Mandatory Vaccination Law: Bravo!

[Valley Oak]

Mandatory School Vaccination Law Passes In California
JULY 1, 2015, AARON WYSOCKI

John Iadarola (Think Tank) fills in for Cenk Uygur on today’s Final Judgment. John discusses the recent passage of legislation in California which mandates vaccines in public schools. The California law still includes a few exemptions however this law is considered one of the strongest across the country. Do you agree with this law? Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

Read more from Vox.com here:
https://www.vox.com/2015/4/9/8376449...cine-exemption

[Shandi]

Seems like it would just be "re-hash" to respond to this post, since so many people have already expressed their thoughts, and in depth research on this topic. Maybe this could be reserved for those who are happy about this forced agenda for their children and other young family members.

Mandatory School Vaccination Law Passes In California

[Valley Oak]

This is one of the few times in my 54 years of life that I have seen so many in the left/liberal/progressive community be so wrong on an issue.

Fortunately, there are more level headed left/liberal/progressives who have prevailed, such as Governor Jerry Brown. I voted for him and I'm so glad that I did. I would do it again. He does a good job and stands up to the loonies, including in his own constituency. The reputation of the majority of the left/liberal/progressive community is still good and spot on and on the right side of history, as usual.

All of the "research" that you and others on the Wacco List have referred to has been completely debunked as the bogus propaganda that it is. None of the sources that you and others on this list have provided offer reliable information.

In particular, I remember one incredibly phony website from a Texas charlatan who sells "health" foods and is a well-documented and notorious, extremist Right-wing, conspiracy theorist, comes to mind.

Seems like it would just be "re-hash" to respond to this post, since so many people have already expressed their thoughts, and in depth research on this topic. Maybe this could be reserved for those who are happy about this forced agenda for their children and other young family members.

[theindependenteye]

I have mixed feelings about the law, about the safety of some vaccination procedures & oversights, and about the consequences of non-vaccination. What's impressed me in the whole Wacco discussion of this topic — multiple topics in fact — is that there has been almost none.

I direct my words to the anti-vaxers for the simple reason that they've so overwhelmed this colloquy with increasingly emotional rant that it's become simply a shouting, sign-waving rally. Maybe that's what's wanted, but in my view it's not a way of changing minds, only of frantic self-expression. That never, never works. You betray your cause.

A great impediment to serious discussion is the wild mix of citations, ranging from those that seem to have some scientific credence to the utterly unfounded, the latter excused on the basis of being "alternative" or "non-corporate." That's like the kids making up their evidence-cards for high school debate: if Time Magazine said it, that's hard evidence. If I were planted in the anti-vax camp, I'd come down much harder on my allies presenting dubious evidence than on my foes.

It seems to me that there are serious questions here, and the issue of the compulsory law has thrust it whole-hog into the political arena, and extreme emotions are understandable: we're not talking philosophy, we're talking children. But my fear is that we're no longer talking, we're just screaming louder, louder, louder.

-Conrad

[comodin]

Would someone please explain to me why it is necessary to vaccinate people against their will?

The only argument in favor of this that I have heard is that the unvaccinated are selfish, because they pose a threat to everyone else. But if "everyone else" is vaccinated, and if the vaccinations really do protect them as claimed, then please tell me who is threatened, and why? Is it that the vaccinations really don't work so well?

This is one of the few times in my 54 years of life that I have seen so many in the left/liberal/progressive community be so wrong on an issue...

[bill shearer]

If nearly everyone is immune, then almost no one will spread the disease. Thus, even people who have not been vaccinated (and those whose vaccinations have become weakened or whose vaccines aren’t fully effective) often can be shielded by the herd immunity because vaccinated people around them are not getting sick. Herd immunity is more effective as the percentage of people vaccinated increases. For more, see the World Health Organisation on herd immunity.

With good enough vaccine coverage, we may even eliminate the diseases altogether, as we did with smallpox.

