"People who have had two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine have about 99 percent immunity to the virus."

This is not an entirely accurate statement. It's better to say, "Of people who have had two doses of the MMR vaccine, 99 percent will develop immunity." You either are immune or you aren't, and for about 1% of the population, two doses didn't work.

Who is the "Rose" who's quoted in the article?

@MV Scientist, thank you for the clarification. I had thought that all vaccinated people still had a 1% chance of becoming infected. It sounds instead like 99% of vaccinated people have a 0% chance of infection, and 1% of vaccinated people have a 90% chance of infection. Can the two groups be distinguished prior to a full-blown infection?

I'm not going to vacinate my kids because I hear they'll get autism.

Republican leaders like Chris Christie and Rand Paul say vaccinations should be a personal choice. Is it possible to be a good Republican and ignore your leaders?

@repo: Sure, I am sure you enjoy trying to bring anti-right politics into this, but the facts don't support your bias. The map of school districts with the most vaccine opt-outs maps squarely with the map of wealthy liberals. The hotbed of vaccine objectors is in Marin County (hence why the Daily Show went after them to mock them for their "thoughtful stupidity"), which is hardly a bastion of conservatism. It was also Barack Obama who came out in favor of choice NOT to vaccinate, and to investigate autism claims, when he was running in 2007 (to appeal to his base). This is not a "party" issue. This is a "clueless" issue that crosses all lines.

It's interesting that the lowest vaccination rate is at Stevenson--the school with the parent-participation program. I'm guessing the reasons are similar to to why Marin has low rates.

Measles are serious. I was in the 4th grade when I caught them. My fever spiked to 109 F. I was rushed to the hospital. I remember being given shots and being immersed in an ice bath. My father told me the doctors did not think I would live and my last rites were administered. I obviously survived, but lost my vision for 3 weeks. I missed over a month of school. Unless there is a medical reason not to, please vaccinate your children.

People not vaccinating their kids is a story about gullible people, not about politics. No need to fight over which side of the political spectrum has enough stupidity; there is enough for everyone.

@Greg Coladonato, immunology is very interesting! A person's immune status can wane over time, but the MMR vaccine has been proven to be very effective (unlike the dTap vaccine, which we're learning is only effective for about 5 years...there used to be a more effective vaccine but it had many more, much more severe side effects). Individuals can have titers drawn to check their immunity status. Titers look for levels of the antibodies specific to the disease. Above a certain level and you have a status of 'immune,' because your body will be able to quickly extinguish attempted infiltration by the germs. :)

Many smart people are also very gullible people. Some people think they are smart by not wearing a seat belt ("because what if you go into a river" they think)

The problem is the anti-vax crowd are also making a decision for the rest of us, deciding it's OK for them to put the rest of us, kids included, at more risk of contracting serious, deadly diseases.
This is akin to someone saying they have very good reasons for removing the brakes on their car, not just deciding not to wear a seat belt.
OK, take your brakes off, but don't think it's OK to join the rest of society on the roads. You are a hazard to the rest of society.

@Lucky Child- I'm sorry for your bad case of measles but your experience was atypical. I had the measles too, as did all my siblings, all my schoolmates - because prior to 1963 almost all kids got measles and the vast majority were sick for a week and went back to school, with permanent immunity.

As for the castigation of "anti-vaxers" and attempts to affiliate them with a political party or particular ideology, that's just childish. Knowing that the parents that choose not to vaccinate their kids tend to be highly educated, consider the possibility that their choices were based on research and facts rather than swallowing the propaganda distributed by the pharmaceutical companies that are likely behind the fear mongering (losing the vaccine = losing the revenue). How many of you Pro-Vac people have actually spent the time to research all the facets of the vaccine argument?

The choice isn't about autism - it's about the possibility that the side effects of the vaccine could be worse than the disease the vaccine prevents. In this case we know that measles is pretty benign - almost all serious complications and deaths in children are kids that had serious malnutrition or were otherwise already sick. What we don't know are the real risks of the vaccine - (besides the adverse effects that we know exist- kids that suffer immediate inflammation of the brain, etc) is it possible that tampering with the immune system has unintended effects? Kids these days have much more cancer, many more auto-immune diseases, many more allergies, more ADD, more autism, the list goes on. We need to examine what we're doing differently than we did 50 years ago and one of the things we're doing differently is shooting our kids up with vaccines against every imaginable disease.

