It’s not often that a political blog will show up on a skeptic’s posting, even if it’s written by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, two respected political commentators. In their article, Vaccination Nation, they strike out against the anti-vaccination crowd, quickly demolishing some of their ridiculous arguments. I would have missed this article if not for some rantings of an vaccine denialist that will be discussed later.
Moyer and Winship start their commentary talking about a movie, that I’ve missed, but may have to watch on DVD.
“We haven’t even turned the page on the controversy over contraceptives, health care and religious freedom, when another thorny one arises involving personal conscience and public health. A flurry of stories over the past few days coincided with seeing a movie that inspires more than passing interest in their subject.
Steven Soderbergh’s film Contagion came out a few months ago and was inexplicably and completely frozen out of the Oscar nominations. But it is the most plausible experience of a global pandemic plague you’re likely to see until the real thing strikes. With outstanding performances from an ensemble cast that includes Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow and Laurence Fishburne, Contagion is stark, beautiful in its own terrifying way, and all-too-believable. The story tracks the swift progress of a deadly airborne virus from Hong Kong to Minneapolis and Tokyo to London — from a handful of peanuts to a credit card to the cough of a stranger on a subway. Rarely does a film issue such an inescapable invitation to think: it could happen; that could be us. What would we do?
With Contagion making such a powerful impression, for several days news articles seemed to keep popping up about contagious disease and the conflict between religious beliefs and immunization. There was nothing new about the basics: All fifty states require some specific vaccinations for kids, yet all of them grant exemptions for medical reasons – say, for a child with cancer. Almost all of them grant religious exemptions. And twenty states allow exemptions for personal, moral, or other beliefs.
Of course, some of these exemptions are so weakly enforced, that parents hardly have to do anything more than say that they don’t want their kids vaccinated. Other than medical reasons (an immune compromised patient, for example), there should be no exemptions. If you have a religious objection, then send your kids to religious schools, where science doesn’t matter. If you have a philosophical objection, you know that thoroughly debunked belief that vaccinations cause autism, then your child is not welcome in a public school. Period. End of story.
According to the February 15 edition of The Wall Street Journal, a number of pediatricians are dropping families from their practices when the parents refuse immunization for their kids. “In a study of Connecticut pediatricians published last year,” the paper reported, “some 30% of 133 doctors said they had asked a family to leave their practice for vaccine refusal, and a recent survey of 909 Midwestern pediatricians found that 21% reported discharging families for the same reason.
“By comparison, in 2001 and 2006 about 6% of physicians said they ‘routinely’ stopped working with families due to parents’ continued vaccine refusal and 16% ‘sometimes’ dismissed them, according to surveys conducted then by the American Academy of Pediatrics.”
This story has been discussed previously, and it has become a significant trend in pediatrics. There are very good reasons for this movement: physicians have limited time to debate parents who use pseudoscience, they can’t have patients who might infect those who have not been immunized yet (like infants), and the health care cost of treating children who get diseases that should have been eliminated is immense. I remain a bit on the fence about the ethics about “firing patients”, but as long as there are other pediatricians who are willing to treat such patients, then the ethical choice is fine.
But some parents still fear a link between vaccinations and autism, a possibility science has largely debunked. Some parents just want to be in charge of what’s put into their children’s bodies, as one West Virginia politician puts it. And some parents just don’t trust science, period — a few have even been known to fake religion to avoid vaccinating their kids. So there are many loopholes. But now seven states are considering legislation to make it even easier for mothers and fathers to spare their children from vaccinations, especially on religious grounds.
The link between vaccines and autism has been thoroughly and absolutely debunked. Continuing to deny real science is a sure sign of a lunacy.
In Oregon, according to a story by Jennifer Anderson in The Portland Tribune, the number of kindergartners with religious exemptions is up from 3.7 percent to 5.6 percent in just four years, and continuing to rise. This has public health officials clicking their calculators and keeping their eye on what’s called “herd immunity.” A certain number of any population group needs to have been vaccinated — 80% for most diseases, 92 percent for whooping cough – to maintain the ability of the whole population – “the herd” – to resist the spread of a disease.
Ms. Anderson offers the example of what used to be called “the German measles” – rubella. All it takes are five unvaccinated kids in a class of 25 for the herd immunity to break down, creating an opportunity for the disease to spread to younger siblings and other medically vulnerable people who can’t be vaccinated. If you were traveling to Europe between 2009 and 2011, you may remember warnings about the huge outbreak of measles there, brought on by a failure “to vaccinate susceptible populations.”
Here in the United States, several recent outbreaks of measles have been traced to pockets of unvaccinated children in states that allow personal belief exemptions. The Reuters news service recently reported thirteen confirmed cases of measles in central Indiana. Two of them were people who showed up to party two days before the Super Bowl in Indianapolis. Patriots and Giants fans back east were alerted. So far, no news is good news.
But this is serious business, made more so by complacency. Older generations remember when measles killed up to 500 people a year before we started vaccinating against them in 1963. The great flu pandemic of 1918 killed ten times more Americans than died in the Great World War that ended that year and took the lives of as many as forty million globally. Our generation was also stalked by small pox, polio, and whooping cough before there were vaccinations.
In a country where few remember those diseases, it’s easy to think, “What’s to worry?” But as the movie Contagion so forcefully and hauntingly reminds us, the earth is now flat. Seven billion people live on it, and our human herd moves on a conveyer belt of perpetual mobility, so that a virus can travel as swiftly as a voice from one cell phone to another. When and if a contagion strikes, we can’t count on divine intervention to spare us. That’s when you want a darn good scientist in a research lab. We’ll need all the help we can get from knowledge and her offspring.”
I completely agree with this assessment. Parents, who have young children and infants, were mostly born well after the mass epidemics of these preventable diseases. They have never met kids who were paralyzed from polio. Or the huge number of children in hospitals from complications of measles, whooping cough, and rubella. They ignore the fact that chicken pox can lead to a painful and disfiguring disease called shingles. Even flu epidemics can be deadly. The 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic killed nearly 100 million people worldwide, nearly 3% of the world population.
Then the fools at the vaccine denialist website, Age of Autism, had to chime in with their particular brand of pseudoscience. In Anne Dachel’s article, An Open Letter to Bill Moyers on When The Next Contagion Strikes, she relies upon all of the well-worn logical fallacies to attack Moyers’ comments. The strawman argument that somehow scientists don’t care about autistic children (completely wrong) is probably the most fallacious statement ever made. Dachel makes even further ridiculous comments such as “mainstream medicine is failing the children.” First, whenever someone says mainstream medicine, they always mean evidence-based-medicine that is opposed to their non-scientific “beliefs.” Second, without “mainstream medicine,” children wouldn’t have all the medicine that treats them for cancers, infections, and preventative care. To read any more from this nutcase may make me ill.
It’s good that Bill Moyers has chosen to take a reasoned and evidence-based stand on vaccinations. I hope that many more individuals read it.
Please add your comments to my article