People who are not immunized increase the chance that they and others will get the disease. It is importnat to note that there will always be some people who rely on herd immunity rather than individual immunity to stop disease, such as:

• People without a fully-working immune system, like those without a working spleen
• People on chemotherapy treatment whose immune system is weakened
• People with HIV
• Newborn babies who are too young to be vaccinated
• Elderly people
• Many of those who are very ill in hospital

More about herd immunity:The simple math of herd immunity

[sharingwisdom]

I appreciate you connecting the dots to come up with the questions. Add to that the Vaccine corporations have full immunity and impunity from any legal ramifications... plus the vaccines shed diseases and not herd immunity, and you've completed the information that is separate from Big Pharma propaganda.

Would someone please explain to me why it is necessary to vaccinate people against their will?

The only argument in favor of this that I have heard is that the unvaccinated are selfish, because they pose a threat to everyone else. But if "everyone else" is vaccinated, and if the vaccinations really do protect them as claimed, then please tell me who is threatened, and why? Is it that the vaccinations really don't work so well?

[rossmen]

your argument relies on the assumptions that getting sick is bad and preventing this is good. this is the same logic which floods our world with pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, and both intended and unintended hormonal chemicals. simplistic reductionist thinking which has led to bigger and bigger mechanistic mistakes due to the increasing sophistication of scientific knowledge. you are a cheerleader for turning our world into a giant medical research facility for alpha primates.

note your own citations name clean water as the most important factor in public health. research unfunded by industry names the hygiene hypothesis as a dominant factor in human health. yet this understanding runs counter to your assumptions. are you curious enough to challenge your own belief?

If nearly everyone is immune, then almost no one will spread the disease. Thus, even people who have not been vaccinated (and those whose vaccinations have become weakened or whose vaccines aren’t fully effective) often can be shielded by the herd immunity because vaccinated people around them are not getting sick. Herd immunity is more effective as the percentage of people vaccinated increases. For more, see the World Health Organisation on herd immunity.

With good enough vaccine coverage, we may even eliminate the diseases altogether, as we did with smallpox.

People who are not immunized increase the chance that they and others will get the disease. It is importnat to note that there will always be some people who rely on herd immunity rather than individual immunity to stop disease, such as:

• People without a fully-working immune system, like those without a working spleen
• People on chemotherapy treatment whose immune system is weakened
• People with HIV
• Newborn babies who are too young to be vaccinated
• Elderly people
• Many of those who are very ill in hospital

More about herd immunity:The simple math of herd immunity

[Valley Oak]

Thu Nov 20, 2014

Hey vaccine deniers–it’s just simple math
by SkepticalRaptorFollow for SkepticalRaptor

When dealing with those pushing pseudoscience, like the antivaccination cult, the most frustrating thing is that they tend to ignore and deny the most basic tenets of science. If denying the fact of gravity would further their goals of "proving" vaccines are neither effective nor safe, they would do so. For all I know, they have.

Sam Harris, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA (which is ironic), and is one of leading science philosophers of our generation, says this about those who cling to pseudoscience:

"Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, “Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.”? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

If the antivaccination movement didn't lead to epidemics of long-gone diseases, which can harm and kill children, the conversation would be over. I would just put the vaccine deniers in the same group as evolution deniers (creationists) or gravity deniers (there has to be some, somewhere). I would mock their pseudoscience, and move on. Of course, their denialism does lead to deaths of children, so we have to do what is right, and stop their lies, misinformation and ignorance in every forum we can.

We have to appeal to scientific values, and despite the fact that antivaccination pushers don't share those values, we must continue to try. I have gotten enough emails and comments from people that they have started to vaccinate because of what I have written, so maybe some child's life is better because all of us who support vaccines are heard.

For some, mathematics is the foundation of all science. Biology is dependent upon chemistry which is dependent upon physics which is dependent upon mathematics. Of course, I'm oversimplifying the relationships between the various branches of basic science, but my own scientific education moved in roughly the direction of advanced mathematics through basic physics to organic and physical chemistry to biology, cell biology, biochemistry and physiology.

Without mathematics, the scientific method might not make sense, because it requires statistical analysis to find small changes or differences. Though it is long lost from my brain, advanced statistics was necessary in every analysis I performed in my science life. It allowed me to find biological changes with tiny amounts of a hormone or growth factor. I didn't observe the changes directly, only through mathematical analysis did it become apparent.