Until you're SURE that there are NO adverse effects of the vaccine then leave the anti-vaxers alone. You can protect your children by vaccinating them. If you're afraid that they might be part of the 1% that's not immune, then have them titered to determine their level of immunity. If your kid is immunosuppressed then keep them home - they could just as easily die from the flu. Parents do not have a moral obligation to place their own children at risk in order to protect other people's kids. We all have the right to choose what's best for our children. It's called a civil liberty.

The anti-vax PR machine is very strong. Try to google some scientific information on the subject and many of the top hits are rubbish. Just because there is an "epidemic" of anti-vax propoganda, does not make their claims true.

I believe many people are upset that they and/or their kids get sick for no apparent reason. They wash their hands regularly and stay away from coughing people. But...still, they sicken. How to explain? What or who to blame? Why, vaccines of course! We've stopped believing in witchcraft, so no need to do some burnings, but this is essentially the same thing. An "unexplainable" phenomenon must have a cause. And that cause must be destroyed. Vaccines!

Anti-vax folks will argue against any science you show them. It will start out rationally and somewhat scientifically... But since they don't have the truth on their side, it will devolve into conspiracy theories...

@Tolerance

Thank you for sharing your opinion! As someone who questions vaccines I have spent hundreds of hours researching safety over the past 4 years, including talking to immunologists, doctors, and reading peer reviewed studies.

I'm curious how many people who fully vaccinate their children even look at the vaccine insert which lists so many side effects, and yes, even autism is included as a side effect for some vaccines.

Please don't assume people who question vaccines are uneducated idiots. Many people who follow alternative vaccines schedules are _very_ well educated on this topic.

Let's stop the bullying and hate on this subject.

@Tolerance: Your note is SO full of inaccuracy and poorly thought out anectodes I almost don't know where to begin:
"prior to 1963 almost all kids got measles and the vast majority were sick for a week and went back to school, with permanent immunity."

Truth- Prior to 1963 around 300 kids per 100,000 got measles. There were typically 450 deaths per year, and thousands of kids with permanent respiratory damage. Due to vaccination, in the 80's the rate is around 1.3 kids getting ill per 100,000, with deaths down to around 15.

"As for the castigation of "anti-vaxers" and attempts to affiliate them with a political party or particular ideology, that's just childish."

Truth- The incidence of parents opting out of school vaccine requirements DOES match up quite well with the demographics of wealthy liberal communities. Marin does not have the highest percentage by accident.

"swallowing the propaganda distributed by the pharmaceutical companies that are likely behind the fear mongering (losing the vaccine = losing the revenue)."

Truth- Vaccines are a VERY low revenue business.

"How many of you Pro-Vac people have actually spent the time to research all the facets of the vaccine argument?"

Truth- All the research supports Vaccination and no link to Autism. There is not a single validated study purporting the Anti-vax position.

"What we don't know are the real risks of the vaccine - (besides the adverse effects that we know exist- kids that suffer immediate inflammation of the brain, etc) is it possible that tampering with the immune system has unintended effects?"

Truth- This is just a rant. There are no facts here, just a lot of fear mongering and saying stuff that "might" happen. That is like saying exercise is bad for you because you can imagine all the things that might happen (stubbed toe, hit by car, killer bees) if you go outside.

"Kids these days have much more cancer, many more auto-immune diseases, many more allergies, more ADD, more autism, the list goes on. We need to examine what we're doing differently than we did 50 years ago and one of the things we're doing differently is shooting our kids up with vaccines against every imaginable disease."

Truth- First, we do MILLIONS of things different today. You have just decided the only one that matters in your argument is vaccination. Second, there is actually no evidence that this is true (more cancer, ADD, and so on). More likely is simple that these things are more commonly diagnosed (the obvious simple answer).

"Until you're SURE that there are NO adverse effects of the vaccine then leave the anti-vaxers alone."

You can NEVER prove a negative. Just like I can't PROVE bigfoot is not out there, you can never prove any other negative either.

And those are just the points I decided to focus on.

One thing that the anti-vaxxers have forgotten is that we live in the great United States of America. If there was ANY substance to the anti-vax position, there would be a literal ARMY of lawyers driving thousands of class action suits on behalf of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people.

