Massive measles outbreak - thank you, Andrew Fucking Wakefield

[curlcoat]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Actually, it kinda does. Assuming you do proper research, fact-checking and other details. I don’t think writing a book would turn LavenderBlue into a pipette dispensing vaccine researcher but I’d wager she forgot more about vaccines that you will ever know.

Most likely. OTOH, what I said was it doesn’t make her an expert, particularly since I would never assume that any author did proper research and fact-checking.

Not knowing much on a subject is one thing, being willfully ignorant like you are is a completely different matter.

What is this willfully ignorant shit? I don’t know much about vaccinating kids, which I’ve said. I made one observation and the reaction was to tell me I’m stupid. If there is any willful in my lack of education on the subject, its been done by people who could have simply drafted a thoughtful response to what I actually said, instead of making stupid assumptions, pouncing on details that had zero to do with the subject and going off on tangents on things I haven’t said. Such as the many posts about how bad measles and mumps are for adults, when I’ve never said anything about adults.

Oh please, your use of anti-vaxx memes and themes is well documented in this thread. When you get answers you fail to acknowledge them.

No matter how many times you all want to repeat it, that simply isn’t true - I have had zero contact with any anti-vax stuff, I have no idea what memes or themes they might have. I’m quite sure that there are plenty of people out there who don’t know much on the subject and would ask the same questions. If you all just jump down their throats, they aren’t going to be interested in what you might have to say.

IN your case, no. But as I have noted we don’t expect to convert the zealot. We hope to keep someone from following the zealot to the kool-aid container.

On what planet would it be true that I would be a zealot regarding vaccinations? How do you expect to keep someone from following if they see you tearing into someone you’ve labeled as “zealot” for no real reason like a pack of hyenas?

What you asked was not idiotic questions. What you brought up were old, tired anti-vaxxer memes.

Seriously? Anti-vaxers ask if there might be a connection between discoveries with dogs and vaccinations for kids?

Getting the book published? No. Get the information in the book correct? Yeah, that kinda does.

Is it correct? More to the point, is it complete? I wouldn’t know since I know so little on the subject, but the fact the author is hostile to any sort of questioning is very telling.

Enjoy your Mandy’s Marvelous Measles then.

Another problem with you all - this response has absolutely zero to do with the part of my post you quoted, much less pretty much everything else I’ve said on this subject.

Not from any reputable sites you haven’t.

Really? Then why in the bloody blue fuck didn’t you say something at that time? Medicalnewstoday.com, the American Autoimmune Related Disease Assc and the Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America sounded like credible places to me, but since no one bothered to comment on those cites, I still have no idea if they are or if they are woo.

All of you points were addressed,

Not the major, original one except one cite said something like “it would take too much time and money”.

and people only got angry when you kept hitting the fringe reset button.

I cannot control the fact that some folks like to jump to conclusions.

Does it ever occur to you that you should pay attention to the sources people are giving you rather than having a mad-on on LB?

I read and responded to every cite people gave me. LB has been acting like a bitch from the word go and then melted down. Her inability to deal with people who don’t take everything she takes as gospel is her problem, not mine.

That is not what happened. You did a lot worse than just ‘dare to ask a question’. You were obtuse, full of fringe resets, ignored the loads of information given to you, what few points you tried to make. Even worse you vomited out fear-mongering crap like how awful it was for kids to have ‘so many shots’.

No. I know you won’t bother, but I’ll say it anyway - if you are going to say that, you have to provide cites. I cannot know what part of what I’ve said gave you the wrong impression so I really have no idea where you got this idea. As I said above, I read and responded to every cite given me - there may have been some in posts not directed to me that were useful, but I simply do not have time to read everything not addressed to me, much less follow all cites that may or may not have anything to do with what I’ve said.

Especially that bullshit about “awful it was for kids to have ‘so many shots’”. I’ve said that if I had a kid, I’d want to research it, and I’ve said that it’s awful for dogs to be over-vaccinated, but that’s it.

[Kolga]

Nobody cares, jackass.

[curlcoat]

@Kolga

As if anyone on this board needed any more proof that curlcoat is a vile flaming piece of shit, this thread pretty much seals the deal. She’s offered every anti-vaccine canard along with a dollop of tone trolling, all while pretending to be JAQing off, had every one of her lies and pieces of misinformation corrected, had every disingenuous “question” answered, and yet continues to spew the same old vomit as every other lying anti-vaxxer.

