Religion
Related: About this forumMeasles Outbreak at Vaccine-Denying Pastor Kenneth Copeland's Fort Worth Church
The epicenter of the outbreak is Tarrant County, which has now confirmed 10 cases, and the epicenter of cases in Tarrant County seems to be at Eagle Mountain International Church.
Pastor Terri Copeland Pearsons delivered the news in a sermon last Wednesday:
There has been a ... confirmed case of the measles from the Tarrant County Public Health Department. And that is a really big deal in that America, the United States has been essentially measles free for I think it's 10 years. And so when measles pops up anywhere else in the United States, the health department -- well, you know, it excites them. You know what I mean I don't mean. I don't mean they're happy about it, but they get very excited and respond to it because it doesn't take much for things like that to spread.
The sermon was awkward, to say the least. Pearsons is the eldest daughter of megapastor Kenneth Copeland, and her church is one of the cornerstones of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, his sprawling evangelical empire. He's far from the most vocal proponent of the discredited theory that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine causes autism, but, between his advocacy of faith healing and his promotion of the vaccine-autism link on his online talk show, he's not exactly urging his flock to get their recommended shots.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/08/theres_a_measles_outbreak_at_v.php
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cbayer
(146,218 posts)problem. The current debate is about whether parents who don't get their kids vaccinated might be legally liable if someone else is harmed by this.
There was some rabid anti-vaxxers on the show. Their understanding of this issue is deeply flawed.
There is a silver lining here, though. The church will be hosting free vaccination clinics, apparently having changed their position.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)They are hurting people.
tanyev
(42,557 posts)
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)from their stupidity.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)n/t
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)When my children were little (they are now in their late 20's) this was a real controversy, and I was very torn about whether to vaccinate.
Mothering magazine, which I read avidly, addressed all the "cons." Do vaccines give life-long immunity? Don't know that that's ever been proven. What about other possible short-term and long-term side effects? Don't know the answer to that either.
Ultimately, I had my kids vaccinated--largely because it was required for public schools; but I do respect those who choose not to. Wish I'd had that kind of courage.
Chances are good that children contracting measles in this case, had very mild, uncomplicated cases, and gained lifelong immunity. Hopefully, they did not transmit the disease to young adults in their childbearing years, or to pregnant women.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They are not the problem. It's those that refuse because of unfounded fears.
Measles can be a killer and we were close to having it eradicated.
This is a potential public health tragedy - avoidable and driven by ignorance.
Even this church changed their position.
Sorry, but it's not courageous, it's foolish, short sighted and dangerous.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)for non-medical reasons demonstrate that they are not responsible parents and should have their kids taken away from them. Their ignorance should NOT be used as an excuse to endanger the lives and health of their kids and those of other parents who kids can't get vaccinations for medical reasons(immunocompromised, etc.)
And I sure hope you are right about the cases being mild, but don't count on it.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)Should "have their kids taken away from them?"
Anyone who advocates authoritarianism like that is a dangerous person.
How old are you? I'm old enough to have had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox . . . I survived them all, with no ill effects, and so did all of my friends who also got them. We gained life-long immunity. When I was pregnant, I didn't need to fear being around children who might have them.
According to what I read at the time (admittedly, nearly a quarter of a century ago) the speculation was that immunity conferred by vaccines could diminish over time, and make those who had been vaccinated susceptible to such illlnesses during their childbearing years, or when they would have been most vulnerable to the most serious complications.
When my kids got chicken pox, one of my friends made it a point to bring her children over to play, in hopes that they would get them at that time. That was not really uncommon back then.
Vaccines are still very controversial, and there are still many unknowns.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)because I'm in my 30s and got vaccinated, you think other children should suffer too? You know, plenty of kids at that time didn't survive, or were maimed by those diseases, but fuck them, right? You think vaccines are controversial, yeah, to conspiracy theorists and nutballs ONLY.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)if you think having a rash, a fever, and an upset stomach for a few days is "suffering," then you really don't understand suffering.
I really don't know the stats about how many kids died or were "maimed" by those diseases, but I do know that the real danger was to the unborn babies of pregnant women who contracted them.
The following is from the WHO website:
Symptoms
In children, the disease is usually mild, with symptoms including a rash, low fever (<39°C), nausea and mild conjunctivitis. The rash, which occurs in 50–80% of cases, usually starts on the face and neck before progressing down the body, and lasts 1–3 days. Swollen lymph glands behind the ears and in the neck are the most characteristic clinical feature. Infected adults, more commonly women, may develop arthritis and painful joints that usually last from 3–10 days.
Once a person is infected, the virus spreads throughout the body in about 5-7 days. Symptoms usually appear two to three weeks after exposure. The most infectious period is usually 1–5 days after the appearance of the rash.
