on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

[Guest guest]

a full on assault

many more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING has been

proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a lab coat? Man

oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?You

would think insurance companies at least would get wise and figure they

save money on vaccinated children

Sheri

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsBy Rahul

Parikh, Special to CNN

January 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Rahul Parikh says the idea that autism and vaccines are linked has

been totally discredited

Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their children,

putting them and others at risk

He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially higher health

insurance premiums

RELATED TOPICS

Vaccines

Contagious and Infectious Diseases Health

Insurance

Wakefield BMJ

Publishing Group Ltd.

Editor's note: Rahul K.

Parikh is a physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay

Area. Follow him on Twitter at

http://twitter.com/docrkp.

Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link

between autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The

anti-vaccine movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to

be nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious

British Medical Journal calling his work " an elaborate fraud. "

Two new books, " Deadly Choices " by Offit and " The

Panic Virus " by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the

anti-vaccine movement.

Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still refuse to

vaccinate their children. But they do, frightened by the rants and raves

of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as McCarthy, who can

effortlessly get on " Oprah " or any other TV talk show to

advance what is nothing short of a myth.

It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged and

frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee any quick

shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older parents against

childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, it's much harder to

unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy has it easy. We doctors

have to do the hard part.

Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but

for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was

considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate

their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance

premiums.

It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money into which

we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is

taken into account.

The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your

lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your

possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may

have to pay more.

Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate

their children?

The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that between

refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. And the

one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems pales in

comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and spreading

" secondhand disease. "

Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego,

California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of a

disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A child

whose parents refused to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and brought

home the measles.

That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of

measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized.

Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at

an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak

was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the

hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent

to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to

private insurers.

Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to slow down

and talk carefully with parents who are worried about vaccines. And none

of it should distract from the fact that parents of children with autism

deserve answers.

But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about this, they

may agree. After all, their latest slogan is " vaccine

choice. "

In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego child told

Time magazine that " we analyze the diseases and we analyze the risks

of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our decision about

which vaccines to give our children. "

Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have this mother

and others like her pay more for it.

As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that choice pay

higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the combination of

proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened in San Diego and a

little moral hazard for patients and doctors will help move the needle

toward common sense and preventive medicine.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rahul

Parikh.

[Guest guest]

He seems to be on the payroll of gold dollar mephisto Offit to spew out such scientifically nonsensical drivel.

Also see http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/09/dr-rahul-k-pari.html

Ingrid

a full on assaultmany more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING has been proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a lab coat? Man oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?You would think insurance companies at least would get wise and figure they save money on vaccinated childrenSheriMake anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsBy Rahul Parikh, Special to CNNJanuary 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Rahul Parikh says the idea that autism and vaccines are linked has been totally discredited Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their children, putting them and others at risk He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums RELATED TOPICS

Vaccines Contagious and Infectious Diseases Health Insurance Wakefield BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Editor's note: Rahul K. Parikh is a physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/docrkp. Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link between autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The anti-vaccine movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to be nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious British Medical Journal calling his work "an elaborate fraud." Two new books, "Deadly Choices" by Offit and "The Panic Virus" by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the anti-vaccine movement.Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still refuse to vaccinate their children. But they do, frightened by the rants and raves of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as McCarthy, who can effortlessly get on "Oprah" or any other TV talk show to advance what is nothing short of a myth. It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged and frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee any quick shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older parents against childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, it's much harder to unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy has it easy. We doctors have to do the hard part.Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may have to pay more.Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that between refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. And the one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems pales in comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and spreading "secondhand disease."Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A child whose parents refused to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and brought home the measles.That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized. Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers.Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to slow down and talk carefully with parents who are worried about vaccines. And none of it should distract from the fact that parents of children with autism deserve answers. But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about this, they may agree. After all, their latest slogan is "vaccine choice."In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego child told Time magazine that "we analyze the diseases and we analyze the risks of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our decision about which vaccines to give our children."Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have this mother and others like her pay more for it.As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that choice pay higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the combination of proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened in San Diego and a little moral hazard for patients and doctors will help move the needle toward common sense and preventive medicine.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rahul Parikh.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5804 (20110120) __________The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5804 (20110120) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

normally you cant get in the Harvard data base without a double blind study

where is the study for vaccination?

