So imagine my surprise when he tackled the subject of childhood immunization and the measles outbreak in Texas, and not only lost any sense of reason, but presented a one-sided and snarky attack on those anti-immunization fiends (which include myself).
But wait! I have found that since I became pregnant way back in 1987 and began to research the pros and cons of vaccination, this topic creates the most irrational, hysterical and enraged arguments by those who promote immunization for, well, everything.
I listened through the segment twice, and then wrote a letter to Mr. Hayes. But it seems that MSNBC does not invite listeners to send emails.
So I am sending out my open letter to Chris Hayes here:
Dear Chris,
I was catching up on All In today, so I
apologize for the fact that these comments come several days after
the show.
As I listened to your article on
immunization, my mouth dropped open. I have heard you be snarky
before, I admit I have no qualms about snark when it is called for.
But your tone during that piece can only be described as that of a
new parent who is having a tantrum because the rest of parentdom is
not complying with your need to keep your child safe. I was so
astonished by the piece, that I watched it a second time.
You make the same hysterical comments
about measles that have been repeated for decades. Presenting no
statistics, you define the course of measles as “rash, all over,
and pneumonia and in some cases even death.”
First of all, the outcome of a case of measles depends very much on
the family's health and nutrition. Secondly, measles in infants and
children tend to be very mild, and happily result in a lifetime
immunity. Whereas, those people going over to Europe and coming back
infecting people no doubt were immunized as children, in which case
the immunity doesn't last forever. This also endangers pregnant
women who were immunized as children, rather than allowed to have
measles run its course.
Let me
also tell you that measles is not
at all in the same
category as whooping cough. Pertussis is an extremely dangerous
illness at any age. Doctors should remind people to get re-immunized
every ten years, and children should be immunized.
Chicken pox, for
which immunizationon is also thrust upon unsuspecting parents, is on
the other hand no more dangerous than a cold. My son caught chicken
pox at about six months old, felt no pain or discomfort and now has a
lifetime immunity.
You claimed that
failing to have a child vaccinated “imperils the lives of those
kids but also imperils the lives of newborns who are not fully
vaccinated.” And then later, we “denialists” are “endangering
infants and newborns all over the place.” If you really want to
have an infant who is safe from disease, let me suggets that the
mother give birth at home, as hospitals are far more dangerous than
lack of immunization. And of course, don't go to the pediatrician's office for all those immunizations; that's where the real germs lie. And please explain to me, because I have yet
to hear any rational argument, just how a person who chooses not to
immunize their children endangers children who are immunized.
What I heard in
this piece was the same kind of hysteria that led people to douse
themselves and their children with so much anti-bacterial soap and
lotion that they not only killed off needed bacteria but lowered the
body's resistance to infection.
I was disappointed
to hear you dismiss Jenny McCarthy's claims as just more
“anti-vaccination nonsense.” How dare you dismiss a parent who
has seen a healthy child become disabled after an immunization. In
fact, there were so many lawsuits in New York State in the
1980's-90's, that the law requiring immunizations before entering
school was changed to allow parents to opt out with their physician's
written approval. We – neither you nor I – know whether the
immunization caused the autism, but parents have every right to be
involved in making the determination as to whether they will take
that risk with their child.
The spurious
arguments presented by your guests, who claim lots of scientific
evidence but fail to discuss any, might have been countered by an
expert on the other side. I can assure you, there are respected
scientists on the other side.
Finally, I had to
laugh when you said, “20-30 years ago, I don't think there was any
pop-cultural misgivings about vaccinating your kid.” This argument
has been going on for decades. When my daughter was born, in 1987,
there was tremendous debate about the possible harmful effects of
vaccination, so much so that, after reading both sides of the
literature, I chose not to have her vaccinated until she was
school-aged. Her brother, three-and-a-half years younger, was
allowed to opt out, and, on our pediatrician's recommendation, had
only a pertussis vaccine. Both were wonderfully healthy, and remain
so. And if your child gets all her vaccinations, she won't have to
worry about getting infected by the likes of those who are not
immunized.
For some reason,
the debate about immunization causes usually objective and rational
people to go all Rush Limbaugh. You probably should read some of the
history and science – both sides – of this argument.
Sincerely,
Agnes
If any of my readers know the magic formula to reaching Chris Hayes, please feel free to forward him my comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment