IGX

I had pneumonia. Weird. Christmas vacation for the sons... I went to an Xmas party and my niece was sick and went to an almost all Haitian immigrant school. She caught a bug and tranferred it to all of us. I was literally sick for 3 months and had NO days off as a stagehand. I firmly believe amid the pneumonia I caught flu's and cold's. I thought, "This is what if feels like to die".
I got a flu shot the next year, which are good for 5 years.
I'll say this.. if you are in a high risk environment.. Emergency Room, Paramedic, etc.. GET ONE. Otherwise.. wash your hands, sleep well, etc.

climber511 wrote:
I had the pneumonia shot maybe 15? years ago - not sure if that one has a booster or if its a one and done thing? I have not had the shingles one and the only flu shot I ever got made me sick as hell - years ago - so i have passed that one since.

Current recommendations are to receive the Pneumonia vaccine after turning 65 years old. As long as you do not have any immunocompromising conditions you do not need a booster. My best recommendation though would be to check with your primary care physician, they should have your records and be able to take care of you better than I can through the internet :)

T>1200 wrote: That you also purport to KNOW ABSOLUTELY THAT EVERYTHING IS SAFE furthers my estimation of physicians..

I would love to see where I typed that phrase? Because I don't remember claiming "absolutely that everything is safe" nor can I find it when I reread my posts. But us Doctors are all just a bunch of monkeys following guidelines blindly without thinking, so maybe I am just missing it but your clearly superior intellect and rational thinking knows where to find it?

Now I am not advocating the old model of blindly following whatever order your doctor gives you, they should be able to sit down and explain things to your satisfaction. But when someone has spent over a decade training in a specific field you would think that would carry at least some weight in their credibility? Clearly though that is not as good as the University of Google, that while useful and overall a positive thing (informed patients are better patients in my opinion) it should be kept in perspective.

The fact that you find consensus in the scientific community so trivial speaks volumes. Do you think physicians or even pharmaceutical companies are making money off vaccines? http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/622.full

Nowhere have I claimed to have the be all end all answers for anything. No where I have said that my statements are above reproach and should not be questioned. That your best response is to simply be dismissive demonstrates the strength of your argument.

The thing about conspiracies to cover up public threats is that they don't work. No group in government or business is competent enough to pull one off.

I distrust Doctors and their paternalistic and breezy arrogance but ho.lee.shitballz....not vaccinating if you have the option makes less no fucking sense.

Batboy2/75 wrote: Vaccinations played a huge part bringing the infant & child mortality rate down in the developed world.

Countries that have brought it down much faster and much lower than the US require far fewer vaccinations. Of course, they also tend to have what Americans refer to as "communist health care".

Turdacious wrote:Why is this an all or nothing argument?

Are you new here?

Phaedrus wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote: Vaccinations played a huge part bringing the infant & child mortality rate down in the developed world.

Countries that have brought it down much faster and much lower than the US require far fewer vaccinations. Of course, they also tend to have what Americans refer to as "communist health care".

Multiple fallacies, slippery slope, etc. American civil liberties are primary. Forced health care is exactly analogous to gun control, press restrictions, and the like - an argument can be made that they benefit society (and specific individuals who would otherwise not be shot, die of consumption, be placed at risk via outed secrets, etc.), but we prefer to make our own decisions. Fundamentalist Little Johnny gets to go to school without vaccination after the courts rule, and the fine folks in Atlanta have to use reason to get us to comply instead of the force they'd prefer. That they are often wrong doesn't help their cause - SARS was recently going to kill us all, preceded by flesh eating virus, swine flu, etc. Every reputable statistician projected billions dead from HIV. Etc.

The conclusion: Be smart about it, don't believe the hype on either side, protect yourself and yours as best you can. You don't want the return of the iron lung or smallpox, but you don't need to worry about the common flu if you don't want to.

Aside, watch what happens when the ragheads attack with biology. All pretense will come off the police state that day.

CharlieBob wrote:

the next time some fucking chiropractor or god damn naturopath tells you to avoid FDA, CDC, WHO, AAP, AAFP approved vaccines but to take their ridiculously expensive, unregulated supplements instead because they are "natural", tell them to FUCK OFF.

The last three of those five organizations sound a lot like some of the myriad of Powerlifting organizations since Ernie Frantz started us all down the slippery slope of Balkanization.

Garm wrote:

Phaedrus wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote: Vaccinations played a huge part bringing the infant & child mortality rate down in the developed world.