"And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers." - Excerpt from "Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy" addressed to the Constitutional Convention members by lin in 1787

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccinedangers@...>Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:26:09 PMSubject: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

a full on assaultmany more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING has been proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a lab coat? Man oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?You would think insurance companies at least would get wise and figure they save money on vaccinated childrenSheriMake anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsBy Rahul Parikh, Special to CNNJanuary 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Rahul Parikh says the idea that autism and vaccines are linked has been totally discredited Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their children, putting them and others at risk He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums RELATED TOPICS

Vaccines Contagious and Infectious Diseases Health Insurance Wakefield BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Editor's note: Rahul K. Parikh is a physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/docrkp. Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link between autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The anti-vaccine movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to be nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious British Medical Journal calling his work "an elaborate fraud." Two new books, "Deadly Choices" by Offit and "The Panic Virus" by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the anti-vaccine movement.Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still refuse to vaccinate their

children. But they do, frightened by the rants and raves of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as McCarthy, who can effortlessly get on "Oprah" or any other TV talk show to advance what is nothing short of a myth. It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged and frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee any quick shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older parents against childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, it's much harder to unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy has it easy. We doctors have to do the hard part.Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money

into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may have to pay more.Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that between refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. And the one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems pales in comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and spreading "secondhand disease."Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A child whose parents refused

to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and brought home the measles.That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized. Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers.Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to slow down and talk carefully with parents who are worried about vaccines. And none of it should distract from the fact that parents of children with autism deserve answers. But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about this, they may agree. After all, their latest slogan is

"vaccine choice."In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego child told Time magazine that "we analyze the diseases and we analyze the risks of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our decision about which vaccines to give our children."Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have this mother and others like her pay more for it.As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that choice pay higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the combination of proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened in San Diego and a little moral hazard for patients and doctors will help move the needle toward common sense and preventive medicine.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rahul Parikh.

[Guest guest]

Well, with that mentality, I think insurance companies should impose higher premiums on obese people who frequent fast food chains, drink diet soda and impose those poor lifestyle habits on their children. My GOD these people cost not only the insurance industry but every American Taxpayer millions of dollars every year due to high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart attack, stroke, cancer, and anti-depression meds! Doctor visits, missed work and school days and hospital stays!

While we are at this nonsense lets also think about having The Department of Children and Families (DCF) investigate families who think fast food meals are a balanced diet! Pop Tarts, sugar coated cereal with red 40, blue 1, artificial flavors, hydrogenated oil for breakfast, hot dogs with nitrates,and potato chips (there's your serving of veggies) for lunch and pizza for supper with a diet soda of course! This is a disaster for auto-immune disease and cancer! But who's watching?!

Since doctors and teachers are required to report any suspected case of child abuse they should also report an obese child eating government approved meals from the cafeteria and bringing candy as a snack.

So Rahul Parikh..... what are you smoking? It's time you woke up from your coma and started educating your patients (and by the way the word doctor means to educate), yes educate your patients on nutrition and preventative care. There's all the immunization anybody will ever need!

What a FOOL this guy is!

Take that to the insurance industry!

Pam Pinto, AADP - Certified Nutrition Consultant

www.nutritiousanddeliciousfoods.blogspot.com--- On Fri, 1/21/11, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:

From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>Subject: Re: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsno-forced-vaccination Date: Friday, January 21, 2011, 1:25 PM

normally you cant get in the Harvard data base without a double blind study

where is the study for vaccination?

"And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers." - Excerpt from "Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy" addressed to the Constitutional Convention members by lin in 1787

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccinedangers@...>Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:26:09 PMSubject: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

a full on assaultmany more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING has been proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a lab coat? Man oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?You would think insurance companies at least would get wise and figure they save money on vaccinated childrenSheriMake anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsBy Rahul Parikh, Special to CNNJanuary 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST STORY HIGHLIGHTS

says the idea that autism and vaccines are linked has been totally discredited Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their children, putting them and others at risk He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums RELATED TOPICS

Vaccines Contagious and Infectious Diseases Health Insurance Wakefield BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Editor's note: Rahul K. Parikh is a physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/docrkp. Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link between autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The anti-vaccine movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to be nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious British Medical Journal calling his work "an elaborate fraud." Two new books, "Deadly Choices" by Offit and "The Panic Virus" by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the anti-vaccine movement.Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still refuse to vaccinate their

children. But they do, frightened by the rants and raves of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as McCarthy, who can effortlessly get on "Oprah" or any other TV talk show to advance what is nothing short of a myth. It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged and frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee any quick shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older parents against childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, it's much harder to unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy has it easy. We doctors have to do the hard part.Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money

into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may have to pay more.Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that between refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. And the one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems pales in comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and spreading "secondhand disease."Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A child whose parents refused

to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and brought home the measles.That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized. Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers.Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to slow down and talk carefully with parents who are worried about vaccines. And none of it should distract from the fact that parents of children with autism deserve answers. But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about this, they may agree. After all, their latest slogan is

