Oh look: South Dakota's #2... in measles!
Asterisk our #2: four of the cases mapped around Mitchell are folks from other states inflating our numbers.
I heard Senator Rand Paul on NPR yesterday saying he's not against vaccinations but that "it is an issue of freedom" for parents choosing how to take care of their children.
I'd tell Senator Paul that choosing not to vaccinate your kids is like choosing to smoke in the house while your kids around. You have the freedom to make that choice, but it's a stupid choice, based with few exceptions on ignorance and selfishness. And you're not making that choice in some remote Galt's Gulch utopia; you're making that choice here, in real society, surrounded by real people whose lives your choice will negatively impact.
Go ahead, exercise your freedom. But keep your cigarettes and your measles-prone children away from my child.
After potential presidential candidate Lindsay Graham (our first gay president, that we know of) called out Rand Paul for his irresponsible comments, Paul was doing some backtracking today. He said that he indeed believe in vaccinations and that his children were vaccinated, he even posted a picture of himself being vaccinated. Why he is just now getting vaccinated is another subject.
Some Republicans are saying his comments may have doomed his presidential aspirations.
If your children are vaccinated, then why are you concerned if they come in contact with the measles virus? Unless of course the immunity imparted by the vaccines doesn't impart lifetime immunity against the virus due to waning and lack of exposure to the wild measles virus. Keep in mind that everyone of those cases of measles on the map has now acquired immunity to the disease.
Yeah: screw all the unvaccinated tourists spending billions every year in the US.
Hey, Don, don't be an ass. Don't try to give parents who ignore good science and don't get shots as giving their kids great natural immunity by suffering through measles. That's specious.
And I know vaccines aren't perfect. I got mumps when I was in high school (actually, mumps is awesome—I highly recommend it to anyone looking for two weeks off school). They're still better than the alternative of rampant disease. More importantly, I know not every kid can get shots, due to chemotherapy, immune diseases, etc. It's not just about me; it's about being able to put yourself in the shoes of others, something selfish jerks like you don't get.
Did ya spill your milk, Cory? We speak emotionally about pro choice and yet..............
Roger, thanks to Obamacare, Ayn..er Rand Paul got inoculated very quickly. My only wish would be that there would be some kind of inoculation for the dumbass disease that has hit the republican party especially hard. Oh there are a few that have been immune to it, but they are an anomaly.
this is how we provide health care in SD. we don't so those that can't afford don't get it. boz's co-indictee (she wasn't only one charge-he his getting court ordered psychiatric exam cause he can't work w/defense lawyer). then poor or ill people come up w/excuses not to get care-vaccination science conspiracy, attorney gen'l conspiracy ect., coyote waning conspiracy)
Medicaid expansion dennis!!
It's not just R. Paul - major leading lights of celebrity culture kicked this off and they're hardly conservative. Even President Obama has made noises in this direction.
It's a passing fad that is hitting in the same way the whole fluoridation thing did a few years ago - fluoridating the water was some sort of government conspiracy to control our minds or something like that. I never did quite get what the government was supposedly trying to accomplish with it, but it was for gosh darn sure a nefarious government plot!
Personally, I'm with you on the conclusion, though. I'm for freedom - even the freedom to succumb to pseudo-scientific conspiracy mongering. Senator Paul has the freedom to not vaccinate his kids, and I have the freedom to keep them at a safe distance from mine.
And, of course, there is the great, great irony that Rand Paul is 100% against abortion, and completely ignoring what rubella (german measles) will do to a child in its mother's womb. (Heads up, Don Coyote, this is one of the many reasons to worry about the non-vaccinated!) But I suppose if it's a choice between vaccination and causing blindness, retardation, deformities and possible death to a fetus, well, choose freedom! Every time!
There is an irony here that Nick N. and I (and others) have discussed on Facebook, having to do with "herd immunity."
The more we honor the individual's right to opt out of vaccination, the more essential it simultaneously be comes to convince one another not to in order to protect those who have opted out, plus those who can't be vaccinated. for medical reasons.
It's a social contract thing: "We the People" as distinct from "Me the People."
Measles contracted by pregnant women can be an abortifacient.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12850161
I believe if it came down to freedom or vaccinations, we could probably live a month or two in a non free, non vaccinating, nation and quickly decide the freedom was worth more than the vaccine, Eve.
An epidemic of rubella (German measles) in 1964-65 infected 12½ million Americans, killed 2,000 babies, and caused 11,000 miscarriages...... But so what, they "acquired immunity to the disease."--
Its the odd man out, black sheep, BF. No one wants to be the odd man and many can't wait to lift themselves by walking another human being down while creating another odd man out.
I believe you are goofy, Adam.
Sinator Thom Tillis of North Carolina Nutland says restaurant workers should be forced to wash their mitties after peeing because it is an assault on worker's rights. Maybe paying customers should carry guns and disabuse wingnuts of these quaint notions that spreading bubonic plague is a worker's right.
should NOT be forced. My keyboard made a bad.
Women should be forced to wait three days after consultation then attend sessions at state-sponsored Immunization Counseling Centers and not be able to pay for shots until they are administered.
My parents, Les, would have your hide for saying that. But of course my mother grew up with tubercular cows in rural Tennessee, got diphtheria and nearly died of it, my father's only brother did die of a vaccine-preventable disease (which they didn't have in the 20's), and they RACED to get me every vaccine that was available on the market. BTW, the Supreme Court decided the whole question of vaccines back in 1905: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
“there are manifold restraints to which each person is necessarily subject for the common good”. Amen.
