Your child has the right to get diseases-antivax nutball

[Wisconsin Beth]

Feb 4, 2015 15:37:12 GMT -5 oped said:

So mandatory blood donations ?

Just trying to point out mandatory medical is an interesting and complex issue to consider.

No. 

I agree it's complex.  And interesting.  And frustrating.    And I'm going to be departing from the discussion fairly soon.  I've got kids to pick up. 

[weltschmerz]

Feb 4, 2015 15:39:46 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Feb 4, 2015 15:06:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Of course you do. But what if your decision kills someone else in your community?

So how about those that have an adverse reaction to the vaccine?  Not everyone knows they are allergic prior to administration. Couldn't  the decision to mandate result in their death?

How adverse? A sore arm? People with allergies to eggs can now get the vaccine.

Allergies to ingredients in vaccines are exceedingly rare.

[Angel!]

Feb 4, 2015 14:38:41 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Feb 4, 2015 14:29:27 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

And some of us don't understand why freedom loving people would put the lives of others, in their own community, at risk by not vaccinating.  If you love your freedom that much, then why are you putting your society that supports that right at risk?  That's what I'm questioning. 

Diseases can and have wiped out societies - estimates are that between 50%-90% of the Native American population died after contact with Europeans (1450-1750ish) because they had no little to no resistance to measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, influenza, whooping cough, TB, cholera, diphtheria and chickenpox and whatever else came over. 

Understood. I don't vaccinate myself because I'm medically contraindicated for it (by the very same community that pushes vaccines so hard, by the way). I think I'm just tired of being the brunt of people's anger - especially when I don't feel like it's my fault. I was at a Super Bowl party and some guy there was going on and on - loudly - about how the people who don't get a flu shot are all "idiots" who are "putting the rest of us at risk." Being who I am, I didn't bother to keep my mouth shut and seethe. So he got a quiet, non-confrontational earful from me. He shut up.

Some of us CAN'T vaccinate. Yet we are thrown into the mix of folks who are demonized. I'm tired of it. Maybe I'm just on the wrong thread.  Or I'm not communicating well because I don't feel understood at all.

And I STILL agree with Sroo - I don't think the medical community is evil or wrong - but I absolutely DO believe they are not above questioning. No one is (or should be) above questioning.

No you aren't.   At least not on this thread.  I've never met someone so pro-vaccine that they wouldn't understand some people medically can't get the vaccine.  In fact, it has been stated several times on this thread that many of us are so pro-vaccine because it helps to protect those that can't get vaccines.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Feb 4, 2015 15:39:46 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Feb 4, 2015 15:06:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Of course you do. But what if your decision kills someone else in your community?

So how about those that have an adverse reaction to the vaccine?  Not everyone knows they are allergic prior to administration. Couldn't  the decision to mandate result in their death?

I don't see how they'd know prior to a voluntary vaccination attempt?  Same results.  We didn't hover over the kids after their first vaccines but we were paying a lot more attention to every little thing afterwards for a couple of days. 

For the record, I want kids under the age of 10 or so vaccinated.  Over 10 or so and things get hazier because they are capable of more understanding of what's going on and why it's important. 

[Deleted]

Wait, it's ok to vaccinate young kids because they don't know what is going on?

[Angel!]

Feb 4, 2015 14:06:01 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Feb 4, 2015 11:09:42 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I'll state this first and get it out of the way.  I AM NOT ANTI VACCINE. 

That being said,  I wonder why it seems to be a crazy idea suddenly to question the medical consensus and make personal decisions?   There have been many many cases of the medical community getting things really wrong, just as there are for getting them right? 

Did you know that the polio vaccine was live trialed in 1.8 million US children? It turned out to be a good thing (no denying),  but it could have just easily turned out horribly wrong. 

Thalidomide for morning sickness? In retrospect if a woman questioned or refused to take this at her doctors suggestion,  would she be considered a nut?

The medical community used to perform lobotomies as a routine procedure.  Now looking back, it is seen as one of the most barbaric practices in medical history.  But at the time it was seen as the best treatment for many ailments.  Did you know the inventor of it was given a Nobel prize?   Who would argue against that?   Think about this,   if popular belief at the time was a lobotomy would fix your (global you) ailment.  Why would you question it?  Would you be a nut for challenging that this is an appropriate treatment?   Think about the doctors that did challenge it.   If they hadn't we'd still be subjecting countless people to it. 

