“Alternative” Virginia school closes after half of its students infected with pertussis.

[n2doc]

All of them were unvaccinated.


@ Seth Mnookin


One of the most painful chapters to write in The Panic Virus was the story of Danielle and Ralph Romaguera, whose infant daughter, Brie, died of a pertussis infection when she was less than two months old. (In January, I recorded a Vanity Fair podcast with that chapter of the book.) Whooping cough is a scary, scary disease — as the Romagueras, or the parents of any of the ten infants who died of pertussis last year in California, can attest. (Nine of those children were under six months old, which is the age at which a child following the CDC-recommended vaccine schedule would be fully vaccinated.)

Brie Romaguera’s death is a tragic example of the reality that when parents choose not to vaccinate, they are not making a “purely personal” decision — they are making one that has the potential to affect everyone their children come in contact with. Infectious diseases are, by definition, transmitted through the environment — which usually means from one person to another. If an unvaccinated child shows up at a pediatrician’s office with a nasty cough that ends up being pertussis, that child is putting the life of every infant who happens to be in the office for a wellness appointment that day at risk.

This week, there is an example in Virginia of the ways in which a concentrated number of deliberately unvaccinated children can effect (or infect, depending on your perspective) the health of an entire region: Earlier today, The Roanoke Times reported that the Blue Mountain School, an “alternative” private school in Floyd County, had to shut down for a full week after twenty-three of its forty-five students came down with pertussis. According to the Times, every single one of those children was unvaccinated. The school’s administrator, Shelly Emmett, was quoted as saying, “Many of the families and staff at our school understand that some people choose not to vaccinate their children. We’re not requiring that they do.”

Emmett seems to be saying that the school’s administrators have decided they are exempt from Virginia law, which requires schools and day care centers to have documented proof that children have been vaccinated. (There are religious exemptions available in Virginia, as there are in 48 out of 50 states; Emmett’s quote implies that some, but not all, of the school’s unvaccinated students obtained such an exemption.)

more
http://sethmnookin.com/2011/04/06/todays-lesson-alternative-virginia-school-closes-after-half-of-its-students-infected-with-pertussis-all-of-them-were-unvaccinated/

[phantom power]

1. Child abuse.

:(

[Voice for Peace]

7. wrong, it is not child abuse; it is tragedy.

When my children were babies there was a great deal of publicity about the potential dangers of the pertussis vaccine. I was personally acquainted with a woman whose child had suffered severe brain damage. My first child had the first shot, and had a negative response.

It was a difficult decision but ultimately I decided to forego the vaccinations; and all of my kids got whooping cough. We were quarantined for six weeks. Their only exposure had been to vaccinated children. I spent those quarantined weeks doing research.

Most people don't know that even a vaccinated child or adult can spread whooping cough. They can contract the illness -- but will have only a very mild, unrecognizable case - yet still can pass it on. In a vaccinated person, the distinct "whoop" won't show up; it generally appears as just a cold and persistent cough.

It doesn't get identified until it reaches an unvaccinated population, or an infant too young to be vaccinated. Please, don't make such judgements. The choices most parents make, even when misguided, are from love.

And if you have a baby, keep him or her away from sick people.

[laconicsax]

15. "I decided to forego the vaccinations; and all of my kids got whooping cough."

That's the most loving thing I've ever read. :puke:

[Voice for Peace]

16. would you prefer it said

"I chose to trust that the vaccines were harmless, despite my instincts and warnings of the time, and child's reaction to first shot; and all of my children got irreversible brain damage."

would that be more loving in your view?

[laconicsax]

17. You intentionally allowed your children to contract and spread a potentially fatal disease

Pertussis is highly contagious for as much as two weeks before the characteristic coughing begins. I'm sure the parents of any children who may have been exposed as a result of your 'personal' decision would thank you for loving their children too.

I'm not sure which is more disturbing...the fact that you regard intentionally allowing your children to contract a potentially fatal disease as a loving act, or the fact that you proudly allowed your family to become a public health risk.

[Voice for Peace]

19. You are judging me based on ignorance.

As soon as we suspected pertussis, we quarantined the whole family. The problem is ignorance.

[laconicsax]

21. Pertussis is contagious BEFORE characteristic symptoms begin.

Did you quarantine your whole family at the first runny nose?

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/signs-symptoms.html

I agree, the problem is ignorance.