""" killed 2,000 babies, and caused 11,000 miscarriages...... But so what, they "acquired immunity to the disease."--''' Kind of has that pro choice ring to it, jaydee. About six days worth that is.
still focused on the other have of health care, mental health (cause the brain is kinda'of important, as shown on this thread-thks coyote, les): wonder if our military suicide rate is higher than suicide bombers?
oh, forgot to add, obama's ebola-where repubs wanted to impeach him for yet another BENGAZZIE-GATE, ATF GUN WALKING,ect conspiracy,...apparently is subject to ANOTHER big government fail. there aren't enough ebola victims/patients to carry out full epidemic studies! NPR today.
fu*king republican obstructionists entrenched in SD!
i blame obama!!
Some triple digit IQ posters need to explain how red states with some of the least dense populations end up with some of the most dense populations w/o adding any population.
Thanks Democrats for starting such an obscene and regressive anti-vaccine movement. Now, if only we could send them all to California to join the rest of the nutbags.
Mike, It's all about diversity. From what I have heard from inner circle people, the affected are mostly Indian and their Indian families visited from out of state.
Daniel
Is there really that much of a difference in political affiliation with the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children?
Just before the Measles outbreak one of my best friends for 30 plus years confided in me that none of his kids have been vaccinated. He and his wife have no intended to get them vaccinated believing that somehow in the grand scheme of things that vaccines weaken everyone's immune systems and that his kids will be stronger and pass that stronger immunity to their children. He has a large family and one of his kids already had Whooping Cough and had a tough time getting rid of it. They are Republican, very conservative and home schooled most of their kids. Both parents are highly educated and it surprised me knowing his parents had him fully vaccinated in the 60s and 70's growing up.
Ironically the Mitchell family that was infected by their out of state relative were also home schooled. Is it primarily conservatives that home school their children?
Is Jenny McCarthy a Democrat? The affluent area of LA are they conservatives or liberals? Couldn't it be a mixture of both?
Don: "If your children are vaccinated, then why are you concerned if they come in contact with the measles virus?"
Well Don, you see viruses are amazing things... they have been known to mutate ever-so-slightly which can render a vaccination not as effective as it once once. There are also unliminted variations that exist in the complex structure of human DNA, which means a vaccine that works perfectly fine for me may not work at all for you.
Vaccines aren't perfect Don - and we all know that. They aren't 100% effective, and they will never prevent 100% of disease. Sure they continue to get better all the time, but the reality is they still won't ever be 100% effective. This is why we rely upon herd immunity - to ensure those who aren't protected by a vaccine are still somewhat protected from contracting a virus. Because if enough of us are vaccinated, that means we aren't spreading or carrying the disease elsewhere, which means those who aren't protected by the vaccine should never succumb to it.
Of course this really isn't about us Don. This is about those amongst us who cannot receive vaccines either due to allergies or perhaps because they are undergoing radiation or chemotherapy. Maybe it is an infact not yet old enough to receive a vaccine, or perhaps a toddler with a suppressed immune system. It might not be my kid that is at risk, but that doesn't mean I don't care about those who are. So again it is our duty to vaccinate... not so much for us - but for everyone around us.
When you really think about it, not vaccinating your child is an incredibly selfish thing to do. It is basically saying like someone telling us that they don't care about anyone else even if it results in a pile of dead kids just as long as their own unique flower doesn't have to have a needle jabbed in their arm. These are probably the same kinds of people who litter and who steal toilet paper from public restrooms... because their entire mindset surrounds the idea that everything is someone else's problem and they should benefit from the actions and generosity of everyone else.
D Buresh, your 16.24 comment has nothing to do with any of this.
Some pediatricians are informing unvaccinated families that she will no longer treat them due to danger to other patients. Also, families of immune-suppressed children are calling their pediatricians to check on unvaccinated patients with whom they may come into contact. Those docs either drop anti-vaxers or lose patients. Here's the Wapo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/some-doctors-wont-see-patients-with-anti-vaccine-views/2015/01/29/9f196e7a-a816-11e4-a162-121d06ca77f1_story.html
Conservative Wapo columnist Kathleen Parker wrote about anti-vaxers here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-seeking-a-vaccine-for-ignorance/2015/02/03/70133504-abd9-11e4-abe8-e1ef60ca26de_story.html?tid=HP_opinion?tid=HP_opinion
John Boner supports vaccines:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/speaker-john-boehner-all-children-ought-to-be-vaccinated/2015/02/03/b76a71e9-b59b-4128-96e4-591fa4dffc85_story.html
Last, an article that clearly outlines the dangers of not vaccinating:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/03/why-a-few-unvaccinated-children-are-an-even-bigger-threat-than-you-think/
Every Democrat I know, including President Obama, is pro vaccine, where in the hell does Daniel get his information to blame Democrats for being anti-vaccine when it is likes of Rand Paul and other numbskulls that advocate against it.
Is this guy for real?
Daniel says, "Mike it's all about diversity. I have heard from inner circle people, the affected are mostly Indian and their Indian families visited from out of state".
So, Daniel the Indians are to blame for the measles epidemic based on information "from inner circle people". Exactly who is in this inner circle that lends that comment to be credible. Sounds like a tea party comment.
Craig,
You may have provided too much scientific fact for Daniel to comprehend.
Roger quickly forgot who started it all...liberal democrats.
Lynn, its definitely both sides but up until my post, it was all republican blah blah blah. Don't blame me for injecting the facts. Liberal democrats started the fad and there is no denying that.
Well Roger, even Lynn has heard it was homeschoolers and I'm sure she heard they were Indian as well. Ive heard that from multiple people. And don't confuse Indian with native american.
do people from madville go over to DWC and shout jibberish and get away with it?
dano-please observe my advice from another thread. you are about to bite on more, with your alligator mouth, than your mosquito anus can handle. LBJ's law partner once told me that.
Daniel,
Precisely, who are the liberal Democrats that "started it"?
Republican Lindsay Graham and other Republicans have joined President Obama to look a the clear science and get vaccinated.
Daniel, why are you so desperate to make this a partisan issue, or do you just need to blame someone? The blame is one the parents that don't vaccinate their children, plain and simple.
There is denying that Daniel. The mistrust of government is all Republicans and the far right.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/anti-vaccines-trust-government_n_6604708.html
Daniel
It was not a matter of hearing about it is that I personally know one family that home schooled their children and chose not to vaccinate and it was published in the Mitchell Daily Republic that the family infected with measles home schooled their children.
You guys just hate facts and resort to random bullshit. I'm from the big horns...you can't handle your big mouth...blah blah blah.
So Daniel, "I heard" is now fact?
Don't parse words with me over Native American and Indian, I use them interchangeably and consider myself both. And you can't change that.
btw! The family I personally know is not Native and I have no idea whether the family in Mitchell that was infected is Native or not since their identity has been protected. I don't see what difference it would make.
American Indians don't give one shit about what the state does. That any funding for tribes goes through Pierre is ridiculous on its face.
Quick Owen, switch topics. Roger, Make it partisan? That happened long before I got here. You guys just can't handle it from the other side and that's apparent. Just trying to make sure you know where it all began.
Tribes trapped in Wyoming are already treated as jurisdictions in a 51st state by federal agencies. IHS should be managed by tribal members for tribal nations.
Daniel,
Chill and relax! Doesn't that axe you always bring to grind here Madville get heavy? Take a load off your shoulders and leave the attitude behind. Our dialog would be better.
No one said they were native americans, I said they were Indian. The fact is it began on the left, not what I heard even though I've heard that multiple times.
I agree with PNR that this is just a passing fad. I wouldn't tell the anti-vaccination people they should vaccinate, as they will just refuse all the more. In a democracy that is their right. Listen to them, and try to see their side, but lecturing won't work.
How did I get caught up in diversity?
Lynn, I have no axe to grind. I stated facts and what I heard and people can't handle that. The second you state something against the left you get called a numbskull so I give them the same respect I receive after that. Some people can't handle the truth.
The easiest way to get wingnuts riled up is say federal overreach or the black guy in the White House thinks you should do this. There will be an automatic backlash from the right.
Us and them
But after all
We're just ordinary men.
Jenny I agree. Lecturing more than likely won't help. I am supportive of family doctors who will no longer see patients that refuse to vaccinate. This physician has tried to educate and change the minds of these parents minds for years and failed so he is now refusing to see them. He's trying to protect his family and other patients. http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/doctor-fires-patients-who-refuse-to-vaccinate-their-kids/
Daniel,
Once again you claim to "present facts" when in fact you have not provided any facts.
Once again, "I heard" is not a fact. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
You still have not told us who the Democrats are that started this anti-vaccine campaign? Precisely who are the Democrats that "started it". Who are they?
Go ask the Big Horns, Roger. I'd rather smash my head into a brick wall then go round and round with you based on your comprehension skills.
Here is a two year old by state not vaccinated link. I believe Co has moved up into the top five.
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/10-states-with-the-most-vaccination-exemptions.html
"The mistrust of government is all Republicans and the far right."
Funniest thing I've read today. Thanks for the entertainment!
Daniel,
I'm not really concerned at the moment of where all this originated but frustrated to where we are now. There are diseases that should of been wiped off the face of the Earth by now. This should not be happening! I see it as a small cross section of people that are misinformed and there is quite a bit of misinformation out there that has been thoroughly debunked.
I see the same people that refuse to vaccinate their children as many I've known in the years I've spent in the natural foods industry. Some are liberals or progressives, some are very conservative and some are neither. They just trying to do the best they can do for their children.
Daniel,
Given your limited intelligence, it sounds as though you have already smashed your head into a brick wall.
Since you obviously asking the Big Horns questions, do they always answer you?
You still haven't answered the questions, and we all know you can't.
Lynn, so why did everyone go bonkers when I stated the fact that it all started on the left? That is where it began and anyone with google can figure that out. Lawyers and Democrats chased after pharmaceutical companies.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/trial-lawyers-and-dem-donors-support-anti-vaccination-movement/
Washington Free Beacon, now that is a credible source!!!
The author of the article, Lachlan Markay worked for the Heritage Foundation.
So you can't defend the content? Good play Roger. Straight from the Democrat playbook.
Hey I also can see Russia from here.
Daniel,
Neither political party has angels wings sprouting as far as I'm concerned and the movement may predate what was found in that article especially by those who were involved in the natural foods industry with this whole building up natural immunity across generations idea. There are bad actors that are associated with both political parties.
Lynn, if you say that too loud they might think you agree with me and you are going to get it from them. Any pointing out of Democrat stupidity is complete uncalled for here.
Lynn, if you say that too loud they might think you agree with me and you are going to get it from them. Any pointing out of Democrat stupidity is completely uncalled for here.
Would someone please send me a copy of the Democratic playbook Daniel refers to, he probably won't share his copy with me.
I've been a Democrat all my life and have never seen this playbook, who is holding out on me.
