16 years ago, a doctor published a study

[guess]

On that note, I try to stay away from increased legislation at all costs but if what it takes to keep herd immunity up and eradicate the not so unintentional proliferation of disease as well as enforce ADA, I'll support further legislation. 

[lakeswimr]

Just to be clear, I know some people who say their children were 'normal' before certain vaccines and then had a reaction to the vaccine, some seem quite serious including going limp after the vaccine, being very ill, and then from that point on stopped speaking and acted differently and then were diagnosed as autistic.  If that happened to my child I think it would be difficult to not think the vaccine was the cause.

I think it is important to champion disability causes and think it is great you do this, Guess.

[SilverLining]

"Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1

Members of the anti-vaccine movement said the public backlash had terrified many parents. "People are now afraid they're going to be jailed," said Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center, a clearinghouse for resisters. "I can't believe what I'm seeing. It's gotten so out of hand, and it's gotten so vicious."

This is just my own opinion.

I feel a person who chooses not to vaccinate and has an exposure to measles should be required to quarantine. The child and any family members that are not vaccinated or known to have had the illness should be obligated (at risk of being charged). 

[guess]

Diagnoses change frequently with DSM changes, diagnosticians, medical and educational.  Really, if you want to pinpoint it often you need genetic testing.  No vaccine is going to cause Fragile X because it's genetic.

An adverse reaction may cause symptoms that have an impact that show similarity with developmental disability or somehow alter that developmental path.  But we know what correlation is and we know scientifically the power of belief and I know first hand the desire to want a carefree spontaneous development where I can enjoy seeing my children progress.  You may think I don't know why they feel the way they do.  With all due respect that interpretation is wrong. 

My kids are always with the 'other' group.  They have hard DD diagnoses.  The diagnostic process starts around 18 months because the developmental charting starts to tick at an exponential rate around then.  The depth at which one must submit one's children to a grueling evaluation to compare every last skill to a magical peer group by artificially creating a natural environment borders on insanity.

No one wants to believe that their child could have possibly had this in their genetics, that it had to be something to blame.

You know what my developmentally disabled kids with LTFA don't need?  Measles, Rubella, Mumps, pertussis, flu.  My plate is full.  If this needs to be legislated I'm on board.

[guess]

"Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1

Members of the anti-vaccine movement said the public backlash had terrified many parents. "People are now afraid they're going to be jailed," said Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center, a clearinghouse for resisters. "I can't believe what I'm seeing. It's gotten so out of hand, and it's gotten so vicious."

This is just my own opinion.

I feel a person who chooses not to vaccinate and has an exposure to measles should be required to quarantine. The child and any family members that are not vaccinated or known to have had the illness should be obligated (at risk of being charged).

We do have quarantine law in the US.  I'm more familiar with the federal powers for pandemic but these laws do exist as they do for using our postal service to transmit infectious disease, body fluids, etc.

[guess]

And to all the woo that gets people killed - 

[CMdeux]

Yup-- ironic, isn't it, Lakeswimr?  :grin:


Okay-- here's the chart that ALL parents really-- really-- ought to consider.

https://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/measles-vaccination-and-homeopaths/

That truly sums up the comparative risks-- and the info is straight from the UK's official government sites.  The ONLY way that the risks of the disease are lower than that is when everyone around you gives you the GIFT of herd immunity, which reduces your chances of encountering the pathogen to begin with.
The risks of wild-type measles infection stated there are actually somewhat understated-- and I realize that nobody has to take my word for that, but this is kind of what I do for a living these days.  I study health stats and sequelae, and symptoms associated with particular conditions, and I do it based on published, peer reviewed data.  LOTS of data.  I've been working in measles.  Seriously.  The real risk for SSPE is more like 1:3500 for children who contract measles before 1 year of age, and it's as high as 1:5000 across all age groups.  That data is pretty new-- like, last eight years new.  The vaccine carries about ZERO risk of SSPE, which in my personal estimation would make it worthwhile on that basis alone.  SSPE is horrific, and nearly always fatal.





And I disagree with there being "two sides" to this one.  Honestly, maybe there are in human emotional terms, but reality doesn't agree with there being "controversy" or "two sides" to some things.  Gravity, vaccines, and evolution are all pretty much consensus matters among scientists, and there are excellent reasons for that consensus.

So yeah-- I don't know a single physician who didn't follow the CDC and AAP schedule for vaccinating their own children* and of those I know, most are VERY proactive about vaccinating their own kids for the flu each year, too.  * Barring allergy, or other factors that constitute actual contraindication, I mean.

There are really NOT 'two sides' to this one.  There is reality.  And then there is fantasy.  Reality really doesn't care what people believe.  I think that the media giving a platform to ignoramuses like Jenny McCarthy are partially responsible for the current state of affairs on this subject, and NO, no, no there are NOT obligations to be "balanced" in reporting on stuff like this.  Dear lord, why on earth is that even a thing here??  This is why parents are confused and thinking that there is anything TO be "considered" carefully.  Um-- not really, there isn't.  And honestly, if you don't trust the AMA, the CDC, the WHO, and the AAP, then are you seriously thinking that you know better than all of them about relative risks after a few afternoons with Google??  That is simply crazy.  Even though I have an advanced degree and work with medical statistics-- in other words, I have no problem reading medical literature, and I (unlike Jenny) understand the science behind every word of it, there are things that I take the word of genuine experts for.  This is like there being "two sides" to the use of epinephrine during anaphylaxis.  Nope-- not really.  Now, I can look up PLENTY of stuff that says epinephrine is dangerous, etc, and bleating on about how it's not really needed, etc. etc.  But if one considers the expertise of various sources, then the evidence suddenly condenses into CRYSTAL clear directives.  Anaphylaxis = epinephrine.  At least if you want to have the best odds of survival.

There is another reason why I'm willing to go with naming and shaming here.



The problem with "education" and other soft methods is that while they convince people whose minds are OPEN to hearing that message, and those who are rational enough to be listening to data rather than narrative and hyperbole... and while logically, they should have an impact on those who are leaning toward relying upon herd immunity rather than vaccinations for their own children-- that isn't what investigations demonstrate.

Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial, 2014, Pediatrics


And yes, this seems SO blatantly, jaw-droppingly counterintuitive that it has only been in the past four to six years that it's been seriously investigated at all.  It's mind-boggling that providing facts and detailed, patient information should WORSEN the chances that a person will follow medical best practices on a subject, that is precisely what is happening, apparently.  It's like an allergist explaining the reasons why wearing a Medic-Alert bracelet is a good idea, showing pictures, etc. and having parents decide that it's a terribly idea, and have it make them LESS likely to follow that advice than they were in the first place.   

So I have to respectfully disagree with the AMA and AAP when they urge physicians to not drop those people as patients.  Frankly, if efforts to educate them are failing, they do present a clear enhancement of risk for the rest of that physician's patients.  I'm not sure that there is a good solution for those physicians.  KWIM?


The other thing is that people are MOST influenced by what they think others in their social circle are doing, what they approve of, etc. etc.  So as long as people who are highly PRO-vaccine stay quiet, the people who are uncertain wind up not KNOWING just how we feel about it.  I'm done leaving "room for personal decision-making."  People like Barbara Loe Fisher have no ethical qualms about telling people what they should do.  So neither should people like me, who know that she is an ill-informed crank without an ounce of conscience for the public health dangers that her position is placing ALL of us in.

I'm calling bs on this anti-vaccine nonsense.  Pay attention-- because this is measles, and it's BACK.  It was once non-endemic in the UK, and it's now endemic again thanks to the shenanigans of these wackos who think there is something wrong with 'tampering with mother nature.'  And yeah-- you want to find the hotbeds of unvaccinated people in your community-- look to the nearest Waldorf/Steiner school.  Our local one has a vaccination rate that hovers about 20-30% in any given year.  Not joking.  They do this as a matter of anthroposophic BELIEF, not "concern" for vaccination side effects.  That's right.  They genuinely think that children SHOULD get measles because it's better for them.  As a spriritual matter.  My disgust for this kind of thinking on a matter of public health-- is boundless, thank-you-very-much.

Those kind of people do NOT have the right to take actions which have a de facto impact on those in the community who are MOST vulnerable-- those who are fighting for their lives already, and desperately wanting tiny slices of normalcy.  I know people whose children take immunosuppressant cocktails.  I know people whose children have (and continue to) undergo radiation and chemo.  I know people who are PARENTS and do-- and they want unvaccinated kids vaccinated.  For everyone's safety.

