PDA

View Full Version : The flip side to Autism/Vaccine debate


Ari Kestler
01-14-2009, 06:33 AM
Thought some of you might be interested in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13auti.html?_r=1&ref=health

w/f/s

Garrett Smith
01-14-2009, 07:30 AM
It is nice that the author of the new book's conflict of interest (as in he's a vaccine developer who has made millions off his vaccine) is shown.

More interesting stuff from the Vitamin D Council on the potential connection between Vitamin D and autism:
DOES VITAMIN D EXPLAIN THE ROLE OF VACCINES, MERCURY, AND HEAVY METALS?
Vitamin D's role in increasing glutathione levels may explain the link between mercury and other heavy metals, oxidative stress, and autism. For example, activated vitamin D lessens heavy metal induced oxidative injuries in rat brain. The primary route for brain toxicity of most heavy metals is through depletion of glutathione. Besides its function as a master antioxidant, glutathione acts as a chelating (binding) agent to remove heavy metals, like mercury. Autistic individuals have difficulty excreting heavy metals, like mercury. If brain levels of activated vitamin D are too low to employ glutathione properly, and thus unable to remove heavy metals, they may be damaged by heavy metal loads normal children easily excrete. That is, the mercury in Thimerosol vaccines may have injured vitamin D deficient children while normal children would have easily bound the mercury and excreted it. These studies offer further hope that sun-exposure or vitamin D supplements may help autistic children by increasing glutathione and removing heavy metals. Not only do we have more clues that vitamin D is involved in autism, the vitamin D theory just did something else: it explained two other theories of autism, the mercury accumulation theory and the oxidative stress theory. It bears repeating that the amount of activated vitamin D in the brain directly depends on the amount of vitamin D made in the skin or ingested orally.

A whole page of articles on Vitamin D and autism here:
http://vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/

Autistic children also tend to have low cholesterol levels, which may negatively impact their ability to make vitamin D even if they got enough sun.

This vitamin D epidemic is crazy. Get your sun, get your levels tested.

Derek Maffett
01-14-2009, 03:47 PM
There are still people who believe fluoride is dangerous

Except, of course, that it is toxic and nearly half of people in the U.S. have some amount of dental fluorosis (as for unsymptomatic or limited symptom skeletal fluorosis, who knows?).

As for the rest of the article, most of what is said there is essentially rhetoric (I say vaccines are safe, so there). I am interested in that Vitamin D angle Garrett mentioned, though.

Allen Yeh
01-15-2009, 03:37 AM
I thought the article was interesting, to be perfectly honest I haven't formulated a strong opinion although I do find the stories that came out from the group that Jennifer McArthy represents to be somewhat thought provoking.

Connor got all of his shots as scheduled but if I had another child I might consider alternative options.

George Mounce
01-15-2009, 03:27 PM
My son has gotten all his shots to date, but if they want to do more than one at a time, I have them wait at least 2-3 weeks per vaccine. One per visit is our limit.

Jared Buffie
01-17-2009, 10:52 AM
Funny story....

In the article, he mentions that lay people at book signings get nasty and that he'd rather talk to a group of nurses. I actually had the pleasure of speaking to a group of infectious disease nurses about why NOT to get vaccinated, and it was one of the nastiest experienses of my life.

Both sides of the debate are emotional, and at times, irrational (I've seen it first hand).

Just to disclose... two completely unvaccinated kids here (5 and 3). Never even been to a pediatritian.

Mike ODonnell
01-17-2009, 11:52 AM
Both sides of the debate are emotional, and at times, irrational (I've seen it first hand).

Most debates are....as no one likes being wrong (or learning what they think they know as right through "higher" education is false).

Stephen Brown
01-22-2009, 01:32 PM
Epidemiology is not emotional. Vaccinations have made this nation healthier. The numbers are clear and consistent. The controversy is stirred by the desperate.

Allen Yeh
01-23-2009, 02:30 AM
Epidemiology is not emotional. Vaccinations have made this nation healthier. The numbers are clear and consistent. The controversy is stirred by the desperate.

I don't agree with that assessment either, I have talked to people with autistic children that seem to be in 3 camps, anti-vaccinations, on the fence, or unaware.