Sorry, but the anti-vax position is equivalent to believing the earth is flat.

@Ignorance Part 11 - haven't you heard? The National Vaccine Injury Act was passed in 1986 to shield the pharmaceutical industry from civil litigation due to problems associated with vaccines. They don't have to be accountable!

Actually, the shield was against the frivolous lawsuits that would otherwise pour in from everyone with any ailment at all, with no proof that it was caused by the vaccines. Without it, can you imagine how many lawsuits would have come from the wing-nuts who bought into the "Vaccines caused my kid's autism" crowd? Some even still believe it, even with all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Without the protection the companies would have no reason to assume such risk and all of society would suffer.

If you and your child are vaccinated, why should you worry about others who are not? If someone doesn't vaccinate their children, it doesn't effect you if you are vaccinated, right?

@If you and your child

so you are saying that I should not worry or have any concern for other people's babies who are not yet vaccinated, people whose immune system is compromised, etc?

that's like saying why should I worry about other people's babies and children who are not securely strapped into child restraint seats in the car?

are you saying that other people getting sick, injured or killed (especially children who rely on adults to keep them safe) should be of no concern to me?

Keep your nose out of other peoples business.

"About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since 1990, with 10-15% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death."

@Yup, that's right -- Back again, Monta Loma Moron?

And what is the source of your quotation? A source such a peer-reviewed academic journal? Or a quotation from an anti-vaxxer website?

Stop with the anti-vaxxer propaganda, people. And start thinking!

@Yup, that's right: You DO realize that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is COMPLETELY UNVERIFIED, right? I could report to it, say that my kid no longer likes their vegetables because of the vaccine, and the report would be counted in your stats. Anti Vaxers keep using data that HAS NO BASIS IN FACT! Why? Because they have no legitimate sources to use.

@If you and your child: "If you and your child are vaccinated, why should you worry about others who are not? If someone doesn't vaccinate their children, it doesn't effect you if you are vaccinated, right?"

Wrong. First, plenty of people cannot get vaccinated (infants, people with immune issues, the elderly, etc.). Second, the vaccine does not take effect in around 1% of those vaccinated. So they rely upon the fact that others get vaccinated, so that the odds that they run into a carrier are very slim. That is how we got deaths down so low by the earliy 80's. What you are saying is not much different from saying "your kids are wearing seatbelts, so I should not need to drive safely."

@Stop the Trolls -

"And what is the source of your quotation? A source such a peer-reviewed academic journal? "

From VAERS Web Link


@Yup, that's right

13% of 30,000 is 3,900 cases per year. To prevent hundreds of thousands of illnesses and deaths.

"We all have the right to choose what's best for our children."

There's the kind of thinking that causes needless epidemics. Because you do NOT have any right to put other people at risk via your own unvaccinated child -- by decisions that (besides) defy all responsible medical advice. Believe it or not, personal ego isn't the final judge of medical prudence.

KCBS interviewed a medical expert on this subject today and he was almost audibly losing his cool. "Some things are beyond argument," as he summed it up. Some parents indulge themselves in fashionable notions and rationalizations and it really DOESN'T MATTER what evidence says -- they insist on believing what they want to.

When this topic surfaced here a couple of weeks ago, I wondered if it might be practical to establish a legal tort-claimant class of people materially damaged via exposure to deliberately unvaccinated children. If the best medical information won't persuade the stubborn, then at least hold them legally accountable for the consequences of their decisions.

You all sound like a lynch mob. Is the vitriol and name calling really necessary? Can't there be a reasonable adult discussion accepting of differences of opinion? Some of you act as if vaccines are completely risk free with no chance of harm to the vaccinated child. Adverse reactions are well documented and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund has paid out billions in compensation for injured vaccinees. This data is published on their website- it's not speculative so (@ Well...) not all the lawsuits are "frivolous".

There are so much misinformation in many of these posts - @ Ron, where on earth did you get your pre-1963 measles statistics? 300 measles cases in 100,000? Are you including adults in your 100,000? Because most of the adults had natural acquired immunity as a result of having had the measles. If you're inferring that only 300 per 100,000 kids got measles your numbers are way off. That's only .3% which means that in a classroom of 30 kids less than 1 child would contract the disease. If that were true we wouldn't need a vaccine because the transmission rate would be so low. The reality is that pre-1963 there were 3-4 million measles cases per year with about 450 deaths. Of those 450 most were severely malnutrioned, many from poverty stricken areas of the south and the incidence of serious complications in healthy kids was low.

For those of you that are so worried about the 1% of kids that don't develop immunity from the vaccines, they could get titered and re immunized but have you thought about the odds of one of those kids contracting a fatal case of measles? First they'd have to be exposed to the disease (unlikely since there are so few cases), then they'd have to get atypically sick with the disease (remember 450 deaths per 4M kids (.01%) and the dead kids were already sick. The odds of a healthy kid dying from measles in this country is so low that it's not even worth discussing. The odds of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine are far greater than dying from measles. And you don't need to worry about the elderly- they're already immune. They had measles
when they were young.

The fear surrounding measles is so disproportionate to the disease that it's astounding to watch the mass hysteria that has been incited by the media especially considering half the population alive today lived with measles as a normal childhood disease. So let's not hang the anti-vaxers from the rafters. Let them make their choices and you make yours.

And by the way- babies existed pre-1963 too and they lived in families where kids were sick with the measles. They didn't die either...

Vaccines are not 100.00000% safe. Guess what? Neither is eating an apple. This is not a matter of opinion. This is science.

"Measles vaccination is one of the most cost-effective health interventions ever developed. Without the vaccine, 5 million children would die each year from measles-assuming an estimated case-fatality rate of 2%–3%. "

Web Link

This comments thread would never exist if the actual option were "Let [anti-vaxers] make their choices and you make yours." Insisting that they make choices for just themselves and their families, not affecting others, is the fallacy behind this "tolerance" rhetoric. If the question were just private choice, this woman's innocent baby wouldn't have faced deadly risk and quarantine: Web Link Web Link

As anyone can see here (if they didn't already know), people once emotionally invested in a myth will spin wordy arguments and cite endless "facts" that they think support it. Never mind that essentially the entire medical world disagrees (what's mere medicine, after all, compared to the strength of armchair opinion?)

@Tolerance

- Anti-vaxxers are self-declared "well informed" people but don't offer "professionally well informed" (those with degrees in the science) to back their claims up. At what point is science useful to this group with specific regards to the MMR vaccine?

- It is a hard way to win an argument over vaccination where the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the risk by such a large margin compared to the risk of not being vaccinated. This is true even in comparing the relatively mild adverse reactions to the vaccine vs. potential for unneccessary death by measles. Anti-vaxxers would be welcome participants in most poker games because of this inability to rationally compare risk.

- Anti-vaxxers often defend their decision based on data where herd-protection exists rather than where there is no vaccine in the population so, in a way, they are making their decision based on others taking the risk for them. That's overt selishness. I don't ever hear of any popular, scientifically-based, organized movement to remove vaccines from the population for the public good. This lack of "participating in the public good" view from both angles (refusing to take the vaccine to improve herd immunity and preventing others from receiving some supposed poison) makes anti-vaxxers look bad no matter what.

- Its interesting that you hint that poor people and those without access to quality health care could be at risk of death from measles, a disease that relatively wealthy people are helping propogate by refusing to participate in herd immunity. I wonder how that makes anti-vaxxers look.

"Let them make their choices and you make yours."
As long as they can be held criminally and civilly liable for the injuries and deaths of those around them caused by their unnecessary propogation of the disease. Maybe so.

Finally, you started by responding to LuckyChild by discounting their experience as atypical, as if that's ok, and yet there are more risks of harm from measles than from the vaccine. Can you explain this logic?

selishness = selfishness

There is so much vitriol around vaccination!

My children are vaccinated, since I value their health, but I would never try to force another parent to vaccinate their kids. The county is doing the right thing, and asking all parents to vaccinate their children because the benefits far outweigh the risks. Asking and informing is a wonderful thing! If some of my friends didn't vaccinate, I'd try to convince them to do it, science is on the side of vaccination.

Vaccines have risks, but they're generally less dangerous than the risk of the disease you're vaccinating against. Dr. Salk's original polio vaccine gave polio to 40,000 people, but saved many times more. Vaccines have gotten much safer since then. A friend's daughter had a severe allergic reaction to a tdap vaccine, requiring hospitalization (the child is fine), but you know what, she still vaccinates her kids, just has to be very careful with the child that had that reaction.

I disagree that the anti vaccination decision is well informed from people who did their research. As far as I can tell, the whole autism scare came from former Dr. Andrew Wakefield. He has been stripped of his medical license, and his paper has been retracted by the Lancet due to fraud. He faked his data, violated all sorts of research protocols, and while railing against the common MMR vaccine, was trying to sell his own version which was "safe". Typical crook. Removing his false scare, vaccine side effects are still present, but very rare, and generally very mild. Science illiterates then took this story and ran with it, since it's sensational, and we ended up with people like Jenny McCarthy and Mike Adams spouting anti-vaccine nonsense. (Mike Adams runs perhaps the most popular medical conspiracy website, naturalnews.com). Wakefield is now viewed as a victim of the establishment by the anti-vaccine people. You shouldn't believe me where it comes to vaccine safety, survey vaccine efficacy and safety research for yourself. You will find a scientific consensus that vaccines are safe. If you don't believe the consensus, you have to ask yourself why. These studies are run by immunologists who have a better understanding of the science than you do, and at some point, you have to trust the people who make a career out of this rather than some armchair immunologists. I'm also pissed at Wakefield for having thimerosal removed from vaccines. Thimerosal is a preservative which contains a tiny bit of mercury. It contains mercury in the same way that salt contains sodium and chlorine, both poisons. Your body metabolizes it, and you pee it out. In fact, you get far more dangerous mercury exposure from a tuna sandwich than thimerosal. Anyhow, removing thimerosal has made vaccines much more expensive for the developing world, because without the preservative, you need single dose vials, which are more expensive than the large vials from which you could vaccinate tens of kids.

"My children are vaccinated, since I value their health, but I would never try to force another parent to vaccinate their kids."

I think it's fine from a civil rights standpoint to not vaccinate their kids. However, they should not be allowed to be in the public schools, as they are violating the civil rights of other children by risking their health.

Perhaps, there could be special private schools that would educate all the unvaccinated children. Of course, they would only be in business for a year or two, before plagues of viruses would take hold and wipe them out.

Oxford Dictionary
fearmongering
Syllabification: fear
NOUN
The action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue

Calm down folks. The pharmaceutical companies, through the media, are fear mongering. Settle down, look at the real data on the incidence of fatalities from measles (risk is .01%) and don't let them manipulate you. Measles is not that scary to begin with but if you really can't bear the idea of your child getting it then immunize him. If the risk of fatality in an unimmunized population is .01% then since an immunized child only has a 1% chance of contracting the disease (if exposed, which is also low probability) then the risk of death would be less than .0001%. Is that risk really worth all this hatred and bullying?

To all the parents out there that feel unvaccinated kids should be banned from school, I'm curious- do you send your kids to school with a runny nose? I hope not because colds and flu are extremely contagious and some other kid could catch that virus and develop serious complications. Lots of kids develop bronchitis, ear infections and pneumonia secondary to colds and flu and some of them become deaf, asthmatic and even die! Also better not send them to school if they have a sore throat. It could be strep and that can be very serious. Some kids develop rheumatic fever and kidney disease from strep and it wouldn't be fair to the other kids to expose them. Plus some kids are immunosuppressed and they might die and other kids have babies in their families that shouldn't be exposed. So please, if your child has a runny nose or a sore throat do NOT let them leave your home. Please quarantine them until all symptoms subside.

@Tolerance

"The odds of a healthy kid dying from measles in this country is so low that it's not even worth discussing"

You need to have a discussion with the parents of those 450 children that would die without measles vaccines.

@Walk the Talk

"do you send your kids to school with a runny nose?"

The difference is that being unvaccinated is easily avoidable. Runny noses etc. are not.

" considering half the population alive today lived with measles as a normal childhood disease"

Yes. And millions died. But those cannot be counted in "the population alive today" because they are dead. You might want to reconsider your logic.

@ Shoreline - and you need to have a discussion with the parents of MORE than 450 kids that will suffer from adverse reactions to the vaccine.

