ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 30, 2015

Medical extortion

Pediatricians are increasingly behaving in an openly unethical manner:
With California gripped by a measles outbreak, Dr. Charles Goodman posted a clear notice in his waiting room and on Facebook: His practice will no longer see children whose parents won't get them vaccinated.

"Parents who choose not to give measles shots, they're not just putting their kids at risk, but they're also putting other kids at risk - especially kids in my waiting room," the Los Angeles pediatrician said.

It's a sentiment echoed by a small number of doctors who in recent years have "fired" patients who continue to believe debunked research linking vaccines to autism. They hope the strategy will lead parents to change their minds; if that fails, they hope it will at least reduce the risk to other children in the office.

The tough-love approach - which comes amid the nation's second-biggest measles outbreak in at least 15 years, with at least 98 cases reported since last month - raises questions about doctors' ethical responsibilities.
Any doctor who attempts to force a treatment on a patient against the will of the patient or an underage patient's parents should lose his medical license. It is absolutely unethical for a medical professional to behave in this outrageous manner, and those who stupidly think that this would be a great idea should stop and think about the obvious consequences for a few seconds.

Measles is not a major health risk to anyone; statistically speaking it is considerably lower down the risk chain than obesity, smoking, homosexuality and even gun ownership. If the "tough love" approach is deemed to be permissible, then doctors will be able to use any of those factors to cull patients from their list, and given the way in which Medicare now influences how they are compensated, there are entire patient classes that they would love to be able to stop serving. The sword always cuts both ways.

The very minor risk to other children in the office is easily managed; a doctor can have "unvaccinated" days in which those children who are not vaccinated according to the presently recommended schedule are seen. (Which in reality is almost everyone; I know very few parents who have managed to stick to the complete schedule, not even the strongly pro-vaccination ones.) Furthermore, some children cannot be vaccinated because they, or their siblings, have had sufficiently negative reactions to their first vaccinations. Are they going to be barred from all medical treatment simply because one specific treatment is harmful to them?

Before you leap to any conclusions or assume that this is personal, let me remind you that you have absolutely no idea what vaccinations my children have or do not have. My argument against this unethical and dangerous policy has absolutely nothing to do with my preference for limited and delayed vaccine schedules; even the most rabid pro-vaccine supporter should be capable of seeing the inherent danger in it.

Labels:

133 Comments:

Anonymous IngSoc January 30, 2015 5:33 AM  

Wait? I thought freedom of association?

Anonymous jml1911a1 January 30, 2015 5:41 AM  

Have any of the "measles outbreak!" articles mentioned whether those infected were or were not vaccinated?

Blogger Vox January 30, 2015 5:41 AM  

I thought freedom of association?

In a strictly regulated, quasi-socialist healthcare system? What crack are you smoking? What some commenters repeatedly fail to grasp is that once principle has been abandoned on a primary level, you can't appeal to it on a tertiary level. It is no longer relevant.

Once a doctor accepts all of the various restrictions inherent in the system and is duly licensed, he can't turn around and claim "freedom of association" any more than a soldier can tell his commanding officer that he doesn't feel like going on patrol tonight, but is going to a movie instead.

Anonymous IngSoc January 30, 2015 5:46 AM  

Vox, I get that, but you said "should" and you are usually very careful about word choice.

Blogger Shimshon January 30, 2015 5:52 AM  

"Before you leap to any conclusions or assume that this is personal, let me remind you that you have absolutely no idea what vaccinations my children have or do not have."

Vox, I can't believe that this argument has ever mattered in your experience, because it doesn't in mine. When dealing with the vaccine advocates, even suggesting some doubt as to their touted efficacy and safety is grounds to have you tarred and feathered. You can even admit to vaccinating you and yours against measles and all the other diseases. No matter, as long as you raise even the mildest form of doubt on the conventional wisdom.

Blogger Vox January 30, 2015 6:01 AM  

I get that, but you said "should" and you are usually very careful about word choice.

Yes, in these circumstances, any U.S. doctor who announces such a policy should be warned that their license to practice medicine is subject to revocation and they will not receive any Medicaid reimbursements until the policy is abandoned.

Blogger HMS Defiant January 30, 2015 6:06 AM  

Banish those men! They hold opinions we find objectionable.

Blogger Thordaddy January 30, 2015 6:07 AM  

If there is room full of 100 children and 99 are vaccinated against measles -- meaning 99 children are injected with a modified measles VIRUS -- then how does it compute that the one child who is virus free is therefore the health risk to the 99 vaccinated children? It seems to me that the only actual health risks are those already infected with the measles virus and/or those injected with the modified virus/vaccine. Those who are without virus and unvaccinated pose no health risk to any others at all. Am I missing something?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 30, 2015 6:14 AM  

I agree with the doctor. My parents vaccinated all of us siblings and nothing went wrong. Unvaccinated children pose a risk to other children.

Blogger YIH January 30, 2015 6:17 AM  

jml2911a1:
Have any of the "measles outbreak!" articles mentioned whether those infected were or were not vaccinated?
None that I know of.
I did hear ''it's believed that the infection came from overseas'' which considering the outbreak began in (California) Disneyland is hardly any surprise, both due to international tourism and Anaheim being subsumed into Mexico.

Anonymous Foster January 30, 2015 6:21 AM  

"Yes, in these circumstances, any U.S. doctor who announces such a policy should be warned that their license to practice medicine is subject to revocation and they will not receive any Medicaid reimbursements until the policy is abandoned."

But Vox, if we adopt your standard, then doesn't that create the precedent to force physicians to "treat" pregnant patients who desire abortions that are deemed the standard of care by a current system? It also forces doctors to take patients who are known to create frivolous lawsuits. Despite the government funding being used to provide physicians' educations and now reimbursements, it is in our overall best interest to continue to allow doctors to choose who they will see and who they will not see without risk to their licensure (Medicaid, yeah, whatever. Many doctors won't take it anyway.). Your precedent will have the unintended consequence of forcing physicians to obey the dictates of the government healthcare system.

Anonymous Clay January 30, 2015 6:28 AM  

I would never deign to speak for Vox, but I believe his major objection is to giving these children massive amounts of vaccinations in a single shot at one time. especially at such an early age. I think so, myself.

Hell, I just had shingles shot, after my friend came down with it. But. I never got a shot for Chicken Pox........my family of 5 kids had the CPOX for about two weeks, and we all lived thru it.

My friend is a big, healthy man, but those shingles put him down like a baby.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2015 6:29 AM  

But Vox, if we adopt your standard, then doesn't that create the precedent to force physicians to "treat" pregnant patients who desire abortions that are deemed the standard of care by a current system?

No, because refusing to perform a specific action that is abhorrent to the conscience is not the equivalent of expelling a patient from one's practice for failure to dutifully obey the doctor. A doctor doesn't have to sexually penetrate a homosexual because the homosexual demands it, but he does have an ethical obligation to provide medical services to the homosexual.

Blogger Hunsdon January 30, 2015 6:39 AM  

I can't believe this, but I agree with Thordaddy's post. Also, in this whole measles brouhaha, do you know the one word I'm waiting to hear? "Immigrant" or "immigration."

Blogger J Curtis January 30, 2015 6:40 AM  

I blame the Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Industry. MD's/hospitals/clinics do not want to let kids leave their care without vaccinating them. GOD FORBID they should actually acquire measles, polio, whooping cough upon leaving their facility, they can't be sued for not taking steps to prevent it. Thanks slip and fall attorneys

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 30, 2015 6:44 AM  

My father was shot up without my approval or notification per my papers as POA. Then again, without a phone call or written notification they also stole our income. The no care system or corrupt HC system is a complete disaster.

I landed up in the ER recently and the next room over was a teen that suffered another reaction to a false mandating drug pushing profiteer at school for the flu. Earlier around that time, I was in the ER again waiting around for help. Down the hall, same story different vax, a 20 yr old took the gardsil rounds and went into a seizure, quit breathing, the parents and dr. agreed this is a reaction to the vax. Teens and 20 yr olds just dont fall ill. As for me, its a host of problems. When I am asked for the 100th time about my adult vax, if I took this, that and this too, I say 'yes.'