I'm not saying that medical community is bad or shouldn't be trusted.   But they should be questioned.   We also should maintain the rights to make our own decisions. 

THANK YOU for saying this! This is probably hands-down the most sensible thing I've read on any of the vaccine threads.

Contrary to what a few people are trying to make me out as, I'm not an anti-vaxxer either. But I absolutely agree that we have every right to question what we are told. Questioning authority or status quo is a cornerstone of freedom. When we lose the right to question, or to have control over our own bodies and over the health and wellbeing of our families (the talk of forced vaccinations, jail time for non-compliers, CPS taking kids who don't want treatment away from their families, etc) we are perilously close to a police state. Hitler springs to mind. So does Mussolini and assorted other Asian dictators (Mao, Pol Pot).

CLEARLY WE ARE NOT THERE - YET. But to guard the freedom we all regard as precious requires that we constantly question.

That is all. At least it is for freedom-loving people.

ETA: see, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP? We actually agree (sometimes) more than you think

Is there ever a time when the govt should step in to protect kids from parents making decisions not in their best interest?  What if that decision would result in the child's death? 

For example (just because I know of someone who went through this): Is it the parents right to decide their newborn should not get a blood transfusion even if it means their child will die? 

[swamp]

Feb 4, 2015 15:50:02 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Feb 4, 2015 14:06:01 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

THANK YOU for saying this! This is probably hands-down the most sensible thing I've read on any of the vaccine threads.

Contrary to what a few people are trying to make me out as, I'm not an anti-vaxxer either. But I absolutely agree that we have every right to question what we are told. Questioning authority or status quo is a cornerstone of freedom. When we lose the right to question, or to have control over our own bodies and over the health and wellbeing of our families (the talk of forced vaccinations, jail time for non-compliers, CPS taking kids who don't want treatment away from their families, etc) we are perilously close to a police state. Hitler springs to mind. So does Mussolini and assorted other Asian dictators (Mao, Pol Pot).

CLEARLY WE ARE NOT THERE - YET. But to guard the freedom we all regard as precious requires that we constantly question.

That is all. At least it is for freedom-loving people.

ETA: see, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP? We actually agree (sometimes) more than you think

Is there ever a time when the govt should step in to protect kids from parents making decisions not in their best interest?  What if that decision would result in the child's death? 

For example (just because I know of someone who went through this): Is it the parents right to decide their newborn should not get a blood transfusion even if it means their child will die? 

Yes.  That's what Family Court is for.

[Deleted]

So not vac would then end up in family court?

[Wisconsin Beth]

Feb 4, 2015 15:49:25 GMT -5 oped said:

Wait, it's ok to vaccinate young kids because they don't know what is going on?

Yes because they're at a higher risk due to a developing immune system.  Protect the young and the old, remember?  Some kids shrug off diseases when they're young.  Others don't.  You vaccinate to protect everyone.  In my opinion, those under 10 are at a higher risk due to that developing immune system.  The elderly are more as risk due to a declining immune system. 

The current schedule for vaccinations starts at birth with Hepatitis. 

[swamp]

Feb 4, 2015 15:53:57 GMT -5 oped said:

So not vac would then end up in family court?

Generally, no.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Feb 4, 2015 15:53:57 GMT -5 oped said:

So not vac would then end up in family court?

I would hope not.  But then again, I still can't get over/believe the callousness that Wolfson displayed in the quotes attributed to him.  So who am I to answer your question? 

[Deleted]

And yet babies are really not generally at risk for Hep B.

[Deleted]

I mean if vac became mandatory, would resistance now be a family court thing?

[swamp]

Feb 4, 2015 15:56:57 GMT -5 oped said:

I mean if vac became mandatory, wod resistance now be a family court thing?

I have no idea.  

There has to be a risk of immediate harm.   If you don't vaccinate, probably not. If you drop your unvaccinated kid off at a house where everyone has the measles and hope that he gets it.  Probably.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 4, 2015 15:39:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Feb 4, 2015 13:04:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The links I posted are where I sourced the claim. There's at least 100 pages of material between the three of them. I just skimmed the headings, and studies on instances where vaccinated communities experienced outbreaks seemed to be a common theme.