Countries that have brought it down much faster and much lower than the US require far fewer vaccinations. Of course, they also tend to have what Americans refer to as "communist health care".

Multiple fallacies, slippery slope, etc. American civil liberties are primary. Forced health care is exactly analogous to gun control, press restrictions, and the like - an argument can be made that they benefit society (and specific individuals who would otherwise not be shot, die of consumption, be placed at risk via outed secrets, etc.), but we prefer to make our own decisions. Fundamentalist Little Johnny gets to go to school without vaccination after the courts rule, and the fine folks in Atlanta have to use reason to get us to comply instead of the force they'd prefer. That they are often wrong doesn't help their cause - SARS was recently going to kill us all, preceded by flesh eating virus, swine flu, etc. Every reputable statistician projected billions dead from HIV. Etc.

The conclusion: Be smart about it, don't believe the hype on either side, protect yourself and yours as best you can. You don't want the return of the iron lung or smallpox, but you don't need to worry about the common flu if you don't want to.

Aside, watch what happens when the ragheads attack with biology. All pretense will come off the police state that day.

I can't read damn thing you say cuz of that avatar staring at me.

BIG PHARMA PROFITS is a lousy argument against vaccinations - they make some money, sure, but vaccination is far from a major profit center for pharmaceutical companies.

milosz wrote:BIG PHARMA PROFITS is a lousy argument against vaccinations - they make some money, sure, but vaccination is far from a major profit center for pharmaceutical companies.

Indeed, IIRC since senator (maybe representative at the time) Chuck Schumer lead the way to minimize lawsuit protections for vaccine manufacturers, research, supply, and profits have suffered.

Phaedrus wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote: Vaccinations played a huge part bringing the infant & child mortality rate down in the developed world.

Countries that have brought it down much faster and much lower than the US require far fewer vaccinations. Of course, they also tend to have what Americans refer to as "communist health care".

Retard boy, where did I comment on how many vaccinations are need or claim that vaccination were the only reason?

Wipe the cum from your eyes and pull the dicks out of your mouth and or ass and pay attention.

BTW- what does the USA have that "those other" countries don't have? Kaz, can you help us out?

CharlieBob wrote:

T>1200 wrote: That you also purport to KNOW ABSOLUTELY THAT EVERYTHING IS SAFE furthers my estimation of physicians..

I would love to see where I typed that phrase? Because I don't remember claiming "absolutely that everything is safe" nor can I find it when I reread my posts.

Are you really trying the old "I didn't type that exact phrase!!" argument? Here's what you said about concerned parents who disagree with you on vaccines:

You think it's "bullshit" that "this is even a legit discussion" and you equated disbelievers to creationists. You think discussing whether or not vaccines are safe or should be administered "is goddamn retarded." The "only reason" you use a "delayed schedule" is "to make Mom and Dad feel better" and "that is the ONLY reason it is ever done." Then you went even further and said not only are the U.S. shots safe, but you could even give a 2 month old baby "every single shot in the US series" and that could be done "SAFELY!!!!" as well.

How would you prefer we interpret your words? You left no room for people to thoughtfully disagree with you. I think it's fair to conclude you think you know everything, including that vaccines are safe. If you had doubts, you wouldn't be so dismissive of concerned parents who disagree with you.

To add a nice dose of arrogance to your screed against us uninformed boobs, you attributed parents' concerns to irrational emotions from childhood trauma and their ignorance over "chemicals that most people don't understand," implying that YOU understand them and leaving little room for the reality that scientific and medical knowledge evolves over time.

In fairness, after bashing anyone who disagrees with you, you did acknowledge that vaccines are "not 100%" safe and pointed to a risk vs reward model. Yet, you then immediately backtracked and said, authoritatively, that vaccines "will not give you kid autism or any other stupid shit like that."

I see, good Doctor. They're not 100% safe. Yet you KNOW they won't cause illness or have any cognitive impact on anyone. Tis impossible!

Nowhere have I claimed to have the be all end all answers for anything.

Nice try. I can only imagine how parents feel after being talked at by you when they inquire about vaccines and alternative approaches.

Bud Charniga's gaping asshole wrote:http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-me ... n-movement

It would seem, from the map at the link, that W Europe seems to have as big of a problem as we do.