Who trusts someone at a grocery store of pharmacy like CVS or walgreens to roll up their sleeve? Who can entrust their bodies to "whatever nurse the corp. says she is" to stick you with a flu vax? only in post american time when the company and vax maker has complete immunity despite 2 to 4 pages of warnings.

Blogger John S January 30, 2015 6:52 AM  

Wheeler's for it people.

Case.
Closed.

Blogger rumpole5 January 30, 2015 6:57 AM  

I've spent a fortune in time and money educating my son outside of the government system. He is in second year of medical school now busting his ass every day. How dare you or anyone else tell him what he has to do with his talents. Other than taxes, slavery is specifically forbidden by our Constitution. I think that you've lived too long in Europe.

Blogger Foster January 30, 2015 7:09 AM  

"No, because refusing to perform a specific action that is abhorrent to the conscience is not the equivalent of expelling a patient from one's practice for failure to dutifully obey the doctor. A doctor doesn't have to sexually penetrate a homosexual because the homosexual demands it, but he does have an ethical obligation to provide medical services to the homosexual."

Actually, no, I don't think he does have an ethical obligation, depending upon his reasoning. If the doctor believes that anal "sex" is dangerous to one's health, so long as he refuses to see the patient for the patient's medically relevant actions, and similarly discriminates against heterosexuals who practice anal "sex" (assuming that's the basis of his rejection), you cannot blame the doctor for refusing the person who happens to also identify as "gay". That is the kind of reasoning that has created the rejection of DOMA and the inevitability of Supreme Court mandated gay marriage. i.e. refusing to admit that there are perfectly rational reasons to subsidize heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships, and one need not hate gays to see their actions as socially unhelpful with regard to creating new citizens for the state.

It seems to me that if one can abstain from taking a patience based on "abhorrence of conscience", then in order to meet your standard, the physician simply has to claim that he would be acting against his conscience by enabling patients to forego vaccinations through his actions. Admittedly, the doctor in question has not made this argument, but would he be permitted to refuse to perform his services on these anti-vaccine people if he felt this way (or verbalized this way what he probably feels anyway) by your standard, or would he thus violate your standard of conscience in some way and still be obligated to treat or face the loss of his licensure?

Anonymous VD January 30, 2015 7:10 AM  

How dare you or anyone else tell him what he has to do with his talents.

He doesn't have to apply for a medical license. Once he does, we have every right to tell him what he can or cannot do with that license. I think you're failing to grasp the obvious: once he applies for the license, the licensing body can tell him anything it wants. It's not slavery if he volunteers for it.

Now, I oppose the state and federal regulating of doctors. Do you? Because if you don't, your position is self-contradicting and irrational.

Anonymous Stilicho January 30, 2015 7:12 AM  

What are the raw numbers of U.S. deaths attributable to measles among the unvaccinated and the raw numbers of deaths attributable to adverse reactions among the vaccinated U.S. population? Same question for serious or life threatening condition. N.B. The questions apply separately to all vaccines. The results for polio do not apply to HPV.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2015 7:13 AM  

It seems to me that if one can abstain from taking a patience based on "abhorrence of conscience", then in order to meet your standard, the physician simply has to claim that he would be acting against his conscience by enabling patients to forego vaccinations through his actions.

You're missing the point. Inaction is not action. It's a silly and hypothetical position, and furthermore, contrary to the "first, do no harm" principle. You don't get to randomly invent positions of conscience. Abortion is a legitimately contested moral issue. Not giving vaccinations is not; doctors don't give vaccinations to the vast majority of patients they see.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2015 7:16 AM  

What are the raw numbers of U.S. deaths attributable to measles among the unvaccinated and the raw numbers of deaths attributable to adverse reactions among the vaccinated U.S. population?

Zero deaths in 2013, 17 hospitalizations. That's total, includes vaccinated and unvaccinated. It's an absolute tempest in a teapot.

Anonymous Stilicho January 30, 2015 7:17 AM  

Re: doctors freedom of association: once you've taken the Queen's shilling, you don't get to choose which of the Queen's subjects you'll serve.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2015 7:18 AM  

UPDATE: There have been ZERO measles deaths in the USA since 2003.

Anonymous Stilicho January 30, 2015 7:19 AM  

Put another way, once you've rendered your conscience unto Caesar, you can't claim it as your own.

Anonymous grey enlightenment January 30, 2015 7:24 AM  

been more rabies deaths than measles deaths

Blogger JP January 30, 2015 7:34 AM  

One needs to continuously remind the other side that we're not arguing against vaccinations (in this example) per se, but what government intervention would set a precedent for. Sure, it's all fun and games to force parents to have their children vaccinated, but what if they turn around and start forcing Ritalin or anti-depressants on your kid?

As soon as a precedent is set, it's very expensive and difficult to prevent that precedent from being applied to other similar things.

Blogger Foster January 30, 2015 7:40 AM  

"You're missing the point. Inaction is not action."
Could you be more specific as to your criticism? Are you speaking of the physician's inaction or the patient's inaction? I may very well be missing your point. I am advocating the physician's right to inaction. If you are attempting to escape the equivalence I created above of refusing to treat based on an action (anal sex) and an inaction (refusal to vaccinate), I could just as legitimately refuse to treat a patient who refused to take showers.

"It's a ... position ... contrary to the "first, do no harm" principle."
No, it's not. I do no harm by refusing to "help."

"You don't get to randomly invent positions of conscience. Abortion is a legitimately contested moral issue."
Who gets to decide which positions of conscience are "legitimate" and which are not? You?

"Not giving vaccinations is not [a legitimately contested moral issue]; doctors don't give vaccinations to the vast majority of patients they see."
I am not arguing that giving or not giving vaccinations is or is not a legitimately contested moral issue, and I fail to see the relevance to the issue at hand, since the reason doctors don't give vaccinations to most patients is because most patients have already been vaccinated. I am rather arguing that it is a perfectly rational and legitimate position of conscience for a physician to feel he is ultimately doing the patient and the general population a disservice by allowing his patients to go unvaccinated, and that it is therefore immoral for him to enable such a patient by providing them with service.




Anonymous 0007 January 30, 2015 7:42 AM  

test

Anonymous 0007 January 30, 2015 7:47 AM  

Yeah, YIH has the right question. Isn't interesting that this happened so soon after all those ILLEGAL little disease vectors were brought into this country by those traitors in DC? Got to wonder which connected "charity" took their little $500/day charges to Disneyland in January.

Anonymous Old Man in a Villa January 30, 2015 7:50 AM  

Too bad the doctor isn't in charge of immigration policy instead of office protocol.

I would bet you 1 million dollars that the above mentioned MD is 100% in favor of open borders.

I think hypocrisy is the new fervent religiosity.

Anonymous roo_ster January 30, 2015 7:53 AM  

The logic for insisting doctors treat the unvaccinated is faulty. Doctors are the ones being extorted and they are being extorted by the state to practice their livelihood. Little different from a shopkeeper having to pay an organized crime syndicate or be burned down. They have no choice but to pay or face violence from the state. The shopkeeper who pays up does not thereby lose his right to not serve obnoxious or unruly customers. Parents of children who do not get them vaccinated are offered no violence from doctors. Or anyone else due to their refusal to vaccinate. They are not being extorted.

Accepting medicare and medicaid patients is not a subsidy as those programs do not compensate sufficient to cover the costs of treatment. A practice can only take in so many such patients and remain viable.

There are plenty of instances where govt intrudes into commerce where it ought not. Accepting reality and complying in the face of threatened violence does not then strip the business owner of all rights to discriminate and or run his enterprise as he sees fit.

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 7:54 AM  

No, because refusing to perform a specific action that is abhorrent to the conscience is not the equivalent of expelling a patient from one's practice for failure to dutifully obey the doctor.