Or is the Democratic Playbook a part of Daniel's Big Horn echo chamber? I've heard of mental patience that hear voices, I have never heard a mental patient that hears voices from the Big Horns.
Fifty plus years ago some rethuglicans supported civil rights. Fifty plus years later,they don't . Do we pat them on the back for then and ignore them for now?
In 2007 there was an increase in celebrities promoting anti-vaccination rhetoric. Because of their celebrity status they appeared on several television shows and published multiple books advising parents not to vaccinate their children. This has led to an increase in the number of vaccine preventable illnesses as well as an increase in the number of vaccine preventable deaths.
This is the only thing I've found,so far, that might even come close to establishing liberals as the cause of anti-vaccinations,assuming all celebs,or most anyway,are liberal.
The first paragraph above came from anti-vaccination body count-whoever they are..
Rand Paul never said he was against vaccines. If you listen to what he said, it was that some parents are afraid of them and he understands that. There have been cases where children have died of SIDS right after a vaccination, as well as cases when a TDaP resulted in high fever and seizures, which caused brain damage ( a problem which can be prevented with Tylenol and tepid baths)
So you have some parents who are afraid to vaccinate their children. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it anyway. Validating a client's anxiety while advising them to proceed is a good business practice for anybody. If your client is afraid of what you are selling (airline travel, swimming lessons, rock climbing, sky diving) you will have better customer relations if you acknowledge their fear. That's common sense.
Republicans think health care is personal. They don't want the government mandating treatment for anyone. It's a problem when personal choice conflicts with social responsibility. The issue is going to be a no-win for Republicans, which is why the MSM loves to ask them about it. Nobody is going to ask Democrats about it, because Democrats love government mandates.
NVIC-which is who gets the most blame for being a liberal group in the FreeBeacon report is supported from the left and right in politics. Not all trial lawyers are Libs.
Today Rand Paul had to walk back his vaccination comment not because of the freedom issue, but because he continued with the unfounded allegation of vaccines can cause mental illness and autism.
It would probably be a good idea for Republicans to watch other news channels besides FOX "News".
Just keep saying that lie to yourself Anne, he said what he said and we all heard it. The man is not fit to be a senator no less a presidential candidate.
Republicans think health care is personal. They don't want the government mandating treatment for anyone.
Except when they want the gubmint to interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion. Still think healthcare is personal?
Anne, "Republicans think healthcare is personal?" "They don't want the government mandating treatment for anyone?"
Now juxtapose those conservative "Facts" with current and proposed South Dakota laws with regards to women's reproductive rights vs. religious belief.
Then we'll just add in the little elephant in the room about "Obamacare comes between the patient and their physician" and throw a little twist by answering what insurance companies were doing before the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act became law.
Outside of the "Kenyan" President who's name was maliciously and racially attached to the act...(say, didn't the Republican leaders meet to agree to block anything he brought forward the day he was inaugurated following the will and vote of The People?)
Before you answer, you need to have a 72 hour waiting period and submit to a mandatory counseling session with people who disagree with you and no...you may not prepay! Apparently, the legislature of South Dakota doesn't think women are smart enough to make their own decisions.
Sorry for restricting you, as a woman blog commenter, but that seems to be the way we like to think here in good old one party dictatorship South Dakota.
this isn't about big government or government intrusion Anne. It's about common sense. It isn't that you're making choices for your own kids, your making them for mine or somebody else's.
Mike you hit the nail on the head
Right on, Owen. Pro life for all!
Jana,
Great comment about "Republicans think healthcare is personal", that is a classic.
The but part comes in when they feel they can dictate healthcare for women.
19 states allow people to opt out of vaccines for philosophical reasons. Hear that,Troy?
I'd love to enter into the discussion but based on either answers or non-answers on the justification for abortion, I thought it was established that:
1) Person's have absolute sovereignty over their body and
2) There is no justification for the government to violate that absolute sovereignty for the safety or protection of another's life. Absolute is absolute.
If that is the case, forced vaccinations must be illicit. You can't hold a position of "absolute" and have exceptions. It is the consequence when you borrow a position justified by Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
When the epidemic from a completely preventable disease comes because of all of these anti-vaccine conservatives, guess who will be the first ones screaming to the government to save them.
The only absolute I have is never giving an inch to your side.
ABC News also reported someone from Pennsylvania visited the Phillipines last year during an outbreak of measles and brought the disease back with them. One could logically assume since Dr Bosworth and circus was in the Phillipines last year,maybe they brought the disease back to South Dakota.
I'm wondering if anyone is going to challenge Troy's false equivalence argument, or just let him get away with it. :-)
Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?
(Hint: his 'sin' is more egregious in his point #2 than in his #1. Good thing he started out expressing reluctance to enter the argument. That way he'll have an easy way out of it. LOL)
Healthcare is a woman's personal choice as long as a fetus is not involved.
Bill, you can't legislate stupid and stupid people die, hopefully they won't take too many of the rest of us with them.
Troy sets up an argument with no end and since this thread isn't about abortion I won't engage.
Mike, don't forget potential fetuses, republicans want to take that away from women as well.
Okay, Tim, but I don't think Troy sets up an argument with no end. I think his argument can be ended with two words.
’yes' and 'no' in the order in which he made them.
Oops, meant to say take control of that. Sorry
Problem with 1)yes and 2)no is his absolute is absolute at the end. I agree with yes and no but there is no such thing as absolute and he knows that, so no end for him.
Aha, two fallacies then. False equivalence and reductio ad absurdum. Good, Tim. See how easy that was? ;-)
Bill,
I don't ascribe to the absolute sovereignty, I think it absurd, but I didn't make that argument.