@ Steve- "millions" have not died from the measles. There were about 450 deaths per year pre-vaccine (out of 3-4 million cases) and most of those were malnutritioned kids. I'm not suggesting that those 450 kids don't matter but the argument here is about burning unvaccinated kids at the stake because they pose risk to other kids at their schools. And my point is that in the communities where unvaccinated kids tend to live (we've already established that anti-vaxers are highly educated therefore higher income) the risk of their classmates dying of measles is minuscule.

@ Steve - we're talking about those who believe that anti-vaxers have a moral (and potentially legal) responsibility to protect other children from potential disease. And anybody that believes that should also feel the moral responsibility to protect others from whatever disease their runny-nosed kids are carrying. Complications and death are no more likely from measles than they are from flu, colds or the myriad of other viruses floating around.

@Walk the Talk you claim that:

"...Complications and death are no more likely from measles than they are from flu, colds or the myriad of other viruses floating around."

as Steve said, "you may want to reconsider your logic" about risk of death from the flu:

CBS News, January 17, 2014

FLU SEASON CHILD DEATH TOLL DOUBLES IN CDC'S LATEST FLU REPORT

Flu activity continues to climb in the U.S., with 40 states now reporting widespread disease activity during the week of January 5 through 11, up from 35 states from last week’s report.

Each Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention releases new data on U.S. flu activity that the agency culls from state health departments on disease cases that occurred one week prior.

Ten children died of flu during the second week of 2014 according to the new figures, a number that doubles the entire count of this year’s 2013-2014 flu season to date, raising the toll to 20 pediatric deaths.

During the 2012-2013 flu season, which started early and was especially severe, 169 children died.

The CDC does not track exact number of adult death rates, but this week the flu season reached “epidemic” status because 7.5 percent of all U.S. deaths during the second week of January were due to flu and pneumonia illnesses, surpassing the CDC’s epidemic threshold of 7.2 percent.

Last week, about 6.9 percent of deaths were attributed to flu and pneumonia.

Typically flu hits young children and seniors over 65 the hardest, but this year’s primary disease-causing strain -- H1N1 -- also affects healthy young people between the ages of 18 and 64, Dr. Susan Rehm, medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), told CBS News.

H1N1 was the strain responsible for the 2009 “swine” flu pandemic that killed more than 200,000 people worldwide.

The number of states with high disease activity fell from 20 states to 14 states in the latest report. But that doesn't necessarily mean the worst is behind us.

The flu season can be unpredictable, said Rehm, and while the CDC’s numbers reflect disease that has already happened, the agency can’t predict whether the flu season will get worse. Flu typically peaks between January and March.

“We won’t know when the peak is until we’re past it,” she said. That’s why, “It’s important to remember it’s not too late to get a flu vaccine.”

The CDC recommends that all people age 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine, including pregnant women. Estimates released in December by the CDC found only 40 percent of Americans have gotten a flu shot this year.

Besides vaccination, taking daily actions like washing your hands with soap and water, covering your nose and mouth when sneezing or coughing and staying home when you’re sick can reduce the spread of illness, Rehm pointed out.

Signs you have the flu include fever, aches, chills and tiredness that come on suddenly, with emphasis on the sudden onset, said Rehm. Otherwise it might be the common cold or another illness.

If you do have flu, a doctor could prescribe antiviral medications like Tamiflu and Relenza, which can reduce the severity of the disease and help prevent some of the more serious complications that lead to hospitalization, especially when taken within the first 48 hours of infection.

If you are feeling sick this flu season -- whether its influenza or the common, cold -- resist the urge to call your doctors to demand antibiotics, CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook warned last week.

“Viruses, are not treatable by antibiotics,” said LaPook. “Every year I have to talk over and over again to patients about this.”

But I read a web page on the internet that said vaccines were bad. I also read a page that said global warming isn't happening and that we didn't put a man on the moon.
It's all right there on the internet and it substantiates what I will believe no matter what actual facts are presented.
I'm very smart.

This is an internet-related issue. Put ridiculous notions on the www, dress them up as science, and a certain amount of people will jump on the bandwagon. The same with those who deny climate change. The trurh is fighting for its life these days, and is being choked by the very instrument that seeks to spread it. Sure, lies and rumors are as old as time, except they weren't able to reach a global audience in one, swift click.