From the few things I've seen/read in the anti-vaccinations route, it's hard to argue with results IMO when they have a child that was determined by the state to be autistic but after the detoxing and dietary changes, a year later in a state evaluation the child appears to be have resumed normalcy? So was the child not autistic before? Or what?

I'd like to state again that I'm not really sold one way or another but it's things like the above that give me pause.

George Mounce
01-23-2009, 05:00 AM
I would suggest for further study, you look at the rise in autism versus vaccination timelines. I just want to say, my kid will get his vaccines. I've seen what preventable disease does to small ones in many other poorer countries and I'm not letting it happen in one of the most advanced societies we have.

Here is some further reading stating that vaccines don't cause autism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/health/08autism.html?_r=1&ref=us
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/09/03/measles.autism/index.html
http://www.parents.com/baby/health/autism/health-update-more-proof-that-vaccines-dont-cause-autism/?page=1
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003673,00.html

More reading on the side that they don't know if they do or not, or they say they do:

http://autism.about.com/od/causesofautism/a/dovaccines.htm
http://www.autismwebsite.com/ARI/vaccine/thimerosalreferences.htm
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

What confuses me over the debate is the autism causing agent (thimersol) hasn't been in vaccines in years, yet the autism rate continues. Many of the articles/studies are unclear on whether reporting and classifying of autism has changed the rates. Many of the studies find no link at all.

I do agree with Stephen. It takes only a trip to a country where there are no vaccines to see the effect of ravaging diseases.

Here is the list of reported polio cases in 2008: http://www.polioeradication.org/casecount.asp. We don't even think about polio in the U.S.

Autism has a few different types. What causes it? Anyone's guess. Me personally I don't go around worrying about things for my child. Life works itself out. I have a few friends with autistic kids and they are just as loving and warm as a child without autism. They just go through life in a different way, and need love and respect like anyone else. Would I like to see a way to stop it? Sure. But I've found the accepting parents live much happier lives than those who go around blaming everyone and everything for their child's life.

Gant Grimes
01-23-2009, 08:20 AM
Epidemiology is not emotional. Vaccinations have made this nation healthier. The numbers are clear and consistent. The controversy is stirred by the desperate.

Agree. Sometimes trying to purify your life to the nth degree defeats the purpose of better living.

Derek Maffett
01-24-2009, 03:04 AM
Epidemiology is not emotional. Vaccinations have made this nation healthier. The numbers are clear and consistent. The controversy is stirred by the desperate.

I won't deny that vaccines can be useful, but you need to weigh the rewards and dangers. Doctors, however, can be difficult to trust when they fight tooth and nail to show that vaccinations have absolutely, positively, nothing to do with autism and other disorders, despite the fact that the correlation is brutally obvious in many cases.

I just read about a case where a girl of about six years was given the MMR vaccine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1126035/Six-months-MMR-jab--bubbly-little-girl-struggles-speak-walk-feed-herself.html (Lousy site, but it gives a mainstream news example of how messed up that country is. No offense intended to the English. Unless there are no English people around, in which case you can revert the sentence to it's original Irish translation).

It would seem that the doctors are eager to not even consider that the MMR vaccine could have had anything to do with anything. They say there is no reason to believe that, but a sudden and catastrophic decline in health starting only two days after a significant event is more than enough reason to suspect that event. But if doctors are unwilling to consider such a thing and instead just keep shoving the "it's safe" line in our faces, how are we supposed to trust them, even if they may be right on that occasion?

Brandon Oto
01-24-2009, 07:33 PM
I did this for the CF boards. It's only on MMR.

http://degreesofclarity.com/writing/mmr/

Derek Maffett
01-24-2009, 11:05 PM
I did this for the CF boards.

Ah, yes. That was a fun discussion, wasn't it?

Brandon Oto
01-25-2009, 12:01 AM
Yes. Yes it was.

John Alston
02-09-2009, 04:40 PM
The doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece


Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.

