Vaccines and autism

Sligo1

Tasden wrote: »

That was my whole point, there aren't enough studies like that done and those studies they do read don't refute their claims or rule out enough possibilities. They prove what is already known not what is unknown. (Obviously) And its the assumption that these parents don't research these things that was irritating me in the thread. The assumption that they're too stupid to make an informed decision. Or to research such an important issue.
That's not the same as saying they're right in the decision they made. Or that I agree with their decision. It wasn't the judgement of their decision that I had a problem with, it was the insults and generalisations about them as people based on their decision and the assumption that it was made out of "pig ignorance". People are entitled to their opinions obviously and they can judge all they like (we all do) but the generalisations and assumptions and insults- imo- were uncalled for because unless you know them personally then you don't know why they made that decision or even how much more they may actually know about vaccines than you from researching the issue.

I'm sorry but how on earth can scientists and academics and studies prove the "unknown"? Of course they can't do that??!!.... That's just a ridiculous statement altogether. There have been many many reliable studies published in regards to the efficacy of vaccines etc etc which are easily found. If an individual choice not to vaccinate for fear of the unknown etc... Than it is up to that individual to research the evidence that is available to them. It is not up to anybody else to do the work for them.

Tasden

Sligo1 wrote: »

I'm sorry but how on earth can scientists and academics and studies prove the "unknown"? Of course they can't do that??!!.... That's just a ridiculous statement altogether. There have been many many reliable studies published in regards to the efficacy of vaccines etc etc which are easily found.

Hence me saying "(obviously)". People didn't know the consequences of many medicines that were effective and apparently safe according to all the studies published. These eventually turned out to have lasting negative effects. Its only after these become apparent that there is then information available. By then it is too late if the person has already had it administered. It is that that the people are scared of. I don't see how i can explain that any further. Didn't think I'd need to. I think i shall bow out now because obviously I'm fighting a losing battle here!

Sligo1

I do understand what you are saying. However, the benefits of these vaccinations are apparent (proved through various studies). And the trends show the effects that the vaccinations have had on the general population. I.e. Lower death rate before vaccinations were introduced etc etc etc. People only need to look at these trends to see the benefits. And the whole argument of... Well they could contract something from the vaccine or whatever... Simply just does not stand up. It is all about risk reduction. The rest is just pure here say.

I would liken it to a little kids parents not consenting to him/her having a life saving blood transfusion because of their religion. Now depending where the child is based an official may step in and make the child a ward of court enabling medical professionals to save his/her life. Religion is a reason. And probably for the parents of that child a very valid reason. But IMO it is still not the right reason if the child will die because of it.

gctest50

lazygal wrote: »

............ And don't be afraid to tell people to stay away if you're worried. And do not let ANYONE with a cold sore of any description near the baby. Babies have died because of exposure to a cold sore.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/04/newborn-dies-after-contracting-herpes-from-a-kiss

Tasden

Sligo1 wrote: »

I do understand what you are saying. However, the benefits of these vaccinations are apparent (proved through various studies). And the trends show the effects that the vaccinations have had on the general population. I.e. Lower death rate before vaccinations were introduced etc etc etc. People only need to look at these trends to see the benefits. And the whole argument of... Well they could contract something from the vaccine or whatever... Simply just does not stand up. It is all about risk reduction. The rest is just pure here say.

I would liken it to a little kids parents not consenting to him/her having a life saving blood transfusion because of their religion. Now depending where the child is based an official may step in and make the child a ward of court enabling medical professionals to save his/her life. Religion is a reason. And probably for the parents of that child a very valid reason. But IMO it is still not the right reason if the child will die because of it.

But nobody is saying they aren't effective. People aren't saying there aren't benefits to vaccinating kids. They're obvious and undeniable. Its the long term risks that they cant prove or disprove at this moment in time that causes them concern. And because they don't know what the risks are they can't assess the risk and so choose not to take that risk.
Like I've already said, I'm not justifying their decision or agreeing with their decision. Its purely the assumption that the decision for everyone is based on ignorance that I took issue with. It's the very fact that they don't know enough that is why a lot of people don't vaccinate so to call them pig ignorant is a bit ridiculous imo, regardless of what I think of their actual decision.

And yep bringing religion into it, definitely time to bow out! Was an interesting thread but my only opinions were on people's attitudes in the thread not on the decision to vaccinate or not, as in my mind there's no question, I hold the same opinion as everybody else in that regard.

the_syco

Cora Swift Sweatshop wrote: »

I happened upon an American parenting forum recently where there was a big thread of parents boasting about how they weren't vaccinating and their kids were going to be super strong and healthier because of it :eek: It's shocking that people in this day and age have this warped mentality and are willing to risk their own childrens lives and the lives of other immunosuppressed people just to suit their own pig ironied ignorance

All it takes is one case of measles, and the entire community will be wiped out

The main reason people blame vaccinations for autism is that the people show symptoms of autism around the same time as people get vaccinations.

sari wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions be they positive or negative, everyone is also entitled to voice those opinions. I believe that we should just do it in a respectful way rather than nasty jibes and petty put downs.

Play the numbers; http://www.thejournal.ie/heres-how-ireland-prevented-diseases-since-2008-1275732-Jan2014/

If you show how many people die, they may listen. Or stop the crap when one of their kids/relations die.

I also find that the people who do the anti-vacc videos will try to sell you something.

Whispered wrote: »

Baby due (4 days ago) and he or she has a cousin who is not vaccinated so I'm finding this thread fascinating!

http://healthvermont.gov/prevent/measles/Measles.aspx

Measles is a highly contagious disease that causes fever and rash. At first, measles (also known as Rubeola) looks and feels like a cold. Cough, high fever, runny nose, and red, watery eyes are common. A few days later, a red, blotchy rash starts on the face, then spreads to the rest of the body.

I'd keep them away, as you won't know until you're f00ked.

Tasden wrote: »

They prove what is already known not what is unknown.

Kinda. There are a few laboratories that have created different strains of ebola/anthrax/etc to see how it evolves. I doubt other labs have not done the same with the MMR lot, to see how they react under different conditions.

I do find your posting as the "devils advocate" to be interesting, and it is necessary to allow people debate with someone of a logical viewpoint, as opposed to the anti-vacc tin-foil hat brigade.

Sligo1

Tasden wrote: »

But nobody is saying they aren't effective. People aren't saying there aren't benefits to vaccinating kids. They're obvious and undeniable. Its the long term risks that they cant prove or disprove at this moment in time that causes them concern. And because they don't know what the risks are they can't assess the risk and so choose not to take that risk.
Like I've already said, I'm not justifying their decision or agreeing with their decision. Its purely the assumption that the decision for everyone is based on ignorance that I took issue with. It's the very fact that they don't know enough that is why a lot of people don't vaccinate so to call them pig ignorant is a bit ridiculous imo, regardless of what I think of their actual decision.

And yep bringing religion into it, definitely time to bow out! Was an interesting thread but my only opinions were on people's attitudes in the thread not on the decision to vaccinate or not, as in my mind there's no question, I hold the same opinion as everybody else in that regard.

Ya I also see you as just being devils advocate which obviously isn't a bad thing. And I know you're pro vaccination. Just the thing I would find unusual about these anti-vacc people (from the examples you've given specifically), is that: I can understand this whole fear of the unknown and there is no way to prove of these vaccinations may cause something else down the line etc...

However, would they not look at the numerous studies that HAVE been conducted that pretty much state vaccinations are paramount to community health and childhood safety for preventable illnesses. Now, if they are worried about what could happen in the future... Would they not be even more worried about what could happen to their children NOW?? That it HAS been proven that vaccines have lowered the death rate in children. Surely that Would be a priority for them? If they are so worried about in the future would they not be even more worried about now? Do they want to wait until little jimmy dies or gets sick from whatever now because they didn't want him to die or get sick or whatever in 10 or 20 years. It just doesn't make sense if their thought processes are the same? Surely all these studies that Have been conducted now and do prove the benefits of vaccinations NOW should have more of an impact on what may or may not happen tha 20 years time. In my opinion it would be complete ignorance and ignoring all the avaliable facts now to not vaccinate their child because of research that is not avaliable for the future. But like you... That's just my opinion

seventeen sheep

Whispered wrote: »

If anti vaccination people have a toddler and there is a new baby born into the extended family, is the new baby at risk of catching something from the toddler if they spend any time together?