"vaccine choice."In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego child told Time magazine that "we analyze the diseases and we analyze the risks of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our decision about which vaccines to give our children."Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have this mother and others like her pay more for it.As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that choice pay higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the combination of proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened in San Diego and a little moral hazard for patients and doctors will help move the needle toward common sense and preventive medicine.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rahul Parikh.

[Guest guest]

Well, with that mentality, I think insurance companies should impose higher premiums on obese people who frequent fast food chains, drink diet soda and impose those poor lifestyle habits on their children. My GOD these people cost not only the insurance industry but every American Taxpayer millions of dollars every year due to high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart attack, stroke, cancer, and anti-depression meds! Doctor visits, missed work and school days and hospital stays!

While we are at this nonsense lets also think about having The Department of Children and Families (DCF) investigate families who think fast food meals are a balanced diet! Pop Tarts, sugar coated cereal with red 40, blue 1, artificial flavors, hydrogenated oil for breakfast, hot dogs with nitrates,and potato chips (there's your serving of veggies) for lunch and pizza for supper with a diet soda of course! This is a disaster for auto-immune disease and cancer! But who's watching?!

Since doctors and teachers are required to report any suspected case of child abuse they should also report an obese child eating government approved meals from the cafeteria and bringing candy as a snack.

So Rahul Parikh..... what are you smoking? It's time you woke up from your coma and started educating your patients (and by the way the word doctor means to educate), yes educate your patients on nutrition and preventative care. There's all the immunization anybody will ever need!

What a FOOL this guy is!

Take that to the insurance industry!

Pam Pinto, AADP - Certified Nutrition Consultant

www.nutritiousanddeliciousfoods.blogspot.com--- On Fri, 1/21/11, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:

From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>Subject: Re: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsno-forced-vaccination Date: Friday, January 21, 2011, 1:25 PM

normally you cant get in the Harvard data base without a double blind study

where is the study for vaccination?

"And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers." - Excerpt from "Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy" addressed to the Constitutional Convention members by lin in 1787

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccinedangers@...>Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:26:09 PMSubject: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

a full on assaultmany more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING has been proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a lab coat? Man oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?You would think insurance companies at least would get wise and figure they save money on vaccinated childrenSheriMake anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsBy Rahul Parikh, Special to CNNJanuary 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST STORY HIGHLIGHTS

says the idea that autism and vaccines are linked has been totally discredited Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their children, putting them and others at risk He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums RELATED TOPICS

Vaccines Contagious and Infectious Diseases Health Insurance Wakefield BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Editor's note: Rahul K. Parikh is a physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/docrkp. Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link between autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The anti-vaccine movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to be nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious British Medical Journal calling his work "an elaborate fraud." Two new books, "Deadly Choices" by Offit and "The Panic Virus" by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the anti-vaccine movement.Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still refuse to vaccinate their

children. But they do, frightened by the rants and raves of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as McCarthy, who can effortlessly get on "Oprah" or any other TV talk show to advance what is nothing short of a myth. It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged and frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee any quick shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older parents against childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, it's much harder to unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy has it easy. We doctors have to do the hard part.Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money

into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may have to pay more.Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that between refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. And the one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems pales in comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and spreading "secondhand disease."Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A child whose parents refused

to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and brought home the measles.That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized. Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers.Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to slow down and talk carefully with parents who are worried about vaccines. And none of it should distract from the fact that parents of children with autism deserve answers. But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about this, they may agree. After all, their latest slogan is

"vaccine choice."In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego child told Time magazine that "we analyze the diseases and we analyze the risks of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our decision about which vaccines to give our children."Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have this mother and others like her pay more for it.As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that choice pay higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the combination of proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened in San Diego and a little moral hazard for patients and doctors will help move the needle toward common sense and preventive medicine.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rahul Parikh.

[Guest guest]

Well, with that mentality, I think insurance companies should impose higher premiums on obese people who frequent fast food chains, drink diet soda and impose those poor lifestyle habits on their children. My GOD these people cost not only the insurance industry but every American Taxpayer millions of dollars every year due to high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart attack, stroke, cancer, and anti-depression meds! Doctor visits, missed work and school days and hospital stays!