[guess]

From within the communities of ASD and ADA advocacy there's a portion of this that many who don't live with it consider secondary.  In my other disability community without LTFA the deaths that rock us are parents who kill their children out of fear of what Autism is (but mainly is not), children on the spectrum who kill themselves, and increasingly have dangerous interaction with law enforcement because they don't know how to comply or read social-emotional signs.

There's orgs that speak of ASD as a curse.  Do they not think that kids with ASD can read that garbage?  This notion that they burden us unfairly?  It's for this reason that I prefer organizations run by and for individuals on the spectrum who DO NOT feel they need 'fixing'.  I work in a network of advocates and attorneys who must constantly assail public entities for compliance and support.  None of us do it because we feel good or we get pats on the back for it.  We do it because they are people and they have rights, they shouldn't be shunned or excluded.

I read Jenny McCarthy's book when it first came out.  I read Special Kids, Special Diets when I was new to food allergies and developmental disability.  I wanted to believe they were all part of something that took my child and changed him. 

The only thing that I have done between that time and now is hard, everyday grind in the type of perpetual around the clock caregiving that parents whose children have such disabilities require.   They are not a burden to me and I'm not going to teach them that either they're something broken that needs to be fixed or that something is to blame and they would have otherwise been just like some definition of normal that does not exist. 

Families need support.  They need support in services and that includes schools.  I do no less for any child regardless of the disability, or otherwise abled, and I am far from alone.

But sure, just for grins and giggles let's go with vaccines cause Autism because you feel they do.  Screw proof or any sort of scientific indication.

What then?  What do we do then for the segment that will always be afraid of any vaccine by doing 'research' by Googling? 

[CMdeux]

Exactly.

The lives of those whose children are outliers are hard.

But I don't differentiate between how hard it is to have a child on the spectrum, versus one with a genetic error of metabolism, versus one who develops childhood leukemia. It's all hard.

What I do not have sympathy for is developing a system of personal beliefs around one's life which then impacts those other groups of parents (who, recall, ALSO have hard, hard lives already) when that system of beliefs is irrational and not based in reality.   I respect the reasons why people develop such anecdotal beliefs in the first place.  Personal narrative is a rather postmodern concept, though, when you get right down to it, and it should NOT have the power to compel anything at all in others.

I also reject that they have the right to expose others to harm just to make it possible for them to avoid moments of cognitive dissonance that threaten their personal narratives.   Human beings are more important than a person's internal personal narrative.  IMO.

On that note, it's entirely plausible to me that there are parents in the FA community who ask for accommodations that their children in NO way have demonstrated any need for.  I also object to that on the same principles.  Demonstrated individual need is when you get to make requests of others, assuming that you are not causing them HARM in so doing.  The bar rises higher still if what you need causes others potential harm-- so if you need to deprive an entire classroom of children of the nutrients in milk/cheese, for example.  Or need to become a potential disease vector as a result of being severely allergic to a vaccine component.   Those are situations where there are very real NEEDS that have nothing to do with beliefs that cannot be backed with evidence and data that isn't merely correlative and speculative.  If you happen to be that person with the severe allergy to gelatin, however, you really don't want people who just have a sense that vaccines are "unnatural" opting out, too, because you are vulnerable whether you want to be or not.

Too many people claim "vaccine injury" for very many of them to be telling the evidence-backed, unvarnished truth about it.  That's simply health statistics.

  My daughter did have a reaction to an early DPT that could have exempted her medically from additional pertussis doses.  She was seen at an emergent care facility for that response.  We opted IN on additional vaccination in that series, based on what we could see as very real risks of being underimmunised for pertussis, given her life as a faculty brat.  We did think about it-- once we had a reason to wonder if she was a special case.   Her subsequent doses were entirely unremarkable and we've since concluded that there was probably no causation behind the correlation, as striking as it seemed at the time.    She was also clearly (genetically) atopic from birth.  No connection.

Now there is the sort of narrative that anti-vaxxers don't want making the news. 
   