Garrett Smith
02-09-2009, 08:23 PM
How could anyone doubt the vaccine industry when things like this happen?
http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0023
BTW, the AAPS (who put up this article) are a group of MDs...
French judges investigate vaccine manufacturer for manslaughter
March 19th, 2008

In what was called a “thunderclap in the vaccine industry,” French authorities have opened a formal investigation concerning a hepatitis B vaccination campaign by GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur in the 1990s. It is alleged that the companies failed to fully disclose neurologic side effects. Another investigation opened by Judge Marie-Odile Bertella-Geffroy concerns the death (“manslaughter”) of a 28-year-old woman from multiple sclerosis, allegedly connected to the vaccine (Le Figaro 1/31/08).

From 1994 to 1998, almost two-thirds of the French population and almost all newborn babies were vaccinated against hepatitis B, but the campaign was temporarily suspended because of concerns about side effects.

Some 30 plaintiffs, including the families of five patients who died after the vaccination, have launched civil actions (Reuters 1/1/08).

A British case-controlled analysis showed an odds ratio of 3.1 (95% CI 1.5-6.3) for first symptoms of multiple sclerosis in recipients of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine compared to controls. Two previous French studies had shown a RR of about 1.5. Other studies showed a nonsignificant increase or null findings, especially when date of diagnosis rather than date of first symptoms was used (Neurology 2004;63:838-842).

According to attorney Clifford Miller, “British doctors administering hepatitis B vaccine to infants could face criminal prosecution if fully informed consent is not obtained. Civil prosecution for damages is possible over 21 years later if the injured survive as adults” (UK Press Association Newswire/Romeike, September 2005).

The hepatitis B vaccine has been considered “one of the safest vaccines ever produced” (Neurology, op. cit.). On the other hand, French medical expert Marc Girard has said that “for a preventive measure, hepatitis B is remarkable for the frequency, variety and severity of complications from its use” (Romeike, op.cit.)
Or what about the groups lobbying for mandatory vaccination and denying both parents and children the rights to the "sanctity of their own blood"?
DOCTORS’ GROUP VOTES TO OPPOSE VACCINE MANDATES

A leading national physician organization is calling for a moratorium on all government mandated vaccines and has passed a resolution to that end at their annual meeting.

Members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) voted this week at their 57th Annual Meeting in St. Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Resolution and mandatory vaccine fact sheet posted at www.aapsonline.org)

"Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that aren’t necessary or that have very limited benefits," said Jane M. Orient, MD, AAPS Executive Director.

"This is not a vote against vaccines," said Dr. Orient. "This resolution only attempts to halt blanket vaccine mandates by government agencies and school districts that give no consideration for the rights of the parents or the individual medical condition of the child."

Forty-two states have mandatory vaccine policies, and many children are required to have 22 shots before first grade. On top of that, as a condition for school attendance, many school districts require vaccination for diseases such as hepatitis B -- primarily an adult disease, usually spread by multiple sex partners, drug abuse or an occupation with exposure to blood.

And yet, children under the age of 14 are three times more likely to suffer adverse effects -- including death -- following the hepatitis b vaccine than to catch the disease itself.

Just last week, students in Utica, NY were sent home from school, and told they could not return until they had been forced to receive hep B vaccinations. Further, parents were threatened by Child Protective Services with possible seizure of their children based on "education neglect."

"It’s obscene to threaten to seize a child just because his parents refuse medical treatment that is obviously unnecessary and perhaps even dangerous," said Dr. Orient. "AAPS believes that parents, with the advice of their doctors, should make decisions about their children’s medical care -- not government bureaucrats. This Resolution affirms that position."

(Note: AAPS is a professional association of physicians dedicated since 1943 to the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship.)
If vaccines actually worked, then the *vaccinated* have NOTHING to fear from those who are *unvaccinated*. What a farce.

Ari Kestler
02-10-2009, 04:17 PM
If vaccines actually worked, then the *vaccinated* have NOTHING to fear from those who are *unvaccinated*. What a farce.

True in vacuum. Yes, if we stop vaccinating against measles it's no sweat off my back since I'm vaccinated. However, it would be a public health nightmare and is something everyone should fear. Every year the # of measles cases climbs because of vaccine fear, when in reality, there is no reason any child should have to suffer measles and the potential complications.