LavenderBlue and I encounter this same old pathetic tactic constantly,

And based on what you all have said yourselves, you handle it just as poorly as you have here.

and are in agreement that people like this are direct threats to public health. They should be held legally responsible for deaths and diseases that they encourage by continuing their fear and smear campaigns against the greatest medical invention of the 20th century.

Oh FFS. I should be held responsible because? I’ve been vaccinated, and I had no kids. What deaths or diseases have I caused?

To return to the theme of the OP, curlcoat, like Andrew Fucking Wakefield, participates in spreading misinformation that directly endangers lives. Luckily, she’s a friendless irrational failure and has not had a fraudulent study published. Unluckily, she and her ilk will suck Wakefield’s dick forever because of their inability/refusal to understand science.

Wonderful example of your continued poor ability to deal with opposing viewpoints, much less people like me who really have no opinion on the subject. It should be obvious to even you that there is no comparison between me and Wakefield, since I do get and give vaccinations. But yeah, you keep trying to win people back from the woo side by insulting them and accusing them of things they haven’t done. That’ll work. :rolleyes:

[Kolga]

Once again, with feeling - nobody cares, jackass.

[Nava]

When I first moved to the US, I was asked for my “immunizations card”. Once I understood what the hell was the doctor talking about, I explained that I’d never had one: I just had every shot when required, including tetanus (which is not part of the general calendar, but the first time you get it they tell you to get it boosted periodically; there’s also a general recommendation to make sure you’re up to date in it if travelling abroad so that if you get a laceration you won’t need to have the vaccine wherever you happen to be). Since it’s a national requirement, we don’t normally get cards. It took me a while to get them to accept that, and the first time I went home I asked my GP for a card. It took him as long to understand what the hell I wanted and why as it had taken me…

The second time I moved to the US, I brought a freshly-printed immunizations card.

I wonder what would it take to convince those governments with compulsory vaccination programs to require visitors from countries without to bring an up-to-date card. If you haven’t received those immunizations which are required locally, you have a choice of not coming in or getting the jabs before leaving the port of entry.

[clairobscur]

@Ferret_Herder

Plus there’s a disease like chickenpox which later in life inflicts shingles on a large percentage of people (50% in one study) who had chickenpox. This is a disease that can damage your eyesight, or maybe just cause burning, excruciating pain for weeks or months or longer. That fucking virus hides out in your own nervous system for 50 years or so after your case of chickenpox and then resurfaces to make your life misery.
.

That’s my luck. I got chicken pox at 47. Does that mean that I’ve a 50% risk of having all sorts of health issues when I’ll be about 100? :eek:

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@curlcoat

What is this willfully ignorant shit? I don’t know much about vaccinating kids, which I’ve said. I made one observation and the reaction was to tell me I’m stupid. If there is any willful in my lack of education on the subject, its been done by people who could have simply drafted a thoughtful response to what I actually said, instead of making stupid assumptions, pouncing on details that had zero to do with the subject and going off on tangents on things I haven’t said. Such as the many posts about how bad measles and mumps are for adults, when I’ve never said anything about adults.

This is why you are a fucking liar.

[legalsnugs]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Sometimes we do & say these thing not to convince the nutbar, but to be certain that the nutbar gains no converts and those who are on the fence can see the nutbar’s ignorance & humiliation.

I understand that and I admire your fortitude and perseverance in the face of abject idiocy, truly I do. But after you and several others assert the exact same facts several times without any effect whatsoever on the idiot, by which time even below average readers can clearly grasp that the nutbar is a nutbar, can we just let it go and write her off as a bad bet? Please? It’s just painful to watch.

I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion about actual OP topic, though. Thanks for that.

[Jackmannii]

It’s always been difficult for me to understand why anti-vaccine people so hate being termed anti-vaccine.

They prefer to be seen as Just Asking Questions, pro-“safe vaccines”, pro-“choice” or whatever the euphemism du jour is, but being called an antivaxer drives them nuts (or at least nuttier than their usual status quo).

Why is unclear - you’d think they’d be proud of their status. But for whatever reason (dislike of being characterized as “anti” something, the opprobrium of supporting views that threaten public health) you’ll rarely find an antivaxer who embraces the term.

For a more extreme example of what we’ve seen in this thread, check out this article by an antivaxer who thinks the term represents hate speech, and that she and her cohorts are a persecuted minority.

Really.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Jackmannii

It’s always been difficult for me to understand why anti-vaccine people so hate being termed anti-vaccine.

They prefer to be seen as Just Asking Questions, pro-“safe vaccines”, pro-“choice” or whatever the euphemism du jour is, but being called an antivaxer drives them nuts (or at least nuttier than their usual status quo).

