Anti-vaccine lunatic proud to spread infection to unsuspecting children
That is a screen shot from a Facebook posting on July 14, 2012 where a mother describes how she took her child, infected with chickenpox (Varicella zoster), to a baseball game. And she bragged how she probably infected others (probably most were vaccinated, which indicates he level of understanding of immunizations). She was so proud of attempting to infect others with her son’s chickenpox that she had to tell everyone about it. The stupidity of her actions were beyond comprehension by me.
This woman, who arrogantly believes that she’s doing something great for mankind, put many people, especially children, at risk. Not that she’ll ever read this blog, or actually read any real information about chickenpox, but maybe she should know about the real complications of varicella:
- dehydration
- pneumonia
- bleeding problems
- infection or inflammation of the brain (encephalitis, cerebellar ataxia)
- bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissues in children including Group A streptococcal infections
- blood stream infections (sepsis)
- toxic shock syndrome
- bone infections
- joint infections
Some of these complications are so serious that the patient may require hospitalization and can lead to death. So this mother thinks she can risk people’s lives because of her deliberate intent to infect others? In any other context, this would be immoral, if not illegal.
To be fair, the probability is that most of the children or adults at the baseball game were probably immunized against chickenpox. But there are three groups are at high risk for complications to varicella infections:
- Immunocompromised individuals. As I discussed recently, individuals who have suppressed immune systems, usually from treatments for autoimmune diseases or cancers, are incredibly susceptible to varicella (and any other communicable disease, so it didn’t just have to be chickenpox). Immunocompromised persons who get varicella are at risk of developing varicella infections of internal organs which can lead to pneumonia, hepatitis, encephalitis, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (which is the formation of small clots throughout the body). They can have an atypical varicella rash with more lesions, and they can be sick longer than immunocompetent persons who get varicella.
- HIV-positive or AIDS individuals. Children with HIV infection tend to have atypical rash with new crops of lesions presenting for weeks or months after the initial infection. The lesions may initially be lesions that are typically seen with chickenpox, but can later develop into non-healing ulcers. Adults with HIV are generally already immune to varicella and are usually not at risk.
- Pregnant women. Pregnant women who contract varicella are at high risk for serious complications, including pneumonia, and may die as a result of varicella. If a pregnant woman gets varicella in her first or early second trimester, her fetus has a small risk (0.4 – 2.0 %) of being born with congenital varicella syndrome, which may include scarring on the skin, abnormalities in limbs, brain, and eyes, and low birth weight. If a woman develops varicella rash from 5 days before to 2 days after delivery, the newborn will be at risk for neonatal varicella. In the absence of treatment, up to 30% of these newborns may develop severe neonatal varicella infection.
So this mother didn’t think. She didn’t consider the awful consequences of her actions. She didn’t consider that there might be a pregnant mother in the crowd who was at risk. Or a young child who was being treated for a cancer and whose parents brought her out to watch a sibling play in a ball game. No, she didn’t think, because if she could think she would have had her child vaccinated and she wouldn’t have intentionally tried to harm her fellow humans.
This woman is an awful, horrible, immoral human being.
Vaccinations are GOOD, dregs! Get your kids their damn shots!
95% of American kids are vaccinated. We’re just trying to make sure that 99.9% are!
Although there is much to say about the benefits of vaccination programmes, the author of this site has apparently missed turning his or her rigorous attention to his/her own writings when trying to identify pseudoscience. The “facts” on this website on chicken pox (Varicella) vaccination are at least out of date. Researchers examining the “ecology” of disease are mindful of the way vaccination against one disease may sometimes affect susceptibility to others. This issue is hard to include in vaccination and immunisation studies. With chicken pox, it seems likely that adults exposed to youngsters with the illness have their own protection against shingles (a related illness) boosted, so that the more protection we give youngsters against chickenpox the less protection adults may have for shingles. The issue is not entirely solved but there’s a recent review here at the pubmed site – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22659447 – so there is good reason not to become quite as overconfident as this website seems to be on debunking any alternative viewpoints. Science will occasionally cause problems, as well as solve some. Everyone, including scientists, struggles to see the really big picture, which research studies rarely have the capacity to cover. So it may indeed be that the death rate from shingles becomes higher than that from chicken pox, and the net costs to society in cash and misery may become higher as a result of chicken pox vaccination. There’s no doubt about the fine contribution research studies make, but let’s not pretend to be omniscient.
Wow, you must assume using a lot of big words makes you appear to be more intelligent than my readers. Or me. In fact, most of us know what causes both Varicella zoster and Herpes zoster–the same virus. The failure of your weak logic is that if we eradicate the disease, eventually shingles will disappear. More of your failed logic is that we have vaccinations for shingles. Even more of your failed logic is that chicken pox has serious consequences in a not insignificant portion of cases.
Condescending to my readers and to me is certainly not a way to win an argument. Especially since most of us are quite knowledgeable about the failed arguments and logical fallacies of the anti-vaccination cults.
I would have thought an argument centred on ‘eradication’ would need to be carefully evaluated. A number of factors have to come together favourably for eradication to occur, and only a handful of diseases as far as I’m aware are likely eradication candidates (chickenpox surely isn’t one of them). It’s true that a vaccine for shingles is now available and some work on the outcomes from its use are coming through. Rather than hold up eradication as a goal for solving the whole issue, perhaps a cost-benefit approach would be more practical. An attempt was made by the Health Protection Agency in the UK (Van Hoek and others, published in 2012 in the journal Vaccine). They concluded that public health policymakers should bear in mind when making decisions on a varicella vaccination programme that negative effects are likely for 50 years or so and that a twin-vaccine approach (both vaccines as you suggest) may not produce benefits over costs for more than 100 years.
But, of course, the economic cost isn’t the only concern. A disease does not need to be eradicated for large numbers of people to have the health (and even social) benefits that vaccination can bring about. Polio is such an example.
Kenneth…you seem to totally discount the cost of the disease itself.
I sense you are coming away somewhat from the case of chickenpox and shingles, which is the basis of my comments. Your point is important though, over a wide number of situations. But where there is an interplay between two related disease groups, both of which face health and social impacts, do you not think that a cost-benefit assessment will reflect to some extent the overall health outcomes for real people, since these are likely correlated with the amount of health care provision paid for to treat them (in a world in which funding is not unlimited)?
Vaccinations are GOOD, dregs! Get your kids their damn shots!
95% of American kids are vaccinated. We're just trying to make sure that 99.9% are!
Although there is much to say about the benefits of vaccination programmes, the author of this site has apparently missed turning his or her rigorous attention to his/her own writings when trying to identify pseudoscience. The "facts" on this website on chicken pox (Varicella) vaccination are at least out of date. Researchers examining the "ecology" of disease are mindful of the way vaccination against one disease may sometimes affect susceptibility to others. This issue is hard to include in vaccination and immunisation studies. With chicken pox, it seems likely that adults exposed to youngsters with the illness have their own protection against shingles (a related illness) boosted, so that the more protection we give youngsters against chickenpox the less protection adults may have for shingles. The issue is not entirely solved but there's a recent review here at the pubmed site – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22659447 – so there is good reason not to become quite as overconfident as this website seems to be on debunking any alternative viewpoints. Science will occasionally cause problems, as well as solve some. Everyone, including scientists, struggles to see the really big picture, which research studies rarely have the capacity to cover. So it may indeed be that the death rate from shingles becomes higher than that from chicken pox, and the net costs to society in cash and misery may become higher as a result of chicken pox vaccination. There’s no doubt about the fine contribution research studies make, but let’s not pretend to be omniscient.
Wow, you must assume using a lot of big words makes you appear to be more intelligent than my readers. Or me. In fact, most of us know what causes both Varicella zoster and Herpes zoster–the same virus. The failure of your weak logic is that if we eradicate the disease, eventually shingles will disappear. More of your failed logic is that we have vaccinations for shingles. Even more of your failed logic is that chicken pox has serious consequences in a not insignificant portion of cases.
Condescending to my readers and to me is certainly not a way to win an argument. Especially since most of us are quite knowledgeable about the failed arguments and logical fallacies of the anti-vaccination cults.
I would have thought an argument centred on 'eradication' would need to be carefully evaluated. A number of factors have to come together favourably for eradication to occur, and only a handful of diseases as far as I'm aware are likely eradication candidates (chickenpox surely isn't one of them). It's true that a vaccine for shingles is now available and some work on the outcomes from its use are coming through. Rather than hold up eradication as a goal for solving the whole issue, perhaps a cost-benefit approach would be more practical. An attempt was made by the Health Protection Agency in the UK (Van Hoek and others, published in 2012 in the journal Vaccine). They concluded that public health policymakers should bear in mind when making decisions on a varicella vaccination programme that negative effects are likely for 50 years or so and that a twin-vaccine approach (both vaccines as you suggest) may not produce benefits over costs for more than 100 years.
