SCOTUS decides vaccine debate . . . in 1905

Did you know the vaccine debate we are now in the middle of was an issue decided by the Supreme Court? In 1905! From the first Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts:

The authority of the state to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power,-a power which the state did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution. [...] According to settled principles, the police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 203, 6 L. ed. 23, 71 [...] We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 471 , 24 S. L. ed. 527, 530 [...]

[... T]he answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare [...] and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few . [...]

Looking at the propositions embodied in the defendant's rejected offers of proof, it is clear that they are more formidable by their number than by their inherent value. Those offers in the main seem to have had no purpose except to state the general theory of those of the medical profession who attach little or no value to vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox, or who think that vaccination causes other diseases of the body. What everybody knows the court must know, and therefore the state court judicially knew, as this court knows, that an opposite theory accords with the common belief, and is maintained by high medical authority.

[...] It must be conceded that some laymen, both learned and unlearned, and some physicians of great skill and repute, do not believe that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox. The common belief, however, is that it has a decided tendency to prevent the spread of this fearful disease, and to render it less dangerous to those who contract it. While not accepted by all, it is accepted by the mass of the people, as well as by most members of the medical profession. [...]

Since, then, vaccination, as a means of protecting a community against smallpox, finds strong support in the experience of this and other countries, no court, much less a jury, is justified in disregarding the action of the legislature simply because in its or their opinion that particular method was-perhaps, or possibly-not the best either for children or adults. [...]

The defendant offered to prove that vaccination 'quite often' caused serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated; that the operation 'occasionally' resulted in death; that it was 'impossible' to tell 'in any particular case' what the results of vaccination would be, or whether it would injure the health or result in death; that 'quite often' one's blood is in a certain condition of impurity when it is not prudent or safe to vaccinate him; that there is no practical test by which to determine 'with any degree of certainty' whether one's blood is in such condition of impurity as to render vaccination necessarily unsafe or dangerous; that vaccine matter is 'quite often' impure and dangerous to be used, but whether impure or not cannot be ascertained by any known practical test; that the defendant refused to submit to vaccination for the reason that he had, 'when a child,' been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination; and that he had witnessed a similar result of vaccination, not only in the case of his son, but in the cases of others. [...]

These offers, in effect, invited the court and jury to go over the whole ground gone over by the legislature when it enacted the statute in question. [...] It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. [Emphasis supplied.]

The more things change.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Jordan Executes Female Prisoner ISIS Wanted Released >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    We are devolving (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 02:22:33 PM EST

    I just said that exact thing to myself! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    It's just so depressing I can't stand it.

    What Joy Behar said ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    ... earlier today on "Morning Yo!":

    "My friend Jenny McCarthy is in the middle of this. She said it caused autism back then. Now presidential candidates are agreeing with her! So my feeling is: why doesn't Jenny run for president? And [Carley Fiorina] said something like 'Well, we all got measles and mumps in the old days.' Well, we also got polio, so would she also like people to not get inoculated for polio? This is this Neanderthal thinking on the right that is really scary and dangerous. Climate change deniers, vaccination deniers -- they are going to kill us!"

    She's right.


    Except (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    it's not on the right.  That would be simpler but it's just not true.

    Well it is on the right - but it's on the left, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 05:15:12 PM EST
    as well - not necessarily for the same reasons.

    Say, what time's the next meeting of the Flat Earth Society?  I mean, if we're going back, we might as well go all the way, don't you think?


    Yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 06:47:21 PM EST
    should have said not just on the right.  Although I don't think the lefties are any smarter because they have a "reason" beyond the fact that Obama says it's good.

    I can already tell that this discussion (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    may be worse than the climate change debate.


    Totally (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 02:25:48 PM EST
    we finally have a bipartisan issue.

    That is, until ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    ... Republicans attempt to blame Obama.

    Or they try to blame ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 03:59:48 PM EST
    ... "illegal aliens" for the latest measles outbreak, as Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) did today.

    Just saw a TV segment on Mo (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    some talking head doctor said "viruses are laughing at Mo"

    Funny mental image.


    If pharmacists were smart (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 02:52:29 PM EST
    They'd start selling an adult MMR like they do the flu shot. Just wait for the first adult case to be reported.

    Know what sux? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 05:11:54 PM EST
    The spouse has been all updated on everything.  The rest of us, not so much, but I'm all for it.  I already got whooping cough four years ago.  It can happen to me :)

    My sister called me (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 05:15:55 PM EST
    a couple of days ago asking if I remember which of us had which childhood diseases.  I don't.  I think I had chicken pox And I thought I remembered her having Mumps, which she says she did not, but beyond that I have no idea.

    Let's just ask to be revaccinated (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 06:15:38 PM EST
    Insurance will want to cover this.  They won't want to cover the alternative.

    All I can say (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:49:39 PM EST
    about this whole issue is eek people it's 2015 not 1915. I guess these people who aren't getting their children vaccinated never had their grandmother tell them about losing two brothers to the whooping cough or their father tell them about the horrors of a polio outbreak.