Why is unclear - you’d think they’d be proud of their status. But for whatever reason (dislike of being characterized as “anti” something, the opprobrium of supporting views that threaten public health) you’ll rarely find an antivaxer who embraces the term.

For a more extreme example of what we’ve seen in this thread, check out this article by an antivaxer who thinks the term represents hate speech, and that she and her cohorts are a persecuted minority.

Really.

I suspect because on some level most folks do understand what vaccines do and maybe heard grandma talk about how horrible it was to have friends who ended up in Iron Lungs before that great vaccine came out. Presenting yourself as the anti-not-having-kids-in-iron-lungs does not sit will. Even if they bring out the bullshit graphs they love to lie with they are going to get some folks saying “I wasn’t any cleaner in the 50’s or dirtier in the 30’s” so don’t tell me that polio vaccine didn’t help! So they soften the message by toning down the ‘anti’ portion of their message, at least in their public face. In that place they express things like ‘concern’ or ‘safety’ or other issues that paint a pretty picture of 'we’re just parents like you!"

Truth is, there aren’t a whole lot of advocates who call themselves ‘anti’ anything. It isn’t good marketing and makes you look negative. I can only think of a handful of groups that call themselves ‘anti’ anything these days. Anti-vivisection come to mind and they are an old society with old marketing

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@legalsnugs

I understand that and I admire your fortitude and perseverance in the face of abject idiocy, truly I do. But after you and several others assert the exact same facts several times without any effect whatsoever on the idiot, by which time even below average readers can clearly grasp that the nutbar is a nutbar, can we just let it go and write her off as a bad bet? Please? It’s just painful to watch.

I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion about actual OP topic, though. Thanks for that.

True enough, which is why I suspect my last reply to the kook’s whinging is actually my last reply. Kolga is certainly done. I think everyone gets it at this point.

[LavenderBlue]

@Jackmannii

It’s always been difficult for me to understand why anti-vaccine people so hate being termed anti-vaccine.

They prefer to be seen as Just Asking Questions, pro-“safe vaccines”, pro-“choice” or whatever the euphemism du jour is, but being called an antivaxer drives them nuts (or at least nuttier than their usual status quo).

Why is unclear - you’d think they’d be proud of their status. But for whatever reason (dislike of being characterized as “anti” something, the opprobrium of supporting views that threaten public health) you’ll rarely find an antivaxer who embraces the term.

For a more extreme example of what we’ve seen in this thread, check out this article by an antivaxer who thinks the term represents hate speech, and that she and her cohorts are a persecuted minority.

Really.

@Mr.Miskatonic

I suspect because on some level most folks do understand what vaccines do and maybe heard grandma talk about how horrible it was to have friends who ended up in Iron Lungs before that great vaccine came out. Presenting yourself as the anti-not-having-kids-in-iron-lungs does not sit will. Even if they bring out the bullshit graphs they love to lie with they are going to get some folks saying “I wasn’t any cleaner in the 50’s or dirtier in the 30’s” so don’t tell me that polio vaccine didn’t help! So they soften the message by toning down the ‘anti’ portion of their message, at least in their public face. In that place they express things like ‘concern’ or ‘safety’ or other issues that paint a pretty picture of 'we’re just parents like you!"

Truth is, there aren’t a whole lot of advocates who call themselves ‘anti’ anything. It isn’t good marketing and makes you look negative. I can only think of a handful of groups that call themselves ‘anti’ anything these days. Anti-vivisection come to mind and they are an old society with old marketing

Very true.

I think no one wants to be anti-vaccine largely because it is fairly easy to deconstruct the anti-vaccine argument. We see that here where a certain person keeps asserting that kids get more vaccines today than before. Yet that is just false The actual amount of reactive material today is far less than it was. So they’re getting vaccinated against more diseases but actually facing a lower risk of vaccine reactions.

This is causing some problems right now. As Arthur Allen points out in Science Magazine
the new pertussis vaccine is less likely to cause a reaction. But it is also less likely to be effective against pertussis.

So we have a problem that needs addressing. How do we make the vaccine both less reactive and more safe? In many countries they simply opt to use the less safe vaccine. In America peds just tell us to keep newborns inside and away from people. They also urge booster shots.

So yeah we need a safer vaccine. But part of the reason we need one is because the anti-vax brigade helped create the problem in the first place by overreacting to minor vaccine side effects they saw in their kids.

[LavenderBlue]

Anti-vaxxers are also trying very hard to turn this into a legal question. They’ve co-opted the word choice. So now when you make laws that try to protect the rest of us from the consequences of their stupidity, you’re not protecting our community against measles. You’re taking away their “choice.”