When a woman is infected with the rubella virus early in pregnancy, she has a 90% chance of passing the virus on to her fetus. This can cause miscarriage, stillbirth or severe birth defects known as CRS. Infants with CRS may excrete the virus for a year or more.
Congenital rubella syndrome
Children with CRS can suffer hearing impairments, eye and heart defects and other lifelong disabilities, including autism, diabetes mellitus and thyroid dysfunction – many of which require costly therapy, surgeries and other expensive care.
The highest risk of CRS is in countries where women of childbearing age do not have immunity to the disease (either through vaccination or from having had rubella). Before the introduction of the vaccine, up to four babies in every 1000 live births were born with CRS.
Large-scale rubella vaccination during the past decade has practically eliminated rubella and CRS in many developed and in some developing countries. The WHO Region of the Americas has had no endemic (naturally-transmitted) cases of rubella infection since 2009.
CRS rates are highest in the WHO African and South-East Asian regions where vaccine coverage is lowest.
Response to YarnAddict (Reply #33)
Post removed
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While some of what you say is true, it is hard to underestimate the overall public health cost of allowing these diseases to re-emerge.
Your arguments about immunity don't hold up. The vaccine generally confers immunity in the same way the disease does. It just does it without the morbidity and mortality associated with the disease itself.
There is a tremendous amount of misinformation on this on the inter tubes. And while you still have the right, at least for now, to do what you want, I think you should be held responsible for any negative outcomes related to your decision.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)and also acknowledged that some of what may have been of concern a quarter of a century ago has been proved incorrect.
Sort of unrelated to this topic, and probably another hot-button issue, but what do you think of the possible link between the Garisil and ALS? I am long past the age where this would be an issue for me, and I have no daughters, but I would certainly hesitate to have a child vaccinated with something that could be related to a disease much more devastating than HPV or even cervical cancer.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I just did a little research and the CDC has not changed it's position that it is safe, effective and that the benefits outweigh any known risks.
Of course, it is always wise to watch new meds/vaccines over time, but I don't see any reports of serious adverse effects for the last five years or so.
In light of that, I would choose to use it, were I in that position.
But I'm a pretty strong advocate of vaccines in general.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)You haven't seen any reports? there have been several young teenagers who were afflicted with an aggessive form of ALS within a few month of receiving Gardisil.
www.webmd.com/sexual.../hpv.../rare-disease-may-be-linked-vaccin
Do a search or Gardisil and ALS, and you will find lots of links. But, of course, that makes me an "anti-vaxxer" and some Nazi would be willing to remove my children from my care for not being all "rah-rah big pharma" on this.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
I think you are encountering a lot of the frustration people feel around this topic. To us, it seems so straightforward and obvious. And the arguments are generally so circular and compounded by bad science.
When you put yourself out there, you are going to be a lightning rod, but you have the right to your POV on this. I think the science proves you wrong, but, in the end, it's not my decision to make.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)Don't know if that means those links have been disproved, or (tin foil hat time) if other victims have been paid off, or whatever.
I have a friend whose father died of ALS. She has spoken at length of his last couple of years, and I cannot imagine anything worse--for the victim, or for his/her family and friends.
OTOH, cervical cancer is extremely treatable, easily detectable, and a far better alterative to even the slightest chance of contracting ALS.
As for being a lightning rod, so be it. But I am fully prepared to call a Nazi a Nazi. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)ALS is bad. Cervical cancer is bad. It's all about the risks and benefits.
I had to make some hard decisions before going to Africa. I looked closely at the risks and benefits and made some choices about what I would and would not get vaccinated for and take prophylaxis for. Each decision has plusses and minuses on both sides.
But there is something to be said for diseases that are communicable. If one decides not to get a vaccine for that, there is the issue of placing others at risk. That would weigh heavily into my decision making. For example, my kids may not be at real risk from a particular disease, but if they come into contact with a vulnerable person, they may put that person at very serious risk.
So, to me, there is an imperative to protect the community.
I'd be careful with that Nazi stuff, but that's just me.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)and, as I have said, my own children were vaccinated. I'm glad I didn't know at the time all the things I know now. I'd have been extremely hesitant.
I will stand by my decision to call anyone who would advocate removing children from their own home and parents on the basis of decisions that are the parents' to make a Nazi. Sorry if that offends, but that guy really rubbed me the wrong way. I can't believe anyone would inflict such emotional trauma on a child (and his/her family) over something that silly.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It was over the top. I would just avoid taking the same road.
I'll dial it back. Thanks for the advice.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While we totally disagree on this, it has been a pleasant and civil conversation.