But, of course, the economic cost isn't the only concern. A disease does not need to be eradicated for large numbers of people to have the health (and even social) benefits that vaccination can bring about. Polio is such an example.
Kenneth…you seem to totally discount the cost of the disease itself.
I sense you are coming away somewhat from the case of chickenpox and shingles, which is the basis of my comments. Your point is important though, over a wide number of situations. But where there is an interplay between two related disease groups, both of which face health and social impacts, do you not think that a cost-benefit assessment will reflect to some extent the overall health outcomes for real people, since these are likely correlated with the amount of health care provision paid for to treat them (in a world in which funding is not unlimited)?
[...] Simpson at The Skeptical Raptor reports that a mother who is opposed to vaccination proudly posted on her Facebook page that her [...]
Wait. What? A mother is gloating because she put her child at risk and others. She is delusional about the dangers of vaccination and the benefits of acquiring infections “naturally”. Meanwhile, India has almost eradicated polio by implementing a stricter vaccination campaign.
Wait. What? A mother is gloating because she put her child at risk and others. She is delusional about the dangers of vaccination and the benefits of acquiring infections "naturally". Meanwhile, India has almost eradicated polio by implementing a stricter vaccination campaign.
Who is this idiot, so I can thank her for endangering the lives of some of my friends?
We decided to keep it private. Well, I didn’t, but someone did.
Who is this idiot, so I can thank her for endangering the lives of some of my friends?
We decided to keep it private. Well, I didn't, but someone did.
In the oryginal post – where is the statement that her son was not vaccinated? Vaccines are not 100% effective….
I should have mentioned that the post came from a Facebook anti-vaccine Page, so the assumption is that it would be. And given all three of her children appear to be infected, it’s pretty clear that she hasn’t vaccinated them.
Yes, vaccines are not 100% effective. But depending on the vaccine, they’re pretty close to 100%.
Finally, the point is still she was being a horrible human being for intentionally attempting to infect other children. All other considerations are just minor strawman arguments to pull us away from the key point of her stated goals.
Not vaccinating is 100% ineffective. Not vaccinating because it’s not 100% effective is like going naked because clothing isn’t 100% protective against sub-zero temperatures.
Going naked would give you equal suntan;) By the way – as a child I had chicken pox, I was not vaccinated because there was no vaccine against that in my country. I am perfectly fine, I didn’t spread it intentionally to others – I stayed at home=didn’t go to school for few days..
You’re lucky.
My son caught it 2 weeks before he was due for his vaccination against it. He was feverish, his genitals were covered in sores (penis, scrotum and anus all covered) and we had to get him antihistamines to prevent him from scratching himself bloody as well as steroids to reduce the swelling.
I would much rather him have been vaccinated against it. He was miserable for 10 days.
I don’t remember having fever, but itchy sores- yes. I was told not to scratch it and I didn’t. Mom was applying some white liquid and it helped. No scars after that. More than half of my class had it and everybody is fine. I don’t feel I was lucky, it is just how it goes…. It is treatable.
In the oryginal post – where is the statement that her son was not vaccinated? Vaccines are not 100% effective….
I should have mentioned that the post came from a Facebook anti-vaccine Page, so the assumption is that it would be. And given all three of her children appear to be infected, it's pretty clear that she hasn't vaccinated them.
Yes, vaccines are not 100% effective. But depending on the vaccine, they're pretty close to 100%.
Finally, the point is still she was being a horrible human being for intentionally attempting to infect other children. All other considerations are just minor strawman arguments to pull us away from the key point of her stated goals.
Not vaccinating is 100% ineffective. Not vaccinating because it's not 100% effective is like going naked because clothing isn't 100% protective against sub-zero temperatures.
Going naked would give you equal suntan;) By the way – as a child I had chicken pox, I was not vaccinated because there was no vaccine against that in my country. I am perfectly fine, I didn't spread it intentionally to others – I stayed at home=didn't go to school for few days..
You're lucky.