Others made it either intentionally or unintentionally. If it is absolute, it is absolute and no infringement is justified. Or, isn't it absolute? I'm confused.
Tim,
I agree vaccinations shouldn't be about abortion. But, if the central tenet of abortion rights is absolute sovereignty of one's body, it does affect whether the government can force one to do something to their body for the good of another/others.
Principles and rights must be broadly applicable otherwise they aren't rights but privileges/benefits gained because they can muster 50% support ("mob rule").
lol.
As I said Troy, this isn't about abortion, it's about vaccination of completely preventable diseases. Let the stupid die and hope they don't take too many of the rest of us with them. I do think, if the stupid elect not to vaccinate, then their kids should be kept out of public schools, try to limit the damage as much as possible. I hate to make it about the kids, but the current crop of stupid has probably already been vaccinated as that was the way at one time. How ironic is that?
Thanks Troy. It's good to hear you disclaim your own absurd argument. It saves the rest of us the trouble of trying to refute it. ;-)
The Constitution and our body of law is actually a set of limits on our 'inalienable' natural rights. In that regard, the two are essentially in perpetual conflict.
One's assertion of bodily autonomy is an example of the former, not the latter.
Therefore, your two premises don't represent a rational contradiction, but rather a description of the status quo relationship between the people and their government and in a larger context, between the individual and his/her society.
The measles outbreak in South Dakota represents failed leadership, the cultivation of ignorance, and the absence of affordable health care. In other words: red state failure.
Sorry, that was backward. Should have read: 'One's assertion of bodily autonomy is an example of the latter, not the former.'
Daniel,
I'm not sure how you define "facts" but the true source of this anti-vaccination movement really began with a lone doctor named Andrew Wakefield. I'm unclear about Andy's political affiliation, but I can assure you he is no more a Democrat than he is a Republican... because Andy is from the UK and isn't associated with either political party in the US.
Now you might want to try to guess whether he is liberal or conservative, but that might be difficult. On one hand he proclaimed to care about innocent children and pushed the idea that personal choice was more important than mandated vaccines, but on the other hand it turned out he was secretly working on a competitor to the MMR vaccine and that his anti-MMR vaccination views were up for bid to anyone who could afford his fees... so whether this guy aligns more closely with the left or the right is anyone's guess.
Anti-vaccine views existed prior to Andy, but he really marketed the fear better than anyone before him, so that is when the idea really blossomed. You have to hand it to the guy - he was great about spreading misinformation and fear, and he even managed to get his 'research' published in The Lancet before his fraud was discovered. Ultimately his work was retracted, he lost his medical license, he was entirely discredited, and he has since been forced to make a living by speaking at various anti-vaccine seminars around the country while his fans worship him for being a brave maverick doctor not afraid to fight the power or some other nonsense.
Beyond that, I can say that the current crop of anti-vaccinationists come from all walks of life. You find very wealthy families who refuse to vaccinate while sending their children to $60,000/yr private schools in LA, you find granola moms who refuse to vaccinate because of something they heard about "toxins", you have anti-mainstream types who refuse to vaccinate because they fear what they don't understand (these are the same people who claim flouride in tap water is a conspiracy and that cellular towers cause Parkinsons or whatever).
Anti-vaccine people don't align with any one political party, but if they did it would probably more closely align with Libertarians since most anti-vaccinationists cite personal liberty as one of their chief concerns in regards to vaccines and they find major political parties are both equally corrupt since they support agencies like the FDA (which is the chief enemy of anti-vaccinationists in case you didn't realize).
You can spin it any way you want of course, and you could claim Jenny McCarthy is a liberal and that she "started it" although she boarded the train long after it left the station and one celebrity isn't evidence enough to pinpoint the origin of the movement, and I can assure you McCarthy has fans across the political spectrum as sad as that might be.
Granted none of this probably matters to you because I'm fairly certain you came here to troll, but I felt it was probably worth noting some actual facts instead of allowing you to continue claiming your opinions and one lone editorial should be considered "fact".
So with that dealt with, perhaps it is time to ask yourself not who really "started" this anti-vaccine nonsense.... but who is promoting it now? I couldn't care less about which political party is behind it - I'm only concerned with individuals - and those are the people that need to be educated. Whether they are Senators from Kentucky or Celebrities from Burbank... they are the real threat to our children, and they should be the focus of your anger instead of the opposing political party.
Amen, Craig! Now the question is, how do we get people to move past what Mr. Wakefield started, and realize how bad life is without vaccines? Just a reminder, before modern medicine - specifically vaccines and antibiotics - the average death toll for infants was 50%. Those were not the "good old days".
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/04/383796532/pediatricians-pressured-to-drop-parents-who-wont-vaccinate
People are horrible at assessing risk, and this is just that notion in action. In certain counties, particularly in California, vaccination rates have dropped low enough that herd immunity is now gone. I reject the notion that this is darwinism at its finest, because children are not the ones making the decision here, the parents are. I think parents who don't vaccinate their kids are idiots at best, and absolutely shitty people at worst. Nonetheless, we start dancing on pretty fine lines when we allow women to abort a viable fetus out of respect for her sovereignty, but do not allow parents to make decisions regarding the medical treatment for their children.
I hate to be the "Where do we draw the line" guy, because it reminds me of some of my pedantic classmates, but I think it's appropriate here.
If someone has their head up their ass,is that a rationale or a position?