[LinksEtc]

While I was reading up on this topic, I found was people talked about 'researching vaccines' and 'researching which vaccines to give their kid' and this really seemed to me to amount to reading books (many written by actual MDs) that gave the impression a person was actually considering the pros and cons of each vaccine individually but came out with the same conclusion on nearly all or all vaccines--better not give it (or get it), almost entirely or entirely based on case studies.  This is not actual 'research' (I 100% agree with what you wrote about research somewhere in this or the other thread recently.) 

This also reminded me of this other thread ...



Choosing a 2014-2015 flu vaccine

That is what led me to perform this research.


With all due respect, reading a few things on the internet is NOT research.  Why not?

Well, because there is no way to refute the hypothesis that one is formulating with all of that reading, and one may quite easily ignore or discredit-- or perhaps simply never FIND-- material that doesn't support our presuppositions.  Genuine research involves being willing to TEST whether or not a hypothesis is plausible by allowing for conditions* in which the hypothesis would be proven incorrect. 

The problem with doing this kind of "research" one's self is that selection and perception biases are huge to begin with unless one has already had the kind of training that generally comes along with a terminal degree in a physical science or in medicine, and made even worse by the fact that we as parents are deeply emotionally invested and come to the process with what we WANT to believe must be so (that there must be a "reason" for "X" to have happened to us/our child). 

* Suppose that I believe that, just for example, lunar eclipses are caused by unseasonable temperatures.  How would my doing a lot of "internet research" allow me to DISprove such a hypothesis?  It probably wouldn't-- because think about how I would go about searching that hypothesis and supporting materials out to begin with-- I'd be LOOKING for evidence that supported my hypothesis.  Also, "unseasonable" is a pretty relative term.  The mechanism is plausibly connected, at least if I didn't know a lot about climate and astronomical observations, so I might not really see any NEED to hunt down material that directly contradicts my personal beliefs in any way. 

This is why scientists don't necessarily have much respect for laypersons doing "research" by the way-- it's not that we think that people are dumb, exactly, so much as that they consistently overestimate their own objectivity and metacognition, and fail to appreciate that a willingness to be catastrophically WRONG-WRONG-WRONG is part of the process.  An essential part of the process.

The injection-adjuvant theory of allergen sensitization went out of fashion in a pretty big way in the 1970's, btw.    Yes, there are particular mechanisms which can be used to sensitize laboratory animals in known ways, but those are NOT typical situations, any more than some other particular lines of laboratory animals (those bred to develop seizure disorders, or tumors) reflect the general human immune system. 

Silver has helpfully already provided a direct counter-example for the "hypothesis" proposed.  That's all that is necessary, unless you can determine some refinement that accounts for the fact that a great many people-- even highly atopic people-- safely receive vaccinations (and have for decades) which contain less and less of the allergens in question, while at the same time, rates of food allergy have RISEN, rather than falling (which should be the case if your hypothesis here were correct).


Also-- tropomyosin is not a thing-- it's a CLASS of things.  One tropomyosin does not necessarily cross-react (at all) with any others.  This is particularly true when considering arachnid/crustacean tropomyosins and those from mammalian sources.  Just so you know.  This is, again, where layperson "research" can get into trouble.  Research articles may fail to note that it's important to note the SOURCE of the tropomyosin in question.  This is not much different than claiming that eating "protein" causes allergic sensitization.  Well, sure it does-- but clearly some proteins are more equal than others there, and it is still not at all clear what causes some atopic people to never sensitize to some highly potent food sensitizers (like nuts or shellfish), while others do so upon their first exposures.

I'm VERY sure that my daughter had no known exposures to peanuts prior to nearly dying from her first taste of peanut butter.  I'm also very sure that I routinely ate all manner of shellfish without ill effect until I was in my 30's.  We have similarly atopic profiles, she and I-- so why did she get unlucky?  Nobody really knows right now.  But what I do know is that it didn't have any correlation with vaccination history.  Period.

[SilverLining]

Wasn't looking, but just stumbled onto this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/30/amid-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-doctor-revels-in-his-notoriety/

Then in 2002, Wolfson, originally from Chicago, moved to Arizona where he met his wife, a chiropractor, who "opened my eyes."

He's a cardiologist. I wouldn't see a "cardiologist" who can have his mind changed by a "chiropractor".

(Read the article and you may understand why I use quote-unquote.)

[lakeswimr]

Yes, that is what I was referencing when I said 'I 100% agree with what you wrote about research.' 

