Alternative Medicine Pediatrician?

[zovall]

I came across this blog post today:http://gianelloni.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/why-all-the-measles-outbreaks/

In it, there were two links that I plan to read further:http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.htmlhttp://www.fourteenstudies.org/

And a September 7, 2013 video from the Canary Party:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg

I'm sure there is/will be plenty of critique on what is said on those 2 links and the video and that will be interesting to read.

 

[zovall]

Here's a response to the 14 studies site:http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/14-studies-later/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I came across this blog post today:http://gianelloni.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/why-all-the-measles-outbreaks/

In it, there were two links that I plan to read further:http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.htmlhttp://www.fourteenstudies.org/

And a September 7, 2013 video from the Canary Party:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg

I'm sure there is/will be plenty of critique on what is said on those 2 links and the video and that will be interesting to read.

I stopped at "thousands of research of paper shows a link between autism and vaccines"...probably should should stopped at the "correlation" between the increase in autism and vaccine schedules.  So much misinformation.

 

[iacrenter]

Interesting article published in the LA Times last week.

Interesting factoid-- less than 1% of US young children did not receive any vaccinations.

latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cdc-measles-vaccines-20130912,0,3434309.story

latimes.com

CDC reports on U.S. vaccination rates, recent measles outbreaks

By Eryn Brown

3:53 PM PDT, September 12, 2013

advertisement
Overall, young children in the U.S. maintained high vaccination rates in 2012, officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.

But researchers also said there were 159 reported cases of measles between Jan. 1 and Aug. 24 this year ? a higher number than usual ? and gaps in immunization appear to be to blame.

The new data were published in two reports included in the latest edition of the health agency?s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In the first of the two papers, CDC researchers analyzed responses from the National Immunization Survey, which monitors vaccine coverage among children 19 to 35 months of age. The federal government targets 90% childhood vaccination rates. Nationwide, Americans are hitting or exceeding that goal for measles, mumps and rubella; for polio; for hepatitis B; and for varicella (the virus that causes chicken pox). Americans missed targets for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and for Hib and PCV vaccines.

Less than 1% of young children in the U.S. did not receive any vaccinations. In many cases, children who live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level had lower immunization rates than children living at or above the poverty level. Vaccine coverage also varied among states. Alaska had the lowest rate for the combined vaccine series, at 59.5%, while Hawaii had the highest, at 80.2% (California?s rate was 66.8%.)

The second report provided additional data on the 159 measles cases reported in 16 states and New York City this year, through August. Almost all of the cases were "import-associated," meaning that they were acquired initally outside the U.S. (where measles has been eliminated). Most of the measles cases occurred in people who were unvaccinated (131) or had unknown vaccination status (15).  Among unvaccinated U.S. residents in the group, 92 ? or 79% ? remained unvaccinated because of ?philosophical objections? to the practice.

The statistics sound a warning against forgoing immunizations, the authors wrote.

"The increase in measles cases in the United States in 2013 serves as a reminder that imported measles can result in larger outbreaks, particularly if introduced into areas with pockets of unvaccinated persons," they wrote, making mention of the ongoing outbreak in Texas, among members of a church group that is opposed to vaccination.

Speaking to reporters Thursday, Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, said that the immunization statistics were "really good results, but there is opportunity for improvement."

Regarding measles, she encouraged more people who can to get their shots.

"We need to stay ahead of this virus," she said. "We need very high rates of immunization to protect the most vulnerable - children too young to be vaccinated and those who can't be vaccinated due to health conditions."

 

[Morbo]

I don't have kids, but I do take immuno-suppressants as an organ transplant recipient, so this is a topic that has caught my eye before because something as simple as the flu can kill me.

The entire crux of the "no vaccinations" argument is the same kind of straw man arguments that libertarians like to trot out as the reasoning for the majority of the illogical BS on the tea party platform.

Just because you have a right to your opinion doesn't mean you have a right to carry out the actions behind that opinion. Can you do what you want? Of course, you can do anything you want, but if your actions are dangerous and harmful to the greater good of society, you better be ready to accept the consequences/responsibilities and the scorn of society. Your right to do things stop at the line where those actions put my life in danger. Do you stop at red lights when you drive your car? Why? Next time I'm driving in Irvine, I'll make sure to run every single red light because I like to pretend I'm Steve McQueen in a Porsche 917 going down the Mulsanne straight at 240 mph. Who cares if i might t-bone a pregnant woman in her minivan, Steve McQueen never hit any minivans on the Mulsanne straight, therefore, I know I won't either.

My high school history teacher taught us a famous Santayana quote on the first day of class. "Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it."

The scientific method has proven the benefits and results of vaccinations to the general population. Every parent that doesn't vaccinate their child increases the risk of a virus or disease to become an epidemic. The human race didn't DELETE polio virus from the universe. It still exists, the only reason we don't have polio outbreaks in the developed world is because of vaccinations.

Right now, this very second, there is an outbreak of Polio in Pakistan and Somalia. In the year 2013. Why? Because some ignorant warlord banned the vaccine and started killing the Doctors Without Borders volunteers who were administering the vaccines, and then started spreading FUD to the parents of un-immunized kids, telling them that the polio vaccine would give their children "mysterious diseases". Congratulations, you share the same beliefs as the average Somalian citizen.

Your right to to do what you want for you and your future child stop at the line where you put my life at risk. By not vaccinating your child, you are increasing the risk of a viral outbreak, and putting my life in jeopardy. Who the hell are you to put my life and the lives of everyone I know in jeopardy? Because some douche bag doctors wants to sell some books by ignoring thousands of years of scientific fact? Awesome.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Wow... that was WorldChaosMerica-esque.

While not as strongly, I share the same feelings with Morbo... prevention always seems better than treatment.

Now I feel bad for not getting a flu shot every season. 

 

[bones]

If someone doesn't get vaccinated, that is their perogative.  Folks who are vaccinated, should not worry about what someone else is doing in regards to their own health if they chose something else.  What if their religion doesn't believe in western medicine?  Is everyone going to tell them what religion to follow next?

Do you feel that neighbors should report someone to the IRS for an anonymous audit because they suspect they are cheating on your taxes when a new car suddenly appears?  Or that they someone should give people a lecture when they see you eating high glycemic foods or fast food because we all pay for public healthcare now?  How about rolling down a window and stopping folks when they are seen texting and driving or talking without a hands free device?  How about pulling over people because they are suspected of not being a legal immigrant?

Anyone who insists on telling me what to do is going to get my size 12 in their backside because they didn't know when to mind their business.  At that point, vaccination won't be a primary concern - however, the curb stomping they received is going to be more of an issue.

 

[iacrenter]

The federal government should not be telling people what to do, as this is not Iran, China or N. Korea.

I'm a small government guy but even I realize government does have some responsibilities including but not limited to: public safety--including police, fire, AND even public health.

Texting and cell phone laws are just a few examples where the government has an overriding public safety concern over the rights of individual freedoms.

Even though the scientific evidence is compelling there should be a public policy debate regarding mandatory vaccinations and allowable exceptions.

 

[qwerty]

Enter society at your own risk

 

[irvinehomeowner]

The federal government should not be telling people what to do, as this is not Iran, China or N. Korea.

Yet we have Obamacare.

 

[iacrenter]

I am all for individual freedom/rights/constitutional protection but it should be balanced at some point with public safety and societal cost.

I agree it becomes a nanny state when the government is telling you how to run your personal life. Take for instance the NYC's controversial soda and trans-fat ordinance. Many conservatives, including myself balk at the idea that the government is regulating what I can or can't eat.

But there is a hidden cost to these freedoms. Society/tax payers  foot the bill for poor life styles--increased rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer, stroke, and heart attacks. Why should tax payers be stuck with the bill for my poor choices?