While we are at this nonsense lets also think about having The Department of Children and Families (DCF) investigate families who think fast food meals are a balanced diet! Pop Tarts, sugar coated cereal with red 40, blue 1, artificial flavors, hydrogenated oil for breakfast, hot dogs with nitrates,and potato chips (there's your serving of veggies) for lunch and pizza for supper with a diet soda of course! This is a disaster for auto-immune disease and cancer! But who's watching?!

Since doctors and teachers are required to report any suspected case of child abuse they should also report an obese child eating government approved meals from the cafeteria and bringing candy as a snack.

So Rahul Parikh..... what are you smoking? It's time you woke up from your coma and started educating your patients (and by the way the word doctor means to educate), yes educate your patients on nutrition and preventative care. There's all the immunization anybody will ever need!

What a FOOL this guy is!

Take that to the insurance industry!

Pam Pinto, AADP - Certified Nutrition Consultant

www.nutritiousanddeliciousfoods.blogspot.com--- On Fri, 1/21/11, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:

From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>Subject: Re: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsno-forced-vaccination Date: Friday, January 21, 2011, 1:25 PM

normally you cant get in the Harvard data base without a double blind study

where is the study for vaccination?

"And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers." - Excerpt from "Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy" addressed to the Constitutional Convention members by lin in 1787

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccinedangers@...>Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:26:09 PMSubject: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

a full on assaultmany more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING has been proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a lab coat? Man oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?You would think insurance companies at least would get wise and figure they save money on vaccinated childrenSheriMake anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsBy Rahul Parikh, Special to CNNJanuary 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST STORY HIGHLIGHTS

says the idea that autism and vaccines are linked has been totally discredited Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their children, putting them and others at risk He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums RELATED TOPICS

Vaccines Contagious and Infectious Diseases Health Insurance Wakefield BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Editor's note: Rahul K. Parikh is a physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/docrkp. Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link between autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The anti-vaccine movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to be nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious British Medical Journal calling his work "an elaborate fraud." Two new books, "Deadly Choices" by Offit and "The Panic Virus" by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the anti-vaccine movement.Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still refuse to vaccinate their

children. But they do, frightened by the rants and raves of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as McCarthy, who can effortlessly get on "Oprah" or any other TV talk show to advance what is nothing short of a myth. It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged and frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee any quick shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older parents against childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, it's much harder to unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy has it easy. We doctors have to do the hard part.Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money

into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may have to pay more.Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that between refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. And the one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems pales in comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and spreading "secondhand disease."Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A child whose parents refused

to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and brought home the measles.That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized. Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers.Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to slow down and talk carefully with parents who are worried about vaccines. And none of it should distract from the fact that parents of children with autism deserve answers. But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about this, they may agree. After all, their latest slogan is

"vaccine choice."In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego child told Time magazine that "we analyze the diseases and we analyze the risks of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our decision about which vaccines to give our children."Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have this mother and others like her pay more for it.As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that choice pay higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the combination of proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened in San Diego and a little moral hazard for patients and doctors will help move the needle toward common sense and preventive medicine.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rahul Parikh.

[Guest guest]

Well, with that mentality, I think insurance companies should impose higher premiums on obese people who frequent fast food chains, drink diet soda and impose those poor lifestyle habits on their children. My GOD these people cost not only the insurance industry but every American Taxpayer millions of dollars every year due to high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart attack, stroke, cancer, and anti-depression meds! Doctor visits, missed work and school days and hospital stays!

While we are at this nonsense lets also think about having The Department of Children and Families (DCF) investigate families who think fast food meals are a balanced diet! Pop Tarts, sugar coated cereal with red 40, blue 1, artificial flavors, hydrogenated oil for breakfast, hot dogs with nitrates,and potato chips (there's your serving of veggies) for lunch and pizza for supper with a diet soda of course! This is a disaster for auto-immune disease and cancer! But who's watching?!

Since doctors and teachers are required to report any suspected case of child abuse they should also report an obese child eating government approved meals from the cafeteria and bringing candy as a snack.

So Rahul Parikh..... what are you smoking? It's time you woke up from your coma and started educating your patients (and by the way the word doctor means to educate), yes educate your patients on nutrition and preventative care. There's all the immunization anybody will ever need!

What a FOOL this guy is!

Take that to the insurance industry!