I'm not anti-vaccine, and I don't care enough about the topic to research it intensively. My involvement in these threads is purely academic.

If I cared as much about vaccinations as you appear to, I would investigate contrarian sites thoroughly, claim by claim.

So you don't have a specific source to back up your claim. Gotcha

I don't need to investigate because I've done enough reading on vaccines to know it is BS. Just because there are outbreaks in vaccinated communities does not mean that vaccines aren't effective or herd immunity is bunk. The anti-vaccine folks just set up straw man arguments to make it appear as such.

So you don't actually need to read contrarian literature to know it's BS. Gotcha.

The difference being that you supposedly care.

Also: look up the definition of "straw man argument". It clearly doesn't mean what you think it does.

Feb 4, 2015 15:39:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

ETA: "claims regarding highly vaccinated communities seeing the same rate of infection as less vaccinated communities" isn't an accurate paraphrasing of the hypothetical. As I understand it, the grievance is that highly vaccinated communities aren't seeing the reduced rates of infection suggested by the putative efficiency of the vaccines.
Just because a theory isn't actionable doesn't mean it's not correct.

But, it is meaningless because your combining 1000 factors that happened over the past hundred years that have influenced our evolution & trying to blame it all on vaccines. It is absolutely impossible to come to that conclusion because there are too many factors. Correlation vs causation.

You misunderstand. I'm offering this as an incomplete, plausible alternative theory. Not a statement of fact or "thesis". Something less than a thesis. Something that we suppose to be true for sake of inquiry and assessment. A less-than-thesis-ical argument.

I doubt there's an English word for it, and I obviously haven't used such a word a dozen times in the past page. Even so, hopefully it's clear now that I'm not positing this linkage as absolute.

[Deleted]

I have had friends of unvaccinated kids ask if anyone has shingles or chocken pox so they can get some lollipops...

[weltschmerz]

Feb 4, 2015 16:06:22 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Feb 4, 2015 15:43:33 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

How adverse? A sore arm? People with allergies to eggs can now get the vaccine.

Allergies to ingredients in vaccines are exceedingly rare.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm



Let's go with a common one MMR: 

MMR vaccine side-effects
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)
What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.html

Some people should not get MMR vaccine or should wait.

Anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to the antibiotic neomycin, or any other component of MMR vaccine, should not get the vaccine. Tell your doctor if you have any severe allergies.
Anyone who had a life-threatening allergic reaction to a previous dose of MMR or MMRV vaccine should not get another dose.

Death from vaccination? Rare.

Death from disease? Not so rare.

[NastyWoman]

I'm not saying that medical community is bad or shouldn't be trusted. But they should be questioned. We also should maintain the rights to make our own decisions.

 absolutely, no doubt about it.  However, there is also that little thingy called taking responsibility for your own decisions.  If you chose, as opposed to are not able to for medical reasons, not to vaccinate then in case of an outbreak of an infectious  disease (for which a vaccine exists) then you should be in quarantine until this outbreak has been declared over and the incubation period of the last sick person has passed.  While this sounds way out there, we already "quarantine" smokers in public locations due to the health risk from second hand smoke to others.  I believe that there is a much stronger case to be made against letting the voluntary anti-vaxxers out in public.

So by all means chose what path you want to take here, but be prepared to carry the consequences of your own decision. --- Steps off soapbox---  

[Angel!]

Feb 4, 2015 15:39:46 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Feb 4, 2015 15:06:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Of course you do. But what if your decision kills someone else in your community?

So how about those that have an adverse reaction to the vaccine?  Not everyone knows they are allergic prior to administration. Couldn't  the decision to mandate result in their death?

I did a bunch of digging because I was curious. Before the MMR was introduced ~450/yr were dying in the US due to those diseases. And just from measles 48,000/yr were hospitalized, and 4,000/yr suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.  Couldn't find similar data on mumps or rubella, nor the number of birth defects due to rubella. 

Found another site that tracked claimed deaths due to the MMR - in the last 25 years 57 deaths were blamed on the vaccine, although I could not find the number that were found to be actually a result of the vaccine.  That is just the number of claims made against the vaccine, but we will use it.