T>1200 wrote:Are you really trying the old "I didn't type that exact phrase!!" argument? Here's what you said about concerned parents who disagree with you on vaccines:

You think it's "bullshit" that "this is even a legit discussion" and you equated disbelievers to creationists. You think discussing whether or not vaccines are safe or should be administered "is goddamn retarded." The "only reason" you use a "delayed schedule" is "to make Mom and Dad feel better" and "that is the ONLY reason it is ever done." Then you went even further and said not only are the U.S. shots safe, but you could even give a 2 month old baby "every single shot in the US series" and that could be done "SAFELY!!!!" as well.

How would you prefer we interpret your words? You left no room for people to thoughtfully disagree with you. I think it's fair to conclude you think you know everything, including that vaccines are safe. If you had doubts, you wouldn't be so dismissive of concerned parents who disagree with you.

To add a nice dose of arrogance to your screed against us uninformed boobs, you attributed parents' concerns to irrational emotions from childhood trauma and their ignorance over "chemicals that most people don't understand," implying that YOU understand them and leaving little room for the reality that scientific and medical knowledge evolves over time.

In fairness, after bashing anyone who disagrees with you, you did acknowledge that vaccines are "not 100%" safe and pointed to a risk vs reward model. Yet, you then immediately backtracked and said, authoritatively, that vaccines "will not give you kid autism or any other stupid shit like that."

I see, good Doctor. They're not 100% safe. Yet you KNOW they won't cause illness or have any cognitive impact on anyone. Tis impossible!

Nowhere have I claimed to have the be all end all answers for anything.

Nice try. I can only imagine how parents feel after being talked at by you when they inquire about vaccines and alternative approaches.

This is Irongarmx right? Are you really that large of a pussy that you are going get all sensitive on me? I wouldn't dream of talking to patients like this because it would accomplish the opposite of what I need to do, which is to convince their ignorant, misinformed asses to actually do what is beyond a shadow of a doubt the best thing for their child's health. There was actually a recent study that showed when you presented non-vaccinating parents all of the objective, empirical data behind the effectiveness and safety of vaccines that for the most part they would recognize that vaccinations were the right thing to do, but would then be even less likely to actually vaccinate their kids. They theorized that this was because people have a hard time actually accepting that they could be so wrong about something so even though they could rationally recognize they were wrong they would refuse to act on it as some way to save face or something. So now I can't even just show people the mountains of data to sway them, I have to instead play psychologist and lead off with all kinds of compliments about how smart they and try to convince them that they came up with the idea to vaccinate their kids. It is freaking exhausting. (NPR story on this topic:

But this is an anonymous internet weightlifting forum, so I can cut lose a little bit and vent without worrying to much because that seems to be how most communication occurs here. Except for you apparently, who is very sensitive about this issue? I still find it interesting that all of your criticism has been about how mean and condescending I have been with no discussion of the actual subject at hand. If you have actual concerns/sources that you would like to discuss you should bring them up.

To clarify my previous statements for you: Nothing in this life is safe, vaccines come with risks. Injection site reactions, allergy to a component of the vaccine, fevers, infection from the needle puncture, etc. No where on that list is Autism or developmental delay because they have been categorically proven 100% to not be associated. This may upset you or seem "authoritative" but that does not make it less true. There is all kinds of data to review for this, but I find the most compelling to be that experts in the field of autism are starting to be able to recognize the early signs by the age of 1-2 months, before the childhood vaccine series have even started. Not a study but an article that discusses this: http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/ ... hs-of-life. SO aside from the developmental delay/autism stuff the other risks from vaccines are very very very rare in occurrence, and largely very mild as far as acute severity and long term effects, significantly smaller than the acute risk and long term side effects from the hosts of diseases they protect against. And something many people don't understand: That vaccines actually prevent a disease is not the primary goal, it is instead to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with the diseases. That is right, you may still contract an illness you are vaccinated for though it is much much less likely. But what we can say with an insanely high degree certainty is that the course that illness runs will be far less severe with a exponentially reduced risk of death or long term effect. (let me know if you would like specific number examples?)