    It's about selfishness (none / 0) (#54)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM EST
    I can get a benefit (avoid possible but rare side effects for my child) because most people will get it.   There is no political ideology for being selfish.   The ideology is used as an excuse to cover up the most basic of emotions.   Wrap a little unhealthy worry about your child in there and you get an anti vaccinator.  

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:19:52 AM EST
    the selfishness or the stupidity are pretty much the reasons I have found around here. Here the anti vaccination "information" is really pushed by the chiropractors and apparently the chiropractic school down the road from me in big on pushing the anti vaccine agenda.

    Chiropractors...more pseudo-science. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 06:38:46 AM EST
    Adjustments and alignments...

    I have no idea why these people are allowed to keep running what amounts to a money-making scam.  You're never cured, are you? You're making progress, but you need to come back three times a week for "adjustments" because you're not quite in "alignment" yet.

    So, I guess I'm not surprised to find chiropractic behind a lot of the anti-vaxx movement; what, can measles be prevented with spinal manipulation?

    What a crock.


    Actually, Adjustments and alignments... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by nycstray on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 03:46:30 PM EST
    are not psuedo-science. It's really more of a form of PT if done right. And guess what Anne, if you find a good one (I've found a few!) You do get "cured". I've finished many rounds of treatments, aka as "cured" of that one specific "ailment" (most of my "ailements" stemmed from physical accidents). Beat the eff outta a back brace as a child for a curved spine . . .  I'm much more comfortable working with a Chiro for some things than being prescribed pain killers/muscle relaxers etc. Workman's comp has covered it for all of my work injuries . . .

    And really, you discredit yourself with comments like this:

    . . . can measles be prevented with spinal manipulation?

    I'm glad you were able to be helped, but (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    I know too many people who have been going to the chiro for years, several times a week, with minimal relief - just enough to keep them going back.

    Here's a link to one site.

    Also, my husband knew someone whose son died after having his neck "cracked."

    And, while your chiro may not be one of those who professes to be able to cure diseases with spinal manipulation, they are out there.

    To me, in my opinion, it's quackery for the most part.  Finding a certified physical therapist, or an orthopedist, would be eminently more effective.


    I used to go regularly (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 06:13:06 PM EST
     I have had lower back problems my whole life.  Then in the late 90s I was having an episode and went to see one.  He "adjusted" me and it really messed me up. I literally could not get off the table.  I had to have someone pick me up and take me home because I couldn't drive.  It really scared me and I have not seen one since.  
    I do believe there are good ones.  I think a good one would not have done what he did.  I also think they might have a place in whole care but the problem comes when people think the can replace a doctor.  Like my brotherlilaw.  He has been having some terrible problem and he won't go to a doctor.  My sister is very worrie.  He is getting to the point where he almost can't walk.

    The essence (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    of the problem with chiropractors from what I have seen is they think they are MDs. My chiropractor neighbor never took her children to a pediatrician because she's a "doctor" according to only herself I guess. And she thinks cracking their backs is going to solve any illness.

    Like you say there are good ones out there I'm sure but I'm afraid to go to them too because of their treatment plans. I mean they want you to come literally for years unless you are in a car accident and then magically you are cured as soon as the medical benefits run out on the insurance policy.


    Also (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 10:39:26 PM EST
    anecdotally I can say Ga is at least sometimes wrong about them not hearing the stories.  I keep going back to my game company experience.  I discussed it with some of them.  They heard the stories.  I mentioned one actually said she would rather her kids have the disease than the vaccine.  This was my first real experience with vaccine deniers.  I would guess half the company.  At least.  These are 20something, a few 30something liberals.  Most really beyond liberal.    No conservatives.  Not one as far as I could tell.  
    Clearly it's colored my opinion of this subject.  I was stunned and amazed.  These were "smart" educated people.  

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:24:00 AM EST
    they probably are the ones that think getting the disease is not as bad as the getting the shots. One guy on facebook posted the other day that he had the measles, the mumps etc. and he survived. Okay. You can survive those but a lot of times without serious problems though but polio? I guess they don't understand how bad polio really is.

    I also remember going to see the graves of grandmother's brothers and they died at the age of two and four. I was about ten at the time and I was thinking here's two people who died and I'll never know because there were no vaccines back then. I also remember thinking that i would definitely be giving my children the shots so they wouldn't die. I guess other people are immune that way of thinking.


    My friend here seems convinced (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    That the diseases aren't that bad.  Whooping cough as an adult was awful.  You can't sleep because of the coughing fits.  Another woman who got it when I did coughed so hard she fractured a rib.  I was very sleep deprived though, just exhausted.  I can see how it kills infants.

    And the mumps can make men sterile.  No grandchildren because you were stupid?


    Charlie Pierce has some advice for (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 09:32:32 AM EST
    Democrats, here:

    In short, there is a very active, and loud, liberal claque opposed to compulsory vaccination. Two of the states with the loosest laws regarding exemptions from mandatory vaccinations are Oregon and Vermont, neither of which will be voting for Scott Walker in 2016. And both Hillary Clinton and the president wobbled on the issue a bit while campaigning six years ago.