Don't even get me started on the people out there (and on this board) who use the example of themselves (and their children) of being perfectly healthy and unvaccinated. They don't understand basic concepts like herd immunity that exist in the epidemiology/public health world. No your child is not "stronger/healthier" for not getting measles and not being vaccinated.

Derek Maffett
02-10-2009, 05:28 PM
They don't understand basic concepts like herd immunity that exist in the epidemiology/public health world.

And other people don't seem to understand basic concepts like quarantine and isolation (I'm talking about the concepts, not the strict medical definitions).

John Alston
02-11-2009, 06:27 PM
Measles kills, proven.
MMR leads to autism - only via super shakey science.
I think we should be able to sue folks who don't vaccinate and bring their infested kids into areas and infest others. Why not? Willful negligence.

Yael Grauer
02-11-2009, 08:24 PM
http://www.guideforselfhealing.com/2008/12/15/vaccine-nation-a-new-documentary-from-gary-null/

Garrett Smith
02-11-2009, 09:15 PM
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/288/5470/1323
Science 26 May 2000:
Vol. 288. no. 5470, pp. 1323 - 1324
DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5470.1323

PUBLIC HEALTH:
Aluminum Is Put on Trial as a Vaccine Booster
David Malakoff

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO--Complaints about vaccine safety and debate over a mysterious muscle ailment have prompted researchers to take a fresh look at the use of aluminum adjuvants, which are used to cause the immune system to react earlier, more potently, and more persistently to the antigen contained in the vaccine. This month, as some 70 scientists gathered here for 2 days of often vigorous discussion of the findings about the muscle ailment, a larger question hung over the gathering: Will aluminum be the next battleground in the vaccine wars?
I believe it's relatively well proven that mercury and aluminum are neurotoxic as well. But in case you need it written up, http://acta.uta.fi/english/teos.php?id=10127 :
Mercury and aluminum are neurotoxic metals with diverse effects on cellular functions in the brain. Ultimately exposure to them can lead to neural destruction and degenerative diseases. Although their toxic potency is now widely known, their existence in the environment and in several man-made applications makes human exposure inevitable. There are many mechanisms that cause cellular destruction with a delicate interplay with each other. That is why studies on different adverse mechanisms, and new methodological developments, as applied in this work, broaden the knowledge of the toxicity of these metals. Cell culture systems make such studies possible in strictly defined conditions.
Oh wait, I forgot. Injected mercury and aluminum compounds are only toxic in European countries...

Derek Maffett
02-11-2009, 09:43 PM
Measles kills, proven.

Correction - measles can kill. It's not a 100% fatality or even remotely close. Flu season also kills people. Should we sue the same way for negligence here?

MMR leads to autism - only via super shakey science.

Have you ever noticed something about that? When somebody dies of measles or some other such disease, it's listed as the cause of death right away. Because it obviously was. We don't need to do tests on what's ridiculously obvious. But with autism and any other ailment associated with vaccines, the scientists fight tooth and nail to prove that it was nothing but a coincidence. I don't see the big arguments about how "It wasn't the measles - it was just a coincidence because many people just happen to die sometimes."

I think we should be able to sue folks who don't vaccinate and bring their infested kids into areas and infest others. Why not? Willful negligence.

"Infest"? "Sue"? "Willful negligence"? Those are fighting words...suing eventually means mandatory vaccinations and sounds rather like trying to crush the opposition in this debate by means of government force. Are you prepared to live under such a government that takes complete control of our lives?

Think carefully about what you're wishing for here.

By the ways, I might consider public schools (the point of my last post) to be a form of "child neglect" in some ways. The education is lousy and diseases spread like crazy in that environment. But wait, the government supports that.

Brandon Oto
02-11-2009, 10:06 PM
I give up.

Derek Maffett
02-11-2009, 11:11 PM
I give up.

Must be old age...

Jared Buffie
02-12-2009, 10:53 AM
Measles kills, proven.

MMR vaccine kills, also proven.

http://www.hrsa.gov/Vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm

Measles vaccine is not responsible for cutting measles deaths, also proven:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/Jbuff/US-Deaths-1900-1965.gif

Garrett Smith
02-12-2009, 12:29 PM
Jared,
I love seeing that graph every time you put it up.

Brandon Oto
02-12-2009, 01:31 PM
Very very misleading graph in my opinion.

An aside: there is some misinformation circulating about the effectiveness of the measles vaccine. This graph, for example (above) is very misleading in terms of its commentary. The data presented are on measles DEATHS, which as discussed are quite low relative to the population; however the spread of the disease itself was relatively unabated prior to mass vaccination. To compare, there were 441,703 cases in 1960 (see above), and 22,231 in 1968 (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1972-02.pdf). Death rate in 1960 is accurately listed as .2 per 100,000 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1962_2A.pdf).

Ari Kestler
02-12-2009, 04:16 PM
OK...so according to you, mortality is not improved by vaccination. What about morbidity? Is that reason enough to vaccinate?

If not, where do you draw the line? Should we never give out antibiotics? Doctors give out antibiotics for common ear infections despite the fact that you will completely clear the infection. Why? Because a certain % of the time, you develop mastoiditis, and/or meningitis. While these events are relatively rare, is it worth it? The only reason I bring it up is because it actually happened to a perfectly healthy woman this past week in the hospital on my team. Ear infection, no biggie, a week later, reports to the ED for fever and changes in mental status. She is still in the ICU.

Skin your shin doing deads at the gym...it's just staph. you can probably clear it...pay no attention to the red streak going up your leg...I mean technically, with enough time, saline, blood products and pressors your body will eventually clear any infection. Everytime you go into septic shock we will just give you fluids, pressors and shock you back to life....or you could just not worry about it and put this topical antibiotic on it....the list goes on and on....

John Alston
02-12-2009, 05:59 PM
Very very misleading graph in my opinion.

Yes, Agreed.
While I may have been drunk when I made my post above, that graph supports just general increase in the us health care effectiveness and I think little more.

Derek Maffett
02-12-2009, 07:06 PM
Ari, I don't think anyone has said that all vaccines are evil. I'm sure that in many cases, such as travel in undeveloped third world countries, it may be worth it. Actually, I would say that it is worth it.

As I've said many times before, you have to make a proper risk analysis with all the facts available (and hopefully none suppressed by certain companies or groups of people). Antibiotics work the same way. The convenience of not being sick a long time and the avoidance of potential but unlikely complications is desirable, but would you desire the same if the antibiotics were themselves risky? Probably not, but you would take 0 risk antibiotics because they could only help.

But even then, would you go rushing to the doctor for some high-potency antibiotics every single time you got sick? I certainly don't. I don't like the idea of sending a whole bunch of chemicals into my body trying to kick start it back up. I dare say medicine tends to be very much processed and messed around with just like the "food" we try and avoid. The body isn't really meant to work normally with these medicines and I'd like to avoid seeing some cumulative negative effect on my immune system.

But compared to antibiotics, vaccines have a lot more side effects associated with them. And throwing tons of this stuff at children hardly after they're even born sounds like a cumulative negative effect waiting to happen.

I certainly hope that the right decisions are made by everyone, but (1) let's have all the facts. Let's have the ingredients known and the potential side effects listed rather than hidden. (2) Let's not have government trying to make all these decisions for us. They already exert extreme pressure, but besides the fact that choice would be taken away, corruption in the vaccine industry could skyrocket even further (compulsory services can tend to do that). And (3) let's try to reduce unnecessary risk factors in society. With the proper precautions, you can reduce risk from diseases a lot (a lot more than most Americans bother to). Perhaps you can also reduce risk from vaccines by things like spacing the vaccinations carefully and keeping your body healthy and ready to deal with any problems from them.

Ultimately, the issue isn't entirely in black and white. But the vaccine industry and most doctors seem to want to make it sound like it is.

Jared Buffie
02-12-2009, 07:12 PM
OK...so according to you, mortality is not improved by vaccination. What about morbidity? Is that reason enough to vaccinate?

If not, where do you draw the line? Should we never give out antibiotics? Doctors give out antibiotics for common ear infections despite the fact that you will completely clear the infection. Why? Because a certain % of the time, you develop mastoiditis, and/or meningitis. While these events are relatively rare, is it worth it? The only reason I bring it up is because it actually happened to a perfectly healthy woman this past week in the hospital on my team. Ear infection, no biggie, a week later, reports to the ED for fever and changes in mental status. She is still in the ICU.

Skin your shin doing deads at the gym...it's just staph. you can probably clear it...pay no attention to the red streak going up your leg...I mean technically, with enough time, saline, blood products and pressors your body will eventually clear any infection. Everytime you go into septic shock we will just give you fluids, pressors and shock you back to life....or you could just not worry about it and put this topical antibiotic on it....the list goes on and on....

Actually, studies have shown that pediatricians give antibiotics for ear infections to shut parents up - even the AAP suggests watchful waiting for most ear infections.

The reason so many people are developing MRSA is becasuse of the above mentionned overprescription of antibiotics.

It's almost like you personified the problem....

As for morbidity....

The list of side effects of vaccines is long and well documented, as is the complications from measles. So, parents need to weigh the risks of both. I have, and decided that the cahances of my child developping a severe complication from the measles is less likely than an adverse reaction to the shot.

What I would like to see is a study that shows that my child's health would benefit from being vaccinated. Here's what it would have to look like;

Two groups of upper class Canadian kids (we have to control for socio-economic status, so unfortunately there goes the starving kids in Africa and the ghetto kids in America who are developing all these terrible complications). Both groups will have to eat organic produce, grass fed, antibiotic free meats, and no processed foods. No sugar or refined grains, either. (have to control for diet). The kids should all be faily active. Two parent households, screened out for abuse (stress levels need to be controlled for as well).

Now, we'll split them into two groups. One get real shots, the other ones saline injections. Of course it's double blinded. We'll then compare the disease rates of the vaccines within the two groups (as well as side effects, of course).

But we can't stop there. Let's also look at things like asthma rates, autism rates, allergy rates, how often they suffer from illnesses like tonsilitis, ear infections, etc. We'll have to track them for many years to compare their chances of developping auto-immune disorders like MS, RA, SLE, etc... as well as heart disease and cancer later in life (after all, we wouldn't want to trade a bout of the chicken pox or measels with those kids of diseases - I think we can all agree on that one).

If the study comes back with data showing that the benefits then outweigh the risks, my kids will be first in line for needles.

Garrett Smith
02-12-2009, 08:10 PM
Ari,
Your example isn't totally in line with what vaccines do.

Your examples of an ear infection and a trauma-associated staph infection are both things that happened and are then treated.

Vaccines supposedly treat something that hasn't happened yet, while introducing known and intentionally toxic substances (aka adjuvants) into the system.

To give an exaggerated example, maybe we should all stop exercising and be put in body casts so we don't break any bones.

George Mounce
02-13-2009, 04:24 AM
Came out today...courts rule in favor of vaccines.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,492204,00.html

My wife works in a lab in Mississippi. She had 4 cases of rotavirus last week of unvaccinated children, (and one last night she tells me) and gets them continually throughout the year. A simple shot that could have saved a lot of parents and children some pain and suffering.

But of course they are our kids and as parents we must do what we think best. My son has all his shots and only gets one at a time, separated by at least 2 weeks. If that screws up the recommended schedule, I don't care.

Jared, the studies already exist. You just want them done your way to be satisfied, so I believe you will never be satisfied in that respect. You might want to look outside of developed countries to see what preventable, non-vaccinated diseases really do. When the majority of people in the US and developed countries are vaccinated, the virus doesn't have hosts to run rampant among. Something to think about and research.

Garrett Smith
02-13-2009, 07:52 AM
George, I applaud your approach, considering you are choosing to vaccinate.

Personally, I would leave a month between the single injections, but two weeks between is worlds better than having your child get 5-6 in one sitting.

Make sure that you read the ingredient label of the vaccinations if you are trying to avoid things like thimerosal. Just because the vaccine industry was required to stop putting it in newly-manufactured vaccines, does not mean that the pharm companies had to stop selling their already-made supplies (which could be huge) or that everyone (particularly the government/military, huge consumers of vaccines) is going to throw out all of their backstock. Just something to be cautious of.