Is the risk any more than they might face being brought out into say a shopping centre or on public transport for example?

Baby due (4 days ago) and he or she has a cousin who is not vaccinated so I'm finding this thread fascinating!

You can't protect your child from everything, and of course you and your baby might end up sharing the lift in a shopping centre with an unvaccinated child, without ever knowing it.

But personally I wouldn't knowingly put my baby in harm's way. In your position, I absolutely would not let my baby be in the same building as the unvaccinated child. Could you ever forgive yourself if they got ill as a result? I know I couldn't, and screw family politics, my child's health is more important.

My son's creche don't accept unvaccinated children - you need to provide their "vaccination passport" when booking them in - and rightly so, I wouldn't be happy to leave him there otherwise.

sari

So I just had a good look at the article you posted sligo1. After reading it I of course looked for it sources, did anyone else?
Well if you go and look at them you will see that the majority are from blogs which don't post any relevant sources, news articles, and then some general ones from the CDC.
Here everyone is bashing people for not researching or ridiculing research that you don't even know what it may be and yet the article you post posts no real source or evidence links.
Did anyone who agrees with the article reserach it's sources? Even think about researching them?

sari

seventeen sheep wrote: »

You can't protect your child from everything, and of course you and your baby might end up sharing the lift in a shopping centre with an unvaccinated child, without ever knowing it.

But personally I wouldn't knowingly put my baby in harm's way. In your position, I absolutely would not let my baby be in the same building as the unvaccinated child. Could you ever forgive yourself if they got ill as a result? I know I couldn't, and screw family politics, my child's health is more important.

My son's creche don't accept unvaccinated children - you need to provide their "vaccination passport" when booking them in - and rightly so, I wouldn't be happy to leave him there otherwise.

Firstly there a childcare facility or school does not have the legal right to deny a place to a child based on vaccination status.
Secondly vaccines are not 100% effective so potentially any child could pass anything to anyone else whether they are vaccinated or not. Just because you are vaccinated does not mean you will not pass on something to someone else. An example being the whooping cough vaccine does not prevent the spread of whooping cough, it may provide some protection from getting sick from it but it doesn't prevent the spread of whooping cough

LegacyUser

If you think you've heard it all, think again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party

And it's not just in America. I am German (living in Ireland), and "Measle parties" are quite common in Germany too. It's the hight of decadence... Thing is, in Germany, children and babies don't go to a GP but are always seen by pediatricians where there are loads of children in the waiting room at any given time. One child with measles therefore has ample opportunity to infect many others. The dangers to babies in particular are huge as they are more likely to develop SSPE later on after seemingly having recovered just fine. A 4-year old girl in Germany is currently going through it and dying a horrible death. There is no cure, SSPE is fatal in 100% of cases. Yeah, it's rare, but that's not exactly any comfort to parents whose child is slowly dying of something that could so easily have been prevented.

seventeen sheep

sari wrote: »

Firstly there a childcare facility or school does not have the legal right to deny a place to a child based on vaccination status.

Source?

Of course they have the legal right to do so. They are a private organisation, they are perfectly entitled to decide what customers they want. I am very happy that they choose to reject unvaccinated children, to protect the other children in their care.

sari wrote: »

Secondly vaccines are not 100% effective so potentially any child could pass anything to anyone else whether they are vaccinated or not. Just because you are vaccinated does not mean you will not pass on something to someone else. An example being the whooping cough vaccine does not prevent the spread of whooping cough, it may provide some protection from getting sick from it but it doesn't prevent the spread of whooping cough

No one has said they're 100% effective. Vaccinations are intended to vastly reduce risk; they don't eliminate it. I'd rather expose my son to a low risk of illness than leave him unprotected altogether ... obviously ... What kind of a parent would I be otherwise?

And the whooping cough vaccine does not prevent the spread of whooping cough, it just vastly decreases the spread, and is aimed to protect those at highest risk of death/permanent side effects as a result of the illness.

MrCreosote

I wonder if there would be any chance of tying the Children's Allowance to having the child fully immunised for their age? Might be a little extra encouragement to help parents make the right decision.