And I apologize again, I did say "safe" with regards to giving every vaccine at once at 2 months, which is TECHNICALLY wrong. It is not safe because the volume of fluid and the number of shots would be over board and it would not be efficacious because the long term immunity would be reduced. What I meant to articulate was that the immune system of a 2 month old is CAPABLE of handling the immunologic load that it would see by getting all of the shots at once. So if a 2 month old is capable of handling that large of an immunologic load, the measly 5 or 6 shots they get is nothing, so arguing that your child's immune system is "just not developed enough to handle 6 WHOLE SHOTS!" has no rational defense. This of course excludes children suffering from immunocomprimising conditions. For reference: http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-edu ... ystem.html. (That link actually has a TON of really good reading/explanations/data on vaccines if this topic is something you want to read on). Here is a direct quote from a Physicians reference guide: "Alternative schedules are not founded in science and entail multiple visits to the provider's office. A committee convened by the Institute of Medicine to study the health outcomes related to the recommended childhood immunization schedule in the United States found no conclusive evidence of adverse events related to multiple immunizations or other aspects of the immunization schedule, suggesting that the current recommended schedule is safe [112]. Alternative schedules increase the risk of noncompliance and the duration of vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases and may increase the risk of adverse effects [113]. However, the use of an alternative schedule may allay the fears of some parents enough that they permit their child to be immunized." (the bracketed numbers are citations, let me know if you want to see them and I can post the links for you)

If any of you do delayed vaccine schedules, whatever, at least you are getting your kids vaccinated eventually. But since I am not your doctor and you are not in my office I am not going to tip toe around the fact that it literally has no benefit and may in fact cause harm to do it that way. It is still better than not doing it at all though.

I will try to be more reasonable and calm in my future responses to this thread if it continues to go on and filter my irongarmx voice. You have absolutely no idea the amount of bullshit I have to put up with regarding this topic and this thread became a venting ground. I apologize for offending anyone.

Once, in Vegas, I hit on 17 and won.

CharlieBob wrote:When I have more time later I will find you the study done that showed you could take a fucking 2 month old and give them every single shot in the US series that they would receive over 2 years and administer them all at once and you would only be using like 1/1000 of the kids immune system. Even at that young age. We do not do it that way because the volume would be very large, and the immune system will not retain long term immunity as well but it could be done SAFELY!!!! So think about that the next time someone tells you 4 or 5 shots is "just to much for little Jimmy to handle!".

You sound like a fine chap who not only loves his jog but the people he works with. I can't believe that America has become pussified enough that any parent would be opposed to having their 2 year old get his with 26 vaccinations in the same shot. Primum non nocere. Secundo, fuck you, I'm a fucking doctor.

Batboy2/75 wrote:BTW- what does the USA have that "those other" countries don't have? Kaz, can you help us out?

Hardcore right-wing conservatives opposed to birth control, pre-school and most public health initiatives?

Phaedrus wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:BTW- what does the USA have that "those other" countries don't have? Kaz, can you help us out?

Hardcore right-wing conservatives opposed to birth control, pre-school and most public health initiatives?

You must know that's not even close to accurate, right?

As it relates to vaccination fears, I don't think Jenny McCarthy and other of the more popular vaccination fear mongers are right-wing.

Phaedrus wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:BTW- what does the USA have that "those other" countries don't have? Kaz, can you help us out?

Hardcore right-wing conservatives opposed to birth control, pre-school and most public health initiatives?

LOL. You are such a straw man building poof.

FWIW, following the terminology orders of the lefties is bad freethink. Puritans aren't conservative at all, regardless of what they and the pinkos say. Wishing and taking action to reduce our civil rights is as radical a position as possible. One can be a radical rightist or a radical religious zealot, but neither of those is even close to conservative, which means resistant to change. A conservative would be in favor of public health as a general concept, because of the economic drain from mass illness.

CharlieBob wrote:

T>1200 wrote:Are you really trying the old "I didn't type that exact phrase!!" argument? Here's what you said about concerned parents who disagree with you on vaccines:

You think it's "bullshit" that "this is even a legit discussion" and you equated disbelievers to creationists. You think discussing whether or not vaccines are safe or should be administered "is goddamn retarded." The "only reason" you use a "delayed schedule" is "to make Mom and Dad feel better" and "that is the ONLY reason it is ever done." Then you went even further and said not only are the U.S. shots safe, but you could even give a 2 month old baby "every single shot in the US series" and that could be done "SAFELY!!!!" as well.

How would you prefer we interpret your words? You left no room for people to thoughtfully disagree with you. I think it's fair to conclude you think you know everything, including that vaccines are safe. If you had doubts, you wouldn't be so dismissive of concerned parents who disagree with you.

To add a nice dose of arrogance to your screed against us uninformed boobs, you attributed parents' concerns to irrational emotions from childhood trauma and their ignorance over "chemicals that most people don't understand," implying that YOU understand them and leaving little room for the reality that scientific and medical knowledge evolves over time.