I think you're failing to grasp the obvious: once he applies for the license, the licensing body can tell him anything it wants.
- VD

Once the Medical Licensing Authority makes mandatory its determination of what the conscience shall find abhorrent, watch out.

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 30, 2015 7:59 AM  

patients who continue to believe debunked research linking vaccines to autism.

First, I'd like to know studies who debung this.

Second, I'd like to know: if this link of vaccines to autism is debunked, why do governments pay huge amount of dollars to people claiming exactly such a link exists and that their children suffered from it? I know that Italy did pay. I know (source: Spacebunny on Twitter) that the US paied 2 Billion dollars in such cases.

So far, no one was able to debung my second question, which isn't proof, but a very strong indicator that something _is_ indeed wrong with the official vaccinations schedules.

Stay strong. The storm is only going to get stronger. And there will be attempts soon to make those vaccinations mandatory (in some countries, some vaccines are already mandatory; you can go to prison if you refuse to vaccinate your child). The WHO is working actively to have this kind of legislation in every country.

Anonymous VD January 30, 2015 8:03 AM  

Could you be more specific as to your criticism? Are you speaking of the physician's inaction or the patient's inaction? I may very well be missing your point. I am advocating the physician's right to inaction. If you are attempting to escape the equivalence I created above of refusing to treat based on an action (anal sex) and an inaction (refusal to vaccinate), I could just as legitimately refuse to treat a patient who refused to take showers.

I'll try to type more slowly. I am referring to the physician's inaction. The physician has the right to refuse to perform any medical procedure for any reason. He does not have the right to refuse to see a patient, whether that is because the patient is a Jew, is a Negro, is not vaccinated, lives in a household where there are guns, or does not shower.

If a baker can't refuse to sell a cake, do you seriously think a state-licensed physician can refuse to provide basic medical services?

Anonymous VD January 30, 2015 8:07 AM  

The logic for insisting doctors treat the unvaccinated is faulty.

No, it is not. Your position is totally inapplicable. The state already intervenes and insists that even bakers must bake cakes for people. The idea that under such a system, a doctor could refuse to treat children who are unvaccinated is remarkably stupid.

I'll take your position seriously just as soon as you provide evidence indicating that doctors are freely permitted to turn away blacks, Jews, and homosexuals.

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 8:09 AM  

One sec Vox. Like the physcian, the baker sees the customer. But the baker cannot refuse to perform whereas the physcian can because he "has the right to refuse to perform any medical procedure for any reason"? Doesn't make sense against "do you seriously think a state-licensed physician can refuse to provide basic medical services?" Was the baker only required to make a basic cake?

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 8:11 AM  

This is a major problem with licensing. It dictates conscience.

Anonymous roo_ster January 30, 2015 8:18 AM  

According to VD's logic on this one, ministers who receive their authority to legally marry folk from the state would have to join two men in marriage.

Besides, if there is such a disconnect between patient (or patient's parents) why would a parent continue to use such a doctor? My wife stopped going to an OB/GYN when she learned the doc performed elective abortions. If one truly believed that vaccines cause autism, why would you use a doc that intentionally inflicted such risk on their patients? Find a doc who beleives as you do and stop whining.

VD wrote:
"Any doctor who attempts to force a treatment on a patient against the will of the patient or an underage patient's parents should lose his medical license."
Except that is not what is happening on this instance. The doc is not forcing vaccination on anyone. The doc has no power to do so. The article shows no doc threatening violence for refusal to vaccinate.

OpenID cailcorishev January 30, 2015 8:18 AM  

"Parents who choose not to give measles shots, they're not just putting their kids at risk, but they're also putting other kids at risk - especially kids in my waiting room," the Los Angeles pediatrician said.

More proof that even smart people often don't think before they speak. As Thordaddy said, if the vaccination works, then unvaccinated people are only a risk to other unvaccinated people.

I know what he'd say: if too many people are unvaccinated, the disease will spread and perhaps grow stronger, and even some vaccinated people will start getting it. Except that hasn't happened and isn't happening. The unvaccinated aren't breaking out in greater numbers than the vaccinated with measles and mumps and everything else that they're supposedly susceptible to, so they're not creating any sort of critical mass that the vaccinated have to fear. It's pure Chicken Little.

Anonymous roo_ster January 30, 2015 8:30 AM  

VD wrote:
"No, it is not. Your position is totally inapplicable. The state already intervenes and insists that even bakers must bake cakes for people. The idea that under such a system, a doctor could refuse to treat children who are unvaccinated is remarkably stupid.

I'll take your position seriously just as soon as you provide evidence indicating that doctors are freely permitted to turn away blacks, Jews, and homosexuals."

Allowing folk to practice what liberty they still posses after complying with the dictates of the state is not stupid. The accretion of law and regulation is a horror, but no reason to insist that _all_ liberty be extinguished.

It remains that there are two undisputed facts that fly in the face of the post's premise:
1. Parents who do not vaccinate their children are not being extorted by doctors who do not have the power to extort them.
2. Docs who which to practice medicine are being extorted by the state to practice their livelihood.

The only "medical extortion" being done here is by the state upon doctors. The title and premise of this post are faulty and not in accord with reality.

Blogger Joshua Dyal January 30, 2015 8:30 AM  

Given how vulnerable doctors are to tort liability, I support their right to refuse to treat any patient that they want to refuse. A patient that refuses to accept your medical counsel; fine: go see some other doctor that gives you medical advice you like, then. And take your liability with you when you go.

Anonymous Alexander January 30, 2015 8:31 AM  

Where were all the doctors when hordes of Guatemalans were being shipped hither and thither across the country?

Blogger David January 30, 2015 8:34 AM  

Medicine is a cartel. A government cartel, that is.

Medical schools' bills are overwhelmingly paid by gov't entities.
The schools' numbers are entirely dictated (courtesy of a plan hatched by the AMA a century ago, to put "competing" schools of thought/practice out of business and drive up physicians' incomes.)

Today, a medical license is nothing but a union card for the government medical cartel. Far over 50% of medical services are paid for by Uncle Sammy, and he who pays the piper....

As an aside, the American Academy of Pediatrics has always been a leader in leftist/progressivist activism. It was that organization that promoted asking parents about gun ownership and counseling parents to give up their guns "for the safety of their children."

Also, pediatricians are the lowest paid physicians in the cartel. Drug reps make more money than they do, typically.

Blogger David January 30, 2015 8:42 AM  

To those challenging VD's position (strip them of their reimbursements or their license), you're missing the point.

The physician is free to work OUTSIDE of the system (no license, cash only). Yes, he or she runs the risk of being charged with practicing medicine without a license (a gov't granted regulatory tax stamp) but as a matter of conscience, he or she can do what they wish with the education they acquired.

However, in this world, while they may have paid half a million dollars for their "MD" or "DO," the taxpayers paid MORE.

Some of those taxpayers may choose to skip some or all of the current government-bureaucrat-approved, liability-shielded vaccine schedule. For a pediatrician to cut off treatment (for, say, strep throat that can progress to rheumatic fever if untreated) while treatment legally REQUIRES a permission slip from a physician (an Rx, that is) then that taxpayer is being ROBBED via the physician breaking the explicit contract of his or her educational subsidy.

You take the coin (by going to med school) then you have to accept the consequences. It's about time physicians were bitch-slapped a few times to recall that the conditions under which they practice are not entirely theirs to determine, on the fly.

Anonymous Harvey January 30, 2015 8:44 AM  

@ Peter Garstig: Can you repost that link that Spacebunny provided? I don't use twitter. I have an immunodeficiency and I have long wondered whether vaccinations caused (or exacerbated) the problem but such cases are hard to find...and clinical studies even harder.

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 8:50 AM  

The State is slowly working its way around sheeple refusal. Not only is the Licensed doctor required to see (negotiate with) the un-vaccinated, he is also required to (make contract & perform) bake their cake.