While I was reading up on this topic, I found was people talked about 'researching vaccines' and 'researching which vaccines to give their kid' and this really seemed to me to amount to reading books (many written by actual MDs) that gave the impression a person was actually considering the pros and cons of each vaccine individually but came out with the same conclusion on nearly all or all vaccines--better not give it (or get it), almost entirely or entirely based on case studies.  This is not actual 'research' (I 100% agree with what you wrote about research somewhere in this or the other thread recently.) 

This also reminded me of this other thread ...



Choosing a 2014-2015 flu vaccine

That is what led me to perform this research.


With all due respect, reading a few things on the internet is NOT research.  Why not?

Well, because there is no way to refute the hypothesis that one is formulating with all of that reading, and one may quite easily ignore or discredit-- or perhaps simply never FIND-- material that doesn't support our presuppositions.  Genuine research involves being willing to TEST whether or not a hypothesis is plausible by allowing for conditions* in which the hypothesis would be proven incorrect. 

The problem with doing this kind of "research" one's self is that selection and perception biases are huge to begin with unless one has already had the kind of training that generally comes along with a terminal degree in a physical science or in medicine, and made even worse by the fact that we as parents are deeply emotionally invested and come to the process with what we WANT to believe must be so (that there must be a "reason" for "X" to have happened to us/our child). 

* Suppose that I believe that, just for example, lunar eclipses are caused by unseasonable temperatures.  How would my doing a lot of "internet research" allow me to DISprove such a hypothesis?  It probably wouldn't-- because think about how I would go about searching that hypothesis and supporting materials out to begin with-- I'd be LOOKING for evidence that supported my hypothesis.  Also, "unseasonable" is a pretty relative term.  The mechanism is plausibly connected, at least if I didn't know a lot about climate and astronomical observations, so I might not really see any NEED to hunt down material that directly contradicts my personal beliefs in any way. 

This is why scientists don't necessarily have much respect for laypersons doing "research" by the way-- it's not that we think that people are dumb, exactly, so much as that they consistently overestimate their own objectivity and metacognition, and fail to appreciate that a willingness to be catastrophically WRONG-WRONG-WRONG is part of the process.  An essential part of the process.

The injection-adjuvant theory of allergen sensitization went out of fashion in a pretty big way in the 1970's, btw.    Yes, there are particular mechanisms which can be used to sensitize laboratory animals in known ways, but those are NOT typical situations, any more than some other particular lines of laboratory animals (those bred to develop seizure disorders, or tumors) reflect the general human immune system. 

Silver has helpfully already provided a direct counter-example for the "hypothesis" proposed.  That's all that is necessary, unless you can determine some refinement that accounts for the fact that a great many people-- even highly atopic people-- safely receive vaccinations (and have for decades) which contain less and less of the allergens in question, while at the same time, rates of food allergy have RISEN, rather than falling (which should be the case if your hypothesis here were correct).


Also-- tropomyosin is not a thing-- it's a CLASS of things.  One tropomyosin does not necessarily cross-react (at all) with any others.  This is particularly true when considering arachnid/crustacean tropomyosins and those from mammalian sources.  Just so you know.  This is, again, where layperson "research" can get into trouble.  Research articles may fail to note that it's important to note the SOURCE of the tropomyosin in question.  This is not much different than claiming that eating "protein" causes allergic sensitization.  Well, sure it does-- but clearly some proteins are more equal than others there, and it is still not at all clear what causes some atopic people to never sensitize to some highly potent food sensitizers (like nuts or shellfish), while others do so upon their first exposures.

I'm VERY sure that my daughter had no known exposures to peanuts prior to nearly dying from her first taste of peanut butter.  I'm also very sure that I routinely ate all manner of shellfish without ill effect until I was in my 30's.  We have similarly atopic profiles, she and I-- so why did she get unlucky?  Nobody really knows right now.  But what I do know is that it didn't have any correlation with vaccination history.  Period.

[lakeswimr]

I respect what you wrote about ASD, Guess.  I have students who have autism who I think are very dear.  I like all my students but have have a special soft spot for those on the spectrum.  What I worry about with those kids is that by not fully understanding social cues of others they can be teased or bullied.   I don't allow it in my classroom but it can still happen any time.  I wish there were an easy way to give those kids skills to cope with that stuff.  I think that once they make it to adulthood they will be a lot happier.  I hope I help make their time in high school easier.  I do not look at them as broken.  I do see that they can become targets of bullying, though, and that worries me.

