For the People or For the Person?

One of the arguments that I hear fairly often regarding the recommended childhood vaccinations is that the government has no right to force someone to undergo a medical intervention or procedure, that personal liberties trump concerns about public health. This got me wondering how those who are opposed to vaccines in some regard and believe that vaccines should not be "forced" upon people feel about how the government should respond to someone who has a highly communicable disease.

So for them, I have a couple questions:

Disease Burdens More Than Just the Patient

Often, when we talk about infectious diseases and outbreaks, the focus tends to be on those who got sick: the symptoms they experienced, how likely they might have been to infect others and so forth. We may talk about whether or not they were vaccinated, what complications they may have suffered and the costs that they bore through lost work/school days or how much treatment cost. Only occasionally do people think about the effects of an infection or outbreak on the government. After all, infections only have a direct impact on the person who has the disease and maybe those around them, right? How could a disease have any significant impact on a government. They're big, faceless things that just kind of exist in the background, except when there's a problem or it's election season.

The fact of the matter is, outbreaks of infectious disease actually have quite an impact on governments, particularly local ones. As just one example, I recently received the following from an anonymous reader:

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

An argument that is heard with near light speed rapidity in discussions of anti-vaccine sentiments is "I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm pro-safe vaccine." This typically comes either immediately following or preceding a diatribe about how evil and dangerous vaccines are. The speaker/author generally declaims how every vaccine is dangerous and God forbid they should ever subject their child to such monstrous poisons (in their eyes). Present them with a series of vaccines and, more likely than not, they will describe some issue which, in their opinion, makes the vaccine "not safe," rendering it anathema. While they are not, in their words, "anti-vaccine," they are "anti-all-currently-used-vaccines."

Whatever. Tomato, tomahto. I'm not going to argue semantics. Instead, I'm issuing a challenge to anyone who says they are "not anti-vaccine, but pro-safe vaccine" (as if those who support vaccines are pro-dangerous vaccine). It is really a simple thing: don't just talk the talk; walk the walk.

A Bill Goes to Beacon Hill

It recently came to my attention that there is a new bill being considered by the state legislature of Massachusetts. It was submitted by petition back in January and does not really have an actual sponsor, though Rep. John Keenan (Salem) is listed. This bill, amending an existing law, would add just one little sentence which would render said law essentially meaningless. Furthermore, the consequences of this one, seemingly innocuous, sentence would be far-reaching in their impact. What is this one little sentence? It is this:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this section a child shall, upon written request of a parent to the school, be admitted to school.

That doesn't sound too bad, right? I mean, parents should be able to write to a school and have their child admitted. After all, the education of children is not only a requirement, but is something that benefits everyone. Everyone should have the opportunity to obtain a good education, to learn valuable skills and expand their knowledge so that they can become useful, contributing members of society for the good of themselves and the community in which they live.

Why would anyone object to that? Certainly I wouldn't, in and of itself. However, as Tim Minchin shows, context is everything (some NSFW language, be sure to watch to the end):

CC Live @Bonnaroo Comedy Tent	Sunday, 6pm ET
Tim Minchin - Cont
www.comedycentral.com
CC Live @Bonnaroo Comedy Tent #bonnaroocomedy Comedy Central

Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended - Part 4

Another brief update for you regarding the status of Dr. Mark Geier's licenses to practice medicine in various states. As you know, his license was first suspended in Maryland. His license was then suspended in Washington and Virginia. Well, it is time to add Indiana to that list. Today, June 24, 2011, when I searched for his license in that state, I found this:

That's 4 out of 11 licenses that have been suspended. His appeal of the Maryland suspension is currently being heard, and the results of that inquiry should be out sometime next week. As it appears that the suspensions in Washington, Virginia and Indiana are based on the actions of the Maryland Board of Physicians, the outcome of the appeal could have a significant impact on the status of his licenses in those states. If his appeal succeeds, his licenses in those three states may be reinstated. If it fails, then there will only be 7 states left in which he can practice his scientifically unfounded protocol of administering the drug Lupron to autistic children.
________________________
Related Posts:

• Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended - Part 5
• Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended - Part 3
• Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended - Part 2
• Charges Levied Against Mark and David Geier
• URGENT: Please Call the Maryland State Board of Physicians About David Geier
• A Close Look at David Geier
• Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended

If Everyone Else Had Done It, I Didn't Need To - Rachel's Story

I learned about the following story from Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy. The video is one of many stories you'll find at Shot by Shot.

Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended - Part 3

I just wanted to provide a brief update on Dr. Mark Geier. Today, I was taking a look at the states in which, last time I checked, Dr. Geier still had a license. If you will recall, his license had been suspended in Maryland and, shortly after that, Washington. He was still licensed to practice medicine in nine states: California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey and Virginia. For seven of those, I was able to find laws similar to Washington's, which state that if a licensed practitioner has his or her license suspended in any other state, then it will be suspended in that state as well.

Well, one of those other states has suspended Dr. Geier's license. This is what I found when I went to the licensing board for the state of Virginia:

Only eight states left to step up and take appropriate action. Only eight licenses left that should responsibly be suspended. Another domino has fallen.
________________________
Related Posts:

• Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended - Part 5
• Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended - Part 4
• Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended - Part 2
• Charges Levied Against Mark and David Geier
• URGENT: Please Call the Maryland State Board of Physicians About David Geier
• A Close Look at David Geier
• Mark "Castrate 'Em" Geier's License Suspended

The Callous Face of Hubris

The video below has already been shared at Just the Vax and Respectful Insolence, but it is such a powerful and important message that I feel it should be shared as broadly as possible.



I don't think we have anyone quite as vile and despicable as Ms. Viera Scheibner in the U.S. At least, I hope not. This is someone who blames the parents if their child dies of a vaccine-preventable disease; someone who believes that all vaccines, without question, are bad and cause autism, and that diseases are, without exception, good. To anyone who is against vaccinations, watch this video and take a good hard look at your beliefs and the impact that they can have on those around you.

A Virus Poes an Anti-vaccine Band

This is too rich. As some of you may know, there is a group of viruses and bacteria on Twitter that are part of a group known as the #pathogenposse. One of those, @Rubeola, sent a tweet to a, for lack of a better term, rock band known as The Refusers. As Orac has pointed out over at Respectful Insolence, The Refusers are unapologetically anti-vaccine. They liken Big Pharma^TM and anyone who supports vaccines to Nazis. They equate vaccines with toxic sludge. They make absolutely no bones about it that they hate, hate, hate vaccines and believe them to be part of a grand conspiracy to maim and kill the populace.

So what did @Rubeola have to say to them and how did they answer?

That's right. The Refusers, a group adored by anti-vaccine groups like Age of Autism, appear to be quite proud that they are helping a dangerous virus spread.

Classy.

Because Preventing Child Deaths is a Bad Thing?

Coming up on June 13, 2011 in London is a fundraising conference organized by the Global Alliance for Vaccines & Immunisation (GAVI). GAVI describes itself as:

Launched in 2000, the GAVI Alliance is a global health partnership representing stakeholders in immunisation from both private and public sectors: developing world and donor governments, private sector philanthropists such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the financial community, developed and developing country vaccine manufacturers, research and technical institutes, civil society organisations and multilateral organisations like the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank.

Their goal is to provide rapid and affordable access to vaccines for poorer nations. With the conference, they are trying to raise funds to be able to provide immunizations for approximately 243 million children in poor and developing countries. By immunizing against pneumococcal disease, Hib and rotavirus (all of which are prominent causes of child mortality in the target countries), among other diseases, GAVI hopes to reduce the number of deaths caused by these diseases.

But it appears there are some people who aren't too happy about that.