Jared Buffie
02-13-2009, 12:47 PM
George, you're missing my point. You can't compare my kids to kids in third world countries in terms of health and disease rates, because there are too many other factors that are uncontrolled. Sure, vaccine rates in third world countries are lower... there is also a lack of food (many of the children there are literally starving to death before they contract measles) and clean drinking water. There are too many other variables to simply state that it is the lack of vaccines in those countries that is responsible for the higher disease rates.

For a time, the rotovirus vaccine was actualy pulled off the market due to fatal bowel obstructions. I sure hope they figured that one out....

Ari Kestler
02-03-2010, 07:10 AM
FYI

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/research/03lancet.html?ref=health

Garrett Smith
02-03-2010, 07:27 AM
Autism and Vitamin D (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/)

Thomas Campitelli
02-04-2010, 12:22 AM
From Garrett Smith:

If vaccines actually worked, then the *vaccinated* have NOTHING to fear from those who are *unvaccinated*. What a farce.

Herd immunity. It is not a farce. Vaccines are not 100% effective. Some percentage of those vaccinated will remain unprotected. That's just how it goes. By increasing the number of susceptible individuals in a population through the lack of vaccination, those who have been vaccinated but for whom the vaccine did not provide immunity are now at greater risk.

Tom Rawls
02-04-2010, 06:26 PM
"The Lancet retracted a controversial 1998 study that linked the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism and gastrointestinal problems."

One word: Polio.

Brandon Oto
02-05-2010, 03:48 AM
Vaccines cause polio? I'll add that to the book.

Tom Rawls
02-05-2010, 06:03 AM
Context, son.

The Lancet withdraws the article linking vaccination to autism because it was based on manipulated data. So the key link in the vaccination/autism chain disintegrates.

Not only are the risks of vaccination not what some have said, vaccination eliminated polio. You're too young to have experienced this revolution in public health.

And let us not forget small pox.

Brandon Oto
02-05-2010, 01:23 PM
Vaccines cause smallpox?!

Robert Pierce
02-06-2010, 05:42 AM
OMG this went on for 20+ pages on the CF.com site. It was closed or it died some time after Brandon published his tome. I posted plenty of studies over there, perhaps 1-2 dozen, if anyone is interested.

Those who read that thread know that I'm a family doc and I vaccinate my patients and my children. I have seen unvaccinated kids die from the diseases we're talking about right now. In my career, personally, I've seen lives ruined from H flu meningitis and pneumococcal meningitis. Just last year, a kid in a nearby town died of rotavirus. Rotovirus!

Maybe, unfortunately we need some people in iron lungs again before this antivaccine debate goes away.

Regarding herd immunity, here's the thing: when my kids are vaccinated, that helps your kids. When your kids are vaccinated, that helps my kids. By keeping herd immunity over that 85-90% range, we help keep the disease at bay. Now how is it fair for my kids to assume the minimal risk of helping to keep your kids safe when you won't accept the negligible risk of helping to keep my kids (and patients) safe?

Garrett Smith
02-06-2010, 06:35 AM
Robert,
It's as simple as this to me. You don't make me do anything to me and my kids that I don't want done, and I'll do the same for you.

It's called personal freedom.

Tom Rawls
02-07-2010, 08:53 AM
It's not that simple.

Public health may trump personal freedom.

Public interest vs. personal freedom is an inevitable tension in a civilized society.

Brandon Oto
02-07-2010, 12:09 PM
Smallpox causes personal freedom?!

:explodes:

Thomas Campitelli
02-09-2010, 11:23 PM
Robert... please... your professional experience and training as a doctor combined with the overwhelming weight of evidence cannot possibly stand up against these claims. Jenny McCarthy said it, therefore it is true.

Gant Grimes
02-11-2010, 07:29 AM
Robert,
It's as simple as this to me. You don't make me do anything to me and my kids that I don't want done, and I'll do the same for you.

It's called personal freedom.

This works well in theory and an Libertarian agrarian societies. Not so much in populous nations. Would you apply this same thinking to criminal law enforcement?

Brian Stone
02-11-2010, 09:42 AM
This works well in theory and an Libertarian agrarian societies. Not so much in populous nations. Would you apply this same thinking to criminal law enforcement?