All of those scary ingredients in the flu vaccine. Oh no!

Above is a photo circulating around social networks that attempt to point out all of the scary ingredients in vaccines. Of course, if one has an understanding of A) basic human physiology, and B) basic mathematics, including how small numbers are really small, this photo with the scary ingredients highlighted would be laughable. Well, I do have and understanding of both, and this is laughable. I mean so laughable, it's possible I pulled a muscle.

Formaldehyde
Let's start with with first highlighted ingredient, formaldehyde. This simple bio-organic molecule is used in the purification of the vaccine (the last thing we want is contamination from viruses or bacteria)– 99.9% of which is removed during the final steps of manufacturing.

The package labeling does not include the amount of formaldehyde in the vaccines because it is so tiny, so minuscule, so veritably invisible, that the amount actually cannot be measured. It's possible that there is actually no formaldehyde in solution, because it cannot be measured, but the chances are good there is some because the manufacturing process can't dilute out the vaccine sufficiently to guarantee that every picogram (that's one trillionth of a gram) is removed, because it would dilute the vaccine's antigen too.

But I can tell you where formaldehyde can be measure. The normal blood level of formaldehyde is 2.74 +/- 0.14 mg/L. A normal child has a blood volume of 2-3 L, so a normal child has 5-9 mg of formaldehyde floating in her blood, about 1,000,000X more than found in a dose of vaccine. Is that math clear? It would take probably 10-20 million doses of vaccines to just slightly increase the formaldehyde level in your child.
Now you might think "how did that evil formaldehyde get into my sweet child whom I feed organic foods, and don't let them touch vaccines." Well, not only do your math skills suck (let me remind the reader, 10 million doses of vaccines to measurably move the formaldehyde level–all at once), but so does your physiology knowledge. The body produces formaldehyde as a byproduct of metabolizing alcohols (not necessarily just from a beer, but the alcohol that is produced in the body and in other foods). And lots of foods contain formaldehyde, including fruits, nuts, and other yummy things.

In addition, formaldehyde is filtered from the blood rather quickly (since it is toxic), and its half-life, that is the average time one-half of the molecules of formaldehyde stay in the blood, is around 1 minute. It does not accumulate, so even if you got that 10-20 million doses of vaccines, the tiny amount of formaldehyde injected would be gone in 1-2 minutes. It is simple math.

Yes, formaldehyde is a carcinogen, it can cause cancer. However, the reference dose (that is the maximum daily dose over a lifetime that would be considered safe) for formaldehyde is around 0.2 mg/kg weight/day. In other words, an average child, let's say 20 kg (about 48 lbs), could consume 4 mg of formaldehyde a day safely. Again, about 1 million times more formaldehyde than in a single dose of vaccines. And as far as I know, even amongst the most enthusiastic and ardent vaccine supporters, not one of them is demanding that we give children 1 million vaccinations. Every day. For the rest of their lives.

Once again, it is just the math.

Are we clear on this? The math doesn't support the ludicrous claims that formaldehyde in vaccines is poisoning our children.

Thiomersal
So let's move on to the other highlighted ingredients, and that's the old canard, dangerous thiomersal (or thimerosal in the USA–my education is 100% US based, but for some reason I've used the non-USA spelling for 30 years). Let's make some points clear right now. This is NOT mercury in its elemental form, which you might remember from old-style medical thermometers. So there isn't a pool of mercury in the vaccine vial. Moreover, thiomersal is ONLY used, at least in vaccines, in multi-use vials, these days, only the flu vaccine.
Thiomersal is a toxic compound, there is no denying that. But let's get back to math. The toxicity of compounds is measured through an analysis called the dose-response relationship, which describes the change in effect on an organism caused by differing doses of a compound after a certain exposure time. Table salt is tasty and safe in small amounts, but could kill you if taken in huge amounts. The dose-response relationship provides a graph that mathematically establishes what amounts of a compound causes what effects. This would seem to be a logical, and easily understood concept, but for many individuals, a bad substance is always bad.