So over the past 25 years we have had 57 vaccine related deaths.  During that time we've had an average of 1 death per year due to those diseases & let's just say 500 hospitalizations (making that up based on # of cases, it is probably significantly lower).  So a total of 72 deaths & 12,500 hospitalizations.  During that time we prevented 11,250 deaths & 1.2 Million hospitalizations & 100,000 cases of encephalitis.

Even ignoring the deaths, I wonder what the economics costs are of 1.2 million hospitalizations & 100,000 cases of encephalitis (which can result in long-term brain damage).  And that is ignoring mumps & rubella hospitalizations & birth defects since I lacked data in those areas.

I just found it interesting.

Data sources: 

vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005969 

www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html

www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html

[Wisconsin Beth]

Feb 4, 2015 16:06:22 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Feb 4, 2015 15:43:33 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

How adverse? A sore arm? People with allergies to eggs can now get the vaccine.

Allergies to ingredients in vaccines are exceedingly rare.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm



Let's go with a common one MMR: 

MMR vaccine side-effects
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)
What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.html

Some people should not get MMR vaccine or should wait.

Anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to the antibiotic neomycin, or any other component of MMR vaccine, should not get the vaccine. Tell your doctor if you have any severe allergies.
Anyone who had a life-threatening allergic reaction to a previous dose of MMR or MMRV vaccine should not get another dose.

Someone (Drama I think) addressed this one (either here or the other vac thread) ANY side effect in trials has to be documented.  So if you have a migraine (even if you're prone to them) on the days you're participating in a study, they have to include that in possible side effects. 

AndI really have to run.  I"m late to get my kids. 

[Angel!]

Feb 4, 2015 15:52:27 GMT -5 swamp said:

Feb 4, 2015 15:50:02 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Is there ever a time when the govt should step in to protect kids from parents making decisions not in their best interest?  What if that decision would result in the child's death? 

For example (just because I know of someone who went through this): Is it the parents right to decide their newborn should not get a blood transfusion even if it means their child will die? 

Yes.  That's what Family Court is for.

And that is what happened.  Unfortunately they had to induce labor at 30 weeks, so there is a high chance the kid will have disabilities.  But, the courts cannot force in-utero blood transfusions & the kid was going to die.  So, the doctors convinced the mother to induce that early to give the kid a chance to survive & then went through the courts to force a blood transfusion that the mother refused.

I just am curious how people that don't want the govt to interfere with these issues feel about situations like this.  Should the govt let the parents make bad decisions that would lead to death?  Is there anytime when interfering is acceptable?  I guess I am asking, is there a gray area or is it always non-interference is best?

[Angel!]

Ooh. I found some data on Rubella. I was not familiar with the disease, but this is fascinating IMO (maybe I'm weird )

Prior to vaccinations there was a rubella epidemic every 6-9 years.  In the last US epidemic (1962-1965) prior to immunizations there were 12.5 million rubella cases resulting in:

-  2,000 cases of encephalitis

-  11,250 therapeutic or spontaneous abortions

-  2,100 neonatal deaths

-  20,000 infants born with CRS

For those unfamiliar, CRS is a congenital disease that fetuses contract if the mother gets rubella during pregnancy.  It causes cataracts, congenital heart disease, hearing impairment, and developmental delay.  Those are the kids who survive, the disease also can cause death.

I can't even imagine the fear of getting that disease when pregnant.  And yet due to immunizations, this is unbelievably rare in this country now.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Yes we should have aright to chose, but when it comes to public health and public safety (think car seat belts) your choice should not put others in danger.

As far as the posted side affects, ever read the side affects for common medicines? They cover everything from the reason you are taking them to every pain you can think of. Just covering their asses.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Feb 4, 2015 15:56:09 GMT -5 oped said:

And yet babies are really not generally at risk for Hep B.

But they will be in the future.

The point is to get them in BEFORE they are at risk.  Once you pick up the virus, there is no going backwards.   Is it likely that a newborn pick up Hep B?  No.  But the vaccine is over 30 years old and the healthcare providers that were in the first wave who was immunized are still protected without boosters.

[kittensaver]

Feb 4, 2015 18:05:44 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Feb 4, 2015 17:47:59 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Yes we should have aright to chose, but when it comes to public health and public safety (think car seat belts) your choice should not put others in danger.

As far as the posted side affects, ever read the side affects for common medicines? They cover everything from the reason you are taking them to every pain you can think of. Just covering their asses.

Just curious.  How does a person not wearing a seat belt put others in danger?  

