And He's a DOCTOR FFS! No excuse...

[EyeKhan]

Rand Paul -- he wants to be president, but even though as a doctor he's received training in science and objectivity he speaks publicly of the 'dangers' of vaccinating children. OK, whatever else can be said about his politics, this alone speaks volumes. Paranoid? Stupid? Irresponsible? Pandering to moron voters? Who knows, but none of it's good come from a doctor, a senator or a president.

Paul Repeats Baseless Vaccine Claims

Sen. Rand Paul gave false and misleading statements about vaccine safety in two separate interviews, including a claim that “many” children have developed “profound mental disorders” after vaccinations.


There is no evidence that any currently recommended vaccine causes brain damage or other mental disorders in otherwise healthy children. Severe reactions do occur but are extremely rare.


Vaccine safety has become a central topic in recent weeks as a measles outbreak that began at Disneyland in California has spread. Between Jan. 1 and Jan. 30, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 102 people had confirmed cases of measles, a disease that the CDC declared “eliminated” from the United States in 2000 because of the highly effective vaccine. In recent years, a small but growing number of parents have avoided the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine because of fears related to debunked and fraudulent science.


Paul, a Republican from Kentucky who is considering a 2016 presidential bid and who also formerly was a practicing physician, said on CNBC that vaccines could cause serious problems in children.


Paul, Feb. 2: I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.


The senator’s office was unable to provide a single example of a vaccine causing a mental disorder; nor did his office provide any information on the specific type or types of mental disorders or vaccines that caused disorders to which Paul was referring. We contacted several experts on immunizations, however, and all of them agreed that there are no such links between common vaccines and mental disorders.


“The comments made by Rand Paul are worrisome, as they don’t seem to be based on scientific data,” said Marietta Vazquez, an associate professor of pediatrics at Yale University School of Medicine and a member of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group convened by the CDC to advise on vaccines. “Indeed, there are no reported cases of profound mental disorders that I know of.”


There have been some reports of “lowered consciousness” or permanent brain damage after a vaccine is given for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) or measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), but the CDC says that these are so rare that a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be determined.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/pau...accine-claims/

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us...-surgeons.html

[Ominous Gamer]

So he wants parents to have the choice to kill their kids, and other kids, because freedom > science.

[Loki]

At which point did libertarianism start defending a person's right to harm other people? If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, go live on some private island where everyone has the same zany beliefs as you do. You infringe on the rights of other people by not vaccinating your kids while continuing to live in normal society.

[Lewkowski]

Not happy about this but let's dissect the fact check:

"Sen. Rand Paul gave false and misleading statements about vaccine safety in two separate interviews, including a claim that “many” children have developed “profound mental disorders” after vaccinations."

If you have 8 kids in the room are they a couple, a few, several or many? Even if you doubled the number to 16 that would still be less than .0001% of the population. Possibly poorly spoken but difficult to say a wrong statement.

"There is no evidence that any currently recommended vaccine causes brain damage or other mental disorders in otherwise healthy children. Severe reactions do occur but are extremely rare."

Why add the word currently? Does it mean that "profound mental disorders" after vaccinations occurred in the past but not currently? Did Rand Paul give a time line. Did he say "In the last year many children have..." I actually don't know if past vaccinations did or did not however the use of the word currently highly implies that it did.

Going with the assumption that vaccinations in the past DID cause problems I wonder if the leading medical authorities at the time declared them safe like we do now...

Also the article states that severe reactions are extremely rare, which imply that that there are *some* cases where profound mental disorders occur after vaccinations.

All that being said - I vaccinate my child and I think everyone should too however it shouldn't be up to the government to enforce what I think is right or wrong they should let parents make the choice.

[Lewkowski]

At which point did libertarianism start defending a person's right to harm other people? If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, go live on some private island where everyone has the same zany beliefs as you do. You infringe on the rights of other people by not vaccinating your kids while continuing to live in normal society.

Should all adults be required to get Flu shots?

[Ominous Gamer]

At which point did libertarianism start defending a person's right to harm other people? If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, go live on some private island where everyone has the same zany beliefs as you do. You infringe on the rights of other people by not vaccinating your kids while continuing to live in normal society.

We can't force people to vaccinate, but can herd them into another location?
vaccinations save lives, obviously, especially for the ones that are to young to get vaccinated or the ones that cant get vaccinated because of preexisting conditions: herd immunity.

So living in the real world, allowing people to skip vaccinations puts both their own innocent children and the innocent children of complete strangers at risk. Especially when these anti-vaxxers think its smart to go to places like Disney. Why should a child get quarantined for 3 weeks simply because they were in the same room of another child whos parents happen to be really fucking stupid?

[Khendraja'aro]

Why add the word currently? Does it mean that "profound mental disorders" after vaccinations occurred in the past but not currently? Did Rand Paul give a time line. Did he say "In the last year many children have..." I actually don't know if past vaccinations did or did not however the use of the word currently highly implies that it did.

Dude, I currently don't know the lottery numbers for next week.

[Loki]

Should all adults be required to get Flu shots?

Cost/benefit for the flu shot are several magnitudes different from these vaccines. If there was a flu vaccine, then sure.

[LittleFuzzy]

Uh Loki? The seasonal flu shots are vaccines.

[Enoch the Red]

At which point did libertarianism start defending a person's right to harm other people? If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, go live on some private island where everyone has the same zany beliefs as you do. You infringe on the rights of other people by not vaccinating your kids while continuing to live in normal society.

I plan on vaccinating my children, and I don't agree with or understand this vaccination brouhaha, but it is abundantly clear to me the difference between an imaginable future risk and a clear and present danger. Saying that a libertarian who supports a parent's right to choose what medical treatment is given to their children is somehow also supporting a persons right to harm someone is akin to saying that by not supporting mass sterilizations that may prevent a murderer from being born we are also supporting a person's right to murder other people. It just doesn't follow. This isn't exactly rocket science, Loki.

[Loki]

Uh Loki? The seasonal flu shots are vaccines.

They protect you against a few major strains of flu and last one season...

I plan on vaccinating my children, and I don't agree with or understand this vaccination brouhaha, but it is abundantly clear to me the difference between an imaginable future risk and a clear and present danger. Saying that a libertarian who supports a parent's right to choose what medical treatment is given to their children is somehow also supporting a persons right to harm someone is akin to saying that by not supporting mass sterilizations that may prevent a murderer from being born we are also supporting a person's right to murder other people. It just doesn't follow. This isn't exactly rocket science, Loki.

Again, cost-benefit. What harm are you suffering from being required to vaccinate your kids? What's the benefit?

Incidentally, do you also support a parent's "right" to not treat their children for lethal but curable diseases? At which point did the rights of parents completely annihilate the rights of their children?

[Lewkowski]

Dude, I currently don't know the lottery numbers for next week.

That sentence doesn't sound normal at all does it? People don't add the word currently unless they are attempting to use it as a qualifier.

[Enoch the Red]

Again, cost-benefit. What harm are you suffering from being required to vaccinate your kids? What's the benefit?

Incidentally, do you also support a parent's "right" to not treat their children for lethal but curable diseases? At which point did the rights of parents completely annihilate the rights of their children?

I would not be suffering any harm, in fact I believe I would be performing a service, not only to my children but to my community. It just so happens that I don't believe all policy should be made strictly off of cost benefit analyses. I can make what I believe to be wise decisions without legislating others to do the same.

[LittleFuzzy]

They protect you against a few major strains of flu and last one season...

And that makes them not a vaccine. . . how?

[Aimless]

And that makes them not a vaccine. . . how?

I think he's trying to say that those vaccines are in a different league when it comes to costs vs benefits

[Khendraja'aro]

That sentence doesn't sound normal at all does it? People don't add the word currently unless they are attempting to use it as a qualifier.

It's a perfectly acceptable qualifier for anything in science.

"We know that currently the earth revolves around the sun." - "Current research demonstrates that everything falls to the ground due to gravity."

And so on and so forth. The use of this qualifier merely acknowledges that scientific knowledge is never 100% accurate and that theremight be something in the future which turns our understanding around. However, those events are usually fairly sparse.

Additionally, not every revolution in science does invalidate the previous findings - we're still using Bohr's atomic model even though we know it's not correct due to Quantum Mechanics.

[Aimless]

They protect you against a few major strains of flu and last one season...

They're still vaccines. However, influenza changes constantly, rendering vaccines less effective over time. They're still vaccines, but their target keeps moving.

[Aimless]

If you have 8 kids in the room are they a couple, a few, several or many?

They are 8. You can count them on your fingers. To say they are many is misleading, especially in this context.

Why add the word currently? Does it mean that "profound mental disorders" after vaccinations occurred in the past but not currently? Did Rand Paul give a time line. Did he say "In the last year many children have..." I actually don't know if past vaccinations did or did not however the use of the word currently highly implies that it did.

It's a cover-your-ass qualifier in case someone starts talking about a vaccine that was significantly more dangerous wrt risk of neurological damage than the disease it was intended to protect us against. Eg. when people want to discuss the swine flu and the risk of narcolepsy

Going with the assumption that vaccinations in the past DID cause problems I wonder if the leading medical authorities at the time declared them safe like we do now...

This is an extremely bad argument against vaccinations, though it is a good argument for humility in science. Do you believe ancient beliefs should be held equivalent to knowledge gained from decades of thorough research on vaccine safety? Wait, I withdraw that question, I forgot about the whole Bible-thumping creationist climate-change denier thing.

Also the article states that severe reactions are extremely rare, which imply that that there are *some* cases where profound mental disorders occur after vaccinations.

There are reported cases of more-or-less severe illnesses occurring right after vaccination, for example where the body's immune system attacks parts of the brain or spinal cord. The number of cases where one can reasonably suspect that there is a direct causal link with recent vaccination has, until recently (see narcolepsy scandal ), been vanishingly small and difficult to separate from the risk of it happening by chance. That vanishingly small risk should be contrasted with the risk of suffering similar severe complications from the infectious diseases themselves, eg. the risk of getting encephalitis due to a measles infection.

The putative link to autism spectrum disorders has been thoroughly examined and so far there is no good evidence in support of such a link.

All that being said - I vaccinate my child and I think everyone should too however it shouldn't be up to the government to enforce what I think is right or wrong they should let parents make the choice.

*shrugs* I tend to believe it should be legal to jeopardise the health of your child and others around you, but I also think that right should be curtailed significantly and actively, eg. by opening up for lawsuits against parents that let their kids infect others with measles or disrupt their schooling or vacation or medical treatment or whatever. I also think it's a good use of public funds to actively promote vaccination and to actively fight the misconceptions that drive this anti-vaxx movement. And I think it may be a good idea to offer financial and social incentives for promoting vaccination, in addition to the benefits that are so easily obscured by tricksters.

[Aimless]

Of course suing the parents would perhaps only harm the kids, because I doubt high-profile anti-vaxxers and organisations would step in to help them, but maybe in the long term... or maybe not

[Aimless]

Here's a question: would current US law permit insurance companies to discriminate against people who choose not to be vaccinated?

[Loki]

And that makes them not a vaccine. . . how?

I misspoke. See Minx's reply.

I'm would not be suffering any harm, in fact I believe I would be performing a service, not only to my children but to my community. It just so happens that I don't believe all policy should be made strictly off of cost benefit analyses. I can make what I believe to be wise decisions without legislating others to do the same.

The cost-benefit is in terms of rights. You're denying other people their rights in order to keep a weak right for yourself. Do you think someone with AIDS should have the right to have sex with anyone they want without notifying them of their illness?

[Enoch the Red]

The cost-benefit is in terms of rights. You're denying other people their rights in order to keep a weak right for yourself. Do you think someone with AIDS should have the right to have sex with anyone they want without notifying them of their illness?

Again you are conflating future risks with clear and present dangers. You are arguing that the behaviors of a person who could conceivably contract STDs should be identical to a person who is already infected with STDs. There is a huge difference, between the two both in terms of the dangers and the risks. Do you believe we should implement mandatory condom usage as well? That would probably have a better return on investment than mandatory vaccinations in this country.

[Loki]

Again, you really need to stop assuming that any situation only involves the rights of one party. Our willingness to weaken one party's right should be conditional on how much it preserves the rights of other parties. A severe infringement against one party is justified only by a similar level benefit to another. There's virtually no infringement in requiring a child to get a vaccine, while the same act protects the rights of others to their body and life. We're talking about a pretty damn obvious externality here, except unlike in most cases, this one is easy to remove.