Hard to come by around here sometimes.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are some people who have legitimate contraindications to taking particular or any vaccines.
While I agree that not vaccinating your children is the wrong thing to do, I find your solutions a little extreme.
Be careful what you ask for. I don't know if you are a parent or not, but having your kids taken away for a parenting decision is pretty extreme and could be imposed on you for something you might believe in.
Now the discussion about being able to sue these parents if their decisions cause injury or death is a very good one and might lead some to reconsider their decision.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)anti-vaccine parents might just eventually decide they don't want to risk being sued?
Huh. I guess I'd rather try and keep those kids from getting killed in the first place.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and child abuse. Again, exempting those with valid medical reasons.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)its no different than Christian Scientist parents refusing to send their children to the hospital or doctor for a serious illness that can easily be treated, and letting them die instead. Should they be sued instead of sent to jail when this happens? I don't give a shit about intentions, but results and risk assessment. I would say that IF you can trace an outbreak to some shitstain parents who neglected to give their kids vaccines, whether through laziness or because of stupidity, they should be charged for the manslaughter and/or assault of EVERY person that got infected due to their negligence. Now that is extreme.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)because the opposition's only argument is ignorance, that's all they got, and the consequences of that ignorance are so damned real. We have people, of all types, that are put in danger from the ignorance of these anti-vaxxer nuts. I don't care where they think they get their ideology from.
It seems you generally feel the same way, except you would prefer them to face civil rather than criminal penalties. This seem accurate to you?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)don't understand the issue by calling them names.
There is a great need here for some loud and strong education for the anti-vaxxers. I believe they are absolutely wrong in their position and have the data to back that up.
But yelling at them just drives them further away.
Because someone holds a position born of ignorance does not necessarily mean that they can't be educated.
In the case of this church, they completely reversed their position when faced with the facts, but I doubt anyone called them ugly names in the process.
I don't think there is a case for criminal penalties at this point, but I do think there is a case for civil penalties. And the internet remains a powerful tool which was critical in changing the position of this church.
I just don't think we should viciously attack them. It will drive them further away.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the anti-science crowd, and the so called "extreme skeptics" who think we live in the Matrix for all the good it is to talk to them about anything.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)merely consider ignorant or unable to adequately evaluate and process the real data.
I would again point out that this church changed their position and sponsored some vax clinics.
Whether they did this because they saw the error of their ways or because they were actually convinced by the data is hard to say, but they did it.
I have also seen a lot of very good pediatricians who have made excellent inroads in this area. But one only has to find one pediatrician who is also a "skeptic" (and they are unfortunately out there) to undermine the whole thing.
One of the keys remains, as in so many areas, to teach our children to effectively analyze real data instead of swallowing things they read on the internet. If we did more of that, we would have less of this.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)who use confirmation bias as an argument, there's one in this thread, and at least one in the thread in General Discussion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And what's worse is that I later got shingles, one of the most painful and lingering conditions I have ever had.
And we were quarantined, which meant that single parents or families with two working parents were just shit out of luck.
They don't get it, but maybe they will if it doesn't go so well for one of their kids or someone exposed to one of their kids.
I'm very thankful we eliminated polio. Imagine how it would be if they were refusing that vaccine.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's why we still vaccinate against it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)stress induced immunosuppression, from what she told me, lead to mild paralysis of the face, and numbness over about half her body. Shingles is weird because its symptoms are so varied, that's why I'm ecstatic they developed a chicken pox vaccine, hopefully in a few generations, chicken pox will go the way of smallpox.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)At first, I had no idea what was going wrong with me. Once I figured it out, it had almost run it's course, but left me with residual pain for a year or more.
20's is young, but certainly not heard of.
None of my kids had chicken pox, and for that I am grateful.
But I am a huge fan of vaccines.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)If you based every decision on the worst possible consequences of every alternative, you probably wouldn't bother getting out of bed in the morning!
What if I slip in the shower and break my neck?
What if I choke on my morning toast?
What if some redneck in a pickup truck t-bones me at an intersection?
What if the elevator cables break on my way up to my office and the elevator plunges to the basement?
Choosing not to vaccinate is certainly NOT the same as refusing treatment for serious illnesses, because the consequences are far less black and white. Bad things WILL happen if you don't have your child treated for cancer. Bad things MAY happen (but probably won't) if you don't have your child vaccinated.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Safety seats, or seatbelts when they are older. Bad thing happen, you are recklessly arguing to not reduce that risk.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)I guess that about sums it up to me.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They have made a link in this case, but even the church has changed it's position.
So, if your point is that religious groups can change when offered valid, scientific evidence, then I might agree with you.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)FFS, why are you unable to EVER admit that?