I know in Australia specific child/family tax-breaks are only paid out if the kids are immunised and you get extra one-off payments at 18 months and 4 years too, so it would seem that there aren't any ethical issues in similar countries.

endacl

Tasden wrote: »

I think i shall bow out now because obviously I'm fighting a losing battle here!

I skipped to the end of this thread, just out of interest. To see if anybody would actually post on the anti-vaccine side. A little disappointed to see that somebody had, but heartened to see that you were very much in the minority.

Yes. You are fighting a losing battle. I shudder to imagine how much misery Andrew Poxy Wakefield has been responsible for since 1998.

Tasden

endacl wrote: »

I skipped to the end of this thread, just out of interest. To see if anybody would actually post on the anti-vaccine side. A little disappointed to see that somebody had, but heartened to see that you were very much in the minority.

Yes. You are fighting a losing battle. I shudder to imagine how much misery Andrew Poxy Wakefield has been responsible for since 1998.

Em try actually reading the posts before you comment next time.

Sligo1

sari wrote: »

So I just had a good look at the article you posted sligo1. After reading it I of course looked for it sources, did anyone else?
Well if you go and look at them you will see that the majority are from blogs which don't post any relevant sources, news articles, and then some general ones from the CDC.
Here everyone is bashing people for not researching or ridiculing research that you don't even know what it may be and yet the article you post posts no real source or evidence links.
Did anyone who agrees with the article reserach it's sources? Even think about researching them?

Um well obviously after reading the initial link I wasn't going to go and research every single of the 30 or so research articles and critically analyse them to see if they were valid or not before posting. The synopsis is the same. Basically a f*ck load of studies HAVE been carried out to show the benefits and efficacy of vaccines. And that specifically the MMR does not cause autism! The conclusion is the same whether you like it or not unfortunately. Anyway, as my debating partner has done I'm going to leave it at that. 7 pages of vaccination debate has tired me out

sari

There is no legislation in Ireland to say that a child must be vaccinated. Our constitution states that a child cannot be denied an education based on many reasons one is medical status, this would include vaccination status.

Whooping cough vaccine may be making people asymptomatic carriers and spreaders http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/health/study-finds-vaccinated-baboons-can-still-carry-whooping-cough.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=4

Sligo1 I also believe vaccines are an important part of our health system but we cannot be so judgmental when we are acting the same way we are judging people. So you admit that you haven't seen or read any of these studies, you disn't check sources of article before posting yet you feel justified for judging others who you believe don't check sources or do any valid research. Do you see what I mean here. Pot kettle black! Your posts are generally always helpful, kind and considerate and I don't mean to point this on you as others have posted some really shocking comments about others they really know nothing about and I really dislike that.
I think that everyone should do their own research on vaccines and make up their own mind that is their right. If you believe in vaccines then vaccinate your child, everything you can to ensure your child is healthy. Stop wasting time worrying why others are doing, you will never be able to eliminate all risk for your child's like. Be happy that we live in a country that allows people their freedom of choice and one which has an extremely low incidence of childhood illnesses

sari

Just one final thought, you don't need to answer this publicly but answer it to yourself.
How many of you asked for the vaccine package insert before your child was vaccinted so you would have time to study it?
How many of you took anytime to reserach vaccines before giving them?
How many of you have gone and looked at the research that shows vaccines are safe, don't cause autism etc? Or have you just read the news article and said yep that's true I don't need to look any further.
Maybe think about that before you judge another who you have no idea why they made their decision

seventeen sheep

sari wrote: »

Stop wasting time worrying why others are doing, you will never be able to eliminate all risk for your child's like. Be happy that we live in a country that allows people their freedom of choice and one which has an extremely low incidence of childhood illnesses

sari you do understand that we enjoy the low incidence of childhood illnesses as a direct result of responsible parents who do the right thing and vaccinate their children ...