    So this is what I'm thinking. The Republicans will use this as a wedge to split the Democratic party along the Nervous Parent fault-line that is rivening it. This fault line may well crack open between classes, as the wealthier left seems more inclined toward using Internet quackery to protect their little snowflake babies. And it might well crack open along age lines, as younger voters -- the ones who grew up in a country without measles, and without polio, and without whooping cough, and without freaking smallpox, because of vaccination protocols -- seem less inclined toward herd immunity than the older members of the herd.

    Quite simply, the anti-vaccination left should treat itself to a large glass of STFU. Not only is it contributing in its own way to a public-health crisis, but, politically, so far, it's only Republicans who have made an actual issue out of this anti-science foolishness. I would be inclined to let them have it. Yes, both sides have people who are dancing to this particular tune, but only one of them thinks it hears a political symphony in a cacophony of ignorance. Of course, for the past several decades, Republicans have demonstrated an ear for that kind of thing.

    Boy, have they ever.  


    a political symphony in a cacophony of ignorance
    IS the Republican Party.

    I was thinking about (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 09:43:31 AM EST
    the right left thing in bed last night.  It occurred to me that the reason so many of the stories have been about leftist deniers is that rightist science deniers is a dog bites man story.  We are supposed to be the smart ones. I agree completely with CP.  Let's let them own it.  Sadly I think changing the minds of spoiled liberal yuppies may be even harder for that very reason.  

    Speaking of "let them own it," (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    Rand Paul, in his pro-choice vaccination colloquy, railed about government v parenting:  "the government does not own the child, the parent owns the child."    Hope it was just a bad choice of words, rather than an ideology.

    Don't you just love the fluidity of (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    their logic?

    On the one hand, we have this declaration that parents own their children, according parents the right to make medical decisions that could affect not just their children, but the community as a whole; on the other hand, they apparently do not believe that actual or potential fetal hosts  have the same ownership interest in their own bodies, instead insisting that women make reproductive health decisions in line with the choices the government has approved.  

    No, stick a uterus in there, and all bets are off.


    Would they mandate vaccinations (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    for a pregnant woman if getting the measles would put her fetus at risk?

    Given the effort to criminalize some miscarriages in certain parts of the country - I'm thinking yes.


    I don't know if they would mandate that (none / 0) (#92)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 02:20:50 PM EST
    Because I'm not aware that anyone has mandated that a pregnant woman who has not had chickenpox or the vaccines, must get a chickenpox vaccine, and chickenpox can, indeed, cause fetal harm.  When I was still teaching in special ed, I had one student who had congenital varicella syndrome.

    If a pregnant woman gets chickenpox while in the first or early second trimester of pregnancy, there is a small chance (0.4 - 2.0%) that the baby could be born with birth defects known as "congenital varicella syndrome." Babies born with congenital varicella syndrome may be of low birthweight and have scarring of the skin and problems with arms, legs, brain, and eyes.

    Newborns whose mothers develop chickenpox rash from 5 days before to 2 days after delivery are at risk for chickenpox shortly after birth, with the chance of death as high as 30%.



    Might be tricky, unless you can separate out (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    the rubella vaccine from the measles and mumps components.  

    Women who get vaccinated for rubells are advised not to get pregnant for at least a month following the vaccination; there would likely have to be pre- and post-vaccination blood tests to confirm her immunity situation.


    Agreed. Logic (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    is not their long suit.  And, ownership of humans,  as if chattels, even their own children,  is troubling.

    I see a broad similarity (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 11:14:26 AM EST
     to the home school movement, which is another area where we probably see people who agree about little else agree that they don't want to send their kids to school.

    Some issues cut across class and political divisions because while the "choice" is the same and distrust or disdain for " the "establishment system" motivates most of  the people, different people  distrust or disdain for different reasons.


    Well, the law may (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    be settled, and the science may be established, but it does not mean that diseases are man-made.  They are, after all,  caused by micro-organisms.   And, now for my pandering on climate change.......

    Bear in mind (none / 0) (#8)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 03:17:42 PM EST
      that while one set of laws tells you what you are required to do and the other tells you what you are prohibited to do the drug laws and the vaccination laws are based in the same doctrinal premise.

    And politically (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    The same politicians who are publicly talking about this being a medical issue for parents to make for their kids, are also those who don't think women should be allowed to make medical decisions that affect their bodies.

    I've been wondering myself (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 03:50:00 PM EST
    what happens if a pregnant woman contracts the measles and it kills her fetus?

    What would these politicians say then?

    I know that anti-vaccination is a bi-partisan problem on a individual level, but politically at least only the republicans seem willing to play ball with them.


    Maybe part of that is because anything (none / 0) (#22)
    by ZtoA on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    anything whatsoever that Obama says, like, "One should get one's kids vaccinated" evokes a complete knee jerk reaction. Hope it blows up in their faces.

    Now (none / 0) (#60)
    by Politalkix on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 06:00:29 AM EST
    the President should say "Everyone should breath" and watch the knee jerk reaction.