This is when public discourse is critical. How much cost is our country willing to bear to protect an individual's freedom of choice?

Gun control, NSA snooping/privacy rights, and even vaccines....

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Obamacare is sort of a big picture view of the vaccine debate.  Everyone will get sick and likely sustain some sort of serious injury sometime in their lifetimes.  The responsible thing to do to make sure everyone contributes to the insurance system rather than play russian roulette.  People should not allowed to jack up the medical costs because they want to gamble.

If you want laissez-faire government, go to China...where money is the king of everything. 

Libertarianism is a luxury for the wealthy. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

There is a cost that would come with enforcing any mandatory law.  Where would the money come from to pay for enforcement and how would it be enforced?  You can be sure that people will be up in arms over paying for something they do not believe in.  Some states would sue the government on this due to a states rights vs. federal rights issue (like the current Obamacare debacle).

Not every one is going to agree to mandatory vaccinations.  How can you trust what is being injected? 

As recently as 1956, the government engaged in the type of activity below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Since we already have drones flying over the US, NSA surveillance and broad domestic policing powers granted to the government... what's left?

You live in society and thus you committed a social contract.  Of course, not everyone is going to agree to mandatory vaccinations.  You can't 10 people to agree toppings for a pizza let alone something as serious as medicare.  That's why we have a democracy/representative government. 

Obamacare is not a debacle at all.  The issue with states v. federal as to obamacare is whether the states want to control the health exchange and whether they want to extent medicare coverage to those under 65.  That's it. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Obamacare is sort of a big picture view of the vaccine debate.  Everyone will get sick and likely sustain some sort of serious injury sometime in their lifetimes.  The responsible thing to do to make sure everyone contributes to the insurance system rather than play russian roulette.  People should not allowed to jack up the medical costs because they want to gamble.

If you want laissez-faire government, go to China...where money is the king of everything. 

Libertarianism is a luxury for the wealthy.

And socialism is a tool for the incompetent and inefficient. 

This is a capitalist society... always has been, and always should be. Costs are what they are due to a variety of factors, not alone based on patients - you conveniently left out pharmaceutical R&D cost recovery and profiteering, malpractice overheads due to ambulance chasing lawyers, surgical equipment profiteering, hospital profiteering, and doctor profiteering.

Really...go look at the cost estimates for healthcare costs...litigation is like 1-5%...ER visits are the no. 1 factor.

You are thinking of 19th century USA...child labor and 24 hour work days! 

 

[irvinehomeowner]

"Free" is ambiguous.

This is like abortion, gay/lesbian rights, religion, gun control, the death penalty, etc... not everyone will agree. All we can do is just hope for the best and do what we can to protect ourselves and our families.

The Zombie Apocalypse will happen because someone didn't vaccinate against the Z-virus... or all these vaccinations will mutate into the Z-virus.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

There is a cost that would come with enforcing any mandatory law.  Where would the money come from to pay for enforcement and how would it be enforced?  You can be sure that people will be up in arms over paying for something they do not believe in.  Some states would sue the government on this due to a states rights vs. federal rights issue (like the current Obamacare debacle).

Not every one is going to agree to mandatory vaccinations.  How can you trust what is being injected? 

As recently as 1956, the government engaged in the type of activity below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Since we already have drones flying over the US, NSA surveillance and broad domestic policing powers granted to the government... what's left?

You live in society and thus you committed a social contract.  Of course, not everyone is going to agree to mandatory vaccinations.  You can't 10 people to agree toppings for a pizza let alone something as serious as medicare.  That's why we have a democracy/representative government. 

Obamacare is not a debacle at all.  The issue with states v. federal as to obamacare is whether the states want to control the health exchange and whether they want to extent medicare coverage to those under 65.  That's it.

And in a free society, i can do as I choose - not taking vaccines if that's the case, and you have to accept it because there is nothing you can do to stop anyone from exercising their free will.

Nope, free society is an oxymoron because by being in a society you agree to live by certain rules and procedures.  As the poster stated above, why should I stop at a red light?  Why can't I just punch someone if I don't like them.  What about murder?  That should tolerated....

You understand that obamacare is not socialism right?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Obamacare is not a debacle at all.  The issue with states v. federal as to obamacare is whether the states want to control the health exchange and whether they want to extent medicare coverage to those under 65.  That's it. 

I'm still not sold on how it's better than our current system. I tend to think the more government gets involved, the less efficient things become.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Obamacare is not a debacle at all.  The issue with states v. federal as to obamacare is whether the states want to control the health exchange and whether they want to extent medicare coverage to those under 65.  That's it. 

I'm still not sold on how it's better than our current system. I tend to think the more government gets involved, the less efficient things become.

Actually...the government is not really involved at all.  Private industry is running the show.  It's better than the current system in many way: 1)  everyone is insured so a bigger pool of people to spread risk, 2) you are no longer locked into your employer for healthcare, 3)  employers do not have to deal with ever raising healthcare cost, they can elect to pay the penalty, 4) people who can't get coverage now can...thus reducing people from forgoing preventative healthcare and treating medical issues before they get really bad.

You are also incorrect about government involvement meaning more inefficient.  Seniors love medicare and it has a lower abuse rate and lower overhead than private insurance. 


Personally, I would have like to have a single payer system but that's too toxic now.  That makes the most sense.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Actually...the government is not really involved at all.  Private industry is running the show.

Although they might be running the logistics, the money is passing through the government. That's where you'll find the inefficiency.

It's better than the current system in many way:
1)  everyone is insured so a bigger pool of people to spread risk,

Not sure what you mean by this.

2) you are no longer locked into your employer for healthcare

Who is locked in now? You can choose not to use your employer's healthcare plan if you don't want to.

3)  employers do not have to deal with ever raising healthcare cost, they can elect to pay the penalty

Not sure how this is a benefit. The change to Obamacare could be more expensive for many employers. For employers who didn't provide healthcare, even more so.

4) people who can't get coverage now can...thus reducing people from forgoing preventative healthcare and treating medical issues before they get really bad.

Like who?

I've read that costs of a universal healthcare system can actually increase because people who are on these plans will now see doctors more often for things that don't require office visits. It cuts both ways, maybe more people will be healthier because of preventative measure but then all the hypochondriacs will make things cost more.

You are also incorrect about government involvement meaning more inefficient.  Seniors love medicare and it has a lower abuse rate and lower overhead than private insurance. 

I'm talking about in general. I know people who work in government, efficient is not the first word I would use to describe it. Why do you think all those city gov scandals have been popping up in the last few years?

I realize you will not agree with me, but I am of the opinion that the federal government needs to stay out of things like healthcare. That's not covered under the Constitution (as well as many other things). Realistically, city/county/state should be more responsible for what we need, they are closest to the situation. It's sad that we pay the Fed more tax than our state, I don't think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they signed that thing.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Obamacare is not a debacle at all.  The issue with states v. federal as to obamacare is whether the states want to control the health exchange and whether they want to extent medicare coverage to those under 65.  That's it. 

I'm still not sold on how it's better than our current system. I tend to think the more government gets involved, the less efficient things become.

Actually...the government is not really involved at all.  Private industry is running the show.  It's better than the current system in many way: 1)  everyone is insured so a bigger pool of people to spread risk, 2) you are no longer locked into your employer for healthcare, 3)  employers do not have to deal with ever raising healthcare cost, they can elect to pay the penalty, 4) people who can't get coverage now can...thus reducing people from forgoing preventative healthcare and treating medical issues before they get really bad.

You are also incorrect about government involvement meaning more inefficient.  Seniors love medicare and it has a lower abuse rate and lower overhead than private insurance. 


Personally, I would have like to have a single payer system but that's too toxic now.  That makes the most sense.

Have you ever actually worked on a government program or for a government client?

I have dealt with both private and government clients.  Large private clients are no more efficient than the government.