My son caught it 2 weeks before he was due for his vaccination against it. He was feverish, his genitals were covered in sores (penis, scrotum and anus all covered) and we had to get him antihistamines to prevent him from scratching himself bloody as well as steroids to reduce the swelling.
I would much rather him have been vaccinated against it. He was miserable for 10 days.
I don't remember having fever, but itchy sores- yes. I was told not to scratch it and I didn't. Mom was applying some white liquid and it helped. No scars after that. More than half of my class had it and everybody is fine. I don't feel I was lucky, it is just how it goes…. It is treatable.
Please educate yourself! If you do not wish to give your own children vaccines, then you need to know to be vigilant and keep your children isolated when they do become sick. Back before vaccines there was something known as “Quarantines” to prevent the spread of disease. If you decline vaccines, then you must accept quarantines.
It’s clear she didn’t care at all. She did this intentionally.
Not all that choose to not vaccinate are like this. I could go on, but I shall chose to quarantine my thoughts:)
I realize that this is a much worse subset of anti-vaxxers.
Read the FB post again. It appears NOT to have been an intentional and purposeful act, i.e they only realized after the fact. Her crime is therefore not in unwittingly exposing others, but being HAPPY about it after the fact. Doesn’t make her any less a dangerous nitwit and an anti-vaccine nut for sure, but this did not seem a wilful act to me.
From my reading of the post, she knew that the child at the baseball game was infected with chickenpox. It appears that she wasn’t sure about the child that was sent to camp. And she probably knew that the kid she sent to the camp was infected too. Either way, it was a willful act.
I read it the same way you did, Michael W. I don’t think she intentionally exposed anyone, but I’d guess she knew they’d been exposed themselves and didn’t bother to keep them home during the incubation period. This is what bothers me the most about antivaxxers claiming that all one need do is keep the children home when they’re sick. They seem to ignore or just not accept the possibility of contagion before symptoms appear. If they did, they’d be keeping those children home a lot more than they do.
I’m still not reading that way. It still reads like she did it intentionally. I must be missing some key phrase, but I’ve read that thing like 20 times.
Well I have to say that the more I read the piece, the less convinced I was that my initial read was correct. There are just too many seemingly contradictory phrases in there so now I’m just not sure. I guess in the end it really may not matter since her underlying (stupid) philosophy is what is so wrong to begin with.
Please educate yourself! If you do not wish to give your own children vaccines, then you need to know to be vigilant and keep your children isolated when they do become sick. Back before vaccines there was something known as "Quarantines" to prevent the spread of disease. If you decline vaccines, then you must accept quarantines.
It's clear she didn't care at all. She did this intentionally.
Not all that choose to not vaccinate are like this. I could go on, but I shall chose to quarantine my thoughts:)
I realize that this is a much worse subset of anti-vaxxers.
Read the FB post again. It appears NOT to have been an intentional and purposeful act, i.e they only realized after the fact. Her crime is therefore not in unwittingly exposing others, but being HAPPY about it after the fact. Doesn't make her any less a dangerous nitwit and an anti-vaccine nut for sure, but this did not seem a wilful act to me.
From my reading of the post, she knew that the child at the baseball game was infected with chickenpox. It appears that she wasn't sure about the child that was sent to camp. And she probably knew that the kid she sent to the camp was infected too. Either way, it was a willful act.
I read it the same way you did, Michael W. I don't think she intentionally exposed anyone, but I'd guess she knew they'd been exposed themselves and didn't bother to keep them home during the incubation period. This is what bothers me the most about antivaxxers claiming that all one need do is keep the children home when they're sick. They seem to ignore or just not accept the possibility of contagion before symptoms appear. If they did, they'd be keeping those children home a lot more than they do.
I'm still not reading that way. It still reads like she did it intentionally. I must be missing some key phrase, but I've read that thing like 20 times.
Well I have to say that the more I read the piece, the less convinced I was that my initial read was correct. There are just too many seemingly contradictory phrases in there so now I'm just not sure. I guess in the end it really may not matter since her underlying (stupid) philosophy is what is so wrong to begin with.
[...] executionJuly 9, 2012What One Woman Saw After Her AbortionJuly 4, 2012 Michael Simpson at The Skeptical Raptor reports that a mother who is opposed to vaccination proudly posted on her Facebook page that her [...]
I wish a screamingly horribly painful case of shingles on that woman.
If only we could!
I wish a screamingly horribly painful case of shingles on that woman.
If only we could!