In fairness, after bashing anyone who disagrees with you, you did acknowledge that vaccines are "not 100%" safe and pointed to a risk vs reward model. Yet, you then immediately backtracked and said, authoritatively, that vaccines "will not give you kid autism or any other stupid shit like that."

I see, good Doctor. They're not 100% safe. Yet you KNOW they won't cause illness or have any cognitive impact on anyone. Tis impossible!

Nowhere have I claimed to have the be all end all answers for anything.

Nice try. I can only imagine how parents feel after being talked at by you when they inquire about vaccines and alternative approaches.

This is Irongarmx right? Are you really that large of a pussy that you are going get all sensitive on me? I wouldn't dream of talking to patients like this because it would accomplish the opposite of what I need to do, which is to convince their ignorant, misinformed asses to actually do what is beyond a shadow of a doubt the best thing for their child's health. There was actually a recent study that showed when you presented non-vaccinating parents all of the objective, empirical data behind the effectiveness and safety of vaccines that for the most part they would recognize that vaccinations were the right thing to do, but would then be even less likely to actually vaccinate their kids. They theorized that this was because people have a hard time actually accepting that they could be so wrong about something so even though they could rationally recognize they were wrong they would refuse to act on it as some way to save face or something. So now I can't even just show people the mountains of data to sway them, I have to instead play psychologist and lead off with all kinds of compliments about how smart they and try to convince them that they came up with the idea to vaccinate their kids. It is freaking exhausting. (NPR story on this topic:

But this is an anonymous internet weightlifting forum, so I can cut lose a little bit and vent without worrying to much because that seems to be how most communication occurs here. Except for you apparently, who is very sensitive about this issue? I still find it interesting that all of your criticism has been about how mean and condescending I have been with no discussion of the actual subject at hand. If you have actual concerns/sources that you would like to discuss you should bring them up.

To clarify my previous statements for you: Nothing in this life is safe, vaccines come with risks. Injection site reactions, allergy to a component of the vaccine, fevers, infection from the needle puncture, etc. No where on that list is Autism or developmental delay because they have been categorically proven 100% to not be associated. This may upset you or seem "authoritative" but that does not make it less true. There is all kinds of data to review for this, but I find the most compelling to be that experts in the field of autism are starting to be able to recognize the early signs by the age of 1-2 months, before the childhood vaccine series have even started. Not a study but an article that discusses this: http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/ ... hs-of-life. SO aside from the developmental delay/autism stuff the other risks from vaccines are very very very rare in occurrence, and largely very mild as far as acute severity and long term effects, significantly smaller than the acute risk and long term side effects from the hosts of diseases they protect against. And something many people don't understand: That vaccines actually prevent a disease is not the primary goal, it is instead to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with the diseases. That is right, you may still contract an illness you are vaccinated for though it is much much less likely. But what we can say with an insanely high degree certainty is that the course that illness runs will be far less severe with a exponentially reduced risk of death or long term effect. (let me know if you would like specific number examples?)

And I apologize again, I did say "safe" with regards to giving every vaccine at once at 2 months, which is TECHNICALLY wrong. It is not safe because the volume of fluid and the number of shots would be over board and it would not be efficacious because the long term immunity would be reduced. What I meant to articulate was that the immune system of a 2 month old is CAPABLE of handling the immunologic load that it would see by getting all of the shots at once. So if a 2 month old is capable of handling that large of an immunologic load, the measly 5 or 6 shots they get is nothing, so arguing that your child's immune system is "just not developed enough to handle 6 WHOLE SHOTS!" has no rational defense. This of course excludes children suffering from immunocomprimising conditions. For reference: http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-edu ... ystem.html. (That link actually has a TON of really good reading/explanations/data on vaccines if this topic is something you want to read on). Here is a direct quote from a Physicians reference guide: "Alternative schedules are not founded in science and entail multiple visits to the provider's office. A committee convened by the Institute of Medicine to study the health outcomes related to the recommended childhood immunization schedule in the United States found no conclusive evidence of adverse events related to multiple immunizations or other aspects of the immunization schedule, suggesting that the current recommended schedule is safe [112]. Alternative schedules increase the risk of noncompliance and the duration of vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases and may increase the risk of adverse effects [113]. However, the use of an alternative schedule may allay the fears of some parents enough that they permit their child to be immunized." (the bracketed numbers are citations, let me know if you want to see them and I can post the links for you)

If any of you do delayed vaccine schedules, whatever, at least you are getting your kids vaccinated eventually. But since I am not your doctor and you are not in my office I am not going to tip toe around the fact that it literally has no benefit and may in fact cause harm to do it that way. It is still better than not doing it at all though.