[Enoch the Red]

Again, you really need to stop assuming that any situation only involves the rights of one party. Our willingness to weaken one party's right should be conditional on how much it preserves the rights of other parties. A severe infringement against one party is justified only by a similar level benefit to another. There's virtually no infringement in requiring a child to get a vaccine, while the same act protects the rights of others to their body and life. We're talking about a pretty damn obvious externality here, except unlike in most cases, this one is easy to remove.

You really need to stop assuming that the only way to achieve goals are through heavy handed governmental action. We don't need to weaken anyone's rights. The benefits are clear, and the vaccination rates in our country are high.

[Khendraja'aro]

You really need to stop assuming that the only way to achieve goals are through heavy handed governmental action. We don't need to weaken anyone's rights. The benefits are clear, and the vaccination rates in our country are high.

Not high enough, though. There's also the threshold to be considered beyond which we can do away with specific vaccinations because we eradicated the disease.

[Steely Glint]

If you're going to take the approach that parents have a "right" not to vaccinate their children*, you should also support the the corresponding right of any and all private and governmental organisations to ban unvaccinated children from their own property. Which is something that is already happening at some schools, and I've also read some pediatricians are considering taking the same steps.

I suspect Enoch would support that, but the anti-vaxxers sure as hell don't.

* which they do not, the rights of the child trump the rights of the parents to use their children as genuine pigs for whatever moonbat ideals they hold dear

[Enoch the Red]

If you're going to take the approach that parents have a "right" not to vaccinate their children*, you should also support the the corresponding right of any and all private and governmental organisations to ban unvaccinated children from their own property. Which is something that is already happening at some schools, and I've also read some pediatricians are considering taking the same steps.

I suspect Enoch would support that, but the anti-vaxxers sure as hell don't.

Absolutely.

* which they do not, the rights of the child trump the rights of the parents to use their children as genuine pigs for whatever moonbat ideals they hold dear

This is getting into potentially dangerous territory. I do believe it is moonbat not to vaccinate your children, but I also see a very real danger in giving government the right to determine what ideas and parenting strategies are moonbat and what aren't. All it takes is a shift in the directions of the political winds and the ideals that you want to raise your children to uphold and respect are suddenly verboten. Far better to not involve government.

[Hazir]

Not happy about this but let's dissect the fact check:

"Sen. Rand Paul gave false and misleading statements about vaccine safety in two separate interviews, including a claim that “many” children have developed “profound mental disorders” after vaccinations."

If you have 8 kids in the room are they a couple, a few, several or many? Even if you doubled the number to 16 that would still be less than .0001% of the population. Possibly poorly spoken but difficult to say a wrong statement.

"There is no evidence that any currently recommended vaccine causes brain damage or other mental disorders in otherwise healthy children. Severe reactions do occur but are extremely rare."

Why add the word currently? Does it mean that "profound mental disorders" after vaccinations occurred in the past but not currently? Did Rand Paul give a time line. Did he say "In the last year many children have..." I actually don't know if past vaccinations did or did not however the use of the word currently highly implies that it did.

Going with the assumption that vaccinations in the past DID cause problems I wonder if the leading medical authorities at the time declared them safe like we do now...

Also the article states that severe reactions are extremely rare, which imply that that there are *some* cases where profound mental disorders occur after vaccinations.

All that being said - I vaccinate my child and I think everyone should too however it shouldn't be up to the government to enforce what I think is right or wrong they should let parents make the choice.

Isn't the only evidence of such a correlation a retracted article in the British Lancet? The retraction being caused by - too late - scrutiny leading to the conclusion the research the article was based on was with a too small test group and borderline fraudulent?

Also, if I get cancer after taking a train does that mean that trains cause cancer?

[Hazir]

Absolutely.



This is getting into potentially dangerous territory. I do believe it is moonbat not to vaccinate your children, but I also see a very real danger in giving government the right to determine what ideas and parenting strategies are moonbat and what aren't. All it takes is a shift in the directions of the political winds and the ideals that you want to raise your children to uphold and respect are suddenly verboten. Far better to not involve government.

You realize that non-vaccination does not only concern the child of a right-to-choose parent, but also the child that sits next to this non-vaccinated child who happens to be in the group of children with whom the vaccine didn't catch and who may potentially die as the result of the non-vaccination choices of some other kids partents?

What exactly makes you think it is right you make dead-or-live decisions for the children of someone else, but it is totally wrong for government to make such momentous choices? Are we supposed to trust your judgement more than that of the government while we put the lives of children that are not your's on the line?