What we're coming up against is the next step in quashing refusal by the theoretically unlicensed, i.e. the un-vaccinated person. When it comes to children, I believe the Authority will eventually use the Marriage License (State as a party) as a bludgeon.

Anonymous Jeromus January 30, 2015 9:02 AM  

You have the option to go to another Dr. There will always be a Dr. willing to take your money.

Blogger Da_Truth_Hurts January 30, 2015 9:08 AM  

Seeing how these recent outbreaks originate in the SW USA, I'm shocked - SHOCKED- that the news media hasn't found the obvious link to the trash coming over the border.

Blogger Ragin' Dave January 30, 2015 9:09 AM  

1. Dude's in LA.

2. Huge amounts of illegals come to LA to get their "free" medical care on a daily basis.

I think this has less to do with immunizations than the fact that this guy is tired of having to treat illegal wetbacks; he doesn't get paid for those wetbacks, or if the government tosses him a few pennies it's not enough to keep his office open. The immunization thing is his excuse, but I'd be willing to get money that it's not the actual cause of his action.

And considering that Mexico are printing out maps showing Mexicans how to get to LA illegally and where the hospitals/doctors are, this guy probably gets flooded with illegals. I know the USC medical center does, little mamacitas with big bellies ready to pop, their Mexican-government printed map in their hand, demanding that we pay for their anchor baby.

Blogger David January 30, 2015 9:12 AM  

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/bill-sardi/i-will-never-vaccinate-my-childe280a8/

Anonymous Stilicho January 30, 2015 9:14 AM  

in this whole measles brouhaha, do you know the one word I'm waiting to hear? "Immigrant" or "immigration."

You will, but it will be in the context of "we need to bring these people out of the shadows and put them on the path to citizenship so that we can vaccinate them to protect your children."

Anonymous Harsh January 30, 2015 9:18 AM  

So let me get the SJW position here:

Refuse medical service to a disease-ridden homosexual = BAD
Refuse medical service to a disease-ridden immigrant = BAD
Refuse medical service to kid without a vaccine to a minor disease = DOING GOOD IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Do I have that right?

Anonymous Stilicho January 30, 2015 9:20 AM  


"Parents who choose not to give measles shots, they're not just putting their kids at risk, but they're also putting other kids at risk - especially kids in my waiting room," the Los Angeles pediatrician said.


Any unvaccinated child who is in his waiting room, waiting for him to vaccinate them that day is subjecting the other kids to the exact same risk. Shall we expect this doctor to refuse to vaccinate children since he finds that risk "especially" unacceptable?

Blogger Matamoros January 30, 2015 9:23 AM  

If vaccinations worked 1) the waiting rooms wouldn't be full of the vaccinated, and 2), it wouldn't matter if many were unvaccinated because those vaccinated would be protected.

Blogger Nate January 30, 2015 9:26 AM  

We had a pediatrician in Dickson TN that tried to talk down to us about the delaying the MMR vaccine...

DrWho never pulls the doctor card. In fact she does everything she can to make sure people don't know she's a doctor. But when this ancient pediatrician started running his mouth she gave him a fairly thorough bitchslapping... and then we calmly explained that we were never coming back... and it was time for him to be thinking about retirement.

He actually did end up retiring a year later.

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 9:27 AM  

One morning the American people will awaken to an act of Congress, or possibly Executive action, enacted in the dead of night, that for reasons similar and prudent all people are required by law to be vaccinated pursuant to Gov't standards. The Gov't will point to the Commerce Clause. Reasoning shall be that the un-vaccinated place the greater population at risk which, should said risk happen, affects Interstate Commerce; because said risk is potential, therefore the individual's health may be fully regulated.

Anonymous Stilicho January 30, 2015 9:29 AM  


DrWho never pulls the doctor card. In fact she does everything she can to make sure people don't know she's a doctor. But when this ancient pediatrician started running his mouth she gave him a fairly thorough bitchslapping... and then we calmly explained that we were never coming back... and it was time for him to be thinking about retirement.


Too bad you didn't record it. It's tough to find humor on that level since the Pythons retired.

Anonymous LES January 30, 2015 9:31 AM  

The news media shouts about how many thousands of people have been EXPOSED to the measles. So what if they are vaccinated? Only the unvaccinated need be concerned and they deliberately chose to take the risk of getting the measles. It is no epidemic as we're being led to believe.

Blogger Nate January 30, 2015 9:36 AM  

"Too bad you didn't record it. It's tough to find humor on that level since the Pythons retired."

I really should have... but I was to busy reminding myself that gutting an old man like a fish in his own practice is really not civilized behavior.

Anonymous rho January 30, 2015 9:44 AM  

While there were no deaths from measles since 2003, measles was considered essentially non-existent by 2000? 2001? Something like that. An outbreak now after years of people doubting vaccinations is interesting.

And FWIW, measles is relatively harmless, but it's not zero risk. Plus there are complications for adults and infants who contract the disease which can be dangerous. The doctor in this case is engaged in a form of risk management. Refusing to serve patients, however, is not the answer. The solution of offering a block of "no-vacc" appointments is a good solution. The doc most likely went this route because he's very pro-vaccination and is pissed off at anti-vaccination advocates.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 30, 2015 9:45 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 30, 2015 9:46 AM  

I suspect the real fear here is that current measles vaccine is as useless as the whooping cough vaccine, and the medical community knows it. A while back, Kentucky had an unreported cluster of whooping cough. My daughter had it, my wife had it, and I probably had it, and we've all had the recommended levels of shots. I got tested, and then went and read the protocol for testing. The nurse botched the test completely, and it came back negative for me. Imagine that.

I suspect that the measles vaccine has similar problems, and our local migratory visitors (probably from the Philippines this time) brought it back with them. If the virus gets a foothold back into the population, the gig could be up.

I would point out that, if people can be forced to change acts of conscience to mitigate risks to others, making homosexual sex illegal during the AIDS era would have also been moral. More people were given a deadly disease by gay sex than have been infected with measles, polio, etc. during the post-vaccination era.

Blogger Sioux January 30, 2015 9:49 AM  

My mother is 94 years old. She was an elementary school teacher for 30+ years (1950s-early '80s). Her mother didn't believe in vaccinations (however few were available back then). Mom never got the measles, mumps, chicken pox, polio, or any of those "childhood" diseases despite constant exposure to sick kids in her classroom. As a child, I got sick with all of them once I started school (except polio because we did get the sugar cube for that one). None of these diseases were pleasant to experience, and I missed a ton of school until I had my tonsils out in the first grade. Then my disease-ridden days were over.

It's not whether you die from these diseases that is the issue, but how impaired might you become (blindness, deafness, heart problems, etc). Risk of disease and treatment vs. Benefit of disease and treatment. My kids are in their 30s-40s now, and they had all the immunizations required way back when. My daughter's new baby is subjected to far more vaccines in his first few months than she had her whole childhood, and that concerns me greatly.

I have had shingles, and it ain't pretty, but would not get the "vaccine" because it is not that effective. There are treatments that can lessen the symptoms, which is what I opted to do with success.

Yes, very interesting how no mention is ever made of the Central American version of childhood disease and pestilence spreading across America - not good at all. Bio-terrorism, IMHO.

OpenID genericviews January 30, 2015 9:51 AM  

As I recall, I had the measels when I was a kid. It was considered a common childhood illness back then. I survived without going to the hospital or any treatment at all.

One wonders if the same doctor will refuse to see patients who are sick with other things because of the risk they pose to other patients.

Anonymous Detective Olivia Benson January 30, 2015 9:52 AM  

Don't you guys worry. I'll protect you.

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 9:53 AM  

One wonders if the same doctor will refuse to see patients who are sick with other things because of the risk they pose to other patients.

Go to the emergency room and hang out. You'll be around everything.

OpenID cailcorishev January 30, 2015 10:15 AM  

My parents vaccinated all of us siblings and nothing went wrong.

