Have You Seen This Pathogen?

UPDATE: 10/22/13: I will be printing more card sets. If you would like a set, go ahead and click the "Send Me a Set" button below or to the right and as soon as I get them in, I will send yours out.

UPDATE 9/22/13: I am currently out of card sets. If I receive enough requests, I will run another printing.

They're heeere.

Back in August 2012, I introduced a little art project I had been working on. It consisted of a series of sixteen digital posters. Since August was Immunization Awareness Month, and my posters were somewhat related, I thought it a fitting time to publish them, releasing them one a day over fifteen days (with a bonus two-for-one in the middle).

Well, I finally got around to printing up 4" x 5" cards of my Vaccine Preventable Disease Wanted Posters.

NVIC? Know the Omissions

The National Vaccine Information Center is at it again. They have launched a two-month, multi-state billboard advertising campaign to spread their misinformation and fear about vaccines. They are calling this the "Know the Risks" campaign. For the months of March and April, billboards like this will "grace" the landscape around Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; and Tucson, AZ:

Something seems to be missing...
Image credit: Voices for Vaccines

According to the press release, they claim their goal is to "encourage well informed vaccine decision-making". However, as we've seen before, NVIC's founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, appears to have little problem promoting blatantly incorrect information regarding vaccines. The first thing I noticed when I saw the above billboard was that something rather important to being "well informed" was missing: knowing the benefits of vaccinations. Yes, making an informed choice requires knowing the risks and failures, but the benefits are also needed. It also helps to put the risks into context by knowing how likely it is to occur, and how that compares to similar risks from the diseases that are prevented by vaccines.

Leaving important information like that out (or even just the fact that there are benefits) strikes me as a dishonest tactic. But let's take a closer look at this.

Ask for Evidence: Making Sense About Science

Every now and then, I learn more about an organization that does really good things. What I learn about them and the people I meet impress me enough to take a break from my usual musings to help spread the word about them. Last month, I became more acquainted with a group that I had already heard about, but didn't know much about them. That changed when I met Julia Wilson, Development Manager for the U.K.-based organization Sense About Science.

Sense About Science is a non-profit charity whose goal is to change how we talk about science and evidence. Their goal is to help people understand a variety of scientific concepts, such as peer review, basic statistics, how to design a fair test of a claim, and the nature of scientific evidence. They have gathered a database of over 5,000 scientists, researchers and other specialists (if you're a scientist and want to help, you can!), connecting them with people who have questions about some scientific claim they've heard. It can be anything from climate change to dodgy medical claims. They also engage young scientists to take an active role in public discussions about science, through their Voice of Young Science program.

They have had great success in the U.K. and have recently launched a campaign here in the U.S.

Why Do I Do This?

The other day, I received an email from someone via my other site, asking why I do this. Why do I speak out against anti-vaccine myths and put so much time and effort into that site (and this blog), when I state I have no financial ties to any pharmaceutical companies. Is it just a "labour of love because [I am] concerned for humanity"? Where does my passion come from? What intrigued me about this was that it came shortly after my experience with the Vermont Digger and the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice, the latter of whom, along with Laura Condon of the National Vaccine Information Center, accused me of being a Pharma Shill^TM and/or paid by Dr. Paul Offit. And certainly there are hints that the non-vaccinating individual who emailed me suspected that, my honest statements notwithstanding, I really was paid to write and comment.

Just to reiterate, I receive no money or any other compensation from a pharmaceutical company to write about vaccines in any manner. I hold no stocks (unless there happen to be some in the mutual funds in my retirement account, over which I have no control). I receive no checks, dinners, or quid pro quos. A kind fellow by the moniker Eric TF Bat kindly provided me with hosting space on his domain for my AntiAntiVax site for free after several fellow commenters at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog recommended I turn one of my comments into a web site so people would have a permanent place to point people to when countering anti-vaccine myths. I don't know Eric outside of that context. As for my blog, well, it's hosted by Blogger (clearly), which is also free. I have paid for my domain name out of my own pocket. And I use my own free time to write. Some people garden. I blog. So there's my financial situation regarding my countering of myths and misinformation regarding vaccines. I don't get squat, and I would not accept any money from a pharmaceutical company, either, even if they offered it to me.

So, if I don't get paid, why the hell do I do this?

The Continuing Fall of the House of Geier

Most of you no doubt know the names of Dr. Mark Geier and his son, David Geier. I've written about them a fair bit, starting with the suspension of Mark Geier's medical license in Maryland and following the saga as his licenses in various states were suspended and, eventually, permanently revoked. Mark and David are the duo who came up with what came to be known as the Lupron Protocol to supposedly treat autism. Following on the mistaken notion that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism, they developed their idea after reading a single study from 1968 finding that, when dissolving testosterone and mercuric chloride in hot benzene, the testosterone and mercury compound bind together. Ignoring the fact that living beings are not in the habit of having a hot benzene environment inside them, the Geiers coupled this testosterone-mercury complex idea with research finding that autism may be linked, in some cases, to high levels of testosterone. Needless to say, their protocol not only didn't work, but it put children at increased risk for no benefit. And to make things worse, since Lupron is not approved for the treatment of autism, Dr. Geier "diagnosed" his patients with precocious puberty so he could charge it to insurance companies.

At any rate, Mark Geier's medical career is pretty much shot. But I always wondered what, if anything, would happen to those who worked at his numerous, nationwide clinics? Would any of them be held accountable? It looks like at least one of Geier's partners is not faring too well, either.

Poking a Wasp Nest

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about two bills that had been introduced in the Vermont House of Representatives, H.114 and H.138, that would improve public health by tightening up religious and philosophical exemptions in public schools and, in the case of H.114, child care facilities. The first bill was introduced as a result of the pertussis epidemics going around the country, with Vermont being the second-hardest hit in 2012, with 100.4 cases per 100,000 people, roughly 7.5 times the national average of 13.4 cases per 100,000 people. This outbreak was driven by several potential factors: waning immunity in teens (necessitating an additional booster), possible mutations in the bacteria (rendering the vaccine less effective), pockets of low vaccine uptake (e.g, a 13.16% overall opt-out for philosophical reasons among kindergarteners [Excel file] in Vermont private schools in the 2011-2012 school year, and a 9.73% opt-out among middle schoolers), and adults whose immunity had waned (nationally, adults have historically had poor pertussis vaccine uptake). The second bill focuses on keeping herd immunity at necessary levels within public schools, by implementing temporary bans on religious and philosophical exemptions on a vaccine- and school-specific basis when immunization rates fall below 90%.

As I mentioned in my previous post, both bills face an uphill battle. Some legislators, like Rep. Mike Fisher, chair of the House Committee on Health Care, and gubernatorial appointees, like Health Commissioner Harry Chen, seem not to want to deal with the headaches that come part-and-parcel with the topics of immunizations and exemptions. Last year, they got an earful from individuals opposed to vaccines, resulting in the blunting of a bill that took a small step toward improved public health. This year does not look to be much different, as the same people, the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice, are once again rallying their forces to lobby legislators to oppose these bills.

Oregon Looks to Educate, Improve Public Health

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about two bills introduced in Vermont aimed at improving public health through modifications of the state's religious and philosophical exemption laws. One, H.114, would remove non-medical exemptions for the pertussis vaccine, since Vermont had the second highest incidence of pertussis in the entire nation in 2012. The other bill, H.138, would only suspend non-medical exemptions on a vaccine- and school-specific basis if uptake for the vaccine at the school drops below 90%. Once uptakes improve to 90% or more, non-medical exemptions will once more be allowed.

Now it's Oregon's turn to work on boosting public health.

Vermont Rolls Up Its Sleeves Again

Last year, Vermont legislators debated a bill that tried to eliminate religious and philosophical exemptions from school immunizations. It was rather hotly contested, with anti-vaccine activists up in arms and the misnamed National Vaccine Information Center urging people to write to their state congresscritters to oppose the bill. In the end, a sort of compromise was reached. The bill was signed into law, but with rather significant revisions. Parents in Vermont can still get a religious or philosophical exemption for their child, but they must sign a statement indicating that they have reviewed the educational material provided to them and that they understand that their decision increases the risk of disease for their child and those around them, including children with special health needs in the child's school who may suffer serious complications if infected. It's one of the more strongly worded laws requiring education before an exemption is granted. It would have been better if the law had passed as originally written, but baby steps.

Well, it looks like the sponsor of that bill is back in action this year. Rep. George Till (D-Chittenden) and others have introduced two new bills (H.114, full text available here, and H.138, full text here) that are more narrowly focused. While still addressing the concerns of religious and philosophical exemptions, the bills focus on pertussis immunization and individual schools, respectively.

Happy (Belated) Blogiversary

So, I missed my own blogiversary yesterday. At least I remembered it was sometime in February. At any rate, three years ago, on February 5, 2010, I started this blog. Back then, it was name Silenced by Age of Autism. It was an apt name at the time, since my primary intention was to give people a voice to post their comments that the editors at Age of Autism blog censored. I had attempted to engage Kim Stagliano and some of the other commenters over at AoA in reasonable discussion. I followed their commenting guidelines. I kept my tone civil, even though I disagreed with what they were saying, and yet they saw fit to ban me. And even though I asked, I still have not received any answer.

Not that I need one. Age of Autism is an echo chamber of anti-vaccine conspiracy-think. The editors want to give parents who mistakenly believe that vaccines cause autism a "safe" and "comfortable" place to gather. By that, they mean no dissenting opinions; no questioning of the status quo. Such things might make people feel uncomfortable (having their beliefs questioned) and, horror of horrors, it make them actually think, and no one enjoys that. So instead, if it looks like someone can pose a serious threat to the calm, tranquil, hate-fueled environs of AoA, they are silenced. That's how it all started, but things have changed.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

There is a certain lie that floats about anti-vaccine groups. Before I go on, let me be clear about my use of that word: "lie". Because of certain, um, frivolous proclivities among some of the folks who perpetuate this lie, I feel it behooves me to define just what I mean. In this post, I am going to use the term "lie" with it's definition of "a falsehood". It should not be construed, unless I explicitly state otherwise, that I am implying an intention to deceive on the part of the person uttering this lie. Suffice to say that, whether through deliberate action or mere misunderstanding, many among the anti-vaccine movement persist in forwarding this lie, this falsehood, as if it were truth.

Now what lie am I going on about? This: "the Supreme Court of the United States has completely shielded vaccine manufacturers from product liability". You've no doubt heard some version of this before, often in the form "parents can't sue vaccine manufacturers". As it is frequently stated by those opposed to vaccinations, this simply is not true. Some parents just repeat this because they read it somewhere and believed it. They haven't actually read the relevant documents to find out for themselves what's really going on. I don't blame them for that. It's sloppy thinking and intellectually lazy, but I'm not going to harp on it. I'd just recommend that they (temporarily) put aside their blinders, read the actual source documents and think for themselves. Don't even take my word for it.

Then there are those who ought to know better, and, I suspect, probably do. Whether they just really do not understand or are knowingly misrepresenting facts, there are those who hold themselves out as fierce advocates of informed consent who, if they were truly devoted to that, would actually present truth, rather than falsehood. People like Barbara Loe Fisher.