Get Out Your Pitchforks

I have been trying to be quiet through this latest episode of mass hysteria.  I really have.  But at the risk of raising the wrath of every single one of my friends, I am going to have to speak my mind.  Because that is what I do.

I usually enjoy Chris Hayes' liberal rants.  His young face gets all puffed up and he starts to stutter.  He is outraged, but he tends to wrap his outrage up in reason.  Except when it comes to vaccinations.  Then he becomes the 21st century yuppie parent, screeching about how my kid is going to infect his kid.  And since the latest "measles outbreak" it has been all-measles-all-the-time on All In with Chris Hayes.

It's not just Hayes, though.  For weeks we have been bombarded with the terror inspiring word of "100 cases" of measles, brought about by those bad parents who irresponsibly and selfishly chose not to have their kids vaccinated for measles AND THEN WENT TO DISNEYWORLD.  I have been listening, hard, to these news reports, waiting to hear of the 100 cases spreading into the thousands, or to hear how many of those hundred have died from the disease.  The answer, as far as I can tell, is none.

Then, two days ago, I heard that the worst fears had been realized:  five infants had been confirmed to have measles.  Before I began to write, I gave it one more try.  When I googled "measles," I learned that a "Baby Had Been Confirmed as First Victim in New Jersey."  Oh my god.  It finally happened.

But no.  The report goes on to say that the one-year-old has since recovered.  Everybody in the building, the town, the state and the country, however, has been alerted.  I can be fairly certain that if there had been a death it would be front page everywhere.  Not that it couldn't happen.  But in developed countries, where overall health and hygiene are good, measles is rarely fatal.

For those of you youngsters, like Mr. Hayes, even your parents are not likely to remember when measles was just a childhood disease.  A kid broke out, itched, ran a temperature, and stayed home from school for a week.  And then they got better.

Back in the 80's, when my daughter was born, there was a healthy debate about the value of vaccinations versus allowing natural immunities to develop.  That debate seems to have been hijacked by the debate over vaccines causing autism.  And over the past couple of weeks, even when anti-vaccine proponents have been interviewed, I have not heard a single word spoken about natural immunity.  So here it is.

An infant has a weak and developing immune system.  Nursing contributes to adding mother's immunities to the baby.  And just as a childhood disease like measles is likely to be worse in an adult, healthy babies tend to experience milder symptoms.  When my pre-school daughter got chickenpox at four years old, her six-month-old brother also contracted the disease.  While she itched and had a fever, her brother didn't even notice he was sick.  And they both now have lifetime immunity to chickenpox.

Which brings me to the point that I keep waiting to hear.  If you are vaccinated, you need to be re-vaccinated.  The immunity is temporary.  If you allow this childhood disease to run its course, however, you have immunity for life.  So that pregnant women who have had the measles as children need not fear contracting measles, which is truly dangerous to the development of a fetus.

Now, it also appears that drug companies are griping, and vaccine supporters are touting, the "fact" that drug companies are not making a fortune on vaccine.  A cursory search did not come up with any numbers, and it's true that we don't have to pay much for vaccines.  But drug companies have done an amazing job of hiding the cost -- and the profit -- of the most commonly used drugs.  Government subsidizes a lot of the cost of vaccines, which means drug companies still get paid.  It may be that they don't make the mint that they make on far too many much needed drugs.  But vaccines are the steady, guaranteed profit-maker.  Drug companies are more likely to balk at having to waste money researching more desperately needed vaccines for third world countries than to complain about reaping that steady US vaccine market.

Now, if MSNBC wanted to rant about what is endangering lives in America, they might want to take a look at overmedication.  There was a peep in the media a few years ago about the over prescription of antibiotics, and then it went away.  But in fact, prescribing antibiotics when an illness could just run its course, has led to the development of, oh, let's call it a master race of infections.  And you don't need to be the one taking the antibiotics to reap the rewards of being infected by these master bugs.  And the drug companies continue to make stronger antibiotics and the bugs that survive the drugs continue to get stronger and harder to eradicate.  Much like using Round-Up to kill weeds until you have master weeds that need ever stronger poisons to be killed.

It amazes me when smart people who tend to be rational go nuts.  I am thinking about the hysterics in the 80's over "catching AIDS" (and I hate to admit, I was one of those, although eventually I did succumb to reason).  Or how about last year's ebola scare, when healthy people where coming back from Africa, even parts that were nowhere near the reported outbreaks, and faced anger and outrage and even -- thank you Chris Christie -- quarantine.

The most idiotic argument, the one that is expressed every single time vaccination is "discussed" is that your unvaccinated kid is going to endanger my vaccinated kid.  Well, no.  If your kid is vaccinated, and the thing works the way you claim it works, your kid will be spared the scourge of the dreaded measles.  Or, if the kid comes down with the measles, it should be a mild version, and (if you're really lucky) it will be enough to immunize the child for life.  Wouldn't that be grand.

Anyway, I would like to conclude by saying:

JUST CALM DOWN.  If we were poor people who lived with poor health and poor hygiene, our children would be more vulnerable to extreme symptoms.  In that case, I would say, by all means get the vaccine.  And if you really believe that drugs trumps the body's ability to fight any disease, go for it.  But please stop trying to make it sound like children are dying in the streets from this disease.  Be smug in your superior parenting if you like, but stop trying to make it sound like people who disagree with you are arming themselves with deadly germs and coming after your kids.

And Now For Something Completely Different

I am a great fan of Chris Hayes' All In on MSNBC.  While not as much so as when he was Up in the wee hours of Saturday and Sunday morning, his show tends to present more intelligent topics and discussions than others on MSNBC.

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.