    So those pols are all in California? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 04:47:32 PM EST
    Wealthy L.A. Schools' Vaccination Rates Are as Low as South Sudan's

    Complete with interactive map.

    If what you say is true, those California elites need to dump those politicians.  


    Don't let (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    Facts get in the way of a good Republican bashing session.

    Truth is you can't defend kooky people on the right using religious liberty and distrust of government as an excuse to justify their fears of their one kid getting a side effect from the vaccinations.

    That's all this is really about. Selfish parents fearful because of bad reporting and crappy science that their one kid might get some sort of reaction to the vaccine other than the already known risks.  

    Both sides are just as stupid for embracing it.


    That is (none / 0) (#73)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    a must-read article.

    Heavily elitist left wing West LA populated with elitist anti-vaxxers.

    The land of do as I say -- not as I do.

    I'll bet the elitists there are telling everybody else to get their kids vaccinated so that they don't have to vaccinate their own kids.


    In my experience (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    you would be wrong.  I actually heard the statement "I believe they (vaccines) should never be required for anyone ever.  They are an unacceptable personal invasion, blah blah"

    From a 150 grand a year eliteist with multiple advanced degrees.


    I'm somewhat sympathetic... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 10:59:04 AM EST
    to that argument on a theoretical level...bodily sovereignty is a pretty sacred thing.  I don't think the state should have the right to medicate or inject someone with anything against their will, with very rare exceptions.

    Vaccination certainly qualifies as one of those very rare exceptions imo.


    I can appreciate being sympathetic on a (none / 0) (#85)
    by ZtoA on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    theoretical level.  There will never be 100% forced vaccinations tho.

    But in the case of very contagious diseases and immunizations, the non-vaccinated pose real bodily threats to others, like immune compromised people and people who are under the age of 6 months. Even if a school prohibits non-vax kids to attend, that does not mean non-vax kids won't go to a public park, or walk around, or use other services all citizens pay for jointly. This is why 'herd immunity' is so important.

    But anti-vaxxers do not 'believe' in herd immunity. Some will actually say they do not care about anyone else's children (or pregnant women or immune compromised people or elders).

    These people are stressing municipal, medical, government systems which set up schools, parks etc. for the benefit of the majority. It is a very negative dominance of a minority.

    They have the right not to buy or support Merck or Monsanto (they often mention these), but do they also have to right to restrict access for others to public places?  


    When I hear about people saying these (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    kinds of things, I want to ship them out of this first-world country and make them live somewhere where these communicable diseases are prevalent.  Let's see how "unacceptable" vaccination is when there's a real chance your kids are going to contract diseases that were nearly eradicated in this country.

    Unbelievable, really, how ignorant so-called educated people can be, isn't it?


    92% (none / 0) (#78)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    What's interesting is that the article says that 92%  is the critical vaccination level for controlling MMR in the school population.

    And the percentage of kids in the West LA schools with no MMR vaccine is about 8%.

    Wow -- whodathunk???

    It's like some administrators did their common core math and decided that as long as the 92% of the kids are vaccinated, then they can tolerate 8% non-vaccinated kids to all co-exist in the same classroom.


    A specious argument (none / 0) (#12)
    by toggle on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 04:20:29 PM EST
    It might be more convincingly argued that the issue was "decided" when nearly every State, despite having the authority to make vaccination compulsory under this decision, elected not to use it.

    don't states have different regulations (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ZtoA on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    regarding children entering public schools? Mississippi and W Virginia have the strictest - not allowing religious or philosophical objections, only medical. Of course any home schooled kid could remain unvaccinated in those states. Nevertheless, they have the highest vaccinated rates (at least among those children in the public schools) and they have not had measles cases. Quite "through the looking glass".

    Yes, there are exactly two states (none / 0) (#100)
    by toggle on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 05:26:32 PM EST
    That don't have a religious or "conscientious" exemption to vaccination. But they have medical exceptions, and like late-term abortions, medical marijuana, or the like, the medical necessity requirement is a sham. Anyone who wants an exception can get it. I heard it reported recently that Mississippi denied exactly zero requests for vaccination exemptions last year.

    Have to speculate how a religious freedom (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 05:02:31 PM EST
    challenge to mandatory vaccination statutes would fare at SCOTUS now.

    It would fare significantly better (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 05:08:13 PM EST
    than it would have in 1905.

    So who is most likely not to get vaccinated? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 07:09:28 PM EST
    According to Seth Mnookin...

    It's those communities with the Prius driving, composting, organic food eating people.

    Science Magazine

    absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 07:21:44 PM EST
    Idiots all around in the general population of all political stripes.

    But of the people with the political power and microphone it comes with - only one side seems to be taking up with the idiots who won't vaccinate their kids.


    Like Hillary in (none / 0) (#29)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 07:26:25 PM EST

    Since the infamous study (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:08:17 PM EST
    Was not fully discredited until 2011, what's wrong with her comment to be cautious and study the issue more?

    Can (none / 0) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 06:07:38 AM EST
    you provide a link? I have never heard about HRC being against vaccination.