First of all, the half-life of thiomersal in blood is around 2.2 days. That might seem long, but it means half is gone in a couple of days, cleared out by the kidneys. It does not accumulate.

But the math is even more telling. This flu vaccine, given once a year, has a maximum dose of 25 micrograms of mercury (but not elemental mercury). According to the thiomersal Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), the LD50, that is, the approximate dose at which 50% of organisms will die (in this case a mouse), is 5011 mg/kg body weight.

So, a 20 kg child would get 25 micrograms of non-elemental mercury in one injection once a year. The theoretical LD50 dose for that same child would be around 100 grams of thiomersal, or about 4 million times higher than the amount of thiomersal in one vaccine dose–if vaccines used in children actually had thiomersal, which it doesn't.

So, you would have to inject your child 4 million times a day, every day, to make it potentially toxic. And no, dose-response relationships are not linear. That doesn't mean that there's some tiny risk of death from even a small dose of thiomersal–there is actually NO risk. And again, since there's no thiomersal in pediatric vaccines this argument is ridiculous.

But more than all that, we have solid scientific data that show us that thiomersal is totally unrelated to autism, and is completely safe in vaccines. This illogical removal of thiomersal from vaccines makes it nearly impossible to have multi-use vials, so every vaccine has to be in a single-use prefilled syringe, which has rapidly driven up the costs of vaccines. Wait. That's more evidence that antivaccination lunatics are in the pockets of Big Pharma. They pushed to get rid of thiomersal to make more profits for Big Pharma. That was an awesome move on their part.

So there it is. Simple math shows us that these are not dangerous toxins being injected into our kids. Sadly, simple math may not be in the list of skills of vaccine deniers.

More simple math problems for vaccine deniers in my follow up article.

Key citations:

• Franks SJ. A mathematical model for the absorption and metabolism of formaldehyde vapour by humans. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Aug 15;206(3):309-20. Epub 2005 Jan 11. PubMed PMID: 16039942.
• Pfab R, Mückter H, Roider G, Zilker T. Clinical course of severe poisoning with thiomersal. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1996;34(4):453-60. PubMed PMID: 8699562.

Also republished by Daily Kos Classics.

[podfish]

your argument relies on the assumptions that getting sick is bad and preventing this is good. this is the same logic which floods our world with pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, and both intended and unintended hormonal chemicals. simplistic reductionist thinking which has led to bigger and bigger mechanistic mistakes due to the increasing sophistication of scientific knowledge

cool. A new idea in this thread. I like it.

You're right (and I'm not being sarcastic) that it's a reasonable question - is "getting sick" really bad?? I think it's likely that most people skipped over that without thinking it through - and it's a really complex question. "bad" in what sense? for who?

in the long run it probably is a losing battle, trying to fight disease. If we just let them kill who they'll kill, our species will do a better job of evolving a population that can naturally fight them off. We don't have a long enough history, by the time scales nature works on, to know if the success of deliberate efforts to fight disease or cure individuals is anything more than an anomalous blip. It's been said that the whole era of antibiotics, with the saving of millions of lives, is unsustainable because bacteria have evolution on their side.

I suspect the short-term costs, allowing epidemics to run their course, isn't acceptable to very many people though - and I judge that by projecting from people's unwillingness to accept risks to those in their close proximity for some abstract benefit to society at large. It doesn't seem likely they'll accept the short-term harm to those living now for a possibly more robust human species in a distant future.

somehow I doubt that's this is the way most people see the issue, but it's certainly intellectually and academically defensible as the only 'realistic' way to look at it.

[Valley Oak]

Indeed!

We AMERICANS should take this a step further by institutionalizing evolutionary selection. We must prohibit--make illegal--all medicine! No more doctors, no more surgeries, no more medications or prescriptions (not even over the counter, such as aspirin or cough medicine or anything else), no more medical schools, no more dentistry, no more x-rays, nothing! We should probably also prohibit toothpaste, soap, bleach, etc. Germs and diseases are good for us! They make us stronger as a species in the long run.