Sligo1

sari wrote: »

Just one final thought, you don't need to answer this publicly but answer it to yourself.
How many of you asked for the vaccine package insert before your child was vaccinted so you would have time to study it?
How many of you took anytime to reserach vaccines before giving them?
How many of you have gone and looked at the research that shows vaccines are safe, don't cause autism etc? Or have you just read the news article and said yep that's true I don't need to look any further.
Maybe think about that before you judge another who you have no idea why they made their decision

I'm a healthcare professional who has studied vaccines and critically analysed research articles (a lot on vaccines) for the last 14 years. I've also seen first hand what can happen to poor children and older adults when they contract these PREVENTABLE illnesses. I feel I'm completely informed here on the decisions I make for my child regarding them . Perhaps the anti vaccine brigade should do the same . I'm out

lazygal

sari wrote: »

Just one final thought, you don't need to answer this publicly but answer it to yourself.
How many of you asked for the vaccine package insert before your child was vaccinted so you would have time to study it?
How many of you took anytime to reserach vaccines before giving them?
How many of you have gone and looked at the research that shows vaccines are safe, don't cause autism etc? Or have you just read the news article and said yep that's true I don't need to look any further.
Maybe think about that before you judge another who you have no idea why they made their decision

Of course we read the warnings and literature like any other medications. It still didn't make us act irresponsibility and not vaccinate as the benefits of not contracting myriad illnesses with serious side effects outweighed the tiny possibilities of negative side effects.
We've also.chosen elective vaccines outside of the schedule because we want to protect our children from other illnesses. Why anyone would risk their children contracting the likes of measles is incomprehensible to me.

SpaceTime

A friend of mine was recently 'taken apart' by a woman she knows from her school run because she vaccinated her kids!

This woman actually told her that she was "an unfit mother" and that she was "endangering her children" (by vaccinating them) and then continued to rant at her about how she should "educate herself".

Some people are just unbelievably interfering and full of dogmatic nonsense.

That autism vaccine fake/flawed study did horrendous damage. It's very hard to counteract a scare story like that, particularly when it connects to something to do with kids and something with a very vauge set of symptoms like autism.

For people born after the 1950s there's no memory of some of those childhood diseases that caused really serious suffering, disabilities and high levels of infant and childhood mortality in the past.

Also vaccines are about as natural as medicine gets! You're basically just educating your immune system. They're not drugs, they're not artificial chemical agents. All they are is a bit of inert viral DNA that your immune system can test and learn to kill on sight!

Tasden

Sligo1 wrote: »

I'm a healthcare professional who has studied vaccines and critically analysed research articles (a lot on vaccines) for the last 14 years. I feel I'm completely informed here on the decisions I make for my child regarding them . Perhaps the anti vaccine brigade should do the same . I'm out

Perhaps they already do. That's the only point I've been trying to make. Not playing "devil's advocate" or even worse posting on the "anti vaccine side".

Much the same as you don't appreciate people assuming you haven't researched the topic, its unfair to assume the anti vaccine parents haven't done so either. Just because they don't deem the results as safe as you did, or make the same assessment of the risks that do exist doesn't mean they didn't research it exactly the same way you have. That was my only issue. And hopefully now you can see that.

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

A friend of mine was recently 'taken apart' by a woman she knows from her school run because she vaccinated her kids!

This woman actually told her that she was "an unfit mother" and that she was "endangering her children" (by vaccinating them) and then continued to rant at her about how she should "educate herself".

Some people are just unbelievably interfering and full of dogmatic nonsense.

Those children should not be allowed to attend school. Maybe she should home school them to make sure they don't catch anything.

sari

That's great. I spent a lot of time myself reading and asking questions before I vaccianted.
I think everyone is still missing the point that myslef and tasden were trying to make and that is not to be so judgemental, so derogatory when really you have no idea why someone has made the decision they have.
I'm so sick of seeing people especially women be so judgmental nasty to each other be it vaccines, how they give birth, breastfeeding, parenting style the list is endless.
Sligo1 that's great I think I remember you saying before you worked in healthcare, my suggestion would be you post reserach to show that vaccines are safe and effective rather than judgement without posting any of the articles or research. That is the only way to make sure everyone vaccinates, showing them the proof. Judgement without knowledge of why only serves to alienate people and make them more likely to stop listening to you and all the good info and research you can share

lazygal

sari wrote: »