    Because she didn't (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 06:19:48 AM EST
    In response to an Autism Action questionnaire, she said she was "committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines."

    Christie has already walked it back (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 07:42:29 PM EST
    Ron Paul is just Ron Paul and deserves to me the crazy uncle treatment that Joe Biden repeatedly gets in the media.

    Hillary and Obama have already "evolved" on this issue and keep in mind all 50 states have passed exemption laws.   So that means Dems and Republians have allowed for the loopholes the parents are using.

    Here's some more non conservative crazy for you and now there are complaints of "backlash" for their actions.

    Can't we just join our partisan hands together and to cry the crazy as one?  If not on this issue, when?


    Hurray for Seth (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:09:15 PM EST
    Of course, Seth doesn't cite anything to back up his claim.

    Like this study. - Vaccine Risk Perceptions and Ad Hoc Risk Communication: An Empirical Assessment

    Or this one (which includes anti-vaccine questions) - The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

    Or the polls

    All of which confirm his evidence-free claim is bogus.


    That book (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:17:12 PM EST
    The Panic Virus keeps coming up in these conversations.  Most people seem to think its a very important book on the subject.

    And to say the claim is evidence free is ridiculous.  Really.  It is.


    Wow - that's great (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:52:54 PM EST
    Did you even read the article?  'Cause there's no evidence in it.

    NYTimes (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 09:00:30 PM EST
    Book review

    Mr. Mnookin traces out all these separate threads (with the footnotes of a true scholar), even venturing away from the tangle long enough to explain how scientists are trained to think about causation and how profoundly this measured approach is bound to infuriate a distraught parent with a suddenly altered child.

    But he really hits his stride when he turns to the social history of autism advocacy; his section on the actress Jenny McCarthy is a tour de force. To promote her 2007 book describing the purported vaccine-induced autism of her young son and his subsequent cure, Ms. McCarthy staged a media blitz, a medical tent show writ large. Blond and charismatic, she waved away the science, energized the people who wanted to believe her message (the not inconsiderable "I feel, therefore it is" segment of our society, as Mr. Mnookin puts it) and managed to do quite nicely for herself as well, netting a deal with Oprah Winfrey's production company.

    I suspect that it was never among Mr. Mnookin's goals in life to become the de facto sparring partner of such an individual, but this book sealed his fate, and he has acquitted himself nobly. Parents who want to play it safe, but are not altogether sure how, should turn with relief to this reasoned, logical and comprehensive analysis of the facts.

    Autism isn't curable; it's treatable, (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 10:16:19 PM EST
    with early intervention and behavioral therapies.

    More information can be found here.

    So, when Jenny McCarthy talks about her son being cured, I am immediately skeptical of pretty much anything else she has to say.

    As a parent myself, it's hard not to by sympathetic to the difficulties faced by families who have a child on the autism spectrum, and I certainly wish McCarthy and her family nothing but the best - but - whatever she and her son are going through is not well served by what she is doing.

    However well-intentioned her actions, she does more damage by her spreading of misinformation.  

    As to the argument/debate about whether this is a right thing or a left thing, I don't know why it makes a difference, what it proves, or what is accomplished by "proving" it is one versus the other.  Since there is evidence that the decision not to vaccinate crosses political lines, this whole area of discussion seems like a colossal waste of energy, and seems to be more about people not wanting to be identified as one of "those" people.


    I would give this comment a 10 (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 10:19:00 PM EST
    if I could

    So because Jenny McCarthy ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 09:10:29 PM EST
    ... is an anti-vaxxer, it's a leftist/progressive movement?



    Plus (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:24:35 PM EST
    what is a poll about the credibility of Jenny McCarthy supposed to prove.  

    Plus (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:56:15 PM EST
    It's not "a poll about Jenny McCarthy".  It's two polls about the anti-vax movement, neither of which support the claim that it's an a left wing or liberal phenomenon.

    But good job at looking right past the two studies above it which reach the same conclusion.


    It's only a right wing problem (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    for the right wing politicians.  No matter which liberals are  anti-vaxers, the discussion will not impact politics in the Democratic Party.

    The GOP can't say that.


    I gave you a 5 (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    and I think and hope you are right.  But there is the view Charles Pierce voiced posted in a comment below.

    Here's another one (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    Survey: Anti-vaccine views have little correlation with politics

    The latest data comes from a survey of 2,316 U.S. adults by a researcher who works at the universities of Yale and Harvard. While questions about human-caused climate change divided along political lines--with liberals believing it is happening and conservatives denying it--there was no such correlation with anti-vaccine views. The vast majority of people believe the benefits of childhood vaccinations outweigh the risks, regardless of their politics. And the survey found anti-vaccine views are more common among Republicans



    Most people would consider actual vaccination (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 09:08:28 PM EST
    rates-see map below-more important than a poll.  But in any case I'm done.  I'm not jim.

    MANY variables to vaccination rates (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:53 PM EST
    But congrats on trying to focus on 3 states.

    BTW - You should at least read your own links.