I will try to be more reasonable and calm in my future responses to this thread if it continues to go on and filter my irongarmx voice. You have absolutely no idea the amount of bullshit I have to put up with regarding this topic and this thread became a venting ground. I apologize for offending anyone.

tl;dr

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Phaedrus wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:BTW- what does the USA have that "those other" countries don't have? Kaz, can you help us out?

Hardcore right-wing conservatives opposed to birth control, pre-school and most public health initiatives?

You must know that's not even close to accurate, right?

As it relates to vaccination fears, I don't think Jenny McCarthy and other of the more popular vaccination fear mongers are right-wing.

Speaking of Jenny McCarthy, here she is in all her scientific glory Lefty's are more scientifical than those stupid Christians right?

In a feat that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago, the anti-vaccine movement has managed to breathe life into nearly vanquished childhood diseases.
It took all the ingenuity and know-how we are capable of to find safe, effective ways to dramatically diminish diseases like measles and whooping cough in the developed world; it took all the hysteria and willful ignorance we are capable of to give them a boost. A developer of the measles vaccine, Dr. Samuel Katz, says the question “is not whether we shall see a world without measles, but when.”
Not if Jenny McCarthy has anything to say about it. The former Playboy model and current co-host of “The View” is a leading light of the anti-vaccine movement. She has a boy with autism-like symptoms that she is convinced were caused by the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR). You can credit her passion for her child, sympathize with her heartbreak — and still cringe at her wholly irrational cause.
It’s only natural that parents who see their young autistic children slip away at about the same time they receive vaccinations make the mistake of confusing correlation and causation. And it’s only human to want to believe that a tragedy is a morality tale with readily identifiable villains, in this case the drug industry and the medical establishment. None of this makes the so-called anti-vaxxers any less wrong, or doggedly impervious to evidence.
No amount of discrediting makes a difference. One theory was that a preservative in children’s vaccines called thimerosal was causing autism. But the United States removed thimerosal from most childhood vaccines in 2001. If the theory had been sound, this should have reduced cases of autism. It didn’t. Cases have continued to rise, and the same held true in Canada and Denmark after eliminating thimerosal in the 1990s.
Another theory, latched onto by Jenny McCarthy, is that the MMR vaccine in particular causes autism. Dr. Andrew Wakefield publicized this supposed link in a famous article in the British medical journal The Lancet. It has since been thoroughly debunked. The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s paper, and the British Medical Journal reported that he “falsified data.” He had his medical license revoked. All of which should have been enough to give the anti-vaxxers pause.
Nonetheless, they fight on. In an interview with the Fox Business Network the other day, former MTV star Kristin Cavallari plugged the anti-vaccination cause, citing “books” and “studies.”
Most parents don’t listen. Only 1.8 percent of kindergartners get exempted from vaccinations, according to NBC News. But the number is higher in some states. In Oregon, the rate is 6.4 percent, with some counties hitting double digits. In California, Marin County has an exemption rate of nearly 8 percent. The more kids go unvaccinated, the greater the chance that diseases can get a foothold.
They usually are imported from abroad, but the absence of vaccination is a boon to their spread. A study in the journal Pediatrics found that the 2010 whooping-cough outbreak in California — when the state had the highest number of cases since 1947 — hit hardest in areas with high levels of nonvaccination. In 2013, measles cases tripled nationwide. Outbreaks were centered in religious communities in Brooklyn, Texas and North Carolina that had resisted vaccination. New York City has another small outbreak right now.
In the panic created by the Wakefield article, England saw MMR vaccination rates fall to 80 percent in 2004 and Wales to 78 percent. In 2012, England and Wales had the highest number of measles cases in 18 years.
These are dangerous illnesses, and the victims of an outbreak are often infants too small to have yet received vaccinations. Jenny McCarthy styles herself a “mother warrior.” If so, the kids sickened in the fallout from reduced vaccinations are the victims of friendly fire. Nothing good can come from undoing one of the miracles of medical progress.

Is it ever helpful to call women who are concerned with their children's health whackjobs?