That you know of. Good thing your personal anecdote doesn't trump everyone else's observations, decision-making ability, and freedom.

Unvaccinated children pose a risk to other children.

How?

Blogger Shibes Meadow January 30, 2015 10:21 AM  

Plumbers are licensed by the State; therefore, all licensed plumbers should be forbidden to deny service to any person.

Baker, bake that gay wedding cake, whether you want to or not.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 30, 2015 10:26 AM  

I've heard that the pharmaceutical companies are pushing vaccines because more and more people are refusing their drug treatments for their children. Also antibiotics are getting less and less effective.

And since government jobs are often a revolving door with corporate jobs that are "regulated" by the bureaucrats, it is fairly clear to me that the current vaccine schedule was created in order to create new customers. Kind of like how Obamacare mandated health insurance on threat of fines and imprisonment in order to give poor people insurance.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 30, 2015 10:31 AM  

Jesus. And I do NOT mean that pejoritavely. I really mean that the more I study Christianity the more everything makes sense. BUT! It also becimes increasingly clear that the Prince of this place is speedung up his timetable.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Luciferian chaos has increased tenfold or more in the last 20 years. And I grew up in South Africa when riits ran the country. Seemed a lot more stable then there thanbit does now in the UK.

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 10:31 AM  

Also antibiotics are getting less and less effective.

They've been over-used, given out like candy.

Anonymous maniacprovost January 30, 2015 10:43 AM  

You can tell Vox is on his soap box when his adjective to noun ration approaches 1.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 30, 2015 10:50 AM  

Riits=Riots

Blogger Plump Pleasant Plumber January 30, 2015 10:55 AM  

Nope, ain't buying this particular brand of soap. Vaccinations are for the common good of ALL children. If you don't want to participate, why should your children be allowed to infect others? BTW, all these diseases have come from illegals.

Blogger wrf3 January 30, 2015 11:02 AM  

Vox wrote: Yes, in these circumstances, any U.S. doctor who announces such a policy should be warned that their license to practice medicine is subject to revocation and they will not receive any Medicaid reimbursements until the policy is abandoned.

On the contrary. You must have your papers, citizen. You are a citizen, aren't you? Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

(My father was a doctor. Were he still alive, he'd be livid at this asshattery).

Blogger automatthew January 30, 2015 11:02 AM  

"If you don't want to participate, why should your children be allowed to infect others?"

But how can the vaccinated be infected? They've been vaccinated, so they can't ever get sick. Right?

Blogger hank.jim January 30, 2015 11:06 AM  

"His practice will no longer see children whose parents won't get them vaccinated."

This sounds like a general description. If parents followed the schedule and generally vaccinated their children, this directive would not apply. But many parents are going the no vaccination route, which is possibly dangerous. It might be fine to delay the some vaccines if parents are afraid of cognitive development; however, once the kids reach school age, the option to remain vaccine free should mean homeschool and stay out of public places including Disneyland.

I see the doctor's actions in terms of how he treats his patients. He recommends the vaccine schedule. If patients disagree, patients should take their business elsewhere.

Blogger Vox January 30, 2015 11:09 AM  

If you don't want to participate, why should your children be allowed to infect others?

Because there is no law against infecting others. There is no right to not be infected. If you don't want to risk being infected by the unvaccinated, you stay home. That's your right.

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 11:10 AM  

If patients disagree, patients should take their business elsewhere

Like, go to Disneyland.

Blogger ashepherd January 30, 2015 11:12 AM  

Let's suppose someone just spent a month in a country over-run by Ebola. Upon returning home should they have the right to refuse quarantine or a vaccine (supposing such a vaccine exists)? Even if the vaccine has a finite chance of harming them (as I think all vaccines do)?

I mention this because it is an issue everyone in the US was recently discussing. I would have said that they don't have the right citing the safety of the rest of us. But is that consistent allowing the right to refuse any vaccine?

BTW Thordaddy missed the point. If 25 of a 100 patients are unvaccinated and one of them contracts the disease, they can transmit it to the rest of the unvaccinated, or those who haven't completed the vaccination protocol.

I have TB (though in an inactive form) because I worked with people who frequently traveled outside the US and apparently refused to do something that would have caught the fact that they brought back the disease. Either that or I unknowingly was around illegal immigrants.

OpenID cailcorishev January 30, 2015 11:18 AM  

Every discussion of the effectiveness of vaccines and the huge danger presented by the unvaccinated needs this classic Simpsons bit:

Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."
Homer: "Thank you, dear."
Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn't work."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

OpenID cailcorishev January 30, 2015 11:20 AM  

If you don't want to participate, why should your children be allowed to infect others?

We're still waiting for someone to explain how my unvaccinated child is a significant risk to infect your vaccinated child. Go ahead, don't be shy. Since all decent people know it to be true, it should be easy enough to explain.

Blogger Salt January 30, 2015 11:21 AM  

Because there is no law against infecting others. There is no right to not be infected.

People have been Statutorily arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty of knowingly infecting others with Aids. That's but one example, and of course there is the caveat of knowingly. Parents send there kids to school all the time with all sorts of things. People go to work with the flu. That's how disease spreads. But none of this speaks to the efficacy of vaccines and the prescribed schedule.

Blogger Plump Pleasant Plumber January 30, 2015 11:23 AM  

Just asking a question - how many readers see the clear correlation between these sick central American children and the outbreaks that are mysteriously showing up?

Anonymous Alexander January 30, 2015 11:24 AM  

My body, my choice.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT WHEN WE COINED THAT!!!!!!!!!

PC anti-blasphemy laws are one day going to be used against atheists (for certain), Muslims (if they lose), and probably Jews (regardless of the winner).

And laws mandating vaccination, in conjunction with selective service, are going to one day be used against pro-choice feminists or women who refuse to have children.

I suppose on one level, we must nonetheless object to the evils being done by the state, especially when they are being directed against me, mine, and those of like heart... but I have to admit, I'm kinda looking forward to standing back and watching the inevitable devouring of the children by the monster of their own creation.

Anonymous Alexander January 30, 2015 11:25 AM  

PPP,

We all do. Just some people think we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it. But you can bet your house that Scalzi isn't inviting Guatemalan refugees to his town any time soon. And I doubt very much any of the little brats found their way to Sidwell Friends.

Anonymous Homesteader January 30, 2015 11:25 AM  

Hospitals are mandating the flu shot for staff as a condition of employment. Staff are beginning to rebel.
Schools and pediatricians are mandating onerous vaccination schedules for children. Parents are beginning to rebel.
The autism diagnosis rate has risen exponentially in the last 40 years.( Too fast for genetic causes.) Parents are seeking the cause, and the vaccines seem the only variable that fits.
Ritalin is dispensed like candy to healthy children reacting normally to an abnormal environment. Parents are homeschooling as a result.

Thus, I suspect we are approaching an extreme state. I think the Dispensers know this, and are doubling down their efforts. Since, by definition, extreme states don't last. Their control is slipping.

The issue isn't vaccines. It's power, and cultural hegemony. (If they actually cared about ANY of these diseases, they'd first stop the vectors pouring in from the South. ) Their authority is being challenged; expect them to react accordingly.






Anonymous Will Best January 30, 2015 11:26 AM  

And FWIW, measles is relatively harmless, but it's not zero risk.

Neither is driving 25,000 miles in a vehicle. Humans are entirely irrational about the risk assessment.

Then again it doesn't help that pro-vaxxers use stats from the 3rd world or include data in the US that is 20+ years old when standard treatments didn't include XYZ trying to convince you of how dangerous some disease.

Blogger hank.jim January 30, 2015 11:35 AM  

"We're still waiting for someone to explain how my unvaccinated child is a significant risk to infect your vaccinated child."

An infected unvaccinated child will develop symptons that are more likely to spread the disease to others including that of vaccinated child who would be a carrier that will infect the unvaccinated child. Vaccination is no guarrantee of not getting the disease. In fact, at least one person who was vaccinated developed measles in the Disneyland case.

Anecdotally, I received the chicken pox recently. Nobody else that I know gotten the disease. Vaccinated or previously infected people don't develop the disease. So you really don't know where that disease came from if no one developed the disease.

OpenID luagha January 30, 2015 11:45 AM  

For all of you in the 'I was vaccinated and didn't have a problem' crowd, remember that if you are over thirty, you took entirely different vaccinations than the ones that are given today.

Hillary Clinton sponsored a law that made the us government the main purchaser of vaccines so it could control the price. Of course it set the price too low, which caused the various vaccine shortages you may remember. Many vaccine makers left the market.

The few remaining switched to cheaper, less effective, untested but grandfathered methods. Now our vaccinations are crap compared to what they used to be.

OpenID cailcorishev January 30, 2015 11:57 AM  

An infected unvaccinated child will develop symptons that are more likely to spread the disease to others including that of vaccinated child who would be a carrier that will infect the unvaccinated child.

Except that they aren't. You can insist they will all you want, but it's not happening.

On a similar note, the dentists in my town somehow got the local school board to mandate dental checkups for all kids entering certain grades (three times through grade and high school, I think). Naturally, the cost skyrocketed, and many people now drive their kids two hours to the nearest city where the rates are normal. (It's also been a boon for homeschooling -- yet one more reason to exit the system). I'm not sure what the fear-mongering was on this one -- airborne gingivitis, perhaps?

Anonymous rho January 30, 2015 12:04 PM  

We're still waiting for someone to explain how my unvaccinated child is a significant risk to infect your vaccinated child. Go ahead, don't be shy. Since all decent people know it to be true, it should be easy enough to explain.

If your un-vaccinated child is infected, but not yet presenting, and is in a waiting room with other children who have yet to be vaccinated due to their age, then they present a risk.

Is it a "significant risk"? Maybe, maybe not; other factors may come into play.

Anonymous Wendy January 30, 2015 12:17 PM  

If your un-vaccinated child is infected, but not yet presenting, and is in a waiting room with other children who have yet to be vaccinated due to their age, then they present a risk.

This applies as much, if not more to illnesses which have no vaccine. What then? Doctor's offices are for sick people and just take normal precautions like washing hands.

Blogger rycamor January 30, 2015 12:17 PM  

It's pretty funny to watch the heads spin here. Vox is doing a very elegant Black Knighting job on his own readers.

Do you all get it yet?

Blogger rycamor January 30, 2015 12:22 PM  

Will Best January 30, 2015 11:26 AM
And FWIW, measles is relatively harmless, but it's not zero risk.

Neither is driving 25,000 miles in a vehicle. Humans are entirely irrational about the risk assessment.


Yep. Obesity, sugar and lack of exercise are literally the biggest killers in modern America. And if you think about it, obesity is a socially-transmitted disease. Therefore, doctors should refuse to see obese patients.

Anonymous Anubis January 30, 2015 12:25 PM  

Since most of the people that want vaccines uninvented are leftists for open borders, and I believe its already been covered here that the current measles outbreak is following the EV-68 illegal alien "children's crusade" from the summer, I say a pox upon their houses.
I have seen doctors take great steps in planning to avoid bus lines and other means by which the poor could find themselves at a clinic they decided to build after breaking off from a hospital, so they could do concierge level service to those with insurance while no/low-pay people go to their previous employer.

While all medical decisions are a risk/benefit equation, open borders people are importing more disease. The anthrax vaccine killed more people, mostly healthy soldiers, than have gotten anthrax since it was created. However there is no need to uninvent vaccines.

Here are links to the illegal alien children's crusade. A Pox upon Lefist's houses.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/01/24/measles-2015-outbreak-map-compared-to-2014-enterovirus-d68-outbreak-map-the-similarity-is-obvious/

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/01/23/what-do-the-enterovirus-d-68-and-a-new-measles-outbreak-have-in-common/

Serious question, does VOX influence/control the words in the captcha?

Anonymous clk January 30, 2015 12:26 PM  

Yeah .. VD is a bit bored before the Superbowl and thus decided to use a classic VD technique and argue the other side of the arguement ... I guess its not trolling when its the host that is doing it .. but it certainly feels like it...

Anonymous rho January 30, 2015 12:30 PM  

This applies as much, if not more to illnesses which have no vaccine. What then? Doctor's offices are for sick people and just take normal precautions like washing hands.

The question was, "what is the risk?" so I gave an example of a risk.

I don't think the doctor should refuse service as he did. Quite the contrary, the current situation gives him a fine example to point to for pro-vaccination advocacy.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 30, 2015 12:32 PM  

The state could force the dr it licenses to treat non-vaccinating patients. The state is not going to do this, probably will avoid having it argued in any court room.

The state suks.

Blogger RobertT January 30, 2015 12:35 PM  

THis was stupid, but ... I got into an online argument with a Silicon Valley bimbo on this subject recently, and one thing came out loud & clear. Many people on that side are arguing from an emotional (feminine) pov. The more logical and rational your statement, the more vitriolic and abusive their response. Things like "you didn't do your homework" made them mad as hell. Suddenly they were going for your jugular and pretending to laugh it off as idiotic.Always had to get in the last word with a little twist of the knife to impress their followers. But, even out there, some people made sensible comments as well.

Anonymous rho January 30, 2015 12:38 PM  

This applies as much, if not more to illnesses which have no vaccine. What then? Doctor's offices are for sick people and just take normal precautions like washing hands.

The question was "what is the risk?" I gave an example of a risk.

I don't think the doctor should refuse to serve people. On the contrary, the current situation gives him an ideal example to point to for pro-vaccination advocacy.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 30, 2015 12:40 PM  

An infected unvaccinated child will develop symptons that are more likely to spread the disease to others including that of vaccinated child ...

In other words, vaccines don't work. Thank you.

Next customer...

Blogger Bluntobj Winz January 30, 2015 1:10 PM  

rho,

Original Question:

"We're still waiting for someone to explain how my unvaccinated child is a significant risk to infect your vaccinated child. Go ahead, don't be shy. Since all decent people know it to be true, it should be easy enough to explain."

Rho Response:

"If your un-vaccinated child is infected, but not yet presenting, and is in a waiting room with other children who have yet to be vaccinated due to their age, then they present a risk."


You failed to answer the question. It was unvaccinated to vaccinated, not unvaccinated to waiting to be vaccinated (which means unvaccinated).

And according to the propaganda the unvaccinated grouping also includes those who have not have their second shot which is scheduled from age 4-6.

This means that all children are effectively unvaccinated for measles from birth to age 4-6 for the purposes of Vox's original post condemning doctors who are refusing to see these patients. Further, it calls into question the effectiveness of these vaccines, especially those grown with human diploid cell cultures.

Bad risk analysis is bad.

Blogger Cui Pertinebit January 30, 2015 1:20 PM  

Don't we believe in Freedom of Association? A doctor should be allowed to see or to refuse whomever he wishes, even to the point of hanging up a sign that says "No Niggers Allowed." Frankly, I want such doctors to express their views and announce beforehand that they won't see me, because it helps me to know which doctors I don't want to see in the first place.

Blogger rycamor January 30, 2015 2:01 PM  

SIgh...

Once again, for the slow on the uptake, I will provide this public service:

Resolve the following two quotes by Vox, who is an avowed libertarian:

A. Any doctor who attempts to force a treatment on a patient against the will of the patient or an underage patient's parents should lose his medical license. It is absolutely unethical for a medical professional to behave in this outrageous manner, and those who stupidly think that this would be a great idea should stop and think about the obvious consequences for a few seconds.

B. Now, I oppose the state and federal regulating of doctors. Do you? Because if you don't, your position is self-contradicting and irrational.

Blogger Josh January 30, 2015 2:10 PM  

This thread is a complete fail

Anonymous Clark Bianco January 30, 2015 2:18 PM  

@Shimshon: "You can even admit to vaccinating you and yours against measles and all the other diseases. No matter, as long as you raise even the mildest form of doubt on the conventional wisdom."