In several thousand years we Americans will be genetically superior than all of the other wimpy countries who have nationalized or universal healthcare systems. We Americans are NOT Socialists, you know. We will have the HONOR of watching our babies cough to death from whooping cough right in front of us in a painful process of just a few weeks. We will have created a genetically superior new race of AMERICANA SAPIENS (no homos allowed). And who the hell needs those nasty vaccinations anyway? Vaccinations are worse than the diseases themselves so it's just better to get the real disease instead of a manmade one.

All of the other countries around the world will have genetically deteriorated chromosomes, harboring every malady known to "medicine." And then bankrupting their economies by having to pay for medical preventative and medical cures for everything from a common cold to cancer, progeria, arthritis, and everything else in between.

We AMERICANS will be practicing the ultimate in medical preventive care--NO MEDICINE, NO HEALTHCARE! We will save a bundle and eventually, in a few millennia (or maybe a few million years) the American Race will not require any medical attention because the weak will have been selected out of the gene pool. Perfect!

While all other nations' populations will be composed of fleshy blobs of what used to be humans, full of diseases, surgically and pharmaceutically dependent to survive to just age 30, we Americans, the new superior race of Americana Sapiens, will be bulging, super healthy, strong, intelligent Apollos and Aphrodites; a great nation of gods and goddesses.

Yes, let us all journey to this Brave New World of genetic divinity. Long live Divine DNA!

cool. A new idea in this thread. I like it.

You're right (and I'm not being sarcastic) that it's a reasonable question - is "getting sick" really bad?? ...

[podfish]

Indeed!

We AMERICANS should take this a step further by institutionalizing evolutionary selection. We must prohibit--make illegal--all medicine! .....

In several thousand years we Americans will be genetically superior than all of the other wimpy countries who have nationalized or universal healthcare systems.

won't work... it's those immigrants again. They always spoil every good idea. Save america for its natives, that's what I say!

uh, wait... there aren't any native primate species here, are there? Maybe nature already had its say about that idea...

[rossmen]

i am surprised you think this a new idea, you and i have quarreled over the hygiene hypothesis and related topics many times. and it is a common theme in alternative medicine (anything but current industry medicine), much of which is biased in science such as hygiene hypothesis, that getting sick could be good. the essence of hygiene theory is that our complex immune systems, like the rest of our body, need exercise, and without it we have health problems.

the evidence is overwhelming for this among children, and it is totally reasonable to assume the same is true for full grown humans. one line of evidence comes from vaccine research. it is well documented, though often lied about by vaccine fascists, that the immunity from getting the disease is better than the immunity from the vaccine.

the history of human evolution shows that as a species, we assimilate our diseases, and change them too. go ahead and rationalize the short term foolishness of our effort to legislate the health care of fellow humans. i get the fear basis. just don't call it science and progress.

the who propaganda and anonymous website bs that bill put out which i responded too are perfect examples of how this debate is putrefied by power and money. to argue that disease occurrence rather than health outcomes are more important for human health is a fear tactic. the success of this strategy is why the law passed.

cool. A new idea in this thread. I like it.

You're right (and I'm not being sarcastic) that it's a reasonable question - is "getting sick" really bad?? I think it's likely that most people skipped over that without thinking it through - and it's a really complex question. "bad" in what sense? for who?

in the long run it probably is a losing battle, trying to fight disease. If we just let them kill who they'll kill, our species will do a better job of evolving a population that can naturally fight them off. We don't have a long enough history, by the time scales nature works on, to know if the success of deliberate efforts to fight disease or cure individuals is anything more than an anomalous blip. It's been said that the whole era of antibiotics, with the saving of millions of lives, is unsustainable because bacteria have evolution on their side.

I suspect the short-term costs, allowing epidemics to run their course, isn't acceptable to very many people though - and I judge that by projecting from people's unwillingness to accept risks to those in their close proximity for some abstract benefit to society at large. It doesn't seem likely they'll accept the short-term harm to those living now for a possibly more robust human species in a distant future.

somehow I doubt that's this is the way most people see the issue, but it's certainly intellectually and academically defensible as the only 'realistic' way to look at it.