doctorow at April 12th, 2014 12:04 — #1
the_borderer at April 12th, 2014 12:08 — #2
I shall spend a homeopathic amount of time celebrating. The rest will be spent under the effects of conventional medicine.
danegeld at April 12th, 2014 12:25 — #3
Allow me to plug Danegeld Enterprises LLC - purveyors of finest quality homeopathic web design, homeopathic accountancy, homeopathic plumbing, homeopathic clothing apparel and homeopathic car hire.
lemoutan at April 12th, 2014 12:28 — #4
Nooooo - you'll make them more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
jewels_vern at April 12th, 2014 12:39 — #5
Why do so many people think it is important to insult the vaccine deniers instead of investigating why they think doctors can't be trusted like they used to be? After all, trust is not a civic duty; it has to be earned.
davidk44 at April 12th, 2014 12:42 — #6
I read the first letter of the post. No need to read further - it's just the same as if I read the whole thing.
prestonsturges at April 12th, 2014 12:55 — #7
I'm actually trying to convince my buddy to partner with me on an utterly worthless homeopathic cosmetic.
shuck at April 12th, 2014 12:58 — #8
Christ, "Homeopaths Without Borders" is real? There are actually people flying around the world to hand out placebos? It would be so much better if they just pretended to fly around the world handing out homeopathic "remedies." Or perhaps, if they insisted on actually doing it, surely it would be most effective to just have one homeopath providing "treatment" for the whole world?
space_monkey at April 12th, 2014 13:01 — #9
Maybe it's because Vaccine deniers and homeopaths are denying well-established scientific facts, which have little to nothing to do with the competence or lack thereof of any particular doctor.
jhbadger at April 12th, 2014 13:02 — #10
Because it is clear why "vaccine deniers" are a thing -- the bogus reports by Wakefield. If vaccine deniers need a doctor to distrust, go with the one who deserves distrust.
ogilvy at April 12th, 2014 13:03 — #11
To point out their dangerous stupidity isn't an insult, it's an objective, dispassionate statement of fact.
aelfscine at April 12th, 2014 13:07 — #12
Think of a vaccine-denier like this:
You're on an airplane. Someone tells you that the air on planes isn't very good for you - it's stifling, refiltered,and full of germs. It's better to breathe fresh air, like nature intended. So they start opening all the exit doors. While you're in flight.
lexicat at April 12th, 2014 13:28 — #13
Because vaccine deniers who act on that position are the moral equivalent of serial random mass-murderers of children.
I have never encountered an anti-vaxer (active or merely grandstanding) who has had a single direct, compassionate response to the question of what the anti-vaccination position offers the hundreds of children in my part of the world (Pacific Northwest) who suffer and the dozens who die each year of pertussis.
brandon_liles at April 12th, 2014 13:49 — #14
According to a quick google search and the information presented on the website CDC.gov there were only 20 cases of death attributed to pertussis in 2012. The majority of those deaths were in infants under 3 mos of age. The site further states "Overall reporting of pertussis has declined during 2013. While 13 states and Washington, D.C. have reported an increase in pertussis cases compared with the same time during 2012, the majority of states have reported fewer cases in 2013 to-date." Out of the 312 million people in the US in 2012 that seems like an extremely small percentage of the populace who reportedly died due to pertussis. It just does not seem to me to be enough for the alarmist views presented here and other places.
dloburns at April 12th, 2014 14:30 — #15
Still one of my favorite things here
imb at April 12th, 2014 15:07 — #16
Alarmist? Compare the risks of the diseases versus the risk of the vaccines :
Risk from Disease versus Risk from Vaccines
Measles and Rubella vs. MMR Vaccine
Even one serious adverse event in a million doses of vaccine cannot be justified if there is no benefit from the vaccination. If there were no vaccines, there would be many more cases of disease, and along with the more disease, there would be serious sequelae and more deaths. But looking at risk alone is not enough - you must always look at both risks and benefits. Comparing the risk from disease with the risk from the vaccines can give us an idea of the benefits we get from vaccinating our children.
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000
Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine
Death: 1 in 20
Death: 2 in 10
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 1,500
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven
The fact is that a child is far more likely to be seriously injured by one of these diseases than by any vaccine. While any serious injury or death caused by vaccines is too many, it is also clear that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the slight risk, and that many, many more injuries and deaths would occur without vaccinations. In fact, to have a medical intervention as effective as vaccination in preventing disease and not use it would be unconscionable.
Research is underway by the U.S. Public Health Service to better understand which vaccine adverse events are truly caused by vaccines and how to reduce even further the already low risk of serious vaccine-related injury.
Top of Page
MISCONCEPTION #5. Vaccine-preventable diseases have been virtually eliminated from the United States, so there is no need for my child to be vaccinated.
It's true that vaccination has enabled us to reduce most vaccine-preventable diseases to very low levels in the United States. However, some of them are still quite prevalent - even epidemic - in other parts of the world. Travelers can unknowingly bring these diseases into the United States, and if we were not protected by vaccinations these diseases could quickly spread throughout the population, causing epidemics here. At the same time, the relatively few cases we currently have in the U.S. could very quickly become tens or hundreds of thousands of cases without the protection we get from vaccines.
We should still be vaccinated, then, for two reasons. The first is to protect ourselves. Even if we think our chances of getting any of these diseases are small, the diseases still exist and can still infect anyone who is not protected. Travelers are especially vulnerable. A few years ago a 63 year old U.S. traveler to Haiti caught diphtheria and died -he had never been vaccinated. In 2005 and 2006, outbreaks of measles and mumps occurred in several states within the U.S. The measles outbreak began in a group of travelers (who had not been vaccinated) upon their return from a trip to Romania where they had been exposed to measles.
The second reason to get vaccinated is to protect those around us. A small number of persons cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons such as a severe allergy to vaccine components, and a small percentage simply do not respond to vaccines. These persons are susceptible to disease, and their only hope of protection is that people around them have been successfully vaccinated and cannot pass disease along to them. A successful vaccination program, like a successful society, depends on the cooperation of every individual to ensure the good for all. We would think it irresponsible of a driver to ignore all traffic regulations on the presumption that other drivers will watch out for him or her. In the same way, we shouldn't rely on people around us to stop the spread of disease if we ourselves can be vaccinated. We must all do what we can.
lexicat at April 12th, 2014 15:07 — #17
Thank you for illustrating my point: the sick and dead children remain, according to you, not "enough for the alarmist views presented here". I am sure the children themselves (those still alive) have a different view. Those children's illnesses and deaths were preventable.
Oregon Public Health Division "In 2011, 328 cases of pertussis were reported in Oregon (8.5 cases per 100,000 population); a steady increase since 2006. The greatest numbers of cases were reported in children <5 years of age; pertussis is of particular concern in the youngest infants, who have the highest risk of complications and death (at least four in Oregon since 2003)."
CDC Over 2,500 new cases of pertusis in Washington State in 2011-2012 outbreak.
ashen_victor at April 12th, 2014 15:33 — #18
Homeopathic bikinis... I think Japan invented them long ago*.
*I'm not going to post photos because ANSFW.
jim_kirk at April 12th, 2014 16:12 — #19
These celebratory weeks are getting so watered down...
smut_clyde at April 12th, 2014 16:38 — #20
Homeopathy: the less you know about it, the more plausible it seems.
next page →