Dicta, seems like the line is fairly easy to draw, unless I'm missing something (always possible.) A woman making personal health decisions about reproduction doesn't present the rest of her society with a disease epidemic. Being pregnant isn't contagious.
That's a fair point, Bill, but I think it's about the justification for it. We allow the woman to make that decision out of respect for her sovereignty. My sense is, then, that you would give full respect for that sovereignty until it puts others at risk. But due to herd immunity, parents not getting their kids vaccinated actually presents very little risk to anyone unless you are aggregating it.
http://listen.sdpb.org/post/bill-revises-disease-outbreak-statutes
"The bill is in response to the ebola outbreak in Africa."
Lol. Once again, people are absolutely horrible at assessing risk.
Dicta, yes, true. In that case, for every parent who chooses to opt out, it becomes all the more essential that the rest of the parents in the "herd" to opt in. The ratio is something like 1 out of 10-20 (90-95% immunized) if I recall.
In other words, we can maintain herd immunity by "tyranny of the super-majority" and still allow for individual sovreignity. But of course, if social common sense breaks down, (which I suppose is always possible) all bets are off. ;-)
I think 94% is the number I've seen used most often. As far as social common sense is concerned: yeah, I got nothing.
Can anyone predict,with any degree of certainty,whether Brian Williams would have fabricated a story about being in a helicopter taking enemy fire in Iraq in 2003 if he had either been vaccinated or aborted?
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/anti_vaccine_book_tells_kids_to_embrace_measles/
Troy, I don't really recall anyone arguing for a woman's "absolute sovereignty" in the abortion context, although I could have missed it.
I am comfortable recognizing an adult's right to decide whether or not to get vaccinations, just as an adult should be permitted whether to undergo medical procedures that could be needed to save his or her own life.
When it comes to children, however, the issue seems much more complicated. If a parent can refuse to have a child vaccinated, then should that same parent be permitted to deny a needed life saving blood transfusion for the child?
These questions are just as academic as abortion questions. The SCOTUS decided that the state can require parents to allow both transfusions and vaccinations many years ago. I can't imagine the Court has any likelihood to revisit these issues.
There have been many cases of states requiring chemo with children of parental objectors of such treatment. I don't think for a minute anyone doubts we can be forced by law or new law to bow to the Queen.
You've probably missed the sovereign argument on abortion rights, it's been discussed here and that will just take us back into the kettle logic.
Les,
You are correct. Scientific advancements (in a host of health areas but including risk of pregnancy, invitro fertilization, genetics, viability of pre-term babies, etc.), disease epidemics, citizen resistance to forced vaccinations (doing things to one's body by government force), ability to mitigate previously debilitating birth defects, abortion because of eye color, all impact how broad the "right to privacy" should be with these and future scientific advancements, which is going to affect abortion. It is a reality.
Some very smart pro-abortion thinkers are starting to assert the worm is turning and failure to negotiate a consensus now is a mistake. Whether they are right or not is of course a matter where one can disagree. But, it wasn't long ago when any prospect of any change was considered impossible.
http://m.missoulian.com/news/local/montana-supreme-court-state-can-defend-parental-notification-of-teen/article_acf72278-ac6f-11e4-9aed-9f3e3724fed0.html?mobile_touch=true
Interesting, Larry. An aquantance whose daughter was raped took her in(ND) hospital to be checked, swabbed for dna or whatever they do and the Dr wouldn't do it without the child's consent. She was 15 and raped by a 30 year old. She wouldn't turn him over because she felt she loved him after a secret 4 week romance.
@Roger C:"Why he [Rand Paul] is just now getting vaccinated is another subject."
Rand Paul was born in 1963, the first year that the measles vaccine was developed. The first vaccine was made from a killed virus and was ineffective. It was used from 1963-1967 and Paul could have been immunized with this vaccine.
On a related note, an interesting article at NPR states, "Most of the 92 cases of measles confirmed in California are among adults — more than 62 percent."
So the question is did they get the ineffective vaccine, never were vaccinated or is the immunity waning from from a 40-50 year old vaccination? Or all of the above?
Troy seems to believe that pregnancy is as contagious as measles.
Here's the NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/04/383789385/most-people-getting-measles-are-adults-time-for-a-shot
@Bill Fleming: "The Constitution and our body of law is actually a set of limits on our 'inalienable' natural rights. In that regard, the two are essentially in perpetual conflict."
The Constitution is no such thing. It is an enumeration of powers and acts as a restriction on the powers of government not on the People's rights.
Hamilton says as much in Federalist 84:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
Don Coyote,
Are the Federalist Papers a part of the U.S. Constitution?
@ Eve Fisher: "Just a reminder, before modern medicine - specifically vaccines and antibiotics - the average death toll for infants was 50%. Those were not the "good old days"."
Fail. The CDC puts infant mortality at around 30% in some cities at the start of the 20th century. "In 1900 in some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday"
While vaccines (the modern vaccine age didn't begin until the 1920s and antibiotics (not around until the 30s and 40s) no doubt played a part in reducing infant mortality, improvements in living conditions, sewage, drinking water, reduced fertility rates and pasteurized milk played as big a part especially in the first 1/3 of the 1900s.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm
@Roger Cornelius: "Don Coyote, Are the Federalist Papers a part of the U.S. Constitution?"
While not a part of the Constitution, they are a primary source for the interpretation of the text of the Constitution. In the run up to the New York State ratification, Hamilton is defending the exclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, partly out of fear of another constitutional convention that could derail the Philadelphia Convention's Constitution.