[Voice for Peace]

22. Ignorance because people don't realize that pertussis is still around, all over the place

often spread by vaccinated kids but not being diagnosed - because the beneficial effects of the vaccine change the nature of the illness in young children.

People with young infants need to be better informed about this. A child too young to vaccinate is most vulnerable. If people knew the risk still exists, even with the herd immunity phenomenon, they might take better precautions with infants.

[Voice for Peace]

20. And.. I did not intentionally invite whooping cough; I made a choice to protect them

from what I had good reason to believe was a dangerous risk with the vaccine. Please open your mind and don't be so harsh with your judgement.

[laconicsax]

23. You intentionally allowed your children to contract and spread a potentially fatal disease

Your decision put the following people at risk:

-Everyone your children came in contact with prior to quarantine.
-Everyone YOU came in contact with prior to quarantine.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/causes-transmission.html

Pertussis is a very contagious disease only found in humans and is spread from person to person. People with pertussis usually spread the disease by coughing or sneezing while in close contact with others, who then breathe in the pertussis bacteria. Many infants who get pertussis are infected by older siblings, parents or caregivers who might not even know they have the disease (Bisgard, 2004 & Wendelboe, 2007). http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/signs-symptoms.html">Symptoms of pertussis usually develop within 7 – 10 days after being exposed, but sometimes not for as long as 6 weeks.

What about those symptoms?
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/signs-symptoms.html

Because pertussis in its early stages appears to be nothing more than the common cold, it is often not suspected or diagnosed until the more severe symptoms appear. Infected people are most contagious during this time, up to about 2 weeks after the cough begins. Antibiotics may shorten the amount of time someone is contagious.

[Voice for Peace]

26. I'm done with this debate for you seem intent only on proving that I'm a bad parent

but missing the main point -- which is that pertussis can spread to an infant from a vaccinated child, and people ought to be more informed in order to protect them.

Furthermore the effectiveness of the vaccine is in question, and there is some evidence that the pertussis bacteria has mutated. In a recent out break in California (last year) nearly two out of three who contracted pertussis were fully vaccinated.

[laconicsax]

31. You're not a bad parent, just a parent who made a bad choice.

Look up herd immunity. Knowing what it is and how it works might help you from making a bad decision in the future.

Remember: vaccination isn't just about protecting ourselves, it's about protecting everyone.

[cleanhippie]

46. +1. Exactly.

[HuckleB]

72. +2

[trotsky]

25. Irreversible brain damage is also a side effect of pertussis itself.

As is death.

You are making this sound like you made the "reasonable" choice deciding not to vaccinate, when in reality you were just playing Russian roulette with a gun loaded with even more bullets.

[Voice for Peace]

27. I think the brain damage is rare and likely only in small infants

who are too young to be vaccinated anyway. I made a choice that was the best I could make at the time. Please remember I had an acquaintance with a brain-damaged child, and that my first child had a severe reaction to the first shot. It was not an easy decision; please don't rewrite history according to your prejudice.

Be aware that pertussis is still around, all over the place. That even vaccinated children can contract it and spread it. If you have an infant, or know someone who does, advise them to avoid contact with people who have sniffles and coughs. There is some evidence that the pertussis bacteria has mutated, and the efficacy of the vaccine is in question. Recent outbreak last year in CA, high percentage of pertussis cases was in fully vaccinated people.

[trotsky]

28. "please don't rewrite history according to your prejudice"

You too.

"There is some evidence that the pertussis bacteria has mutated, and the efficacy of the vaccine is in question."

Please see my post later in this thread pointing out why you are misunderstanding how the vaccine works.

[Voice for Peace]

30. Should have said "please don't re-write my personal history" nt

[trotsky]

34. And what I said still holds. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

48. People can get irreversible brain damage from catching pertussis.

I know someone who is physically disabled for just that reason.

The disease is much more dangerous than the vaccine, especially the current vaccine. The vaccine that was used in the past was much more likely to elicit bad reactions than the current one, which is very safe.

[cleanhippie]

45. You chose to put your children at a KNOWN risk?

And they ALL got Whooping cough?

Shame.

[Orrex]

2. How could Jenny McCarthy have been so wrong?

HOW?!?