Pam Pinto, AADP - Certified Nutrition Consultant

www.nutritiousanddeliciousfoods.blogspot.com--- On Fri, 1/21/11, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:

From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>Subject: Re: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsno-forced-vaccination Date: Friday, January 21, 2011, 1:25 PM

normally you cant get in the Harvard data base without a double blind study

where is the study for vaccination?

"And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers." - Excerpt from "Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy" addressed to the Constitutional Convention members by lin in 1787

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccinedangers@...>Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:26:09 PMSubject: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

a full on assaultmany more problems with vaccines than only autism (and NOTHING has been proven about vaccines not causing autism). A grifter in a lab coat? Man oh man. Can he sue these people for slander and defamation?You would think insurance companies at least would get wise and figure they save money on vaccinated childrenSheriMake anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiumsBy Rahul Parikh, Special to CNNJanuary 20, 2011 7:34 a.m. EST STORY HIGHLIGHTS

says the idea that autism and vaccines are linked has been totally discredited Parikh says some parents still don't vaccinate their children, putting them and others at risk He says anti-vaccine parents should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums RELATED TOPICS

Vaccines Contagious and Infectious Diseases Health Insurance Wakefield BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Editor's note: Rahul K. Parikh is a physician and writer who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/docrkp. Walnut Creek, California CNN) -- Evidence disputing any link between autism and vaccines has been gathering for a decade. The anti-vaccine movement's lynchpin, Dr. Wakefield, has been shown to be nothing more than a grifter in a lab coat, with the prestigious British Medical Journal calling his work "an elaborate fraud." Two new books, "Deadly Choices" by Offit and "The Panic Virus" by Seth Mnookin, detail the sordid story of the anti-vaccine movement.Given that, it's hard for me to believe that some parents still refuse to vaccinate their

children. But they do, frightened by the rants and raves of anti-vaccine fundamentalists such as McCarthy, who can effortlessly get on "Oprah" or any other TV talk show to advance what is nothing short of a myth. It's that fiction and the fear it incites that has challenged and frustrated pediatricians like me for 10 years. I don't foresee any quick shift in the trend among affluent, highly educated older parents against childhood vaccines. As Offit often points out, it's much harder to unscare people once they've been scared. McCarthy has it easy. We doctors have to do the hard part.Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money

into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may have to pay more.Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?The link between smoking and lung cancer is as clear as that between refusing vaccines and increasing the risk of infectious disease. And the one between secondhand smoke and a litany of health problems pales in comparison to the link between going unvaccinated and spreading "secondhand disease."Researchers looking at the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, California, showed just how expensive and serious an outbreak of a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine can be. A child whose parents refused

to vaccinate him traveled to Europe and brought home the measles.That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized. Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers.Nothing in this argument should supersede that doctors need to slow down and talk carefully with parents who are worried about vaccines. And none of it should distract from the fact that parents of children with autism deserve answers. But if the Wakefield-McCarthy tribe had anything to say about this, they may agree. After all, their latest slogan is

"vaccine choice."In reflecting on what happened, the mother of the San Diego child told Time magazine that "we analyze the diseases and we analyze the risks of the disease, and that's how my husband and I made our decision about which vaccines to give our children."Fair enough. If they want to make a risky choice, let's have this mother and others like her pay more for it.As an aside, perhaps we could make doctors complicit in that choice pay higher malpractice premiums as well. Perhaps then, the combination of proof, medical crimes, stories like what happened in San Diego and a little moral hazard for patients and doctors will help move the needle toward common sense and preventive medicine.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rahul Parikh.

[Guest guest]

just once i wish they would just do a poll of vax vs. non vax kids and how many " sick " visits to the pediatrician each group had to age 5. seriously... if they could find a way to make it very legal and valid to do so. i think they would be surprised. i don't care about testing each vax for its autism causing issues or not. that is not way we avoid them either. family history of encephalitis and epilepsy is enough for me

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Venita Garner <nitagarner@...> wrote:

 

Once again…why is every

provaccine absolutely convinced that the ONLY reason why we don’t

vaccinate is fear of autism???????  That is such blind faith in the RX

products.. good grief.

 

That’s as illogical as someone saying ‘well, the

ONLY way to get rid of a headache is to take advil. Those that don’t give

advil to another is just irresponsible”… people would see the logic

in that and say ‘well there are other ways to help a headache”

 

But vaccines?!  I stopped vaxxing due to all the crap in

them, due to the long list of conflicts of interest. Due to the billions of $$

at stake and how that can affect objectivity and safety

 

And frankly, I would say it’s an invasion of my privacy to

question me on the kids vaccine status just to charge me more!

