U.S. measles cases in 2013 may be most in 17 years | Hacker News Reader

U.S. measles cases in 2013 may be most in 17 years

cnn.com

43 pointstcoppi53 comments

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08... .. 31 kids could've died because 1 religious zealot refused vaccinations.

For fuck's sake, get your vaccinations, and while I'm ranting stop drinking un-Pasteurized milk from dirt hippy stores illegally too. There is no elaborate conspiracy to keep nature down, it's to protect you from Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria

While Vaccinations are certainly something you should get, let's not go down the slippery slope where we blindly consume physically refined food.

Don't let big pharma abuse your trust of actually necessary vaccines

The big difference is that a consenting adult can drink raw milk and endanger himself without harming anybody else, while anti-vaccination nutjob parents endanger both their own offspring and everybody else's. (Feeding raw milk to your kids is halfway in between; at least it's not contagious.)

True, but they arrested plenty of conmen peddling raw milk as safe to the same religoius communities that don't get vaccinated. It wasn't until an outbreak of E coli that killed a kid that they discovered a vast network of raw milk stores run by foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorists and neo hippies.

Diptheria also made a comeback, something even more terrifying than measles. What's wrong with people, damnit stop listening to Jenny McCarthy

We live in a crazy world where it is a federal crime to transport raw milk across state lines, yet cigarettes you can get at any corner shop kill 500,000 people every year, 50,000 of them from secondhand smoke. But yes, protect us all from the evil raw dairy.

When raw milk sellers list the potential of disease risk their product carries on their packaging, I'll consider them equivalent.

Oh, and any claims that raw milk is better for you must be backed up with real studies or else it's fraud. Agreed?

I don't think the government can tell me not to drink raw dairy if I so choose. The only reason they raid raw dairies is because they don't want the masses realizing raw milk is safe to consume. Because if consumers start demanding it - the dirty and contaminated industrialized milk factories that get away with it by pasteurizing their milk will be out of business.

If the government really wanted to make sure you are healthy and alive - they would go after real threats. Alcohol, for example. Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every DAY. 200 kids die every year because a drunk driver killed them.

That's why I hate when people say "oh, get vaccinated to protect the babies who can god forbid contract your disease". What about my own kids who are at the hands of drunk drivers every day on the way back from school? Or when my next-door neighbor smokes outside when they're out playing? FDA and CDC go after raw milk to create the illusion that they're concerned about your health. In reality, it's a protection racket. You are much better off consuming raw dairy from a local farmer you trust and can visit in person than trusting some white liquid that's undergone numerous alterations and comes from sick cows.

"If the government really wanted to make sure you are healthy and alive - they would go after real threats" "Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every DAY. 200 kids die every year because a drunk driver killed them."

Drunk driving is illegal in most places. People do get arrested and loose their license for it, get a record, and go to prison.

Exactly right. The drunk drivers get punished, not the wine makers or convenience store seller.

But when a person becomes sick after buying raw milk - a SWAT team is sent to raid the local dairy that sold the milk.

However, the same is not done when a person becomes sick from eating contaminated meat that came from a factory farm. Why? Because there's no raw dairy lobby in Washington.

Pasteurization of dairy is of course necessary when the cows are raised in the terrible conditions that they are in most farms today and fed the soy and corn that makes them physically sick. When we used to get our raw milk it was from a local farm we could visit on weekends with our kids, and it was the product of healthy cows who did not have the need to be injected with hormones and antibiotics, who grazed on grass when not milked (by hand) and did not spend their time living on top of their own manure.

Industrialized edible product creation is largely a sick, perverted, disgusting process and it is supported by huge corporate financial interests.

Selling raw milk should not be criminal.

Those are two separate issues and trying to argue for one by pointing out the other isn't really effective.

I don't think a simple claim that can be shown to be false qualifies as fraud. If evidence was doctored to back up the claim that might qualify, but otherwise it's just be an opinion. It's up to you to believe it or do your own research. Which from what I've seen, does put raw milk in pretty decent standing.

> I don't think a simple claim that can be shown to be false qualifies as fraud.

Then what does? If they're using claims they can't back up, or that they know are false, to sell their product, that's pretty clear-cut fraud to me.

> If evidence was doctored to back up the claim that might qualify, but otherwise it's just be an opinion.

Well, you have a much different standard for fraud than I do. I think my standard is more useful for preventing harm and sending scammers to prison, however, so I'll stick with it.

"Then what does? If they're using claims they can't back up, or that they know are false, to sell their product, that's pretty clear-cut fraud to me."

Why do you think they know the claims are false? Do you even know the claims are false? It doesn't seem so clear to me based on a quick bit of searching. They don't have to back anything up, they only have to reasonably believe it to be true.