[Deep13]

5. Seems hard to believe. nt

[jberryhill]

3. Freaking idiots and their voodoo /nt

[Deep13]

4. Basic vaccines should be free and mandatory. nt

[vim876]

9. No they shouldn't.

These vaccines have been around for years with few cases of serious side effects. However, when you start making "basic" vaccines mandatory, Big Pharma is going to come up with a bunch of new "basic" vaccines that may or may not be safe. Anyway, the definition of "basic" vaccines can shift a lot in a short time. I was born in 1985, my brother in 1988, my sister in 1990. Looking at the vaccination schedules, I had far fewer vaccines, more spread out, than either of them. What diseases have we eradicated since then? I think SOME (obviously, pertussis is not among these) vaccines are unnecessary, and it's a slippery slope between legally requiring that people take one medical procedure, and legally requiring others. In a free society, citizens have bodily autonomy. This does not exclude stupid citizens.

[Deep13]

10. A person has every right to subject himself to the risk infectious diseases.

One has no right to subject others to that risk. Likewise, I submit that a parent has no right to subject his or her children to that risk because of some crazy "big pharma" conspiracy theory. As far as I can see, it is no different than letting a kid suffer or die because the parents believe in healing through prayer rather than medicine.

[Voice for Peace]

13. I submit that a parent has the responsibility to make the best informed choice for the child

Do you know that an infant can contract pertussis from a vaccinated person?

[laconicsax]

14. Vaccination affects others.

A parent who refuses to vaccinate their child not only isn't making a good, informed decision for their own child's health, but the health of those around them.

Vaccines aren't 100% effective, and not everyone can be vaccinated in the first place due to certain health conditions or age. Limiting the avenues of entry to a pathogen protects those who can't be vaccinated and those for whom vaccination is ineffective.

It's called herd immunity.

[Voice for Peace]

18. Fully vaccinated children can still contract the illness and spread it.

The problem is that it doesn't get diagnosed as pertussis,because the symptoms in a vaccinated child are generally much milder, and the identifying "whoop" doesn't develop. They are still contagious for the first couple of weeks, but will appear only to have a persistent cold & cough. You can research this if you don't believe me.

The main risk is to children who are not old enough to be vaccinated.

If pertussis is suspected or confirmed, quarantine prevents the spread. When it's not even suspected -- kids go to school.

[laconicsax]

24. You still haven't answered when you quarantined your family.

Was it at the first runny nose or mild cough, when the disease is at its most contagious?

[LeftishBrit]

66. They can; but it's much less likely than if they haven't been vaccinated.

You seem to be implying that if you must get whooping-cough, it's better to get it badly because then you're less likely to go out and expose others! Well, there may be some truth in this, as with any illness; but in fact whooping cough, mild or severe, is usually not diagnosed as such (except in a real epidemic where everyone's looking out for it) until after its initial and most infectious stage. It tends to be hard at first to distinguish from any other respiratory infection; by the time the 'whoop' starts, you have probably been infectious for some time.

Young babies should indeed be kept away from anyone with an obvious cold or cough of any sort- there are other infections besides whooping cough that are much more dangerous to babies with their immature lungs than to older children or adults. But if most people are vaccinated against whooping cough, then there is *less* chance of a baby coming across it.

[Deep13]

49. No, I don't know that.

I agree with parental discretion when there is no clear right answer and when the consequences of choosing a less than perfect solution are not dire. In a situation where there are clearly right and wrong decisions and where parents often choose wrong, then I reject the idea that a parent has the right to impose a life-threatening risk. Children are not the property of their parents and as in the case of mandatory education and child labor restrictions, the parents should not have the right to do something stupid with their children's safety or with the safety of anyone their little germ carriers might contact.

[cleanhippie]

47. Ahhhh, Big Pharma! Ahhhhhhh!

:puke:

[madrchsod]

6. whooping cough is also deadly to the older populations

the vaccine for whooping cough diminishes over the years

[kestrel91316]

8. I caught a horrible respiratory thing with the worst cough of my life several years ago,

presumably from one of the many sick little human vermin that make my way through my practice with Mommy when they are home sick and it's time for kitty's shots.

I coughed for WEEKS, and likely cracked a rib. Thought I was gonna cough my lungs out.

Had no idea adults could get whooping cough, but I suspect that is what I had.

[Voice for Peace]

11. yes it's likely, and moreover you were probably contagious for the first couple of weeks.

Vaccinated persons can still contract the illness and can pass it on to others.

It doesn't get identified until it reaches an unvaccinated population or a baby too young for the vaccine. Those are the most vulnerable and when there are deaths from pertussis it's usually babies in the first few months of life.

It's a rough illness but an otherwise healthy child can weather it with no lasting effects. Infants - not so easily.

[trotsky]

12. That's because the vaccine doesn't provide protection against the germs that cause pertussis...

it primes the immune system to eliminate the TOXIN that the bacteria make, which is the actual cause of whooping cough. Our systems will fight off the bacteria just fine in most cases, it's that toxin which is so nasty. Higher vaccination rates and regular boosters are the best approach.

[Voice for Peace]

29. I think the vaccine primes the body to fight off the bacteria.

The more bacteria present, the more toxins generated. If you can treat w/antibiotics in the first week or so, the worst of it is avoided.

Back in the day, the doctors we saw were completely unfamiliar with whooping cough and therefore did not recognize the illness in my kids. The tests for pertussis were not reliable, apparently, because we got negative results. It was only when my youngest became ill that another doctor, who had worked in peace corps and seen a lot of it, recognized the illness. The youngest was the only who developed the whoop. Later the tests started coming back positive.

I had been reading about whooping cough and had a suspicion that's what it was. So we quarantined, even though the medical experts were sure it was only the flu.

Hopefully now more doctors are getting informed. Everyone thought pertussis had disappeared. People blame its reappearance on people who choose not to vaccinate but this doesn't hold water imo; it has never gone away.

It's only that it's easier to identify when there is a serious case, as with an unvaccinated child or infant. The early tests are not reliable, at least twenty years ago they weren't.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

32. Let's play the hypothetical game

Let's say now, in the year 2011, you had 3 children under the age of 5. Would you vaccinate them against Pertussis? Why or why not?

[Voice for Peace]

33. I don't want to continue the discussion in this public forum

or debate my views on vaccines and health/medicine here on DU - every time I do, there are responses from people who seem interested mostly in being right, or making rude accusations. It's usually a fruitless debate, time consuming and exhausting.

If you're posing the question because you sincerely want my perspective, please know I'm happy to communicate with you via private message -- feel free to message me, and please tell me why you're asking.

[laconicsax]

35. So you put yourself in a public forum, then run away when you find that people disagree with you.

What did you expect people to do when you come in, proudly announce that you refused to vaccinate your children against a highly contagious, potentially fatal disease, and subsequently had to quarantine your entire family because said children contracted the very same highly contagious, potentially fatal disease?

Were we supposed to throw you a ticker-tape parade? Congratulate you on not losing any children to the disease? Praise you for endangering your children and others?

Honestly, what did you expect?

[Voice for Peace]

36. I confess that I do hope for humane communication here on DU - where people actually

try to understand one another, and learn, rather than judge and accuse.

Do you think that your mode of communicating with me is helping me understand your point of view? Or to change my own?

[laconicsax]

37. You proudly admitted to putting your children at risk of contracting a potentially fatal disease.

Pertussis can be fatal in children. By not vaccinating them you were intentionally gambling with their lives.

Why on Earth should I tiptoe around such flagrant disregard for the health and well-being of not only your own children, but for everyone around you? You understand the contagiousness of pertussis, yet you refuse to acknowledge that your "personal choice" increased the chances that everyone who came in contact with your family would catch a serious disease.

So go ahead and play tone police to your heart's content. Maybe someone else will think of a beautifully polite way of telling you just how reckless your decision was.

[Voice for Peace]

38. some questions for you:

Do you get vaccinated for influenza every year?

Do you have children?

Have you any first-hand experience of whooping cough?

[laconicsax]

41. Yes, no, yes. n/t

[Voice for Peace]

39. also

why are you bothering to communicate with me?
Do you wish me to understand something you believe I am ignorant of? If so, tone does matter.

What are you trying to accomplish with this exchange?

[laconicsax]

42. It's a public forum, read my posts, do I need to be trying to accomplish something? n/t

[Voice for Peace]

40. and

do you think there is any value or purpose in trying to understand another person's perspective, even if you disagree with them?

[laconicsax]

43. Of course there is. Your mistake is assuming that I don't understand your perspective. n/t

[Voice for Peace]

44. clearly you don't; but let's put this to rest.

[laconicsax]

50. What rich irony! n/t

[Voice for Peace]

52. good grief.

[HuckleB]

51. What you're missing is that this is not about beliefs.

"Instead of encouraging children and adults to get vaccinated, Shelly Emmett, the school’s director, said, “We’re not taking one stance over another…but we’re setting up guidelines.”

“But she should be taking one stance over another,” says ACSH’s Dr. Josh Bloom. “That is her job. That irresponsible cop-out serves only to convey the false message that all opinions should be equally considered and respected, as if this were a discussion on poetry. It’s not. This kind of feel-good gibberish ended up giving 30 people a serious illness that was easily preventable. Perhaps the parents ought to reconsider their ill-conceived beliefs and give this incident some rational thought.”

From:

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.2516/news_detail.asp

It's time to stop pretending that believing in something that has no evidence to back it up can lead to a constructive discussion. As long as you continue to do that, it's impossible for true discussion to occur.

This wonderful piece explains it at length: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11926

[Voice for Peace]

53. not sure how this is relevant to me but respect where you're coming from.

"It's time to stop pretending that believing in something that has no evidence to back it up can lead to a constructive discussion. As long as you continue to do that, it's impossible for true discussion to occur."

I'm not pretending anything, or believing in anything.

My primary intention in this discussion was to make the point that even fully vaccinated children can contract pertussis & pass the illness to an infant.

People need to be more informed in that regard, whether they are for or against immunizations. 25 years ago there was complacency and much misinformation about pertussis, even in the medical community. Few could even recognize the illness. This is still true to some extent.

A person may have a newborn infant and school-age children who are fully immunized. The older children catch something at school -- seems to be a cold and mild cough. Before the infant is even old enough to be immunized, he can catch pertussis from a sibling. Whooping cough won't even be suspected until it's too late to treat.

[HuckleB]

55. Everyone I know who gets vaccinated (and vaccinates their kids) are well aware of that.

That's part of the reason we're not too fond of those who don't vaccinate. On the other hand, a huge proportion of those who refuse to vaccinate do not understand that.

This, of course, is not an excuse to refrain from vaccination.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

54. I'm sincerely interested in finding out if

your views of vaccines, their safety and efficacy, and your opinion of their methods have changed since your children were young.

I'll have this conversation with you civilly - use the DU ignore feature if you want to keep others out of it. I just think it's important that the debate on this does take place in public, and I'm honestly interested in where you now stand on the issue.

[Voice for Peace]

56. ok

I am undecided. I'm not informed enough to know what I would choose today. All of my kids are now healthy adults, not prone to sickness. I have a huge mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry and their standards of honesty. IMO they are using the human race as a bunch of guinea pigs, for profit. I know there is some good, and good people - but this is a generalization of my feeling.

My pediatrician, the one who ultimately treated my youngest when she was sick, changed her stand on immunization once she saw an actual case of whooping cough -- decided to take only patients would would permit immunization.

I've dealt with both good doctors and bad doctors. Bad doctors who do harm and give bad advice, though they mean to help. Good doctors who do help, and who know how to listen.

The most important thing in my opinion -- no matter what a person's choices in medicine may be -- is to live in such a way that strengthens the natural immune system - diet, vitamins, attitudes.

Pleasure, joy, compassion, kindness, fun are good for the body's immune system.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

57. I appreciate your response

Understand that those pharmaceutical companies that you distrust so much are filled with good people who work hard every day to research, develop, test and deploy drug regimens that save lives. It's true that they're doing it for a company that is profit driven and beholden to shareholders. But just because it's profit driven doesn't mean that there aren't really, really good, life-saving drugs and procedures being developed by these companies and the people that work at them. I agree with you that our lives and health shouldn't be managed by a profit-driven organization, but that's a conversation for another day, and isn't germane to our discussion of vaccinations.

Now to the part where we probably don't agree. I sense a sort of reticence on your part towards immunizations, that you feel more strongly about "natural" methods of strengthening the immune system (I put the quotes around "natural" because I don't agree that diets and vitamins are necessarily "natural). By all means, continue with those methods - live happy, be kind and enjoy life. There are even studies that show that happier people tend to be slightly more healthy than unhappy individuals.

But the system isn't an either/or proposition. You can immunize your children with highly proven, safe and effective vaccines while at the same time applying your natural methods.

Pleasure, joy, compassion, kindness, fun are good for the body's immune system.

Here's where I strongly disagree with you. While being happy can improve health, it does nothing to fight the ravages of Pertussis or the Measles or Bubonic Plague or any of a huge list of dangerous and potentially fatal diseases that are effectively controlled with immunization. The less people immunize, the greater the chance of a death occurring. Often those deaths strike young babies who are not yet old enough to receive vaccinations. Or children with compromised immune systems that are exposed to an unvaccinated classmate. While the Herd Immunity theory is brought up a lot here in the Health forum, it's a real and highly studied phenomenon with scientific backing. The concept of herd immunity through wide spread vaccination programs has saved millions of lives and increased the standard of living for others.

While I believe your intentions are good and your heart is in the right place, it would be a bad decision to not immunize a child in this day in age where there's so much science to back it up.

[Voice for Peace]

58. As I said, I am unsure, and could not advise another person what to do.

On both sides, since the events years ago, I have had a great deal of input from others.

The human gut I think has been so devalued; but it is a built-in warning system for the human machine. When consulting the science, I must also consult my gut, it conveys information.

A favorite tale: during the bubonic plague in Europe, there was a factory of people who processed medicinal herbs; and none of them got sick. I love the medicinal herbs from nature. It is said that in the wild, you often find that where a poisonous plant grows, the antidote grows right next to it.

If a child is otherwise healthy and happy, when illness strikes he/she will have a much better ability to fight it off. I don't know enough about all the newest vaccines, and luckily I don't have to make that decision again.

I think I need to understand more about herd immunity and will make an effort to do that. At the same time I would encourage my kids to look closely at the ingredients and source of vaccines before giving to their children.

Please remember, in understanding where I'm coming from -- one of my main sources of information at that time was from a woman whose child had been brain damaged; and my first child had a negative reaction to the first dpt shot. I didn't make the decision lightly as some have implied, nor do I brag about it or tell others what to do.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

59. On the human gut

I think this is an area where you and I are completely different. Rather than consulting my gut reaction and basing a decision on instinct, I tend to look at the evidence. I just don't trust my instincts - they're wrong too often, and I've found that they don't generally lead me to make the most correct decisions. Following instinct is a tough tendency to overcome, even for a hardened skeptic like myself. Millenia ago, when our ancestors required some of those acute instincts to stay alive, the process was helpful - in modern times, not as much.

As an example, think about the fear of darkness. It exists, normally and naturally, in many children and even in some adults. It IS a real fear, even though the darkness of one's own bedroom is often an incredibly safe place to be. But we as humans still have that genetic tendency to fear the dark, even though it is less useful now than it was when our distant ancestors had the very real threat of being attacked, killed and eaten by a predator.

Fast forward several tens of thousands of years, and look at the fears that are still existent in humans that are a genetic relic of our past. The fear of vaccines I sense in you is a very similar situation. It's the dreaded "unknown", and it's a very real fear, just as a person's fear of the dark is real to them. I guess what I'm saying is that your reticence is real; the fear, to you, is real. Combine that with anecdotal evidence from your friend who had the child with brain damage and your own child's reaction to a vaccine. Those experiences created a confirmation bias in you, which in turn increases your own reticence, adding to the underlying fear.

If a child is otherwise healthy and happy, when illness strikes he/she will have a much better ability to fight it off.

I don't think that's true at all (the part about happy children healing more quickly). I've never seen scientific evidence to back it up and while it may be true that happier people are healthier people, and that healthier people tend to heal faster, the argument can't be extended to say "happier people have a much better ability to heal from illness." There are just too many tenuous correlations between too many inter-connected variables effecting a huge diversity of humanity to really make that statement without some serious science to back it up.

I can't force you to trust in the science because it's obvious that you have a certain level of distrust of science. I'm just a random dude on the internet. :)

But, I hope that if you were faced with having to provide advice to someone about immunization, that you would do so armed with the best knowledge out there, and try to put aside your own experiences when making a recommendation. It could save a life.

[Voice for Peace]

60. well as I said I'm not going to tell somebody else what to do unless it's to research

and make the best decision they can.

Keep in mind that I didn't come to this as an anti-vaccination person. My daughter went and had her first dpt shot; her reaction was alarming. My choices followed from there.

[Voice for Peace]

61. also, I firmly believe that gut and science work well together.

There is good science out there, a lot of it, wonderful science.

There is also bad science, and dishonest practitioners or experts.
My gut helps me discern which I trust and which I don't.

It's not one or the other, but both working together. A
beautiful system, really.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

62. Just curious

What do you consider bad science? Could you give me a specific example and how you used your gut instinct to decipher between bad science and good science? I'm truly interested in knowing - it's fascinating to me.

Science itself can't be bad - it's either correct or it's not correct. Science uses very specific processes to weed out the correct from the incorrect. And if something that was once that to be correct is found to be not so, science corrects itself.* Does your gut do the same thing?

* this is a gross oversimplification of the scientific method, but I think it's adequate for this discussion.

[Voice for Peace]

63. Science itself is not bad, but how it's used sometimes

I should say misused.

An obvious example is the so-called science of climate change denial, or the questionable science of nuclear energy. I think you know what I'm talking about.

Many personal experiences where I was given bad information or advice from medical practitioners supposedly based on science & testing. Getting bad advice from people I thought I could trust taught me to pay more attention to my own gut, and be more informed on my own.

I think even great scientists know the role of the gut, the hunch, the intuition. Something makes sense or doesn't make sense to them, and they set about to prove it.

In many cases the 'bad' science is touted as correct -- it's science! -- before it's discovered to be wrong; but before it's corrected, has ample opportunity to do harm.

My gut is very simple, gives me either a clear yes or no, or a 'not sure, need more information.'

[trotsky]

64. Has your gut ever been wrong? n/t

[Voice for Peace]

65. fruitless loop alert

[trotsky]

67. It was just a simple question.

I understand if you don't want to answer it.

[Voice for Peace]

70. ok the simple answer is no.

[laconicsax]

71. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger

[EvolveOrConvolve]

68. Let's go down that road a bit

I agree with you that science is sometimes misused, often because of underlying agendas that need skewed results as a way to legitimize them. Homeopathy is a good example - it may not, on the surface, do much harm. But, ignoring life-saving techniques for unproven medical procedures or medicines is secondarily harmful.

There's nothing wrong with using your gut instinct to alert you to potentially incorrect ideas. But you should use that instinct to further research the idea carefully, using sources that provide real information backed up by good science. And, as hard as it may be, when doing research you have to remove emotion from the equation. Try to be as neutral as possible, and remember that Occam's Razor is a valuable tool to use when analyzing competing and/or contradictory evidentiary material.

And this brings us full circle to the question of vaccines. Your child had a negative experience with a vaccine. A friend's child had a negative experience with a vaccine. You are legitimately ambivalent. But is that enough evidence to cause you to hesitate on the question of "should my {hypothetical} child get this vaccine"? Your legitimate ambivalence and experiential evidence is screaming "Don't do it", even while the science has mountains of research that backs up the vaccine's safety.

One of our greatest weakness as humans is that we let emotional context override common sense - it's another of those survival mechanism relics from our genetic past. I'm no different, even though I consider myself a serious skeptic. I coach youth football, and I've been wearing the same shirt on game days for many years. Even though it's tattered and worn, and I don't look so great in it any more, I continue to wear it. Why? Because my first win as a coach came in that shirt, and it fits within my game day comfort zone. Is it logical? No. But it makes sense to me, even though thinking about it makes me feel stupid.

Regarding vaccines and safety, science tells us that no vaccine is 100% safe. Making that claim would be irresponsible since it's impossible to analyze every potential variable in the human system. And I believe science when it tells me that a vaccine could cause harm to me or my child. I know the risks, and yet I take them. Why? Because I know that the benefits far outweigh the risks. My child's chance of dying or being seriously harmed from a disease is far greater than that of dying or being harmed by the vaccine itself.

I have one friend whose child had a serious reaction to a vaccine. You have also personally experienced negative results from vaccines. Why, then, are our points of view so far apart? Is it our methods of analysis? If so, what do you think is flawed in my thinking that would allow me to continue with vaccinations that may be harmful? Or, is there a flaw in your own method of reasoning?

[Voice for Peace]

69. I'm sure my reasoning is full of flaws.

In general I trust the information that comes from feeling over what comes from logic, or from others.

I'm not talking about emotion. Emotions are something that we feel, so we call them "feelings". They are changeable, whimsical, and nouns.

This is a verb: to feel. Something the human being is designed to do, from birth until death. But most people have forgotten how.

It's as essential now as it was in the days of our cave-dwelling ancestors. It's about survival, clarity, peace & prosperity.

In order to feel happy, survive & thrive, we need to know how to feel. For me this is a personal priority.

There is a brilliance innate to the human machine. It informs us through feeling, more than through intellect. You may not agree with the validity of what I say -- But I surely don't want a debate.

Thanks very much for your respectful communications, and I wish you the best.