 

We’re having a discussion on bill gates and his

vaccination beliefs on another list and someone said  that Kaiser already

said they’re against a national database registry of vaccinated kids b/c

it’s an invasion of privacy! Go Kaiser.

 

Nita,

mom to: 18, Jon 16, 14, 12, 9, Christian (7/16/03 to

8/22/04), 5, Isaac 3 and , due 3/2011

http://momof6.dotphoto.com for

possibly current pictures and http://nitasspot.blogspot.com

Learn from the mistakes of others.  Trust me... you can't live long enough

to make them all yourself.

_._,___

-- my2.tupperware.com/mindylefortdoterra.myvoffice.com/mindylefort

mindy-lefort.barefootbooks.comshopmaeminerals.com/rep/store/mindysminerals

[Guest guest]

The stupid thing is Mindy, that in Australia, they would not even have to ask. In 1998, Australia became the first country in the world to set up a national database to track which children are vaccinated and which are not. That database is linked with our medicare database and all children are registered on Medicare.Since 2002, we have asked the government to release the figures on how much money is spent on Medicare (which covers visits to doctors, hospitals, etc) for the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated cohorts. This information is already there – it will cost nothing.The excuses they have used are incredible such as it would be an invasion of privacy to do this (we don't want to know the names, addresses and telephone numbers of these kids – all info is de-identified anyway!) to one lovely letter we received from a former head of the Liberal Party when (a liberal prime minister) was in office stating that they knew why we wanted this information. They knew that we felt it would indicate that unvaccinated kids were healthier than the vaccinated and they would not do this study because it might lead to a change in government policy!You tell me they don't know they are killing and injuring children through vaccination and just covering it up by not doing the necessary studies or releasing the information already available on how many visits or how much money the vaccinated children spend at doctors vs the unvaccinated!My children are typical of those costs by the way. My eldest who was fully vaccinated to 18 months virtually lived at the doctor. I used to joke with my GP that I should probably discuss paying rent instead of paying by the visit – it might be cheaper!My youngest did not see a doctor from the day she was born until she was 7 years old when she got a staph infection (school sores) that we used antibiotics to treat after a long, frustrating time of doing everything else. As a side note – the antibiotics didn't work! Another side note – she has not been back to a doctor since and she is now 15. How many vaccinated kids have that sort of a medical history? My vaccinated kids didn't and I don't know of any other vaccinated children who never see doctors!All the best,MerylFrom: Mindy LeFort <decembermoon23@...>Reply- Vaccinations List <Vaccinations >Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:25:52 -0800 Vaccinations List <Vaccinations >Subject: Re: on CNN.com: Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

just once i wish they would just do a poll of vax vs. non vax kids and how many "sick" visits to the pediatrician each group had to age 5. seriously... if they could find a way to make it very legal and valid to do so. i think they would be surprised. i don't care about testing each vax for its autism causing issues or not. that is not way we avoid them either. family history of encephalitis and epilepsy is enough for meOn Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Venita Garner <nitagarner@...> wrote:

Once again…why is every

provaccine absolutely convinced that the ONLY reason why we don’t

vaccinate is fear of autism??????? That is such blind faith in the RXproducts.. good grief. That’s as illogical as someone saying ‘well, the

ONLY way to get rid of a headache is to take advil. Those that don’t give

advil to another is just irresponsible”… people would see the logic

in that and say ‘well there are other ways to help a headache” But vaccines?! I stopped vaxxing due to all the crap in

them, due to the long list of conflicts of interest. Due to the billions of $$

at stake and how that can affect objectivity and safety And frankly, I would say it’s an invasion of my privacy to

question me on the kids vaccine status just to charge me more! We’re having a discussion on bill gates and his

vaccination beliefs on another list and someone said that Kaiser already

said they’re against a national database registry of vaccinated kids b/c

it’s an invasion of privacy! Go Kaiser. Nita,

mom to: 18, Jon 16, 14, 12, 9, Christian (7/16/03 to

8/22/04), 5, Isaac 3 and , due 3/2011http://momof6.dotphoto.com for

possibly current pictures and http://nitasspot.blogspot.com

Learn from the mistakes of others. Trust me... you can't live long enough

to make them all yourself._._,___

-- my2.tupperware.com/mindylefortdoterra.myvoffice.com/mindylefortmindy-lefort.barefootbooks.comshopmaeminerals.com/rep/store/mindysminerals