"I think my standard is more useful for preventing harm and sending scammers to prison, however, so I'll stick with it."

Your standard would prevent harm. It would also render a large fraction of all advertising illegal. Fortunately we don't go around sending everybody to prison just because their company included some questionable claims in their marketing.

> Why do you think they know the claims are false?

It's just as bad if they don't know the claims are true. Bullshitting when someone's health is on the line is simply sociopathic.

> It would also render a large fraction of all advertising illegal.

Not all advertising. Just advertising connected to things that are claimed to be healthier, make you healthier, or prevent or treat disease.

So... were you going to make an argument as to why it shouldn't be a crime to transport raw milk? Or is it just this irrelevant non sequitur? For all we know, dobbsbob also supports banning cigarettes AND raw milk.

My point was that some people don't have a sense for proportions. I don't vaccinate my own kids. However, in the grand scheme of things, I think that most parents who vaccinate do more harm and put more people at risk, including their own, than my wife and I.

My kids are breast-fed. That means they have a stronger immune system and spread less disease. Kids who are fed formula contract more diseases and are therefore putting infants at risk of developing complications of flu, for example.

We don't drink. Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every day in the US. More than 10,000 people die every year because alcohol is legal.

I don't smoke. Cigarettes kill 450,000 smokers. As an added bonus, thanks to tobacco being legal and easily accessible, 50,000 people die just because of secondhand smoke exposure.

My wife doesn't smoke either. 2,000 babies die from SIDS in the US every year. Maternal smoking is the strongest risk factor leading to SIDS. Again, thank the tobacco companies.

My kids don't eat junk. They know not to touch soft drinks. Parents fill up their shopping carts with nasty candy and Coca Cola and so 17% of children and adolescents in the US are now obese. Oh, but wait, they vaccinated. Very responsible parents. Thousands of children die every year from obesity-related complications, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. But hey, at least they didn't have polio.

Measles is a concern because 50 kids had to be hospitalized last year for treatment? Big fucking deal. Really, big fucking deal. 150,000 and 300,000 annual cases of lower respiratory tract infections in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. Between 7,500 and 15,000 result in hospitalization . Some of them die. Far more damage just from this societal fuckup of legalizing tobacco than any anti-vac parents will ever do.

I really respect and enjoy what folks on HackerNews have to say and this place is filled with very smart people. But when it comes to vaccines, personal health, pharmaceuticals and mega-corp-funded so-called science submissions here, I wonder what it is about tech folks that make them so brain washed.

So, the crux of your argument is, "You can't criticize me for not vaccinating my kids because other bad things happen that may or may not get the same amount of attention."

Also, you say this:

> I wonder what it is about tech folks that make them so brain washed.

But earlier you said this:

> My kids are breast-fed. That means they have a stronger immune system and spread less disease. Kids who are fed formula contract more diseases and are therefore putting infants at risk of developing complications of flu, for example.

Do you have a citation for any of this?

> Thousands of children die every year from obesity-related complications, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

How many children die from heart disease caused by obesity? How many cases of childhood cancer are linked to obesity?

I'm saying that people on HN are quick to judge parents who don't vaccinate as if it's about to bring armageddon. Meanwhile, they themselves contribute to more harm to themselves as well as their kids and other people's kids. I have many friends and acquaintances who criticize me on a regular basis for not vaccinating (I only admit to it or even bring up the topic when asked directly), yet see no problem in giving their 5-year-old kids soft drinks or smoking while strolling their baby, or giving their kids Tylenol at the first mention of them not feeling well, etc. In fact, it's taboo to even question their parenting style, yet they have no problems telling me I'm evil.

"There are many ways that breastfeeding and breast milk protect babies’ health. Flu can be very serious in young babies. Babies who are not breast fed get sick from infections like the flu more often and more severely than babies who are breast fed." - http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/infantfeeding.htm

As for the stats for obesity-related deaths, best I could find right now is this article includes some useful stats and citations from the CDC: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/may/31/rob-e...

I think people on HN are quick to judge because we happen to be technically/scientifically inclined, and not vaccinating your kids and discounting a hundred years of scientific research by people who've gotten degrees and dedicated their lives to the subject, just because you read some articles on the Internet is the problem.

> I have many friends and acquaintances who criticize me on a regular basis for not vaccinating (I only admit to it or even bring up the topic when asked directly), yet see no problem in giving their 5-year-old kids soft drinks or smoking while strolling their baby, or giving their kids Tylenol at the first mention of them not feeling well, etc.

None of those things are infectious. At least those harmful things come with a benefit. Choosing to not vaccinate your children doesn't even come with a benefit.

> "There are many ways that breastfeeding and breast milk protect babies’ health. Flu can be very serious in young babies. Babies who are not breast fed get sick from infections like the flu more often and more severely than babies who are breast fed." - http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/infantfeeding.htm

Talking about "babies" here is too generic. Babies get antibodies from breast milk for maybe the first 4 ~ 5 months, but they don't after that, which is when talk of vaccines start.

I have the same type of tendency to make hype sanity checks. I like to go to traffic deaths. Around 35,000 per year in the US. So that sets the bar for what we are willing to accept. Measles seriously affects 1500 people per year. It really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

But just because some things are worse than others doesn't mean we should ignore the lesser threats. We should do what we can for all threats.

Also, if my kid dies of measles it isn't going to matter that cigarettes and alcohol or anything else is worse for society. Or that my own neglect through diet had set the child on the path to obesity. What's going to matter is that your kid brought measles into the school and caused my kid to die mere days later. That then translates into you having killed my kid because you think you're better than everyone else. It's not a good situation. It'll go over just as well as if you had killed my kid because you drank irresponsibly.

What've you got against natural selection?!

> 31 kids could've died because 1 religious zealot refused vaccinations.

What about the 30 million people who have died of the AIDS epidemic, which is thought to have been started because of government vaccination programs?[1]

Similarly, what about the fact that the US government has been repeatedly caught giving out fake vaccinations?[2] Or the fact that the safety standards for medicine in the US are generally abysmal?[3]

All in all I think getting vaccinated is generally a good bet, but the idea that there are no rational arguments against vaccination is completely disingenuous.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccin...

[3] http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/...

Well sure there are some concerns that might be rational causes for concern, but to come to the conclusion that the pros of vaccination are exceeded by the cons is not anywhere close to rational.

Reading the Wikipedia article you cite for [1]:

1. That is hardly consensus theory: it is one hypothesis postulated by a small group of scientists, which is somewhat plausible but is very far from having a compelling body of evidence in support of it.

2. The theory is that vaccinations in the 19th century may have caused HIV due to unsterile injections given to many natives. Vaccination practice in the 21st century is much different from vaccination practice in the 19th century, and unsterile injections will cause all sorts of other problems.

Regarding point 1, I haven't read the book(s) so I can't speak to the extent of the evidence. It seems to be the primary theory at this point though; most of the alternative theories are just different variations on the vaccine theme, e.g. the version proposed by the book Down The River.

Regarding point 2, the lesson to be learned I think is that with vaccines there is a relatively large chance of black swan type issues coming up. And even if there were a way to catch these sorts of problems, the medical system isn't designed to even look for them.

You aren't talking about vaccines, you are talking about non-sterile vaccination practices in Africa in the early 20th century.

There are no longer any rational arguments against the most common vaccines.

You are being a drama queen. Stop it.

And the issue of pasteurized milk is certainly a red herring in this case, and just makes you look as kooky as those you deride.

It seems difficult to fight this directly -- prosecuting anti-vaccinators would be viewed by supporters as persecution, and might actually make them more reluctant to vaccinate.

Publicizing deaths due to lack of vaccination can work, but that lags -- by the time enough of the population is unvaccinated for the disease to spread and kill babies, it's too late.

I'm in favor of quarantining Napa/Marin and certain LA suburbs, since that seems to be ground zero, at least in California, for this insanity.

Andrew Wakefield should have been forced to personally meet every parent of a measles-infected baby as part of his punishment for fraud.

I've been thinking we should treat it as a free-rider problem. Given that eradicating diseases like this really comes down to herd-immunity, what we really have is free-riders unfairly benefitting from the slight risk that others are taking through a certain medical intervention.

What gives a certain person the right to benefit from everyone else's vaccinations while refusing to subject their own children to the minimal risk? We don't need to prove that vaccines are "safe", just safer than a frikken measles epidemic... and then tax the snot out of everyone who choses to forgo that risk and expense by pushing it off onto others. Internalize that external cost and I bet you'll see a whole lot of zealotry dry right up in the cold face of monetary reality.

I agree that if medical treatment for measles was put in a more punitive price range (depending on vaccination status, and economic background of course), I could imagine a significant drop in people who choose not to vaccinate. Use that extra money to immunize people who actually want it, but can't pay for it. Use it for programs that teach about the dangers of letting your child go unvaccinated, both for them and for other children.

The problem is the kind of fucktards who don't get their child vaccinated might then delay or avoid treatment of their highly contagious child...

This is why this cost must be front-loaded. There should be a penalty paid when the vaccine is refused, much like the penalty we're contemplating now for people who refuse to enroll in the pending national health system. The logic would be the same. By refusing this preventative treatment, you're likely to incur a public cost in the future. We'd just like you to pay for that up front.

