Unvaxxed child in Texas just died of the measles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who think vaccination should be left up to individual choice, this is where you put babies and children at risk who are too young to be fully vaccinated.

A mother gave birth at a TX hospital but it was not realized until she was in active labor that she had measles. With a disease that is as contagious as measles - airborne, lingers in the air for hours after the infected person has departed, everyone in that shared unit airspace (which depends on how the HVAC is designed) or even admitted to the same waiting room, triage room, delivery room, within a couple hours, or in a room that shares airspace even if divided by walls, is at risk. On an L&D unit, that means newborns who are too young to get the vaccine.

Multiple newborn babies are getting IV immunoglobulin to protect them because of their exposure.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna196519?fbclid=PAY2xjawJCpzhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABpgpExcgW_jlWh-ddb6OtpfX3fvep51szSS7qpRJj_SgUHvOMD38_xN3-3Q_aem_6Lx0Am_jhqP0O84vSiU0Vg

This is one of a myriad of scenarios that vaccination has protected us against until now. You can imagine the others - child with measles visits a relative in the liver transplant unit, and now a host of immunosuppressed patients are at risk. Husband contracts measles from his job at a community center and infects his pregnant wife who then infects other pregnant women at the obgyn’s office. And God forbid, an infected child visits the oncology ward at a children’s hospital, infecting children with no functional immune system.

As an ID doc, I admit I was thrilled to see a case of pertussis during my training in the 80’s. Whooping cough seemed like a relic of the past and we gathered all the med students and residents we could, so that they could see this anachronistic disease. I’m no longer thrilled when I hear about polio and pertussis cases. They seem like the harbinger of a dark age for diseases that should have been extinguished by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This study will be a real example of fraud waste and abuse since there are already dozens of studies showing there is no link between vaccines and autism.

The validity of these studies are in question. You cannot trust the manufacturers or those who directly financially benefit from the products to be able to do an unbiased study.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/

No one serious is questioning the validity of those studies. At this point the only thing that we are sure doesn’t cause autism is the MMR vaccine.
- mother of a kid with autism

I'm not an antivaxxer, but let me play devil's advocate: the study you cited describes itself as a "retrospective cohort study" (rather than a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study like the kind you often see in the drug-approval process). It also seems like it doesn't test vaccinated vs. unvaccinated but instead tests kids who got one particular vaccine (MMR) against those who did not. You could imagine an RFK acolyte say, "show me a placebo-controlled test where some of the kids were vaccinated and the rest weren't." What's the answer to that? Is it that that study has already been done? Is it that it hasn't been done but it's not worth doing? Is it that that study could be informative but would be unethical? Is it that that's a good idea and we should do it if it'll allay concerns?

It doesn’t appear that you are an expert in evidence based medicine. I don’t consider myself to be one either, but I did a residency in evidence based internal medicine at ucsf and there is way too much boring info I could spout about the merits and feasibility of different types of studies for different situations. I reviewed the “autism” link as a case study during my residency and I can tell you that many many smarter people than myself looked into it and agree that it’s a load of horses&$t and there is no need to squander more time or money on this. It deserves as much merit as the theory that has long prevented Pakistan from eradicating polio - that the polio vaccine was deployed by the CIA as a means to sterilize Muslim men. That theory resulted in 20k cases of polio a year in the 90’s.

And you can trust me, I’m an mit grad, and obviously a genius who is qualified to be an ATC. Actually only the first part is true.

I'm the poster you responded to. Thanks for the civil and interesting response. You're 100% correct that I'm not an expert in evidence-based medicine (or any kind of medicine), and, not to belabor the point, I'm also not an antivaxxer. But I think your message hits the nail on the head with what I'm grappling with: there are (I assume) as you point out a lot of ways to design a study. I certainly haven't read the autism-vaccine studies, and I'm definitely not questioning their conclusions. But is a foreign retrospective study without a vaccine-free control group really the most rigorous study we have that exists? (I'm not saying it is; I don't know!) If it is (or is at least close to it), then asking for a more rigorous study strikes me as... somewhat less crazy than I might have assumed?

I get your point that smart people have looked at this and said this has been conclusively proven. I'm not disputing that.

