in broad terms, as if all of the diseases children are vaccinated against are going to kill them for sure, and that living with autoimmune problems is a walk in the park. And it doesn’t address at all the question of whether or not the children actually need all those shots in order to be immunized against the diseases. You misunderstood the post you quoted. The amount of antigens produced by contracting the disease is far higher than you get through vaccination. If allergies were tied to antigens, getting the disease would be worse. ETA: Woo, simultaneous postagicity! ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/129 "2009-02-19T22:09:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > (Why I am bothering I do not know.) To prove how good you are at ignoring what I am actually saying? To show the multiple ways you can be rude & dismissive? > [@](#): > > Let me highlight the sentence that directly addresses that point for you to make it easier to read:If that is still hard to understand then let me rephrase it at a simpler reading level: the more total vaccines kids received the _less_ likely they were to have signs and symptoms that go along with severe allergies. There was no increased risk of allergic signs and symptoms with having more vaccines. The study started with babies that already had eczema and a family history of allergies, so how does this study say anything to the question of whether or not multiple vaccinations create immune problems in a baby who genetically wouldn’t be prone to them? And see, this is a great illustration of what is wrong with you. You post this study as proof that multiple, close together vaccinations don’t create autoimmune problems and then get all snarky when I don’t agree with your interpretation of the goal of the study and the results. You seem to feel that this study proves that it is ok to give babies multiple vaccinations because it won’t adversely affect their immune systems in any way, and I see it as a study to prove whether or not anything in the vaccine itself is going to affect allergies the babies already had, short term. Did you look at the title of the study? “Early atopic disease and early childhood immunization–is there a link?” Lets try this. Do you disagree with the theory/opinion that far more children have immune related problems than 40-50 years ago? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/130 "2009-02-19T22:12:05Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Did you miss the cite DSeid provided showing that vaccines are associated with _reduced_ rates of allegies? See my response to him and **Claptree** ditto. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/131 "2009-02-19T22:57:43Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > BTW **Jackmannii** , Offit has made the point another way too. In the standard shots that **curlcoat** and others of the late 50’s and 60’s received there were about 3200 different antigens. Smallpox alone had 200 and the other vaccines were quite crude by today’s standards, whole cell and the like. Now vaccines protect our society from many more diseases but improvements in vaccine technology have reduced the total number of antigens that children are exposed to down to about 123-126 (depending on the exact brands that are used). Pediatrics. 2000;109:124-129. A very good point (and one I made to **Magiver** in another recent [vaccine thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10822202&postcount=25)). Poor **curlcoat** and her fellow gee-I’m-not-really-an-antivaxer-but-just-look-at-all-these-terrible-problems-I’ve-imagined naysayers. Doomed to be viewed as irreparably dishonest, terminally stupid, or a combination of the two. I can’t see wasting more time trying to educate her. It’s like pouring water into a colander. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/132 "2009-02-19T23:18:17Z")
FYI, rather timely story in the New York Times about a [woman](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/europe/20britain.html?ref=world) who would have surely appreciated a cervical cancer vaccine. ---
**Author:** ![Claptree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58f4c7/32.png) [@Claptree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claptree)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/133 "2009-02-20T00:10:23Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > See my response to him and **Claptree** ditto. Reading back, it appears you skipped the cite that answered the question whether the multiple vaccinations added to the natural burden on the baby’s immune system would be harmful: > [@curlcoat](#): > > I didn’t click on this link because what you quoted from it appeared to be addressing the same thing as the first one? This despite the fact that **Jackmanii** quoted some relevant bits for you. I’ll offer you the [link](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289) again. It’s really quite informative. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/134 "2009-02-20T04:34:03Z")
> [@Claptree](#): > > Reading back, it appears you skipped the cite that answered the question whether the multiple vaccinations added to the natural burden on the baby’s immune system would be harmful: > > This despite the fact that **Jackmanii** quoted some relevant bits for you. I’ll offer you the [link](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289) again. It’s really quite informative. Well, just in case you are actually interesting in discussing it, I will point out that it seems in that article the premise is that there is less load on a baby from the vaccinations than from getting the disease, except it seems to be ignoring the overwhelming odds against getting all of the diseases at the same time, or even over the child’s lifetime. I’m not even sure why they even go into such detail regarding the less load from a vaccine than from the diseases, since it seems to be a no brainer. So, I certainly agree with that part of the article, but don’t know why it is pertinent here. Regarding the part on antigens, I’m not sure why this was included without any reference to the difference between exposure to natural and artificial antigens, and the difference between exposure thru skin or respiration, and having it injected. I noted someone sort of asked about it in the comments and wasn’t answered. This sentence - “We go from sterile to a complex and enormous normal flora in months.” Babies are born sterile? Then there is this comment - “I wouldn’t give a child 10,000 vaccines.” with no followup. Why? Is he saying there _is_ a limit to the number of vaccinations that can be given safely? I note the snark in the comments about antivaxers saying “too many too soon” - is it detrimental to the baby and/or herd immunity to slow down on the frequency? It would be nice if people wouldn’t just dismiss these folks as crazy or dangerous - it seems to me they are just trying to figure out why it is that so many kids are born autistic or wind up with dangerous allergies. It’s not like science hasn’t been seriously, fatally wrong in the past. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/135 "2009-02-20T04:46:29Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > This sentence - “We go from sterile to a complex and enormous normal flora in months.” Babies are born sterile? No, the environment inside the placenta is considered sterile (or at least it should be/is very close to it). It doesn’t mean that infections cannot occur (resulting sometimes in death of fetus or illnesses, malformations, carrier states, etc.). But in general a healthy system (both mom and fetus) will prevent spread of microbes into the growing fetus. During birth is when animals are (usually) first exposed to pathogens. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/136 "2009-02-20T05:51:28Z")
> [@KarlGrenze](#): > > No, the environment inside the placenta is considered sterile (or at least it should be/is very close to it). It doesn’t mean that infections cannot occur (resulting sometimes in death of fetus or illnesses, malformations, carrier states, etc.). But in general a healthy system (both mom and fetus) will prevent spread of microbes into the growing fetus. > > During birth is when animals are (usually) first exposed to pathogens. What about antigens? Are they pathogens? ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/137 "2009-02-20T11:32:47Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > What about antigens? Are they pathogens? Pathogens are things that can cause disease, usually microbes (fungi, bacteria, viruses). They produce antigens (membrane wall proteins, cell wall components, receptors, etc.) to whom the body makes antibodies against. And yes, it is thought that in the placenta, a fetus is in a sterile environment. The uterine and other female repro tract immune system is busy keeping everything in that region as clean as possible. But think again, the quote is talking about lack of any flora (as in the normal bacteria that live in our bodies and to which we’ve adapted well). How are they supposed to get it? Eating they do not do, nor breathing, and the uterus works damn hard to prevent any contamination from getting into the placenta. Therefore, it is thought that the fetuses in their amniotic sac are in a sterile environment (and certainly a much cleaner environment than the one that supports them). It is not until the process of birth that the fetus encounters things foreign to its environment (its environment having been the placenta, which shares the same DNA as the fetus, having been developed by the same cell clusters). Awesomelly, the immune system in the fetus has developed in utero so well that for the most part it can take all those things in, process them, mount according responses, and thrive. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/138 "2009-02-20T13:32:28Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Which, of course, wasn’t my question. Well, okay. If your question was “does getting more vaccinations than was the case thirty years ago lead to more allergies?”, then the answer is No. > [@](#): > > it seems in that article the premise is that there is less load on a baby from the vaccinations than from getting the disease, except it seems to be ignoring the overwhelming odds against getting all of the diseases at the same time, or even over the child’s lifetime. No, this isn’t the case. Read down a ways on the [article](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289). > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t give a child 10,000 vaccines. Or 100,000. Or a million. That is what life is for. A million or more ‘natural’ vaccinations from exposure to “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.” > [@](#): > > is it detrimental to the baby and/or herd immunity to slow down on the frequency? Yes, the increased risk of contracting the disease, plus the chance that the vaccinations will be missed or skipped because of the increased number of doctor visits. Keep in mind that there isn’t any evidence of increased risk from multiple vaccinations. If you think you have such evidence, please bring it forward. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/139 "2009-02-20T13:34:35Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Well, just in case you are actually interesting in discussing it, I will point out that it seems in that article the premise is that there is less load on a baby from the vaccinations than from getting the disease, except it seems to be ignoring the overwhelming odds against getting all of the diseases at the same time, or even over the child’s lifetime. I personally had measles, mumps, chickenpox and rubella over the span of a few years, and all those viral antigens far exceeded what I would have received in vaccines, had they been available. I was fortunate to avoid whooping cough (pertussis), which both my siblings had. > [@](#): > > I’m not even sure why they even go into such detail regarding the less load from a vaccine than from the diseases, since it seems to be a no brainer. Well, it _should_ be a no-brainer after being explained in detail. > [@curlcoat](#): > > It would be nice if people wouldn’t just dismiss these folks as crazy or dangerous - it seems to me they are just trying to figure out why it is that so many kids are born autistic or wind up with dangerous allergies. Not crazy (although some antivaxers are clearly over the edge, imagining government conspiracies and hiding needle phobias). Dangerously ignorant, in denial, driven by unreasonable fears and refusing to consider the overwhelming evidence that debunks them, prone to endlessly repeating nonsensical talking points - yes. > [@](#): > > It’s not like science hasn’t been seriously, fatally wrong in the past. Ah yes, a classical altie comeback. “Science has been wrong before, so you must give credence to my crazy-ass theory”. Science is self-correcting based on the accumulation of evidence. Antivaxery just keeps repeating the same false mantras, no matter how foolish they’ve been shown to be. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971/140 "2009-02-20T14:00:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > It would be nice if people wouldn’t just dismiss these folks as crazy or dangerous - it seems to me they are just trying to figure out why it is that so many kids are born autistic or wind up with dangerous allergies. It’s not like science hasn’t been seriously, fatally wrong in the past. We’ll stop dismissing anti-vax morons when they stop endangering public health: > [@](#): > > [http://www.cdc.gov/Features/MeaslesUpdate/](http://www.cdc.gov/Features/MeaslesUpdate/) > From January through July 2008, CDC received reports of 131 measles cases from 15 states and the District of Columbia—the highest year-to-date number since 1996. More than 90% of those infected had not been vaccinated, or their vaccination status was unknown. Many of these individuals were children whose parents chose not to have them vaccinated. Fifteen of the patients, including four infants, were hospitalized. :rolleyes: Measles is one of the most contagious diseases on the planet. Oh and the reason autism is on the rise is because people who would have been given a diagnosis of other diseases in the past are now being called autistic: > [@](#): > > [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/4/1028](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/4/1028) > > RESULTS. The average administrative prevalence of autism among children increased from 0.6 to 3.1 per 1000 from 1994 to 2003. By 2003, only 17 states had a special education prevalence of autism that was within the range of recent epidemiological estimates. During the same period, the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities declined by 2.8 and 8.3 per 1000, respectively. Higher autism prevalence was significantly associated with corresponding declines in the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities. The declining prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities from 1994 to 2003 represented a significant downward deflection in their preexisting trajectories of prevalence from 1984 to 1993. California was one of a handful of states that did not clearly follow this pattern. > > CONCLUSIONS. Prevalence findings from special education data do not support the claim of an autism epidemic because the administrative prevalence figures for most states are well below epidemiological estimates. The growing administrative prevalence of autism from 1994 to 2003 was associated with corresponding declines in the usage of other diagnostic categories. Go away. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > I personally had measles, mumps, chickenpox and rubella over the span of a few years, and all those viral antigens far exceeded what I would have received in vaccines, had they been available. I was fortunate to avoid whooping cough (pertussis), which both my siblings had. Aw c’mon **Jackmannii**. Measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox are _fun_. Nothing says good time like an old fashioned throat swelling or a rash and high fever and lots of itching! Your mom got to stay home I bet. She took really good care of you with lots of chicken soup and vitamin c. Vaccines would have been a real hardship in comparison. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/b-interested-observer-b-and-other-vaccine-disinformers-argh/485971.md?page=8)