Maybe if people (physicians) can track down the patient zero child of a given outbreak, have downstream parents of affected children turn and sue the negligent parent(s) for tort, if it's proven they denied vaccination to their child(ren), then maybe this unfounded practice can be eradicated.

Would they actually have a case, or are you joking?

Just slightly more than wishful thinking. Some legal thinkers have posited that it's not that far-fetched of an idea, given that epidemiologists can track down a patient zero.[1,2]

[1]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

[2]http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine_dangers/lawsuits.htm...

To be honest, I think it's fine to let evolution take care of this. Deaths from measles are disproportionately the unvaccinated, which means that over time they will either die off or wise up. Yes, there's some collateral damage in the form of newborns or other people who can't be vaccinated - but newborns are at risk for a lot of other things as well, and once they get past the critical first year of life you can take care of this problem on a personal level by vaccinating your own kids.

You obviously don't have kids. Also, the article said 92% of those that got measles were unvaccinated, meaning 8% had been vaccinated. And it's not just newborns... 40% of kids under 5 who get measles need to be hospitalized.

Finally, it's not the kids that are choosing to be unvaccinated, it's their idiot parents. It's not fair to punish the kids for their parents' behavior. If it was the parents getting the measles, I'd be all for it.

Given that this is caused almost entirely by anti-vaccination hysteria, and that this in in turn caused mostly by a combination of ignorance and bizarre religious beliefs, it's hard to imagine an effective response. It's been said that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and that seems apt here. Perhaps an attempt to shame people by presenting the young, innocent victims is best (e.g. little 8-month old Suzy died because XYZ Church members refused to vaccinate their children).

...this in in turn caused mostly by a combination of ignorance and bizarre religious beliefs...

It's actually better/worse than that (depending on your perspective). People were mislead by a fraud. And not fraud with any kind of a noble purpose - it was for money.

Yeah - if it were just religious beliefs, those would be rare (although concentrated) enough to preserve herd immunity, I think. It's Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield who have turned this into a matter of national security.

In addition to the secular anti-vaccination folks like McCarthy, there is also significant evidence of religion-based anti-vaccination movements, most recently seen in the measles outbreak in Texas which was traced back to a megachurch[1].

[1] http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-...

Let me play devil's advocate here. The article says nothing about how many people died of measles, it just gave an estimate of how dangerous some doctors think measles is. Maybe none died and that's why they don't give a solid number? If so, the danger of measles was overstated in that estimate. Meanwhile, there's nothing in the article mentioning the danger of the vaccine, which nobody claims is nonzero. Maybe the vaccine's danger is 1 in a million. So with several million refusers 1 or 2 kids' lives were saved. At the expense of how many kids dying of measles? Zero? We need more information here.

All we really need to know is how dangerous measles was and then count the cost of losing our herd immunity. Vaccines are not 100% effective (on an individual basis). Vaccines are a group effort that greatly diminishes in effectiveness if a large majority doesn't participate.

Pre-vaccine, measles would kill or seriously mess up about 1500 people yearly in the U.S. I think the vaccination rate now is in the 70% range and deaths from vaccination are hard to find. So it seems like vaccination is a win there.

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html

On the other hand, 1500 serious cases out of 300+ million people every year is a pretty low percentage. Seems like the entire threat is highly overstated.

> 1500 serious cases out of 300+ million people every year is a pretty low percentage

You're using the number of cases then with the population now if I'm not mistaken.

I didn't realize it started in the 70s. Still, 1500 serious cases out of 200+ million is low.

That's not just pre vaccine, but pre modern medical techniques.

With modern medicine the death rate is at 0.3% (compared to 30% in the past).

It's the decade before the vaccination program began, which is the 70s. Even then, according to the link the death rate is not 30% or 0.3% but 0.0125% which really seems miniscule for such a huge program to be rolled out.

Just a week ago there was an outbrak of mumps in NJ: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/health/new-jersey-mumps-outbre...

If you only give your child one vaccine, make it the MMR. It's a lot safer that measles, mumps, or rubella.

It's interesting that the vast human intelligence that created all of these vaccines may be neutralized by vast human stupidity.

It seems like stupidity but I suspect its actually greed. If everyone else is vaccinated and there is zero latent disease in a given area, it makes sense personally not to get the vaccine. If there is indeed zero chance of contracting the disease, then any risk at all associated with the vaccine is unnecessary. Bonus points for crackpot beliefs causing misestimation of the actual risks, but the fundamental equation is unchanged.

Refuse to get vaccinated? Congrats, you're the betrayer in the prisoner's dilemma. Your train stops at the tragedy of the commons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com