Here is a primer on evidence based medicine.

https://www.mwc.com.br/files/Williams%5BA769%5D%20-%20Understanding%20EBM.pdf

The PP who said it would be unethical to do the gold standard study, a double blind placebo controlled RCT, is correct. You cannot perform a double blind study in which half the babies are given placebo and half are given MMR for many reasons that I’m sure you understand. If you don’t, please reply and I will lay it out.

The loophole that doctors often used for this moral impasse, was to just pack their stuff and do the studies in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean, where people were not so fussy about medical malfeasance and informed consent. In India, a trial came under scrutiny because infants were being randomized between groups that got placebo vs a proven safe rotavirus vaccine.

The original Wakefield study looked at 8 children with GI symptoms from intestinal inflammation, who were diagnosed with autism 1 month after MMR vaccine, and concluded that there was a link between autism and vaccination. However, since autism diagnoses often occur at the same age that kids are vaccinated, it would be impossible not to see a coincidence. The Wakefield study is akin to showing that the second dose of MMR, typically given between ages 4-6, causes children’s front teeth to fall out and new ones to grow in their places.

You can read more about the flaws in the 8 person Wakefield study here

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2908388/

One of the best ways to study if there is a link between an exposure and an outcome is to do a cohort study - a study that follows a cohort of patients and follows them over time for certain outcomes. By keeping track of other variables like maternal age, paternal age, ethnicity, birth weight, gestational age, ses status, siblings with autism, environmental exposures, vaccinations, childhood illnesses etc, you can control for those variables and see if any of them show correlation with the outcome. There have been many cohort studies involving a total of well over 1 million children that show no correlation.

Also, there was a meta-analysis, which is the gold standard of looking at multiple studies and using data analysis to create more accurate conclusions and stronger evidence by pooling the number of patients and reducing the margin of error.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24814559/

Here is a list of cohort and case control studies

https://www.autismspeaks.org/do-vaccines-cause-autism

The sheer number of studies on this topic that have been done to allay irrational fears is already wasteful. We didn’t need so many studies when one involving 500k kids as opposed to 8 should have been sufficient.

Something is causing autism. It’s not vaccines.

I'm the OP you responded to. I am familiar with all of-- and do not disagree with any of-- the arguments that you made. That said, I can also imagine a parent saying, "sure, but the approval of a new drug requires typically requires a prospective, randomized, blinded study design; I want that for my kid's shots." You can argue that the parent is wrong-- and, yeah, i get the ethical concerns-- but I think you'll agree that the merits of that view really boil down to a matter of values rather than cold hard science.

I don’t think parents who are refusing vaccinations are familiar with the merits of random double blind placebo controlled studies vs single blind studies vs prospective cohort studies vs retrospective case control studies. If they were, they would understand. It’s just math. The anti vax parents think that they are smarter than the 99.999% of physicians and epidemiologists who are advising them to vaccinate their kids based on decades of research and their tens of thousands of hours of study and clinical work. A randomized controlled trial will not convince them when even the unnecessary death of their own child won’t change their mind.

No, people don't think they are smarter. At all. (Please, PP, this kind of thinking does not help.) They just don't trust the authority figures that we trust - that we have good reason and knowledge enough to trust. And Trump, RFK Jr, Musk and others are willfully encouraging the further eroding of that trust. It is really tragic and hard to see a way out.

I agree with others that the US may need to feel the pain to believe it. I feel no schadenfreude at unvaxxed children dying of measles and am livid that innocent babies and the immunocompromised will be at risk. I just fear that that is the only experience that will turn around public sentiment.

Also, if the Trump administration has its way, and they privatize all the authorities that we have put our faith in, who will the rest of us trust?

[Anonymous]

Over 300 cases in Texas and New Mexico.

#winning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This study will be a real example of fraud waste and abuse since there are already dozens of studies showing there is no link between vaccines and autism.

The validity of these studies are in question. You cannot trust the manufacturers or those who directly financially benefit from the products to be able to do an unbiased study.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/

No one serious is questioning the validity of those studies. At this point the only thing that we are sure doesn’t cause autism is the MMR vaccine.
- mother of a kid with autism

I'm not an antivaxxer, but let me play devil's advocate: the study you cited describes itself as a "retrospective cohort study" (rather than a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study like the kind you often see in the drug-approval process). It also seems like it doesn't test vaccinated vs. unvaccinated but instead tests kids who got one particular vaccine (MMR) against those who did not. You could imagine an RFK acolyte say, "show me a placebo-controlled test where some of the kids were vaccinated and the rest weren't." What's the answer to that? Is it that that study has already been done? Is it that it hasn't been done but it's not worth doing? Is it that that study could be informative but would be unethical? Is it that that's a good idea and we should do it if it'll allay concerns?

It doesn’t appear that you are an expert in evidence based medicine. I don’t consider myself to be one either, but I did a residency in evidence based internal medicine at ucsf and there is way too much boring info I could spout about the merits and feasibility of different types of studies for different situations. I reviewed the “autism” link as a case study during my residency and I can tell you that many many smarter people than myself looked into it and agree that it’s a load of horses&$t and there is no need to squander more time or money on this. It deserves as much merit as the theory that has long prevented Pakistan from eradicating polio - that the polio vaccine was deployed by the CIA as a means to sterilize Muslim men. That theory resulted in 20k cases of polio a year in the 90’s.

And you can trust me, I’m an mit grad, and obviously a genius who is qualified to be an ATC. Actually only the first part is true.

I'm the poster you responded to. Thanks for the civil and interesting response. You're 100% correct that I'm not an expert in evidence-based medicine (or any kind of medicine), and, not to belabor the point, I'm also not an antivaxxer. But I think your message hits the nail on the head with what I'm grappling with: there are (I assume) as you point out a lot of ways to design a study. I certainly haven't read the autism-vaccine studies, and I'm definitely not questioning their conclusions. But is a foreign retrospective study without a vaccine-free control group really the most rigorous study we have that exists? (I'm not saying it is; I don't know!) If it is (or is at least close to it), then asking for a more rigorous study strikes me as... somewhat less crazy than I might have assumed?

I get your point that smart people have looked at this and said this has been conclusively proven. I'm not disputing that.

NP. There is no “vax vs unvax” study. None. There never has been, and there probably never will be. People claim that it would be unethical to deny people vaccines so they can’t have a proper control group. They are deliberately ignoring the fact that there are thousands of unvaccinated children in the US that they could use for study participants. I know for a fact that there are many people who would willingly allow their kids to be tracked and their health monitored as part of a study but nobody is attempting those studies. In order to do that, you’d need to release findings of complications - i.e. adverse reactions to the vaccine. These are hidden behind the sealed walls and files of vaccine court. Yes, there is a special secretive court in this country where vaccine injury claims are tried, and nobody is allowed to know what goes on there, what the complications were, how much people were awarded for those damages, etc.

I’m the one who has been replying to PP. Perhaps you know this already, but every vaccine was originally tested in a “vax vs no vax” study, if by “vax vs no vax”, you mean a double blinded placebo controlled RCT. The covid vaccine was tested in that manner.

Your suggestion to find the parents who are willing to be tracked but would choose to be in the placebo group is not feasible because then the study would not be a placebo controlled double blinded RCT. The “R” means random. Having parent choose no vax is not random. You are suggesting a prospective cohort study or a case control in which two groups (one group who chose vaccination and one group who did not) are followed over time. There have been many such studies involving well over 1 million kids. See my previous post.

I am sure you're well intentioned, but is this actually true? I cannot imagine that, in a study for the approval of, say, an MMR vaccine, they would withhold, say, the polio vaccine. Removing multiple shots to determine the safety and efficacy of just one of them would pretty obviously be a confounding variable, no?

(One note: I recognize that anti-vaxxers would probably try to jiujitsu this into saying that this distinction means there has not been a study showing the relative health of totally vaccinated children vs totally unvaccinated children. But of course the purpose of these studies isn't to anticipate and refute the arguments of people with a particular agenda.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This study will be a real example of fraud waste and abuse since there are already dozens of studies showing there is no link between vaccines and autism.

The validity of these studies are in question. You cannot trust the manufacturers or those who directly financially benefit from the products to be able to do an unbiased study.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/

No one serious is questioning the validity of those studies. At this point the only thing that we are sure doesn’t cause autism is the MMR vaccine.
- mother of a kid with autism

I'm not an antivaxxer, but let me play devil's advocate: the study you cited describes itself as a "retrospective cohort study" (rather than a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study like the kind you often see in the drug-approval process). It also seems like it doesn't test vaccinated vs. unvaccinated but instead tests kids who got one particular vaccine (MMR) against those who did not. You could imagine an RFK acolyte say, "show me a placebo-controlled test where some of the kids were vaccinated and the rest weren't." What's the answer to that? Is it that that study has already been done? Is it that it hasn't been done but it's not worth doing? Is it that that study could be informative but would be unethical? Is it that that's a good idea and we should do it if it'll allay concerns?

It doesn’t appear that you are an expert in evidence based medicine. I don’t consider myself to be one either, but I did a residency in evidence based internal medicine at ucsf and there is way too much boring info I could spout about the merits and feasibility of different types of studies for different situations. I reviewed the “autism” link as a case study during my residency and I can tell you that many many smarter people than myself looked into it and agree that it’s a load of horses&$t and there is no need to squander more time or money on this. It deserves as much merit as the theory that has long prevented Pakistan from eradicating polio - that the polio vaccine was deployed by the CIA as a means to sterilize Muslim men. That theory resulted in 20k cases of polio a year in the 90’s.

And you can trust me, I’m an mit grad, and obviously a genius who is qualified to be an ATC. Actually only the first part is true.

I'm the poster you responded to. Thanks for the civil and interesting response. You're 100% correct that I'm not an expert in evidence-based medicine (or any kind of medicine), and, not to belabor the point, I'm also not an antivaxxer. But I think your message hits the nail on the head with what I'm grappling with: there are (I assume) as you point out a lot of ways to design a study. I certainly haven't read the autism-vaccine studies, and I'm definitely not questioning their conclusions. But is a foreign retrospective study without a vaccine-free control group really the most rigorous study we have that exists? (I'm not saying it is; I don't know!) If it is (or is at least close to it), then asking for a more rigorous study strikes me as... somewhat less crazy than I might have assumed?

I get your point that smart people have looked at this and said this has been conclusively proven. I'm not disputing that.

NP. There is no “vax vs unvax” study. None. There never has been, and there probably never will be. People claim that it would be unethical to deny people vaccines so they can’t have a proper control group. They are deliberately ignoring the fact that there are thousands of unvaccinated children in the US that they could use for study participants. I know for a fact that there are many people who would willingly allow their kids to be tracked and their health monitored as part of a study but nobody is attempting those studies. In order to do that, you’d need to release findings of complications - i.e. adverse reactions to the vaccine. These are hidden behind the sealed walls and files of vaccine court. Yes, there is a special secretive court in this country where vaccine injury claims are tried, and nobody is allowed to know what goes on there, what the complications were, how much people were awarded for those damages, etc.

I’m the one who has been replying to PP. Perhaps you know this already, but every vaccine was originally tested in a “vax vs no vax” study, if by “vax vs no vax”, you mean a double blinded placebo controlled RCT. The covid vaccine was tested in that manner.

Your suggestion to find the parents who are willing to be tracked but would choose to be in the placebo group is not feasible because then the study would not be a placebo controlled double blinded RCT. The “R” means random. Having parent choose no vax is not random. You are suggesting a prospective cohort study or a case control in which two groups (one group who chose vaccination and one group who did not) are followed over time. There have been many such studies involving well over 1 million kids. See my previous post.

I am sure you're well intentioned, but is this actually true? I cannot imagine that, in a study for the approval of, say, an MMR vaccine, they would withhold, say, the polio vaccine. Removing multiple shots to determine the safety and efficacy of just one of them would pretty obviously be a confounding variable, no?

(One note: I recognize that anti-vaxxers would probably try to jiujitsu this into saying that this distinction means there has not been a study showing the relative health of totally vaccinated children vs totally unvaccinated children. But of course the purpose of these studies isn't to anticipate and refute the arguments of people with a particular agenda.)

Vaccine approval process in the U.S.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/how-developed-approved.html

The first MMR was approved in the 60’s after a series of clinical trials. The patients were divided into three group - vaccine, vaccine plus immunoglobulin (this was done because the incidence of fever was not uncommon with attenuated virus vaccines), and placebo plus immunoglobulin, and natural infection. Studies were also done in Nigeria.

You can read it here

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.52.Suppl_2.16

The CDC is not responsible for placating irrational anti vaxxers by wasting money on studies that are not indicated. Having a layperson come in and say, what about totally unvaxxed vs blah blah blah should not drive what type of studies are done. I am furious that we are allocating time and money to study autism and vaccines. We may as well put time and money to investigating the four humors or whether earth, air, water, and fire are truly the four elements.

I am not sure what you mean by saying the polio vaccine is a confounding variable. Are you saying that you want to see studies of kids who just have MMR and no other vaccine vs unvaxxed? That is unethical since the polio vaccine was developed before MMR, and it is unethical to withhold a proven lifesaving vaccine for the purpose of a study. We are truly lucky that smallpox was eradicated before anti vaxxers invented themselves.

There are many poignant stories from the current and past measles outbreak in the U.S. about three generations of family members brought together in the icu by measles - the unvaccinated child intubated with pneumonia, the parents who chose not to vaccinate their child, and the distraught grandparents who suffered through measles themselves and did not hesitate to vaccinate their children, now parents of a child afflicted with measles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over 300 cases in Texas and New Mexico.

#winning

And multiple deaths. And exposure of a bunch of Texas newborns by a pregnant woman who gave birth while having active measles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This study will be a real example of fraud waste and abuse since there are already dozens of studies showing there is no link between vaccines and autism.

The validity of these studies are in question. You cannot trust the manufacturers or those who directly financially benefit from the products to be able to do an unbiased study.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/

No one serious is questioning the validity of those studies. At this point the only thing that we are sure doesn’t cause autism is the MMR vaccine.
- mother of a kid with autism

I'm not an antivaxxer, but let me play devil's advocate: the study you cited describes itself as a "retrospective cohort study" (rather than a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study like the kind you often see in the drug-approval process). It also seems like it doesn't test vaccinated vs. unvaccinated but instead tests kids who got one particular vaccine (MMR) against those who did not. You could imagine an RFK acolyte say, "show me a placebo-controlled test where some of the kids were vaccinated and the rest weren't." What's the answer to that? Is it that that study has already been done? Is it that it hasn't been done but it's not worth doing? Is it that that study could be informative but would be unethical? Is it that that's a good idea and we should do it if it'll allay concerns?

It doesn’t appear that you are an expert in evidence based medicine. I don’t consider myself to be one either, but I did a residency in evidence based internal medicine at ucsf and there is way too much boring info I could spout about the merits and feasibility of different types of studies for different situations. I reviewed the “autism” link as a case study during my residency and I can tell you that many many smarter people than myself looked into it and agree that it’s a load of horses&$t and there is no need to squander more time or money on this. It deserves as much merit as the theory that has long prevented Pakistan from eradicating polio - that the polio vaccine was deployed by the CIA as a means to sterilize Muslim men. That theory resulted in 20k cases of polio a year in the 90’s.

And you can trust me, I’m an mit grad, and obviously a genius who is qualified to be an ATC. Actually only the first part is true.

I'm the poster you responded to. Thanks for the civil and interesting response. You're 100% correct that I'm not an expert in evidence-based medicine (or any kind of medicine), and, not to belabor the point, I'm also not an antivaxxer. But I think your message hits the nail on the head with what I'm grappling with: there are (I assume) as you point out a lot of ways to design a study. I certainly haven't read the autism-vaccine studies, and I'm definitely not questioning their conclusions. But is a foreign retrospective study without a vaccine-free control group really the most rigorous study we have that exists? (I'm not saying it is; I don't know!) If it is (or is at least close to it), then asking for a more rigorous study strikes me as... somewhat less crazy than I might have assumed?

I get your point that smart people have looked at this and said this has been conclusively proven. I'm not disputing that.

NP. There is no “vax vs unvax” study. None. There never has been, and there probably never will be. People claim that it would be unethical to deny people vaccines so they can’t have a proper control group. They are deliberately ignoring the fact that there are thousands of unvaccinated children in the US that they could use for study participants. I know for a fact that there are many people who would willingly allow their kids to be tracked and their health monitored as part of a study but nobody is attempting those studies. In order to do that, you’d need to release findings of complications - i.e. adverse reactions to the vaccine. These are hidden behind the sealed walls and files of vaccine court. Yes, there is a special secretive court in this country where vaccine injury claims are tried, and nobody is allowed to know what goes on there, what the complications were, how much people were awarded for those damages, etc.