That's great. I spent a lot of time myself reading and asking questions before I vaccianted.
I think everyone is still missing the point that myslef and tasden were trying to make and that is not to be so judgemental, so derogatory when really you have no idea why someone has made the decision they have.
I'm so sick of seeing people especially women be so judgmental nasty to each other be it vaccines, how they give birth, breastfeeding, parenting style the list is endless.
Sligo1 that's great I think I remember you saying before you worked in healthcare, my suggestion would be you post reserach to show that vaccines are safe and effective rather than judgement without posting any of the articles or research. That is the only way to make sure everyone vaccinates, showing them the proof. Judgement without knowledge of why only serves to alienate people and make them more likely to stop listening to you and all the good info and research you can share

If someone puts the health of my children at risk by not vaccinating unless there is a compelling medical reason I'll be as judgmental as I want. I know of people with compromised immune systems who'll also judge parents for putting them at risk.

Dravokivich

Tasden wrote: »

No smoke without fire. The very fact that a question could be raised about the connection is enough to cast doubt. They may have disproved his particular hypothesis, that doesn't prove they are 100% safe. That's the issue most parents who choose not to vaccinate have.

Vaccines aren't 100% safe, if they were, they wouldn't be vaccines.

seventeen sheep

Tasden wrote: »

Perhaps they already do. That's the only point I've been trying to make. Not playing "devil's advocate" or even worse posting on the "anti vaccine side".

Much the same as you don't appreciate people assuming you haven't researched the topic, its unfair to assume the anti vaccine parents haven't done so either. Just because they don't deem the results as safe as you did, or make the same assessment of the risks that do exist doesn't mean they didn't research it exactly the same way you have. That was my only issue. And hopefully now you can see that.

It is a wrong and selfish choice.

The idea of placing reliance on herd immunity, by allowing your own children to benefit from the majority of their peers being vaccinated - but consciously exposing all other children to danger of catching diseases from your own unvaccinated children at the same time.

It's absolutely shameful, and I find it very difficult to respect parents who would endanger other children in this manner.

Thankfully my son is healthy and has been vaccinated. However other children are not so lucky, e.g. children suffering from cancer often cannot be vaccinated as their immune systems may be too damaged by chemo/radiotherapy. And parents will willingly and knowingly bring their own unvaccinated children out and about, potentially coming into contact with vulnerable babies, without a care in the world.

Because it's fine. They know their own healthy children are probably protected by herd immunity. And they don't give a crap about those with ill children who don't have a strong immune system and who aren't eligible for vaccinations. So they're happy to expose their children and their childrens' illnesses to everyone else.

Selfish horrible behaviour, in my opinion.

kunst nugget

Tasden wrote: »

Perhaps they already do. That's the only point I've been trying to make. Not playing "devil's advocate" or even worse posting on the "anti vaccine side".

Much the same as you don't appreciate people assuming you haven't researched the topic, its unfair to assume the anti vaccine parents haven't done so either. Just because they don't deem the results as safe as you did, or make the same assessment of the risks that do exist doesn't mean they didn't research it exactly the same way you have. That was my only issue. And hopefully now you can see that.

I have researched extensively online and come to the conclusion that the Sandy Hook massacre was a government conspiracy and that parents of the victims were actually all actors. It was a false flag operation by the US government to introduce gun control measures. I have found significant evidence on the internet to support this. Some people would say that the information I have is unbelievably faulty and completely unreliable but they're just sheeple with closed minds.

Also the Girl Against Fluoride is against vaccines and she must know the truth because she has a certificate in talking to angels.

SpaceTime

Humans can be amazingly irrational around anything that's perceived to be a potential danger.

I saw research showing that a single negative statement is given 7 times the weighting of a positive statement. So, concincing people that the news stories about autism were based on a fake research project isn't easy.
We are hardwired to listen to rumours about dangers. It's an evolutionary survival instinct.

The nice lady/man on the telly, a book, a magazine or an article online said it, so it must be true as those sources are normally reliable

The other problem is that the media loves a good scare story but won't give it's rebuttal much coverage because 'oh BTW: vaccines don't cause autism' isn't a sensational story. All you're doing is affirming status quo arguments and that's hardly a scoop.

Undoing the negative message about vaccines isn't as easy as saying they're dangerous and can cause subspace anomalies.