I would apply it more or less to anyone that is not harming someone else with their decisions. I always liked the approach of "everyone has the right to sole personal freedom so long as that right does not impinge on the same rights of another." In theory, not being vaccinated for condition A should in no way increase the danger to someone who is.

Of course, if communal healthcare costs can be shown to be adversely affected by this, that could be a concern. Then again, I would imagine costs would pale in comparison to obesity, smoking, etc.

Jared Buffie
02-12-2010, 04:38 AM
Herd immunity at it's finest....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/11/mumps.outbreak/

Thomas Campitelli
02-12-2010, 01:30 PM
Herd immunity at it's finest....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/11/mumps.outbreak/

If I had to choose between a 100% chance of getting mumps and a 15% chance of getting mumps, I'd take the 15% every time.

Brian Stone
02-12-2010, 03:31 PM
From that article:

Health officials note that lack of vaccination is not to blame in this mumps outbreak, which is the largest since 2006, when 6,584 were in an outbreak that originated on a college campus.

"This is a well-vaccinated community," said Zucker from New York City's health department.

But the vaccine isn't 100 percent effective. Vanderbilt University's Dr. William Schaffner, who also is president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, says studies have shown that the mumps vaccine is about 85 percent effective.

They also seemed to fail to give us the fatality rate.


Edit: To be fair, adding the following counter-quote
The CDC notes in the weekly report that this outbreak shows that mumps can occur in highly vaccinated populations. However, Schaffner added that the mumps vaccine "is not perfect but considerably effective, and if someone gets the mumps even though they've been immunized, the symptoms will be milder."

Jared Buffie
02-12-2010, 05:20 PM
If I had to choose between a 100% chance of getting mumps and a 15% chance of getting mumps, I'd take the 15% every time.

I'm certain he's referring to a relative risk reduction, not an absolute risk reduction. In other words, even a nonvaccinated person does not have a 100% chance of getting the mumps. For example (pulling numbers from my arse for illustration sake), a nonvaccinated person has a .1% chance of getting mumps, whereas a vaccinated person may have a .015% chance - so you're injecting all those toxins for an absolute risk reduction of .085%.

I'll take the otherwise minute chance of contracting a nonfatal disease while keeping those toxic ingredients out of my body. But I respect your choice, as well.

Brandon Oto
02-12-2010, 06:21 PM
I'm certain he's referring to a relative risk reduction, not an absolute risk reduction. In other words, even a nonvaccinated person does not have a 100% chance of getting the mumps. For example (pulling numbers from my arse for illustration sake), a nonvaccinated person has a .1% chance of getting mumps, whereas a vaccinated person may have a .015% chance - so you're injecting all those toxins for an absolute risk reduction of .085%.

I'll take the otherwise minute chance of contracting a nonfatal disease while keeping those toxic ingredients out of my body. But I respect your choice, as well.

Your arse is a poor place to get numbers from.

The odds of a nonvaccinated person getting the mumps depends on whether everyone else is vaccinating or not. Before mass vaccination began in 1967, "estimates on infection rates var[ied] by subgroup from 100 to 6,000 per 100,000." This is an annual rate; the odds of you getting the mumps in your LIFETIME were nearly 100%. Nowadays, rates are around 30 per 100,000, as vaccination has made the bug no longer endemic in this country.

The odds of a vaccinated person getting the mumps depends on the strain used. The current version seems to see around 90% success rate with proper scheduling, although there seems to be some evidence that both natural nor vaccinated immunity may not be lifelong. Your odds are therefore around 10%, times either of the above rates, depending on whether or not you're willing to take advantage of everyone else's immunity in your hypothetical world.

I'll let you look at percentages on the varying severities of symptoms on your own.

All data from http://degreesofclarity.com/writing/mmr/

Jared Buffie
02-13-2010, 11:10 PM
Your arse is a poor place to get numbers from.


True, but only marginally worse than comparing two cohorts 40 years apart.

Brandon Oto
02-14-2010, 07:42 AM
True, but only marginally worse than comparing two cohorts 40 years apart.

Nope. But that was fun!