That idiot argument ignores the fact that a) vaccine aren’t one hundred percent effective and b) many vaccine preventable illnesses are highly contagious and very dangerous.

Like many others, I do not want to find out to go get the entire family tested for titers (the means of measuring how protected you are against vaccine preventable illnesses after the vaccine) because you are too fucking stupid to understand that you should vaccinate your kids.

After studying this issue for years, I don’t fundamentally people have the inherent right to refuse vaccination for most common diseases without a medical reason. The diseases are just too damned dangerous and have horrific consequences. Rubella, measles, mumps, diphtheria, polio, hib and the like are all just awful. You should have no more right to bring them into a community than you should have to shit in the local water supply.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@LavenderBlue

Anti-vaxxers are also trying very hard to turn this into a legal question. They’ve co-opted the word choice. So now when you make laws that try to protect the rest of us from the consequences of their stupidity, you’re not protecting our community against measles. You’re taking away their “choice.”

I’m going to start the Roadway Intersection-Choice Society - “We want to have the choice, nay, they freedom to drive through red lights. We’re not against red lights, but look: lots of accidents happen within a mile of a red light! We just want to choose! Give us safe red lights!”

[Jackmannii]

Portland, Oregon residents are voting today on whether their water supply should be fluoridated to prevent tooth decay.

A lot of antis are framing the matter as one of “choice”. I haven’t seen Portland pro-choicers demanding that water no longer be chlorinated, as it violates their right to choose coliform bacteria and other pathogens. :dubious:

[LavenderBlue]

@Mr.Miskatonic

I’m going to start the Roadway Intersection-Choice Society - “We want to have the choice, nay, they freedom to drive through red lights. We’re not against red lights, but look: lots of accidents happen within a mile of a red light! We just want to choose! Give us safe red lights!”

Exactly. It’s an argument that you would not use in other contexts. You don’t have the right to refuse to use seat belts.

They completely ignore the fact that the disease in question are often not only contagious but incredibly contagious. Measles is one of the single most contagious diseases on the planet. Until the use of the vaccine nearly everyone in America got it – and we had hundreds of dead and disabled kids as a result.

In India today, you still have thousands of deaths each year in children under five solely from measles.

The anti-vax argument is that they’re dying from malnutrition not measles which is bullshit.

Cite from the WHO: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2013/measles_20130117/en/

[Mr.Miskatonic]

Red lights didn’t prevent accidents, washing our cars did! I have a graph!

Why must you freedom-hating red light poisoners infest my car with your red photons courtesy of Big Intersections!!?!

[Leaper]

@Jackmannii

For a more extreme example of what we’ve seen in this thread, check out this article by an antivaxer who thinks the term represents hate speech, and that she and her cohorts are a persecuted minority.

Really.

Well, they ARE (thankfully) a minority, and they are being persecuted for actively trying to use their ignorance and stupidity to sicken innocent kids, so maybe they have a point…

[curlcoat]

@Kolga

Once again, with feeling - nobody cares, jackass.

It’s obvious that you do. The fact you cannot discuss the subject without acting like an asshole is very sad.

@Mr.Miskatonic

This is why you are a fucking liar.

Having reservations about the shear number of shots babies get these days is willful ignorance?

@legalsnugs

I understand that and I admire your fortitude and perseverance in the face of abject idiocy, truly I do. But after you and several others assert the exact same facts several times without any effect whatsoever on the idiot, by which time even below average readers can clearly grasp that the nutbar is a nutbar, can we just let it go and write her off as a bad bet? Please? It’s just painful to watch.

Then don’t look. People who try to control a public conversation are another thing I don’t get.

However, one thing you don’t get, despite me asserting the same facts several times without any effect whatsoever on these guys? Extremely little of what they have said has been on point. Say 99.9%. I have long given up hope that anyone will actually respond in a thoughtful adult manner to the original question and am just killing time because they like to beat me up. I never should have had the gall to ask about measles and mumps in the presence of LavenderBlue.

[LavenderBlue]

BABIES DON’T GET MORE ANTIGENS (THE REACTIVE MATERIAL IN VACCINES)THEN THEY DID A GENERATION AGO. THEY GET LESS REACTIVE MATERIAL SO THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO HAVE A REACTION. THIS HAS CAUSED PROBLEMS BECAUSE SOME SHOTS LIKE THE PERTUSSIS ARE NOW LESS EFFECTIVE IN PART AS A RESULT OF ANTI-VACCINE NUTTERY.

*runs screaming from the thread . . . *