S/he doesn't. S/he is only putting him/herself in danger. BUT as you already know, should that person be low income, uninsured or otherwise financially unable to foot a hospital bill for a severe injury, s/he will be creating *some* resentful taxpayers by increasing the cost of public health services to cover for the individual's choice to not use a belt. It's not a good analogy, but I've seen many other iffy analogies when trying to justify forcing someone to do something "for the good of the order." So make of that what you will. In this particular situation it's not about the good of the individual, but about the protection of the pocketbook of others.

Maybe ken a.k.a OMK or someone else can come up with a better example.

[kittensaver]

Feb 4, 2015 18:27:26 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

As far as the posted side affects, ever read the side affects for common medicines? They cover everything from the reason you are taking them to every pain you can think of. Just covering their asses.

DH and I laugh at the side effects listed on commercials.  We're like, if that's the side effect for the medication to improve it then how bad is the disease?

 I especially like the ones that say, "taking this medication may cause death."

[Angel!]

Feb 4, 2015 18:25:09 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Feb 4, 2015 18:05:44 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Just curious.  How does a person not wearing a seat belt put others in danger?  

S/he doesn't. S/he is only putting him/herself in danger. BUT as you already know, should that person be low income, uninsured or otherwise financially unable to foot a hospital bill for a severe injury, s/he will be creating *some* resentful taxpayers by increasing the cost of public health services to cover for the individual's choice to not use a belt. It's not a good analogy, but I've seen many other iffy analogies when trying to justify forcing someone to do something "for the good of the order." So make of that what you will.

Maybe ken a.k.a OMK or someone else can come up with a better example.

Even if the person is financially stable & insured, it costs the taxpayers.  On average a fatal car crash costs about 1 million dollars to the public. I'll be honest I don't know what all goes into that calculation. If anyone cares enough I could try to figure it out.  I am fairly certain it involves delays, cost of emergency responders, cost to record the crash, and damage to public property, but there may be other factors as well.  But that is about 50 times the cost of an injury crash, IIRC.

As far as example - maybe just because we have the right to own a gun doesn't mean we have the right to fire it willy, nilly anywhere we like.  Or the right to free speech doesn't extend to yelling "fire" in a crowd.  In those cases our freedoms are limited to protect others.

[kittensaver]

Feb 4, 2015 18:31:56 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Feb 4, 2015 18:25:09 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

S/he doesn't. S/he is only putting him/herself in danger. BUT as you already know, should that person be low income, uninsured or otherwise financially unable to foot a hospital bill for a severe injury, s/he will be creating *some* resentful taxpayers by increasing the cost of public health services to cover for the individual's choice to not use a belt. It's not a good analogy, but I've seen many other iffy analogies when trying to justify forcing someone to do something "for the good of the order." So make of that what you will.

Maybe ken a.k.a OMK or someone else can come up with a better example.

Even if the person is financially stable & insured, it costs the taxpayers.  On average a fatal car crash costs about 1 million dollars to the public. I'll be honest I don't know what all goes into that calculation. If anyone cares enough I could try to figure it out.  I am fairly certain it involves delays, cost of emergency responders, cost to record the crash, and damage to public property, but there may be other factors as well.  But that is about 50 times the cost of an injury crash, IIRC.

As far as example - maybe just because we have the right to own a gun doesn't mean we have the right to fire it willy, nilly anywhere we like.  Or the right to free speech doesn't extend to yelling "fire" in a crowd.  In those cases our freedoms are limited to protect others.

Oh, I agree with you. BUT I still just don't think this is a good analogy for protecting the health and welfare of the public. It is only a good analogy for protecting the pocketbooks of the public.

[justme]

Not to mention it's a lot harder to even try to control your car in an accident if you're flying around in the car. You could hit or injure one of your passengers flying around. If you're ejected from the vehicle you could cause other accidents while people swerve and stop to avoid you.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 4, 2015 16:13:53 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Feb 4, 2015 16:08:41 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Death from vaccination? Rare.

Death from disease? Not so rare.

Well to use an often used logic tactic... a death is a death even if it's rare.    

But I'll go back to my original point... I'm not anti vaccination.  I'm pro-questioning and freedom to choose. 

i hope i am not the only one here who sees a certain inconsistency with a certain OTHER hot button issue, here.