Again, I think most of the people afraid of vaccines that I know didn't just google.  Most did what I did and read multiple books, the CDC website and more.  And most of them do not think vaccines cause autism.  The ones I know who do have autistic children who they feel became autistic because of vaccines because they changed behavior drastically after getting vaccines.  I do not think fear of autism is the driving force behind the anti vax movement for the most part.  If I were going to try to convince those people to vaccinate, I would first figure out what their concerns are and address them.  I do not see that done well by mainstream medicine, by many pro vax doctors, or right now by the media.  Contrary to CM, I think that if the message were put out in a way that understood their concerns and addressed them well, that it would make a big difference.  CM's link above titled, 'Measles, Vaccinations, and Homeopaths' is excellent and I really wish I had seen it back when I was pregnant and first reading about vaccines.  I think it is compelling and addresses many of the concerns those who worry about vaccinations have.  It says what I eventually decided was true from my reading by I read a lot of different things before I got to that point.

But sure, just for grins and giggles let's go with vaccines cause Autism because you feel they do.  Screw proof or any sort of scientific indication.

What then?  What do we do then for the segment that will always be afraid of any vaccine by doing 'research' by Googling?

[ajasfolks2]

Need to read this thread in depth, but wanted to add that there are some in our county who are trying to get just numbers / data as to how many and where the unvaccinated are so far as public school students.

I think they are making FOIA requests.

[lakeswimr]

CM, That is a great link!  Really good!  I agree with it.  I think it did a good job of naming and addressing many of the anti vax ideas.

Yes, there is also that idea that getting the illness naturally is better and provides life long immunity while vaccines do not work as well and require boosters and that getting the illness is good for one's immune system. 

I think it is legitimate for parents to come to the issue of vaccines and have questions.  I think blowing that off and not addressing the concerns of people who have those questions will backfire and push those people away from vaccines.  I see very little that really addresses the concerns of people who worry about vaccines well but that article is one very good example.   

The facts listed in that article are different than the claims made by anti vax doctors and alternative practitioners and other anti-vaxers.  When someone is trying to figure out what is really true regarding vaccines they are going to read things that claim two different things.  They can't both be true.  So, yes, there are not really 'two sides'.  You are right about that and I was not claiming otherwise.  However, to not address the scary claims made by anti vaxers is a big mistake.  To not understand what people who are afraid of vaccines or who choose not to vax believe and why they believe these things is another big mistake.  To write them all off as nutty is not going to make positive change among those people.  I think an article that compared claims in anti vax books, etc to facts would be very compelling, especially if written in a way that doesn't insult or talk down to people.  As I said, I found pro vax books to be overly simplistic.  It was a 'we know best so just do it' attitude.  That is going to be off-putting to those who doubt vaccine safety. 

The idea that the risks of disease are much greater than the risks of vaxes is not something you would think if you believed the claims of anti-vax material.  And when pro vax books make this claim they do so in a way that isn't convincing to many, unlike the article above which goes into enough detail to be convincing. 

I also like that the article pointed out logic flaws in homeopaths arguments such as not taking into consideration that a much, much greater % of the population is vaccinated.  That is one type of thing I could see when I read anti-vax stuff that bothered me. 

Also, some of the most well-known anti-vaxers are pediatricians.  So, back when I was reading and thinking about this topic, there were books written by actual MDs that were anti-vax that I read.  Having actual MD's who are anti-vax does give the impression that there are two sides and debate among doctors.  The fact is that they are a very small %.

I think your second link sounds like a poorly designed study made by people who do not truly understand the concerns or thinking of those who question or oppose vaccinations.  I disagree that giving them access to more detailed information would not help.  I think it certainly would.  I know a big group of people who do not vax and the are voracious readers who tend to question most things. 

I do think you are right that what people in one's social circle are doing has a big influence. 

I don't know Barbara Loe Fisher. 

What do you think is going to happen with the measles?  I mean, how bad do you think the spread will get?

What I am seeing among anti-vax friends is that none of the things in the media are making them change their thinking.  The people I know do not seem to be going out to vax because of this.  Maybe some will.