    It's tough to tease out demographic patterns behind vaccination rates. In California, some affluent areas have lower vaccination rates than the average. But looking at all 50 states, there's a small correlation between increased income and increased vaccination. Some people maintain that vaccine skepticism is strongest on the left, but the data don't support that notion.

    The data - aka "evidence".  (Thanks for the additional evidence.)

    The biggest myth about vaccine deniers: That they're all a bunch of hippie liberals


    You know, guys (and gals), (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 09:53:31 PM EST
    I don't give a royal rat's patooty whether most of the anti-vaxxers are on the left or the right of the political spectrum.
    The thing that you, CaptHowdy, and others seem to be neglecting is that there are actual real, vulnerable people, including a lot of medically fragile children who are unable to receive vaccines, who may suffer, and even die, because of the selfish, ignorant anti-vaccine crowd.
    Let us try to keep it all in perspective, and focus upon the vulnerable, rather than whether the right or the left has more anti-vaccine sentiments.
    The anti-vaxxers are not only wrong, regardless of their politics, but they are pubic health menaces.

    Not neglesting it at all (none / 0) (#48)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 09:59:38 PM EST
    ... and i couldn't agree more.  If it were up to me, vaccines would be mandatory except for medically necessary reason - no philosophical or religious exceptions.

    That being said, I'm sick of people labeling the anti-vaxxers as leftists/progressives.  The studies clearly show this isn't based on political ideology, the anti-vaxxers are not more liberal/progressive, and the vast majority of liberal reject the anti-vaxxers.


    I'm not neglecting anything (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 10:02:41 PM EST
    I'm making a point.  That point is that it is absolutely not a partisan issue.  If look at the graph he linked to the line is virtually level from left to right.  And the fact is that book is considered by anyone who knows anything about the subject as a very important book.   Jenny McCarthy and her credibility not withstanding.  
    He was arguing because he doesn't like Slado.  Why don't you pick on him.

    I was taking exception ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    ... to Slado's claim, not Slado.  He was hippy-bashing - claiming the anti-vaxxers were mostly liberals/progressives:

    It's those communities with the Prius driving, composting, organic food eating people.

    But since you're also acknowledging Slado's claim is bogus ("I'm making a point.  That point is that it is absolutely not a partisan issue.  If look at the graph he linked to the line is virtually level from left to right."), there's no issue.


    I posted that article (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    To show that neither side has a monopoly on this line of stupidity.  

    I then made an open plea to the TL community to come together as one and criticize the anti vaccinators no matter their politics together.

    Do you accept my invitation or are you locked into making this issue partisan when it so obviously isn't?

    Also don't worry.  I don't believe Capt when he says you don't like me.


    IF that's what you're saying ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 06:23:06 AM EST
    ... it's something I've already pointed out several times.  Of course, your post actually says it's most likely "Prius driving, composting, organic food eating people," as opposed to a non-partisan issue.  See my links for actual studies/data that confirm it's not a partisan issue.

    We are on the same page (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 10:05:57 AM EST

    It's clear that this movement of anti-vaccination centered around California and spread from there because of the amount of cases that are now being found and also the notes about the vaccination rates in many parts of California.

    My personal theory is that 6 to 8 years ago when that article that has now been proven to be fraudulent was written people into the natural food natural nutrient lifestyle used the theory that vaccines could later cause issues as an excuse to not vaccinate.   Now we are seeing the results.

    They of course are not the only ones and that is not the only reason since all 50 states passed laws with exemptions.

    What I can say is Christie and Paul look extra stupid for taking this position in the present day when we know way more than we did back and say 2008.


    Here's a map (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:35:14 PM EST
    showing vaccination rates.  some of the highest rates seem to be in liberal bastions like Utah, Nebraska and Mississippi.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:47:12 PM EST
    the "liberal" bastion of Georgia has the same immunization rate as California. Here though I'm sure it's because of the costs and the high number of uninsured is the reason that the numbers are so low.

    Can't have that much to do with it (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 08:51:07 PM EST
    Texas is higher than either.

    What's the (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:17:56 AM EST
    deal in your state? You are on the lowest end along with a few others?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:28 AM EST
    how about that.  You get used to being in the bottom 5% but this one surprised me a little.   I know a lot of people here right across the entire political spectrum and I don't know a single vaccine denier.  I think it could be a couple of things.  As you said about Ga I think It may be to a point related to the number of very poor uninsured people.  Well, until last year.  Another reason I suspect is there are large, and growing, numbers of religious freaks.  Like the nondenominational ones we have discussed.  They shun most medicine.  Fortunately I don't "know" any of them but I know about them.  Also fortunately they are considered freaks by pretty much everyone across the political and religious spectrum.  Some of the very religious very conservative people I know are their biggest and most open critics.



    Btw (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 08:36:11 AM EST
    i have heard one of the reasons the numbers are growing is the very lax rules for exemption.  Something educators, there are several in my family, hate and have been working for years to change.  It is one of the pet obsessions of my nutso religious brother, the one with the advanced degrees who thinks the earth is 6000 years old?   He is a life long educator, teacher, coach, principal, superintendent.   He talks about it all the time.