But #84 is more than that. Hamilton makes the excellent argument that inalienable rights need not be listed because they would exist even without a bill of rights. Inalienable rights are not bestowed upon the People by the government, rather that they come from God or Nature (or for the non-believers among us, that we are born with them). I'll take Hamilton's argument over yours Roger.
Roger, I don't think DC really understands what he posted from the Federalist. The language he quoted argues against including an explicit Bill of Rights.
As we know from history, that argument failed. Instead, James Madison appeased doubters by drafting an explicit Bill of Rights, intended to be considered and adopted as soon as the Constitution was ratified, to convince Virginia, New York and others (including leading Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancock) to support the new Constitution.
And you are right, the Federalist papers are not part of the Constitution. Interestingly, jurists like Justice Scalia who claim to object to looking at legislative history to help understand what Congress intended in legislation, frequently quote the Federalist papers to explain what the founders intended in Constitutional provisions.
Don Coyote: "I'll take Hamilton's argument over yours, Roger".
Read it again Don, it was a question not an opinion. I made no argument.
Bear,
Thanks for the update and clarification, the Federalist Papers have always been interesting from the historical perspective.
I've known others like Coyote that believe that the Federalist Papers have some force of law and not just the understanding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Given the number of Amendments to the Constitution and the need for clarification of rights, the Federalist Papers left out a lot of what we are today.
@bearcreekbat: "As we know from history, that argument failed."
Well if winning ratification in New York is your definition of failure, I have no clue as to how you would define success.
In Philadelphia, Madison was himself no big supporter of a bill of rights, calling them "parchment barriers". James Wilson of Pennsylvania also argued at the Convention that enumerating rights would be dangerous because of implications that rights not mentioned did not exist. Hamilton is essentially echoing those fears in #84.
Madison states explicitly in Federalist #45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." which is restated in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Yes, Madison eventually agrees to propose a bill of rights to insure ratification of the Constitution, however if one had never been included, it would not have affected our inalienable rights since they are not derived from the government.
Both Roger and bearcreekbat get a "F" in constitutional government.
Coyote still does not comprehend that I made no argument for or against the Federalist Papers, I asked a question.
Coyote gets an F in Comprehension
Mister Coyote, from the Wiki:
"The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the "state of nature".[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order."
I therefore stand by my assertion:
"The Constitution and our body of law is actually a set of limits on our 'inalienable' natural rights. In that regard, the two are essentially in perpetual conflict."
cannabis rights fell away in the body of law yet endangering children born or unborn still inscribed: why?
Recall that persons with AIDS or HIV can be charged with crimes if they infect someone else.
DC, observes that if a bill of rights "had never been included, it would not have affected our inalienable rights since they are not derived from the government." I wonder who would have protected his "inalienable rights" if the Constitution had not been ratified?
Grudznick....
Grudznick would have protected them, BCB.
And Superman.
And the Incredible Hulk.
And the Grey Aliens.
;-)
(The Coyote seems kinda crabby today. Thought I'd cheer him up.)
p.s. They DIDN'T protect black people's rights, BCB, or women's. Hence my note about law limiting natural rights, not granting them.
Colonel Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were mortal enemies: had Aaron Burr not shot Alex we would be a monarchy today.
Bill, have you been downstairs filling your growler early again this Thursday? It is not lost on me that the special tonight is "ESB" which apparently stands for Extra Special Bitter.
You know better, my young friend, than to lump me in with those heros with super powers. You have seen me need help just toddling to the men's room while my gravy taters get cold.
http://www.twincities.com/education/ci_27463581/interactive-map-minnesota-school-districts-opt-out-rates
grudz, please don't say it is so. DC needs you to protect his inalienable rights. If not you, who? If not now, when? I'll buy you gravy and taters if you will just step up and save the coyote from the evil liberal takers of coyote's inalienable rights. Go, grudz go and Deb may well decide you are really okay after all!
Mr. Bat, it is my belief and among my deepest desires that Ms. Geelsdottir not despise me with all of her incredible being. That said, perhaps the gravy taters are what changes me from a simple shoe shine boy.
The connection between immunization and an adult woman's right to control her own body is equal to a comparison of apples and metallurgy.
As others have already stated, pregnancy, or lack thereof, is not contagious. A woman's own physical body is not a subject for anyone else to control, regardless of the extent of exactly such control throughout past millenia.
Children are not adults and require the attention of the state when legal caregivers do not provide sufficiently. A fetus is not a child, preborn, nor any other catchy language created by those who strive to limit an adult woman's human rights. It is her fetus inside her body.
I quit following the argument over a woman's right to make her own medical decisions about her own body several days ago because I was tired of the depersonalizing, academic arguments. I will not rejoin that. However, if anyone would like to talk about women and their bodies, I'm here.
Well Grudz, it's nice to know that I have an "incredible being." I wasn't fully aware of that. Flattery will get you somewhere.
I don't despise you Grudz. You can be obnoxious, ornery, and stubborn. Plus you are wrong about some things. Other than that, you're not so bad.
They" think you despise me, Ms. Geelsdottir, so when I show up on your arm at that next big party that you are paid to attend won't Mr. Fleming be aghaster than most?
Well I don't know if I'm willing to offer you my arm Grudz. After all, you stood me up at Rickstock in RC. I even offered to pay your way! You hurt me Grudz. You really hurt me.
I'm sorry. I can't be bought with an offer of weak coffee, crappy music, and some rants and claims that were insaner than most.
Plus, you people called it "Rickstock." Come on. I thought it was supposed to be a serious campaign for US Senator or something. Did you see the Republicans doing a Mikestock? Yet they won. Kinda big I think.
Rickstock. That will be the laughingpoint for anti-libbies for years to come.
Oh now you are mocking me. My heart is thoroughly broken Mr. Grudz. I may never be the same.
:-(
For those of you contending that the Bible opposes abortion, here is an entertaining response: (Troy, this may be very offensive to you. Don't watch it. Seriously.)
Betty Bowers Explains Abortion to Everyone Else: http://youtu.be/Cq3U09DeKpg
Deb, wow, great link! BTW, Betty Bowers was the principal of the school my kids attended for a while way back when.
Anyway, you nailed it from my perspective - the woman and her body are really the key factors in the abortion question.
As for grudz, as desirable as he might be, you deserve evenbetter.
Apples and Metallurgy,Deb? Don't give bat shit crazy wingnuts any ideas. There are already more than enough apples with razor blades in them around Halloween. If a fetus trickor treated there wouldn't be any juvenile wingnut attempts to harm them.
As for coyotes,they should be denned up and reproducing long about now. Dad will be busy begging and stealing enough victuals to keep mom and the kids quiet.
BCB or any attorneys,
Lets say you had a relative that was fully vaccinated and had a weakened immune system. Your community has been incident free regarding measles and suddenly a non vaccinated family by choice including the adults also in your community came down with measles and it spread to your relative. Your relative became very ill due to complications brought on by measles and passed away.
Would the parents of that family who chose not to vaccinate be legally liable? Could you sue them and win?
Santa Fe schools are cracking down on unvaccinated students as religious exemptions rise in South Dakota's chemical toilet. This just hit twitter:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/02/california-bill-vaccine-exemption%20
Some schools prevent students from bringing peanut butter in lunches yet allow parents religious exemptions to vaccinations: the Sibsonists have truly won the day.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/anti-vaccine-arguments-analyzed-explained_n_6607026.html
i like #6 in the huff post article :)
i can STILL see the rockies from here @ sunset!
yeah, but smear some on your mouse trap and you are in business.
Lynn, whether the newly infected family could sue and win would probably depend on the law of the state they live in. If state law required the vaccination then there might be a valid claim against the party who violated state law by refusing to get vaccinated. If state law did not require vaccinations, or provided for an exception relied on by the non-vaccinated party, then a lawsuit would probably fail.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_c30f0eca-0678-5f9f-8ce0-76b826dbd2c8.html
@Roger C: "Read it again Don, it was a question not an opinion. I made no argument."
I took it as a rhetorical question, a common tactic in argumentation and debate, and after reading your reply to bcb it appears that I was right in my characterization.
"I've known others like Coyote that believe that the Federalist Papers have some force of law and not just the understanding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution."
@ Bill Fleming: Instead of cutting and pasting some nebulous abstract of social contract theory from Wikipedia, you might want to examine the differences between Locke's SC theory (our Constitution borrows heavily from Locke) vs Hobbesian or Rousseau's. Pay close attention as to the why and how certain rights are surrendered or retained and the state's duty in the protection of those rights and the consequences imposed on the state for it's failure to do so.
Rather than muddy up the thread with a long discourse, here is a good link explaining the differences:
http://www.academia.edu/3138759/Social_Contract_Theory_by_Hobbes_Locke_and_Rousseau
Coyote, and yet, the Constitution and our body of law failed to protect, and in fact restricted those natural rights for well over half of the US population, (women, black people, Indians, slaves, etc.) regardless of whether you attribute the intent to Locke, Hobbes, or Rousseau.
There was (and to some degree, still is) a dissonance between ideology (intent) and reality, any way you look at it.
Hence, once again, I stand by my assertion:
"The Constitution and our body of law is actually a set of limits on our 'inalienable' natural rights. In that regard, the two are essentially in perpetual conflict."
p.s. I don't fault The Coyote for longing for a Lockeian/Rousseauian utopia. Don't we all? I'm just saying, we ain't there yet.
yin/yang
either/or
us/them
prosecution/defense
reality/gop
just musing. there might be tort law negligence concerning the particular vaccine. 2011 georgia starbucks sold tainted chicken wraps. 2009 doctors in georgia failed to advise vaccinations resulting in amputations.
lotsa creative dem trial lawyers in the deep south! we really should restrict right to sue and right to vote!!
Leslie said, "i can STILL see the rockies from here @ sunset!"
And I can see Russia from my house!
true story. from the top of that misnamed peak above sylvan lake, to the SW, Laramie Peak, to the NW, Cloud Peak(as i recall). i have started to wonder, does sarah have a mountaintop somewhere that at sunset, russia would be backlit? god i hope she wasn't right, just because of her attitude: "howz that hopey, changey thing goin for yah?"
uck :)
Ms. Sarah, it's tremendously better than President Palin. (Oops. I just gagged when I wrote that.)
You don't thnk Sarah could follow her orders as well as the last series of P'sOTUS? Look how well Obama and Noem can obey and follow. Quite a bunch of us saw Russia from a hill above the lake once, Deb. I was sure you were there.
Indeed, I think I was there. More or less.
she exaggerates too. 550 air miles from her home to hooper bay on the west coast of AK.
comparing kristie's brand new degree and sarah's patchwork has no semblance of comparison to obama, top of the class, harvard, with six years experience under the most trying circumstances imaginable.
what's john, mike and kristie got that we don't have? a deep childhood and lifetime attachment to a church. that seems to be the problem. browse sibbyoneline.
looks like obama's TPA orders are gonna change.
That's what I thought. More or les, Deb.