I don't quite understand this; if you have doubt, you don't do it. If there is no certainty, there is no trust. If you doubt vaccination, why would you engage in it? It would be illogical to do so.

---

@VD: "A doctor doesn't have to sexually penetrate a homosexual because the homosexual demands it, but he does have an ethical obligation to provide medical services to the homosexual."

From a capitalist viewpoint, I would disagree entirely. A doctor's obligation is to make a profit by whatever means are legal; to enrich either himself or the shareholders of the corporation he works for. That, in and of itself, is the ethical obligation. Any other obligation is socialism, and so should be discarded.

---

@Peter Barstig: "I know (source: Spacebunny on Twitter) that the US paied 2 Billion dollars in such cases."

It's 1.75 billion, and nothing on autism. Of the over 5000 autism-related claims placed before the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, popularly known as the "vaccine court", only 1 autism-related case has ever been compensated - and that one was for medical malpractice, with no proof ever provided that it was the vaccine that caused the autism. All other autism-related claims have been dismissed. In fact, all of the compensations have been issued for medical malpractice, not for vaccines causing autism.

The track record of autism in the vaccine court can be seen here. It wasn't very successful; from the decision in the first part of the trial in 2010: "The scientific testimony has been devastating to the plaintiffs because the recognized experts on autism, vaccines, and immunology do not support even one of these premises, let alone a linkage between any of them. The only thing the government and Cedillos agree on is that Michelle Cedillo has autism."

---
@Cui Pertinebit: "Don't we believe in Freedom of Association? A doctor should be allowed to see or to refuse whomever he wishes, even to the point of hanging up a sign that says "No Niggers Allowed." Frankly, I want such doctors to express their views and announce beforehand that they won't see me, because it helps me to know which doctors I don't want to see in the first place."

So even if such a doctor is offering the best treatment for the lowest prices, you wouldn't go to him?

That's very....odd. Rational self-interest dictates that such personal views are irrelevant in purchasing the doctor's services, so it would be irrational to go elsewhere. Do you often allow your emotions to cloud your judgement like that?

---

I'm rather surprised at the lack of understanding in the comments here about how herd immunity operates. I would think that everyone here would be well up on that.

Blogger Dwight House January 30, 2015 2:24 PM  

In a strictly regulated, quasi-socialist healthcare system? What crack are you smoking? What some commenters repeatedly fail to grasp is that once principle has been abandoned on a primary level, you can't appeal to it on a tertiary level. It is no longer relevant.

---

So, essentially, once one right is violated in a given area of life, we should not expect any rights in that area ever again? As for me, I will cling to my all my rights until they are individually, forcefully taken from me.

Blogger Josh January 30, 2015 2:25 PM  

So, essentially, once one right is violated in a given area of life, we should not expect any rights in that area ever again?

No.

Blogger rycamor January 30, 2015 2:30 PM  

If one demands libertarian rights in one area of life, one should be willing to accept the libertarian consequences as a whole. Consequences which some of us regard as a Good Thing, but they do involve accepting that risks for one's choices fall squarely on one's own shoulders. State-regulated medical licenses are not a libertarian thing.

I can't believe this has to be spelled out.

Blogger Dwight House January 30, 2015 2:48 PM  

No argument from me. Who is not accepting the consequences? I choose what clients I serve. I bear the consequences of that choice. If a government agency were to come in and tell me I must serve a particular set of clients when I otherwise wouldn't, ok. I will continue to be choosy in every other aspect of my client selection process.

Blogger Josh January 30, 2015 3:06 PM  

I can't believe this has to be spelled out.

We are beset by veritable hordes of binary thinkers with poor reading comprehension. Woe upon woe to us.

Blogger Dwight House January 30, 2015 4:04 PM  

A serious answer not forthcoming, I retract my question.

Blogger kurt9 January 30, 2015 4:19 PM  

I think its time that medical licensure be ended.

Blogger Thordaddy January 30, 2015 4:19 PM  

asheperd...

I did not miss the point.

The claim is that the unvaccinated are a health risk to the vaccinated...

BUT...

This is only true IF the unvaccinated IS ALREADY DISEASED...

And even then, he is only a health risk to others who are unvaccinated.

On the other hand, IF one is unvaccinated AND virus-free, he is no health risk at all...

And in fact, the vaccinated (read: those injected with a modified virus) are a direct threat to the virus-free and unvaccinated child.

So the game being played IS IN THE ASSUMPTION that the unvaccinated child IS ALREADY DISEASED and therefore represents a health risk to the vaccinated...

Which of course then goes right to the heart of the debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccinations.

Again, a unvaccinated child is only a health risk IF HE IS ALREADY DISEASED and if said unvaccinated child is virus-free THEN he is actually at risk FROM THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN INJECTED with a modified virus that is euphemistically called a "vaccine."

In other words, vaccinated children ARE PURPOSELY diseased and treated as though they are no health risk to the virus-free individual who may or may not have been previously vaccinated.

Blogger Thordaddy January 30, 2015 4:22 PM  

This doctor seems to be claiming that a virus-free child is a health risk by the mere fact that he is unvaccinated when, in fact, a vaccinated child IS PURPOSELY DISEASED AND REPRESENTS the true health risk to the virus-free individual.

Blogger rumpole5 January 30, 2015 5:27 PM  

"Now, I oppose the state and federal regulating of doctors. Do you? Because if you don't, your position is self-contradicting and irrational."

I agree, and also oppose. Productve endeavors that government purports to control and regulate are degraded and distorted by the process. A professional evaluation by a private entity, e.g. Martindale Hubble, for lawyers, would be more useful. Doctors should have the absolute right to disassociate from patients who refuse their professional advice. Moreover, a brat with measels is more likely to contract a secondary contagious infection. I don't want him in my waiting room!

Anonymous Curly January 30, 2015 5:44 PM  

And the vaccine wars continue...

Meanwhile:
"Any doctor who attempts to force a treatment on a patient against the will of the patient or an underage patient's parents should lose his medical license. It is absolutely unethical for a medical professional to behave in this outrageous manner, and those who stupidly think that this would be a great idea should stop and think about the obvious consequences for a few seconds."

Witnessing this on a frequent scale as an RN at a pediatric hospital, I could not agree with you more. Culturally and legally this is becoming a massive problem, and I have had several spats with MD's and social workers when they assume it is their right and duty to bypass parents objections. If the parents give them any trouble, they sic the "Ethics" Committee on them. If that doesn't take care of it, they begin the legal processes and slip stories to the local media to boot. Because after all, "Dr. knows best", right?

But no one is losing licenses, and few are thinking of the consequences. This is one reason I absolutely despise the pro-vax bots.

Blogger rycamor January 30, 2015 5:52 PM  

Dwight House January 30, 2015 4:04 PM
A serious answer not forthcoming, I retract my question.


Dwight you doofus, do you have a medical license? IF SO, then you have willfully agreed to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom for the security of the state. So AS REGARDS TO THAT LICENSE, no you do not have complete freedom anymore. Kimo Sabe?

Your license comes at the cost of the citizenry, who are taxed by the government to provide oversight committees healthcare advisory boards and legalized monopolies and all the rest of the big shebang that runs this country. You want to take advantage of it? Then don't complain when it constrains you.

Blogger Ragin' Dave January 30, 2015 7:10 PM  

Way back when in the Dark Ages (roughly a century ago) when one of your children caught the measles, you know what the parents of that community did?

They brought their other kids around to get the measles from the sick kids.

It's unpleasant. So are the chicken pox. But once you get them, you're done. And it's not particularly dangerous, just uncomfortable.

I think this whole measles vaccine is a tempest in a tea pot.