I’m the one who has been replying to PP. Perhaps you know this already, but every vaccine was originally tested in a “vax vs no vax” study, if by “vax vs no vax”, you mean a double blinded placebo controlled RCT. The covid vaccine was tested in that manner.

Your suggestion to find the parents who are willing to be tracked but would choose to be in the placebo group is not feasible because then the study would not be a placebo controlled double blinded RCT. The “R” means random. Having parent choose no vax is not random. You are suggesting a prospective cohort study or a case control in which two groups (one group who chose vaccination and one group who did not) are followed over time. There have been many such studies involving well over 1 million kids. See my previous post.

I am sure you're well intentioned, but is this actually true? I cannot imagine that, in a study for the approval of, say, an MMR vaccine, they would withhold, say, the polio vaccine. Removing multiple shots to determine the safety and efficacy of just one of them would pretty obviously be a confounding variable, no?

(One note: I recognize that anti-vaxxers would probably try to jiujitsu this into saying that this distinction means there has not been a study showing the relative health of totally vaccinated children vs totally unvaccinated children. But of course the purpose of these studies isn't to anticipate and refute the arguments of people with a particular agenda.)

Vaccine approval process in the U.S.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/how-developed-approved.html

The first MMR was approved in the 60’s after a series of clinical trials. The patients were divided into three group - vaccine, vaccine plus immunoglobulin (this was done because the incidence of fever was not uncommon with attenuated virus vaccines), and placebo plus immunoglobulin, and natural infection. Studies were also done in Nigeria.

You can read it here

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.52.Suppl_2.16

The CDC is not responsible for placating irrational anti vaxxers by wasting money on studies that are not indicated. Having a layperson come in and say, what about totally unvaxxed vs blah blah blah should not drive what type of studies are done. I am furious that we are allocating time and money to study autism and vaccines. We may as well put time and money to investigating the four humors or whether earth, air, water, and fire are truly the four elements.

I am not sure what you mean by saying the polio vaccine is a confounding variable. Are you saying that you want to see studies of kids who just have MMR and no other vaccine vs unvaxxed? That is unethical since the polio vaccine was developed before MMR, and it is unethical to withhold a proven lifesaving vaccine for the purpose of a study. We are truly lucky that smallpox was eradicated before anti vaxxers invented themselves.

There are many poignant stories from the current and past measles outbreak in the U.S. about three generations of family members brought together in the icu by measles - the unvaccinated child intubated with pneumonia, the parents who chose not to vaccinate their child, and the distraught grandparents who suffered through measles themselves and did not hesitate to vaccinate their children, now parents of a child afflicted with measles.

Alright, we're on the same page. I thought you were suggesting that the MMR vaccine was tested in an approval process that involved a totally unvaccinated control group. If the goal is to test the MMR vaccine specifically against the population as a whole, I'm not sure why one would do that. As you note, that means that the existing MMR test wouldn't really test the (non)relationship of vaccines as a broad category with autism. And as you note, the scientific consensus is that there is nothing to see there and that it would be unethical to conduct such a test. (Now whether thats the views of our newfound policymakers I guess is another story...What strange times we live in.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over 300 cases in Texas and New Mexico.

#winning

And multiple deaths. And exposure of a bunch of Texas newborns by a pregnant woman who gave birth while having active measles.

Yep, and they don't publish the number of kids going blind, deaf, or suffering significant brain damage from measles.

[Anonymous]

The parents of the child that died due to measles are still supporting not vaccinating children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parents of the child that died due to measles are still supporting not vaccinating children.

CPS needs to take their remaining children. They are unfit parents who clearly care more for their own mental security blankets than their children staying alive.

[Anonymous]

Every time Trump is in office, disease spreads out of control.


With its measles outbreak spreading to two additional states, Texas is on track to becoming the cause of a national epidemic if it doesn’t start vaccinating more people, according to public health experts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should be arrested for child neglect.

Yup.

Eh just sterilize them and let them lose in the woods.

[Anonymous]

^ loose. Autocorrect.

[Anonymous]

I follow the vaccine schedule and support vaccines. But sneering at people will do nothing. Listen to The Daily from yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents of the child that died due to measles are still supporting not vaccinating children.

CPS needs to take their remaining children. They are unfit parents who clearly care more for their own mental security blankets than their children staying alive.

Is it my imagination, or do the same accent and Pennsylvania Amish?