    Well, I'm sure (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 10:02:52 AM EST
    the nutso fundamentalists play a part here in GA too. And I think a lot of people just don't think they're necessary anymore. Yeah, that's great until there's an outbreak. Maybe some of the outbreaks will start changing minds.

    One reason (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 09:30:12 PM EST
    At least two of the three "liberal bastions" you cite (Utah and Nebraska) have very difficult exemption laws (no data for Miss. laws).

    States with tougher rules have lower exemption rates and vice versa. And tightening existing rules appears to make a difference: When Washington State toughened its personal-belief exemption criteria to require a clinician's signature on the exemption form, exemption rates dropped 25% between 2009 and 2011

    Love it (none / 0) (#50)
    by smott on Tue Feb 03, 2015 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    On a site frequented by my young nephew.
    Here's hoping the younger generation helps turn the tide back towards sanity.


    So what about the flu shot? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    My wife and I get the shot and make sure our children do as well.

    Why do only half of us get them when the Flu is a real killer?

    The science seems pretty clear.

    Since it's half then it has to cut across all lines of politics, class and race.

    So why don't we care about the flu since it kills people every year?

    My husband (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    swears that he gets sick from them. That is his excuse. I'm afraid that it is going to take a really, really bad case of the flu for him to get the message. I get one every years because if I go down for two weeks the entire family becomes nonfunctional.

    If you go regularly to a family practice doctor they will corner you and pretty much make you get the shot. Though everybody here offers even grocery stores. I really have no idea why people don't get them. Probably because they think they're not going to get the flu or they've never had it and don't realize how bad it can be.


    I get them religiously (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    even when I was uninsured.  But now they are free.  Since I don't need to see the doctor the office doesn't even charge me a copay.

    Ha Ha, I never considered getting flu shots (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 06:49:00 AM EST
    Until dating spouse. He doesn't get a choice in the matter. But couldn't help noticing that one of us consistently wintered better than the other.  A go with flu flattens Josh, so flu shots are now a must.  A bad case of flu could end his life.  And because the flu mutated so much since vaccine creation he has a standing script for tamiflu this year that I can go pick up if solid flu symptoms show up.  His doctor said that both types A and B are very active and have mutated beyond the vaccine.

    Partly, I think people refuse the flu shot (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:30:49 PM EST
    because so many do not really know what the flu is. It is an all too common misconception that the flu is the same as a "stomach bug" that knocks you out for a day (the mythical 24 hour flu). People also confuse a really bad cold, which can be miserable and make you achy, with influenza.

    I take the flu seriously because I remember how very sick my sister, then a fit and healthy 15 year old, was with the Hong Kong flu in 1968. She was miserably ill for all of Christmas break and more that year. My family's whole focus that Christmas was on taking care of her, getting her well. I took it seriously because my mother, who was a nurse and kind of a hard@ss when it came to her children claiming sickness, was clearly very concerned about my sister.


    Many people refuse to get a flu shot (4.00 / 1) (#98)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 04:12:33 PM EST
    because of the alleged ingredients.  I wish I had saved the article that said flu shots contain aluminum, mercury, and strange animal parts.  I truly believe that since there are so many flu viruses out there that they can't batch up the correct vaccine every time every year.  And as someone said, those people are then alienated if they do get the flu after receiving a flu shot.

    I was just reading something about (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    the Mercury that used to be in measles vaccine.  It was not the bad kind of mercury, probably not a good kind, that we worry about in fish and stuff it was a kind of persvative and there was no reason to think it was a problem but to satisfy people for whom it was an issue they took it out.   Then everyone said see see see!  It was bad we told you it was bad.  And it didn't help at all with the deniers.

    Wow. I remember the flu epidemic that year. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 11:44:35 PM EST
    So many kids in my first grade class got sick that one day, only seven of us showed up at school. I didn't catch the flu, but I did come down with rubella / German measles right before summer break.

    My grandmother lost two sisters in one week during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. The flu virus is not something to ever be taken lightly.



    The flu shot has a major PR problem (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    People get the flu shot and still get the flu because the shot only covers certain known strains.  So then there is a perception that it doesn't work and it's easy to put on a tin-foil hat and think it made you sick, because you get the shot and get sick.  Or at the very least think it's not effective.

    With MMR it's different.  In my whole life I've never known anyone who got the measles because everyone I know has the vaccine.  I know there are exceptions and that it can be less effective over time but from a public perception point of view - it works.  Most of the people who are anti-vax don't think it will still give you the measles.


    As far as risk it is obviously (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    An apples to oranges comparison because these other diseases which we get immunization for are capable of being exterminated if they die with the host.   If we all do our jobs we can kill it forever.

    The flu is coming back no matter what.

    I only bring it up to show the similarities in the disregard for the science because so many people choose not to take it.  CST makes an excellent point it has a terrible PR problem. People expected it to work 100% of the time but that's not it's point. It's point is to prevent as much flu outbreak as possible and the more people that get the shot the fewer of us would get sick from it it.


    The refusal of free flu shots (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    it was easy to tell who refused because you had to sign up, was what led me to have all those interesting conversations about vaccines with my former coworkers.

    Offered for comment and consideration. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    I Am Trying to Figure Out Why... (none / 0) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 02:18:08 PM EST
    ...this is becoming an issue, get the family immunized, then no problem.  It's one of those rare instances where the people acting ridiculous are putting themselves at risk, whereas everyone else is fine.

    They are, in a sense, only putting the families at risk who have opted out, everyone else is fine.  Which in a free country seems like a reasonable thing.  If only the Global Warming opt out faction were the only ones to suffer their bad decisions...

    It sucks for people who forgot, but with all the attention, that seems like a hard thing to claim at this point, and not wanting them is essentially opting out.

    except there are people at risk (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    For other reasons - newborns who are too young for the vaccine, people who can't take it for medical reasons, people it didn't work on, etc...  When everyone else was vaccinated these people weren't at risk because of herd immunity.  Now they are.

    Jon Stewart weighs in (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 06:36:41 PM EST
    *Groan* (none / 0) (#105)
    by toggle on Wed Feb 04, 2015 at 11:30:29 PM EST
    Stewart, as usual, pulls his punches against Democrats. It's not like Hillary Clinton and Obama didn't make their fair share of equivocal statements about vaccines when they, too, were fighting for every vote.

    the problem (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:57:12 AM EST
    is back in 2008 there was still some question because there was conflicting research that has since been discredited. The problem is that Republicans are ignoring the fact that the study has been discredited. I mean c'mon. Rand Paul's statement sounds like it is something straight out of a freak show.  

    Not true (none / 0) (#108)
    by toggle on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:28:57 AM EST
    The "conflicting" research -- which consisted of one study involving 12 subjects, as I understand it -- was never credible.

    That is a simplistic view (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 09:11:45 AM EST
    the lie, as covered in that book The Panic Virus took on a strange life of its own.  It took a while for it to be put down and as I understand it was not really rejected massively until around 2011.  Stewart acknowledged he had a guest on his show that was pushing the lie.  He explained that he had since done his homework.

    Yes, true (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    Who says it was "never credible"?  It was published in a major journal and was being challenged, but it wasn't known that the researcher falsified his data until after 2008.

    No, false (none / 0) (#111)
    by toggle on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    Numerous people had tried to replicate the findings and failed. And there was a mountain of real research showing no link between vaccines and autism. All well known in 2008.

    Moreover, although I have seen the claim made in a conclusory fashion, I am not sure anyone has ever proven any data was "falsified" deliberately in that study, just that the methodology was faulty and that they were in the pocket of trial lawyers.

    The various claims of "dishonesty" are usually substantiated by the authors' representations about the results of the study, failure to disclose the conflict of interest, how they obtained the funding or permission to perform the study, etc., and not on any actual falsification of data.

    If you can provide some support for that claim I'd like to see it.


    I will leave this to yman (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 07:47:01 PM EST
    who I'm sure is capable of responding to the inaccuracies here.

    I'm just curious why you think the yanked the guys medical license if "dishonesty was never proven"


    Fail (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    Numerous people had tried to replicate the findings and failed.

    There was conflicting research, but that doesn't mean Wakefield's study was disproven before 2008.

    And there was a mountain of real research showing no link between vaccines and autism. All well known in 2008.

    Wakefield's study - published in a real medical journal - was disputed, but the issue was not settled/undisputed in 2008.  The first reporting that Wakefield had manipulated the data in his study was in Feb. 2009.  Wakefield was sanctioned by the General Medical Council in January 2010.  The Lancet retracted his article in February 2010.  In January, 2011, the British Medial Journal began a series of articles detailing how Wakefield had faked some of the data in his study.  Feel free to google the rest of them if you're interested.


    Bull (none / 0) (#114)
    by toggle on Thu Feb 05, 2015 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    How about this study, of half a million kids, done in 2002? http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

    There are others like it.

    As to the GMC sanctions, they were nothing new. The conflict of interest had been known for a decade at that point, at least.

    As for the "faking" of data, the actual allegations are not all that convincing or groundbreaking, regardless of the rhetorical power accusing the guy of "faking" data may have.


    I'll try with smaller words (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 06:14:43 AM EST
    Again, there were studies which conflicted with Wakefield's study prior to 2008 - no one is disputing that.  The issue is whether Wakefield's study was debunked/disproven before then.

    It wasn't.

    BTW - Wakefield wasn't just sanctioned for the conflict of interest allegations, which were known since 2004.  The GMC sanctioned him in 2010 for (among other things) the conflict of interest, which was disputed since 2004, but didn't have information about the falsification of data at that time because it didn't come to light until the 2009/2010 articles in the Sunday Times and the British Medical Journal.  Which is why the Lancet didn't retract his story until 2010.

    As for whether you, personally are unconvinced that Wakefield faked his data, well, ... I'm sure someone cares.

    Facts - so inconvenient, huh?