Anonymous hausfrau January 30, 2015 9:07 PM  

Has anyone else seen this? All this speculation on why measles seems to have surged lately. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the flood of little Oliver Twists from Guatamala but the infections among vaccinated individuals probably has a lot to do with outright fraud on behalf of Merk.
"PHILADELPHIA (CN) - Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is "far less effective" than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of "questionable efficacy," flooding and monopolizing the market, a primary caregiver claims in a federal antitrust class action."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47851.htm

Blogger Miss Carnivorous January 30, 2015 9:32 PM  

I completely disagree with you. What about Polio? The efficacy of the Polio vaccine is irrefutable. Sometimes you baffle me Vox.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 30, 2015 10:32 PM  

Polio isn't the Measles. Or the flu.

Blogger Cui Pertinebit January 31, 2015 12:24 AM  

@ Clark Bianco. You asked: "So even if such a doctor is offering the best treatment for the lowest prices, you wouldn't go to him?"

You've completely missed the point. It's not about "the best service at the lowest price," it's about a service that I don't want in the first place (at best), or a service that I will be pressured or compelled into receiving against my will (at worst). If I am a parent who does not want to get my child vaccinated, I am glad to know which doctors are going to be a pain in the ass about the topic of vaccination, before I waste my time in their office.

Many doctors, just like the government, are increasingly beginning to feel that parents do not and should not have a say in what happens to their own kids. The opinionated doctor is the "expert," and parents should do whatever she tells them to do. I know parents (my brother, for example) who have had to get extremely nasty with doctors, because even after making their views clear about x, y or z matters, the doctor feels the need to pressure, harangue or even threaten them in one way or another.

There's also more to life than money, and more to cost than money; dealing with a bitchy SJW who feels more entitled to raise my kid than I am, with the threat of state action behind her very important opinions, is a damned high cost - potentially higher than any price you could demand. Also, an SJW doctor, who posts signs about refusing service to dissenters, is not likely to provide "the best treatment" at "the lowest cost" in the first place. She is likely to provide the kind of service and pricing that one can expect from an unhinged narcissist with a mission to Save the World's Children from Their Parents. Your whole question and train of thought was entirely tangential to the substance of the matter; you needn't be "logical" to the point of being obtuse.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 31, 2015 2:15 AM  

I can't believe this has to be spelled out.

Believe it. There are even much simpler things that needs to be spelled out as well.

Blogger Tallawampus January 31, 2015 4:03 AM  

Longtime lurker here.

I'm also a pediatrician. I leave my pitchfork and horns at the clinic - the sulfurous smell I have a harder time getting off of me.

At our clinic we're very upfront about our policy of having all kids we see get vaccinated by the ACIP vaccination schedule. All new families are advised of this up front and sign a vaccination consent. If they don't want vaccines, or they want an alternate schedule then we politely tell them they’ll have to go somewhere else for care. It just saves time for everyone. No force or coercion necessary.

The problem I've found is if I tell them that vaccines have more benefit than risk (notice I didn't say they were safe) and they don't trust me, will they trust me when I tell them that their wheezing, runny nosed, feverish 6 month old has a virus and doesn't need any medicines? In my experience, no, they won't. They’ll be pissed off I didn’t prescribe something.

My personal take on vaccines is that debating whether or not they are effective is silly. They are. Debating whether or not they should be required by the federal government or government schools is a different matter.

Vox has brought up vaccines not being safe before, and I agree with him. I never tell my patients that they're safe. I tell them the benefits outweigh the risks. I see more kids with new onset amoxicillin allergies and amoxicillin diarrhea then any bad outcomes from the vaccines. Yet most parents are relieved rather than nervous when I prescribe the amoxicillin which in my eyes is much more dangerous.

In my clinic in the last 10 years I’ve had one infant have hives after vaccination (easily resolved with a dose of Benadryl) and an 11
Comment as: year old faint after getting a meningitis vaccine. No other bad outcomes. Yes, yes – no other bad outcomes that I know of. I can’t prove a negative.

And just to go on record, the American Academy of Pediatrics may as well be a branch of the American Communist Party. Absolutely dominated by SJWs. But remember not to paint pediatricians with too broad a brush. I live in a low population western state and all the pediatricians in our clinic are conservative and prefer our families to own guns and ignore the feds. We even have guns in the clinic. Locked up of course, but available just in case.

Vox is also right on target about the feds and the AMA limiting the supply of doctors. It's an artificial shortage and needs to be corrected. I’m willing to compete in an open market.

I’m not trolling. I love the site and the Ilk and the fact that Vox has huge brass balls. I just think the knee jerk – dare I say rabid? Yes, I dare - rabid anti-vaccination attitude is really not well founded.

Blogger ashepherd January 31, 2015 11:30 AM  

I know this is coming late to the party, but here's a link to a story worth considering. http://christiannewswire.com/news/7184275466.html

Blogger ashepherd January 31, 2015 11:30 AM  

I know this is coming late to the party, but here's a link to a story worth considering. http://christiannewswire.com/news/7184275466.html

OpenID artisanaltoadshall February 01, 2015 2:28 PM  

No vaccine is safety tested as used, with the possible exception of tetanus. Reading the comments of the doctor above, I'm reminded of the disparities between even related professions and the enormous gulf that exists in what doctors know (perhaps I should say 'don't know') about the pharmaceutical industry and how drugs are tested.

Before you open your mouths, do a Google on "Burzynski antineoplastin" and take a look at his website. The man has a treatment that's most effective against the most radical of brain tumors in children. I sat in an office over TWENTY YEARS AGO and listened to two FDA agents explain that Burzynski will never have the antineoplastin therapy licensed because he and his wife own the patents personally. Well, that was actually strike three. First, the stuff has ZERO toxicity and if you can't show an LD-50, it can't be licensed. Second, he can't explain the efficacy. Issue one could be dealt with by adding something that's got a limited level of toxicity in order to demonstrate an LD-50. The second could be overlooked because the stuff works really well. But the third... No. No drug will be licensed to an individual. Period. Lost lives, pain and suffering don't mean shit to the FDA.

Read the clinical trial reports. Look at the stats. Give some thought to a system that's corrupt enough that a treatment with a 25% CURE rate and an additional 30% remission rate for the most radical brain tumors in children won't be granted a license because they can't control the patents. Then think about your own kid getting one of these tumors. Make sure to buy a pretty grave marker.

Anyone who's in the industry is either rabidly on the side of the PTB, equally opposed, or hasn't had their 'come to Jesus' moment yet. Show me somebody that's been in the drug development industry for more than 20 years that doesn't have an opinion and I'll show you a room temperature IQ. But it's the kiss of death to state an opinion and especially to speak the truth, so they learn to keep their mouths shut until their retirement plan is fully vested. Even after that there are very few who will speak the truth in public.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall February 01, 2015 2:44 PM  

@Miss Carnivorous.
I completely disagree with you. What about Polio? The efficacy of the Polio vaccine is irrefutable. Sometimes you baffle me Vox.

Hon, maybe you might want to take a look at the DNA record of polio.

In addition, perhaps you should take a good look at the fact that a polio outbreak was CURED in 1948 in North Carolina using large injections of intravenous ascorbic acid. (Well, actually sodium ascorbate if you want to be specific) Problem is, you can't patent Vitamin C and you can't make gobwads of money on it. Too bad. Your kids are going to die if we can't make a mega-buck off the cure.

There was no need for a polio vaccine but the problem was nobody was interested in curing people with polio unless they could make a serious profit from it. Every child that died of polio from mid 1940 to 1958 was the responsibility of the American Medical establishment, because the cure was published in July of 1939 in the Southern Journal of Surgery and Medicine, author, Frederick Klenner, MD.

The funniest part is Jonas Saulk seriously screwed them. He gave the vaccine to the public and nobody got to make an obscene profit from it. The industry meeting that resulted from that got a federal restraint of trade investigation. As late as the mid-70's there were problems with reps from various Pharm companies being seen together.

Anonymous Flint February 05, 2015 7:37 AM  

Correct me if I am wrong, but Luciferian chaos has increased tenfold or more in the last 20 years.

How can he get his order without, first, his rearranging chaos?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts