You can shut your flapping piehole now, Jenny McCarthy. (New York Times)
Court Says Vaccine Not to Blame for Autism
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:26 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a big blow to parents who believe vaccines caused their children's autism, a special court ruled Thursday that the shots are not to blame.
The judges in the cases said the evidence was overwhelmingly contrary to the parents' claims -- and backed years of science that found no risk.
''It was abundantly clear that petitioners' theories of causation were speculative and unpersuasive,'' the court concluded in one of a trio of cases ruled on Thursday.
(More at link above)
In other upcoming cases, the courts are expected to smack down:
- Hordes of stinky women who believe antiperspirants cause breast cancer
- A messy contingent of (mostly the same) women who believe asbestos in tampons are poisoning their cha-chas.
- Groups of frightened yuppies who are afraid sushi worms are eating their brains
- A well organized group of olive farmers who are merely trying to point out that rapeseed oil (aka canola) is going to KILL YOU
- The entire country of South Korea (including their health ministry), who firmly believe that falling asleep in a room with a running fan or air conditioner...that's right...will KILL YOU
OK, gang. I'm off now to have a very dangerous encounter with both the liquid and solid forms of dihydrogen monoxide now. Oh, wait!
There's a warning about that combination causing cancer when ingested with food!
I guess it's warm tea for me as I read all about the dangers of those freaky-deaky government conspiracy chemtrails.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Helvetica Stone
Cary Tennis
Brassawe
Christine Geery
David Dean Bottrell
Matt Paust
Salon.com
Comments
Having watched the resurgence of polio in the Dominican Republic (home to many of my son's relatives) thanks to spotty vaccination programmes, I have always been leery of those who will not vaccinate their children against various diseases. A recent upswing in the number of measles outbreaks also appears related to the same phenomenon.
Ooops! I forgot chemtrails! How could I forget KILLER CHEMTRAILS! Off to edit again...
Really, people. The dangers of dihydrogen monoxide cannot be overstated. There's more of that chemical on this earth than you can imagine!
2. are you aware that the only reason you can CHOOSE not to vaccinate your kid is because my kids are vaccinated?
Okay, #3. Are you a fucking idiot?
Nothing is ever going to top that.
Freaky's in government??? GO FREAKY!!!!!
Thanks for posting this - I was getting so tired waiting for this particular shoe to drop.
Enthusiastically, energetically, and wholeheartedly thumbed.
I sure hope the Koreans are wrong 'cause Mrs. Cap'n insists on running our noisy air purifier or a fan all night every night for white noise.
Come to think of it, maybe I AM dead. After seeing this mornings EP's, I think I'm in OS hell.
Well, sure, but only because federal consumer product safety regulations insist that they be fire-retardant. Just in case.
He should be punished.
(Lisa, that's just a leech. Which DO have medically valid uses, so I'm sort of slandering leeches here.)
That’s one big sushi worm, Verbal. It’s too funny, seeing all these internet hoax thingies in one place. Thanks for a good heapin’ cup of humorous sarcasm.
So *that's* where they've been recycling all that toxic insulation they've been ripping out of our schools!
I gotta stay off the interwebs.
One could pretty much reduce a truly gullible person to a quivering mass of paranoid hysteria if one were to put them all in one place.
Of course, doing that might just be the Ultimate Act of Stupidity that unleashes the Idiot's Armageddon.
I nearly died of the measles when I was 8 years old. I think people forget how dangerous those childhood diseases used to be - thousands of kids died in the US every year before vaccinations.
I think the autism thing needs to keep being explored because something is probably going on to increase the prevalance -- my guess is something environmental -- but fixating on one cause that hasn't panned out is not going to help them or their kids.
http://www.hepfi.org/living/liv_abc.html#basics_hep_A
Hepatitis A is spread through "sex and drugs," yes, but also through...how shall I put this?...sub-optimal hand hygeine in the commercial food industry.
So as long as your kid's never going to eat a bit of food that isn't meticulously prepared by YOU after a vigorous hand-scrubbing, by all means, skip it.
The degree of rage--not discourse but rage--over this issue is curious. Why is this notion so challenging for some? I think it has little to do with what people say it does.
The sushi worm rumor long pre-dates the internet. My family eats pickled herring. I remember being in elementary school and hearing about a 3 foot long red worm that had been found during exploratory surgery of someone who ate raw fish. I worried a lot, but not enough to pass up the Sil when it was offered with cocktail (which for me was Coke).
Coke and pickled Herring I enjoy together. Too many bumpy flights have made the more obvious combination of Coke and peanuts a nauseating one for me.
If you're going to argue it's not a problem and refuse to read reasonable links, then at least you might learn to spell it. (And that's all I'm going to bother responding to.)
I suppose you couldn't slap a bottle on the shelf that reads RAPE OIL, for various reasons...
Off to make the correction.
And that's one heck of a leech you've got up there VR!!!
Raw food = parasites...I don't care how trendy it is...COOK IT!
Rated.
Relevant, I will keep up with your additions.
(rated)
Bit nervous about putting hellspawn in school. I'm afraid I'll end up kicking in the teeth of some parent who uses my kid for the "herd effect"
But I don't eat sashimi...ewww.
Here's my adage for the day: "What doesn't kill you...
...comes back to try again!"
I hope that these folks will use their stimulus money to get their kids vaccinated, now.
I'm VACCINATED.
So just hand over all the hamachi, toro, unagi, uni, sake...
It's mine. All mine.
[nom nom nom nom SUSHI and SASHIMI!]
It is just as foolish to dismiss any potential or realized risks of vaccinations based on this ruling as it is to refuse to vaccinate on simply the assumption that vaccines might be linked to autism.
It's worth noting that only 1 portion of the cases were decided upon, and there are 2 other categories still up for review in this particular case. Furthermore, any parent that chooses not to vaccinate should be informed of the very real risks, just as much as the parents of vaccinated children should also be aware of the risks, which include many even when you toss out the suspected autism link.
The number of parents who blindly vaccinate scare me just as much as those who blindly refuse.
From a mother who gets to hear the whole "shots cause autism!" "do not!" "do too!" "do not!" argument on a constant annoying basis, thank you.
Can we please now put our efforts, time and money to something more important now? Like helping all the kids who are autistic (regardless of their economic status) get the proper care that they need? Pretty please?
Rated.
I don't know about the tampon thing, although I did have an OB tampon literally crumble inside of me one time (not even an hour after putting it in) I have to go to my Dr to get it all out.
Rated!
I spread the shots out for the Kid. She gets them in a long drawn out schedule, with the Hep B for later. Unfortunately, she had a reaction to her first flu shot that was kind of scary. So, the physician has recommended no more flu shots. I'm unhappy about that but what can you do?
I do understand about vaccines, but I would prefer my child not have 7 to 8 shots at a time, which often happens. Also, I'm going to agree that the incident of Hep B is low for a child and for most, can be delayed for a few years.
I'm also somewhat amused by all the uproar over the measles, mumps, and chicken pox. Yes, of course, for a very small segment of the population, and for a few older people, they can be difficult diseases. But I had all of these diseases when I was little. I had the mumps twice actually. And most of my friends had these diseases as well. While I think it's right to get the shots, a piece of me finds it interesting how it's turned into THE MEASLES!!!! instead of what when I was a child was one of the expected childhood diseases, one which almost no one had to worry about killing or hurting their child.
Let me reiterate ... it is GOOD to be vaccinated so that, when you are older or immuno-compromised, you do not catch these diseases. HIB shots are great, honestly because even healthy children did very occasionally die. But I think new superstitions have been allowed to arise to replace the old, that is, that all of these diseases are/were vast killers of people in the United States. They are/were not.
In the 1970s, "an average of 35.4 measles-related deaths were recorded each year" (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1619577). Most of these were children under one. So, the shot is good, yes. But these deaths were also related to income and where the person lived.
Those deaths are bad, and I'm happy to be a part of preventing them. However, I also think this shot regimens aren't well tested and the results of so many shots at once are poorly understood.
Now if polio came back, that would be very troubling, certainly.
We should definitely get vaccines although I admit I'm still on the fence about the chickenpox one.
I'm of the mind that there are still some untested, unsafe practices with these shots. Court rulings are not scientific studies. I'd like more definitive studies please over the long term effect of vaccinations and human beings. Some results are good. But, I'm concerned some are not.
Frankly, the same goes for animal vaccinations. I've had three separate friends lose their cats to vaccine site related cancer. Caused directly by the vaccines. That's not good.
I'm not being superstitious. I'm balancing caution for my child and a responsibility to my community.
The reason we have the luxury of refusing vaccines is because we have the vaccines at all. Like voting -- some places don't even have the choice. I only wish we could give all the declined vaccines to children in countries where they have a greater chance of getting the disease.
We all make choices based on what we think can happen to our kids. I'll go with the odds on this and get my kids immunized for anything that can kill them. I'll take my chances.
Just for the record:
sushi: some type of protein (cooked or otherwise) OR some bit of veggie (cooked, raw, marinated or otherwise) in combination with vinegared rice ("su" is vinegar)
sashimi: slices of raw fish, no or other stuff attached, generally served by beautifully prepared bits of raw or marinated veggies.
I like Tom's deodorant. Cheap and it works.
I resisted, with some difficulty, the impulse to say, "Well, you could blow your brains out, since you're not using them, and I'm pretty sure that would stop you from sweating."
I'm glad I resisted the impulse, because some months later she posted a beautiful article about the death of her friend, who died of breast cancer, and how watching her friend die made her obsess about leaving her own little boy without a mother. She went on at some length, and although I don't remember all the details of her routine it's clear that she does have an obsession - she's gone past normal grieving and the desire to feel safe from the big bad universe into a superstitious focus on everything she does and whether it can keep her alive which borders on OCD. She needs help and care, not snide comments from internet readers.
The thing is, if she scared a few women into being stinky because of an unduplicated study which indicated a possible link between antiperspirants and cancer, it doesn't really hurt anyone (except maybe the person next to her on the bus.) The vaccination issue is different: these parents who refuse to get their children vaccinated are KILLING PEOPLE. That's why the arguments get so hot. It's not just their own kids they are killing, although that's bad enough - they are killing your elderly mother who probably has a poor immune system, and me, who takes immune suppressing drugs, and anyone who's being treated for cancer or has had a transplant or who just didn't have that vaccination work at full strength.
It's not okay to kill people! Being stupid is not a good enough excuse!
BTW, to my fellow OS'ers-it's so nice to see that so many of you hate Jenny McCarthy as much as I do. Everytime she appears on Oprah during sweeps week, myself and many other parents send e-mails, snail mail, and call the offices of Harpo Productions. Guess what we get in response?
Nada.
Oprah ignores us completely, so I hate her as well now :)
Will you all please join me in hating Oprah? Thanks!
Love the olive farmers. I don't see a hidden agenda there. Nothing obvious anyway. Sheesh!
Why don't those stinky women just stop using antiperspirants. Uh, never mind. Did I say that out loud? Idiot.
And exactly why do the sushi yuppies stop eating sushi if it's eating there brains? I swear some people are just too dumb to live.
Personally, I think there is value in some vaccinations, but that does not mean all vaccines are inherently helpful, let alone necessary, and yes, I've done my share of reading about the history of vaccine development. It's kinda' like watching sausage being made and folks might be less enthusiastic about them if they ever saw how they are made.
As for protecting the children, a lot of kids (and adults) have died of vaccine complications.
The argument that one shouldn't question "science" sounds too much like a religious argument. Much of today's science is indu$try in disguise. Besides, there's "science" on both sides of this important debate.
No, there is not 'Science' on both sides of this debate. Anecdotal evidence is not science.....
I do agree with you however about how some folks tout science and rationalism with as much feverence as religious fanatics.My father's an atheist, and I'm not, and I swear he gets more upset with my 'irrational' belief in a higher 'something'[that's as defined as my beliefs are, hehe]than any evangelical preacher would get at their own daughter for doing something 'sinful'.
Great post. The internet is a wonderful source of completely ludicrously false medical claims based on no evidence whatsoever.
In addition, anybody who quotes The Princess Bride in their bio is okay in my book!
Just sayin'.
From the comments, it is apparent you've struck a chord. The noisy protesters against vaccinations seem to get all the press. But, I wonder if there is much public support for their position.
"hepatitis IS a virus, and your local fast-food chef may very well pass it on to you and yours as happened to my mother"
Hepatitis B is the one you get from the fast-food chef and walking around the streets of Manhattan without any shoes on. Hepatitis A is not. It only transfers via blood or tainted needles and is therefore a questionable vaccination for a 4 year old to say the very least.
That's Hep A folks--so step down from the cross!
we need an edit key...
Here is the vax schedule for the UK:
http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Immunisation_Schedule
You will notice that their schedule is lacking Hep A, CP and Rotavirus. Wonder why? It probably has something to do with nationalized health care and the fact that they realize that these vaccines are not cost effective (meaning they do not save enough lives for them to merit distribution) for the entire population. So I think characterizing those of us who choose selective schedules without these vaccines as crazies or conspiracy theorists is silly. Obviously not everyone in the developed world (and I think the folks across the sea in the UK are probably pretty smart) is for vaxing our kids against all of these diseases.
Just saying...
Now, why would your little angel need the Hep B vaccine? S/he is not having sex or sharing needles, right? So s/he is safe.
Uh, not so much. Ever seen kids at a daycare, or on the playground at school? There's always somebody getting banged up and bleeding. Can you guarantee that no one your kid is ever going to play with will have Hep B? Or that they won't get infected fluid onto your kid?
Hep B is not that hard to spread among kids, whose hygiene tends not to be exemplary.
You want to be all nutty with your kid's health, go for it. But be prepared to pay the price. ALL of it.
You are not my pediatrician. I don't know what your creditials are, but email them to me and I'll see about consulting you on my child's medical care.
There's been an enormous amount of research on the safety of vaccines here in the U.S. and in Europe. It all points to the safety and efficacy of vaccination. If 95 percent of parents vaccinate their kids, then the others can be safe as free riders via "herd immunity." Scare too many people away from vaccines and that immunity goes away.
Sandra No Longer Miller
Uh, let's not get too many torches lit here. The idea of a child possibly getting subpar care or no care at all because you don't like their parents is barbaric.
As far as suing or otherwise punishing a family when their actions cause harm - that's what civil suits are for, and I'm sure they are just around the corner.
But please, please, please, please (let me throw in another please) do not give insurance companies another idea for denying claims, or even make them think they are noble for doing so. Insurance companies already deny perfectly legitimate claims as it is. We certainly don't need more excuses for them to deny more.
Also, though:
Kids with parents who smoke shouldn't be covered for asthma or any respiratory infections.
Kids whose parents feed them McDonalds cheeseburgers (or comparably horrible meals) three times a week or let them sit in front of a TV four hours a day shouldn't have any cardiovascular or diabetes care covered- ever. And when they grow up to be obese- no coverage.
Babies born to mothers who did not follow their GD diet (resulting in sugar issues) or babies who are born to mothers who used drugs, smoked or drank while they were pregnant (and therefore ended up with FAS for instance) their diseases shouldn't be covered either.
Other lists of things that should not be covered (because they got what they deserved, dammit!!):
- Any health problems for fat people (BMI over 30)- all of those knee replacements, bariatric surgery, diabetes care, cardiovascular issues etc.
- Any problems resultant from substance abuse (alcohol, drugs, even excessive tylenol use)
- Any HIV or STD treatment unless the patient got it from blood products or occupational exposure and this must be documented
- Anyone who gets in a car accident and it's found out that person didn't wear a seat belt- no coverage.
- Any complications from any patient that is not compliant with their plan of care as dictated to them by their medical team
Yeah, I think it's a great idea. Someone should write Obama about it. I hear he's very open to suggestions from lay people.
But, with respect to Sandra's idea, it won't come to pass, but if it did, it would sadly make victims of the children with parents who make those decisions. Now holding them accountable for causing harm to the community, yes, I'm all for that.
Indeed, lets get out of the dark ages. And why in the world anyone believes anything that JM says is beyond me.
Typhoid Mary thought she should be able to keep working in food serve even as people sickened and died all around her. Luckily public health officials did not agree that her freedom to make choices about her job, or where she ate, superseded other people's right to health and life. Spreading disease is not a right.
So, so long as we are refusing to cover illnesses that are deemed "the patient's fault", we should not just stop at vaccine preventable diseases, let's just get to them all. Illnesses caused by obesity, alcoholism and cigarette smoking should also be covered. As should anyone who gets an STD or HIV.
"They should have gotten the vaccine and then they wouldn't be in this mess" sounds a lot like:
"They shouldn't have sustained themselves on a diet of french fries and coke or else they wouldn't be in this mess" OR
"They shouldn't have drank a fifth of vodka every night or else they wouldn't be in this mess" OR
"They should have just worn a condom or else they wouldn't be in this mess"
It's all the same thing.
No, but Mary Mallon (Typhoid Mary to you) didn't think that being rousted by the police and city officials was a right either. I've always wondered why Mary Mallon has always been singled out as an example of almost pathologically negligent behavior when there were two known instances of men who infected more people than she, and their stories have been lost to history.
At the time, Mallon had valid reasons to distrust the hamhanded authorities who tried to literally lock her up, and succeeded. The concept of a healthy person transmitting typhoid was very new. Mallon had the support of some experts who tested her and found no trace of typhoid (maybe due to bad testing, or temporary remission). She was also an Irish immigrant woman, who were generally treated like crap.
In those days people put in "isolation" were literally kept in their beds, and denied access to even outdoor activities. It is telling that the second time Mallon was "isolated" she was given far more freedoms and interaction with the staff of the facility she was in, and was far more cooperative.
The ultimate irony in the story of Mallon was that a vaccine for typhoid had been developed ten years before, but PEOPLE DIDN'T TRUST IT. That's right, people didn't trust the vaccine and therefore didn't get it. It was only during WWI when soldiers HAD to get the vaccine that it was proven safe and effective.
The second irony in her story is that she tirelessly cared for the household victims she herself had infected. She was also a rather fastidious person who washed more than the average household servant, or her infection rate might have been higher. Far from having death and disease "all around her" she infected 40-some people, three died. Most of those infected were in the first household she worked in, which had many family members and servants.
By the way, who has their flu shot yet? Are you going to run out and make getting one a priority since thousands die of the flu every year, even during "slow" years? Didn't think so.
Also every other vax recommended by my employer (a hospital).
None the worse for wear.
And this?
The ultimate irony in the story of Mallon was that a vaccine for typhoid had been developed ten years before, but PEOPLE DIDN'T TRUST IT. That's right, people didn't trust the vaccine and therefore didn't get it.
Irony indeed.
People didn't trust the vaccine. And people therefore died.
Your point was...??
(I am flashing back to an elementary school story about people who thought potatoes--"earth apples"--would kill you. During a famine. And had to be tricked into eating them. Couldn't tell you which reader it was in.)
However, that was then and this is now. I'm glad to hear you have your flu shot, and I mean that sincerely. Two of my aunts died of the flu 30 years ago, even though they were relatively healthy people. I'm just a little puzzled sometimes that some people will get up a whole head of steam about unvaccinated children and then neglect to get a flu shot, when the flu is more likely to kill them or their loved ones.
I think I should also tell you that I believe fervently in vaccines. I was unfortunate in that the measles vaccine did not exist until I was eight, and by that time I had had every type of measles known to man, including Rubella. For that one, our house had one of those big old orange "quarantine" signs put on the door and my family was under virtual house arrest until we were "cleared." That was the year the first links between Rubella and birth defects was in the news and I swear half my town was pregnant.
So I have one ear with 95% hearing loss (massive ear infection from 5 day measles) and a small scar from an ulcerated cornea (result of the Rubella.)
So no, I have no problem with vaccines at all, and have been pretty persuasive in convincing a few reluctant parents to have their children vaccinated.
But the endorsements about the idea of reporting people to insurance makes my blood run cold and this is why. My daughter had no troubles or reactions with her vaccines. My son did. After the first shot, he ran a high fever, his leg swelled to twice its normal size, and he cried for 24 hours straight.
When we finally got in to see the pediatrician after taking him to the emergency room, he recommended not giving him the second dose. We went to another doctor, and she said the same thing. The third doctor did recommend giving the second dose without the pertussis (sp?) dose because he thought that was the source of his symptoms, so that's what we did.
IF we had been "turned in" so to speak, would he have deserved to have his medical care suspended if he had contracted whooping cough? Doctor recommendations sometimes mean nothing to insurance companies. Some employee with no medical training might decide that the doctor's opinion is not enough. Sometimes even second opinions are rejected by insurance.
This country is on a very slippery slope already with insurance. Smokers are paying more and there is a movement to make overweight people pay more. Who will be next? Amateur athletes? After all, skiing and handball and other sports are not a necessity and results in a lot of injuries. The elderly? Well, they're retired, they don't contribute to the productivity of society, let's just let them go ungentley into that good night.
I, also, think some of the no-vaccine people are just a wee bit too paranoid, but I think alot of them are parents who are genuinely concerned about their kid's welfare, however misguided they might be, and their kids certainly don't deserve to suffer for it.
I'm hoping that the no-vaccine movement has reached its peak and every study that is publicized assures parents that the vaccines are worth the very small risk.
And Jenny McCarthy gives me the creeps too. I think she has contributed nothing but hysteria to this issue. But that doesn't mean we have to respond with hysteria.
How did anyone ever even get to the sushi worms!
Yuck!
But, I wouldn't just accept the protocol and vaccinate my kid for everything blindly. I'm not convinced that they all need to be done so early on. Some yes, but not all. People do react from the vaccines. My mother nearly died from the Polio vaccine. As an adult I had to get revaccinated for the measles because of a faulty batch given out in the early 70s, and had a mildly bad reaction. And I don't believe that vaccines cause autism, but I think there is some merit in the idea that something may be triggering it.
Verbal, I've said it before and I'll say it again - you rock. What is WRONG with these people who won't vaccinate their kids? Do you really WANT them to die of something that is COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE???
OK. Here's the deal. My training is in toxicology. Maybe that means nothing to you but I'm going out on a limb to say that I actually have the background to comment on this vaccine/autism nonsense.
People, there just ISN'T a link between vaccines and autism. Anecdotal is NOT EVIDENCE. It's been looked at. The tenuous link was thimerosal, which is a mercury compound. They took it out of vaccines. It's not even THERE any more. They've looked at mercury in autistic kids - no more mercury than anyone else. (One of my best friends testified in one of the recent cases. I've read his testimony and looked at his research - that's where I'm getting this).
If you are worried about mercury and autism, don't eat fish while you're pregnant. Don't give your kids fish. But for god's sake, GIVE YOUR KIDS THEIR SHOTS. Not vaccinating them is the most utterly irresponsible thing I've never heard of. Jeez louise!
OK and there is NO asbestos, or dioxin, in tampons. Oh man. Now you've got me on my soapbox. It drives me CRAAAAAAZY when people use what little "science" they know to try to convince people of something. Then once people are convinced they're afraid to listen to ACTUAL scientists because the scientists are all perpetuating some kind of conspiracy. How can this country have so many ignorant people in it?????
(OK all you who think I am trying to insult you - it's not personal.... I just get frustrated when you try to have it both ways.)
Sorry Verbal. I'll shut up now. :)
What if not just one thing in the vaccinations, but two agents not normally in combination that are the issue? Two agents that in a lab do not cause a reaction, but when inside the body actually are very damaging? How could scientists test this? Would they use anecdotal evidence of autism as the result of vaccinations to point them toward looking for a cause in the face of massive pressure to do otherwise?
What if the science has been correct for what they chose to test, but the testing and thinking is flawed with regard to vaccinations?
Here is another example: Just because we don't have cars that run on water currently, and your average scientist cannot make it happen, doesn't mean that cars cannot run on water with technology that it known and been proven. Is it possible that the patents for this technology have been bought up by the oil companies for their continued gain? That valued technology sits on the shelves due to greed as well as to prevent the collapse of an oil-based economy such as the one in which we find ourselves?
I am not wearing a tin foil hat when I write the above -- there are people that know the truth about the vaccines as well as engines that run on water. Just because a court rules that it is so, doesn't make it reality. Otherwise, you are allowing for an infallibility in the courts that you know does NOT exist -- right up to the Supreme Court and those that control them. (Love ya!)
Gosh, I fear more what is NOT being told to us re: the hazards of chemicals than the occasionally off-base conspiracy theories (watch Absolutely Safe - a doc based on the hazards of breast implants which still have very little governmental oversight because of big money interests.)
I'm one of the "stinky" gals who doesn't wear antiperspirant. I use natural stuff, don't really stink and don't like the idea of putting a bunch of pore-plugging chemicals under my arms. It just doesn't seem safe to me. Sweating is for a reason and most people don't sweat that badly.
I don't use tampons either. I don't care what easily-biased study comes out re: its safety and use. It just doesn't seem like a smart thing.
I guess, in a word, I'm my own study!
One correction I will make to what you said though...it's the whole conspiracy thing... when you said "Would they use anecdotal evidence of autism as the result of vaccinations to point them toward looking for a cause in the face of massive pressure to do otherwise?" I really don't know why people believe things like this. If there IS a link between autism and vaccination... why WOULDN'T scientists want to find it? Of COURSE we'd want to find it. The anecdotal link is what's driven the studies that have been done. It's not courts that decided there's no link. It's scientific evidence. There's no conspiracy to keep that information out of the public eye.
Vaccinations actually work in a VERY simple way. They introduce your immune system to a disease so that it can manufacture a defense, and be ready the next time the disease comes along. It's the same way you acquire natural immunity - when you get a cold, you manufacture a response and your immune system remembers it, so you fight it off more efficiently the next time. The beautiful thing about vaccinations though is - you don't actually have to get SICK with the disease to gain defense. It's a very elegant principle. The trick is, of course, to make a vaccine that gives you enough of the disease to gain immunity... without actually giving you the disease itself. (this is the problem with developing an HIV vaccine, by the way.)
Your issue with multiple effects in vaccines (which is where this started, I think) isn't off base, but I guess I'm hoping to convince you that it's been thought of and addressed.
It did not take a panel of judges to determine this, and frankly I don't know why their word would hold sway over those of the many scientists who've said there is no link between vaccinations and autism. I guess because it means no one can sue vaccine makers, legally it's important. But scientifically, the jury was in a long time ago and the verdict was innocent.
If everybody has a television, but only the vaccinated children have autism, how can the cause be television?
I guess I shouldn't ask, 'cause I'm an idiot. Laugh at me all you want, when I consider the hell my sister goes through with that boy I somehow don't feel bad about it.
Here's a little something we idiots are wondering about, though. Why is asking the doctors if one of their moneymakers causes autism any different than asking the tobacco companies if their moneymaker causes cancer?
Why don't you put your big brains in a circle and work on that one, get back to me if you come up with an answer.
Long live Science.
Yes, this is actually making my point to some degree. There is no way to test humans, with their uniquely human ability to think and communicate, that is ethical. No one would purposefully use chldren as guinea pigs if there was any potential to cause autism in the test subjects. The unfortunate reality is that there is really no other species on which to test the effects of the vaccines.
I only saw one study that was extensively reported on the internet, but there was a distinct lack of "scientific protocol" evidenced in the gathering of their sample populations as well as in the statistical reporting. This type of statistical "proof" is easily manipulated.
I have no way to prove any of what I am saying, but am going on record to say that a statistical correlation may be uncovered in the future if the testing is designed with a large enough sampling and the correct set of investigative criteria. I did not like the "science" I saw in the only scientific study that I have reviewed -- this study was the focus of an early debate here on OS.
ScienceChick, thank you for allowing that I am thinking in a scientific fashion. I ain't just a purdy face, ya know, ...;)
I know you are being serious and you are correct in what you say. In the face of all the scientific studies and in view of all the anecdotal evidence, SOME explanation for the resulting autism in so many of those anecdotal cases is mandatory. Statistically significant or not, autistic symptoms have emerged in enough anecdotal situations to suggest some correlation to vaccines and autism -- it is only logical to consider that premise need more testing if no correlation is found. There must be some reason for what is happening and no court ruling is going to change that!
I don't think I can let the issue rest in my heart and mid until a valid explanation for the anecdotal cases some to light. What is the alternative thought about the increased incidence of autism? Just a badly autistic bunch of kids being born these days? I don't think so.
Thank you for your respectful replies, however. I understand your viewpoints, but I need/want some rational explanation for the increase in cases of autism. Vaccines or no, there must be SOME reason that needs be uncovered for what is happening, n'est pas? Or, are we abandoning the proposition that there is a specific cause (or causes) for the increase in the rates of autism in children? I don't think as a society that we can afford to throw up our collective hands to say, "Oh well, that is just how it is...". I don't believe it. I hope science comes to the aid of future children. No one wants to have more autistic children, but no pharma wants to have to pay for all those souls that are now suffering from autism either...
There's also a complete unwillingness to understand the fundamental soundness of the science behind vaccines. People prefer the bogeyman behind every corner. Science is hard and not always "logical." Sometimes your intuition is wrong. I'll be vaccinating my children that's for sure.
My son has Autism and it IS because of the MMR vaccine:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=110627
on Tales From My Autistic Umbrella.
The MMR vaccine used to and sometimes still does contain THIMEROSAL, a mercury-based preservative that contains "trace amounts" of harmful to humans, HEAVY METALS such as MERCURY AND LEAD. Do you know how much lead, say from old leaded paint, it would take to give you lead poisoning? Smaller than a grain of salt. The lead then embeds into your bones and can be detected with a blood test for up to 3 months, but it will forever be in your bones, wreaking whatever havok it will to your bone marrow and blood production.
This MMR thing is REAL, people. Think TWICE before you allow it to be given to your kid or you could end up on this side of the blog telling your own tales of fright and mourning the loss of what could have been, if only you had known....
It was my son's 12 month vaccination in which I was a few months late in getting. He had a bewildering pain cry from the moment he woke up on the 16th day after the shot (they say to watch for reactions for 14 days). The crying was so terrible I called the pediatrician, who heard the crying over the phone and told me to bring him in right then. My husband met me there. My son was seen by every doctor and NP in the practice - all talking to each other in hushed voices. Finally they went onto the hall to talk it over. They came back in and said they had called for an AMBULANCE!!!! OMG I am freaking out just writing this. They told us they were very concerned because the crying was constant (with every breath), seemed to be from pain, unusual for my child, and a big factor was because his eyes stayed turned to the left rather than him looking at all the doctors or looking for me or my husband, his eyes were turned to the blank wall. I carried my son to the window while we waited for the ambulance. I could hear the sirens in the distance. I prayed so hard, with every element of my being and every ounce of my soul for God, who can do ALL things, to heal my child, don't let him die. As the ambulance drew nearer and the sirens grew louder the tears began to pour. I rode with him in the ambulance to the Children's Hospital - Scottish Rite, where he was taken to the ER, tortured to get an IV started, then swaddled to a board - tightly wrapped with a bed sheet up to the neck to a board, like a papoose. Then he was taken to have a CAT scan. When he came out it was around 6PM and he had finally fallen asleep. When he woke up he began to cry but not in the same desperate way. We fed him a bottle. Afterward, he sat up and burped and then smiled at the dozen or so doctors and nurses who had stayed on well after their shifts had ended to see that our son was going to be ok. The CT was normal and we went home with no definite answers but grateful our son was alive and was going to stay that way. He was changed forever after that day.
I could tell right off the bat that you didn't have any children. You say the autism -vaccine "foolishness" is another example of how the brain cannot appreciate randomness. But yours can, which is why YOU are preaching us the gospel on science and medicine. What have you actually read about the connection? What scientific evidence has been presented to the contrary? What has anyone said that PROVES the government/doctors/science/pharmaceuticals are indeed correct? I dare you to recite any irrefutable evidence.
However there is plenty of overwhelmingly compeling and indeed persuasive evidence to support the theory.
Such as MMR Vaccines often contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative and other heavy metals, like lead, that are proven harmful to humans.
What do they do to people?
Mercury levels within a person's body can be measured in blood, urine and hair samples. The normal level of mercury for someone who has not been exposed to mercury is about 2 ppm (hair) or 3-4 ug/dl of blood or 25 ug/l or urine. When levels get to about 50 ppm (hair), people may start to experience nerve damage. Because hair continues to grow, it can be used to document when and how much a person has been exposed to mercury.
Methylmercury is especially dangerous to developing babies. This form of mercury is highly toxic and can cross the placenta and the blood-brain barrier. Mercury is concentrated in the brain of the developing fetus because the metal is absorbed quickly and is not excreted efficiently. Children exposed to mercury may be born with symptoms resembling cerebral palsy, spasticity and other movement abnormalities, convulsions, visual problems and abnormal reflexes. The brains of children who have died as a result of mercury poisoning show neuron loss in the cerebellum and throughout the cerebral cortex. Mercury also appears to affect brain development by preventing neurons from finding their appropriate place in the brain.
Mercuric nitrate was used by the felt-hat industry in the process of curing felt. People in the felt-hat industry sometimes showed signs of mercury poisoning and came down with "Mad-Hatter" syndrome. This is where the phrase "mad as a hatter" originated and was the basis for the "Mad Hatter" character in Lewis Carroll's book Alice in Wonderland.
Elemental (metallic) mercury and its compounds are toxic and exposure to excessive levels can permanently damage or fatally injure the brain. For fetuses, infants and children, the primary health effects of mercury are on neurological development. Even low levels of mercury exposure can adversely affect the brain and nervous system. Impacts on memory, attention, language and other skills have been found in children exposed to moderate levels.
Lead is toxic to everyone, but unborn babies and young children are at greatest risk for health problems from lead poisoning — their smaller, growing bodies make them more susceptible to absorbing and retaining lead. Lead poisoning has a wide range of symptoms, from headaches and stomach pain to behavioral problems and anemia. Lead can also affect a child's developing brain.
The government, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and so on, have said "there is no link." They NOW say "there are no trace metals in the MMR vaccine in the USA," But there were trace amounts in it before the proverbial shit hit the fan, but they ain't offering to talk about that, now are they?
Measles, Mumps, Rubella - what are they?
Measles - is an upper respiratory infection (viral) most known for its spotty rash. It is rarely fatal. Kids with measles should be closely monitored. In some cases, measles can lead to other complications, such as otitis media (ear infections), croup (seal barking cough due to swelling of the throat - croup is a side-effect not an illness and occurs in children with many common viral & bacterial infections), diarrhea, pneumonia, and encephalitis (a serious brain infection), which may require antibiotics or hospitalization.
Mumps - Mumps is a viral infection that primarily affects the parotid glands — one of three pairs of salivary glands, located below and in front of your ears. If you or your child contracts mumps, it can cause swelling in one or both parotid glands. Complications of mumps are potentially serious, but rare. Just like complications of pneumonia are potentially serious but rare.
Rubella - Rubella and measles are both contagious viral infections best known by the distinctive red rash that may appear on the skin of those who contract either illness. However, rubella is neither as infectious nor usually as severe as measles, which is why rubella is also called three-day measles. There is one important exception: If a pregnant woman contracts rubella, especially during her first trimester, the virus can cause death or serious birth defects in the developing fetus. So it's really women of childbearing age who should be vaccinated for Rubella, not babies. So why do babies get vaccinated when the only people at real risk are pregnant women?
Are any of these non-life theatening childhood illnesses really WORTH risking your child's ENTIRE future to prevent?
No, I think not.
Listen, we get it. You're going to believe what you're going to believe, total lack of evidence be damned, particularly when we don't have a conclusive alternative explanation. This is also part of the problem most of us have with scientific conclusions - they're often ultimately unsatisfying: we can never say "X does not cause Y," since you can't prove a negative. All we can say is "there is no evidence that X causes Y."
I shall certainly endeavor not to wander away from comment threads for so long in the future.
Nope. Still haven't changed my mind. Responsibility to your child and the health of the entire community really should trump superstition.
I know it doesn't, but it should.
"...we would be willing to deprive a parent of health insurance coverage for them and their child for the rest of their lives just because they made a choice we wouldn't have made - that's appalling."
UK, nobody said that. Really and truly, nobody did. Go back and read a bit more closely.
Deny reimbursement for illnesses acquired that could have been prevented by the refused vaccinations? Oh, yes. (You call it "appalling," I call it "foreseeable consequences." Besides, it's entirely in the realm of they hypothetical for now.)
Deny health insurance for the parent and child FOR LIFE?
Yeah, that would certainly be appalling.
If that's what anybody had suggested.
Where in the hell did you get that?
"
Speaking only for myself, it angers me to that my two-month-old could be exposed to whooping cough or the like by the sick kid of someone who acted out of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It angers me that until it's time for her to be innoculated, she'll be in a community that has thousands more potential carriers than there should be.
I had a similar argument with a Christian Scientist friend whom I deeply respect back in high-school. She was expressing her resentment that she had to be vaccinated in spite of her beliefs in order to attend school. I posed this question to her, "Accepting the premise that your spititual practices are an effective or even superior approach to illness, would you want to be responsible for infecting someone else before you resolved things your own way?"
Superstition is the wrong word and hurts your argument. I could think of better words, but lets go with what you used--you are equating dissent towards vaccinations with "a belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance."
We who dissent do not advocate the practice of magic, so that eliminates that. This "chance" part is a little tricky because it all depends on how you look at the odds. On the one hand, the odds are difficult to account for. You look at what the AMA tells you about documented adverse reactions to vaccines, and you get one thing. If you do a little digging (as we, the educated public, should) you find a bit of difference. Furthermore, as you may note from alternative threads, not all cases of reactions get documented or even acknowledged by doctors--this is a real problem when it is your kid and it is your pediatrician who denies your observations.
The "ignorance of the laws of nature" is another interesting swipe. For example, we know mercury lead (borax, thermosol, etc) are toxins, so why do we persist in the belief that this is a safe thing to inject into our bodies? Especially the very young?
One might say it is you who practices an "rite irrationaly ignorant of the laws of nature" by blindly following the AMA herd. You've got your voodoo and we've got ours. You say we give you whooping cough and we say you give us bloodletting (metaphorically speaking).
This implies equivalence where none exists. Truthines must not be placed on the same level as rigorous statistical research. That path leads to ruin.
Believe this: the jury is still out. As I've said elsewhere--we know for certain that vaccines once thought safe have proved problematic over time and have been withdrawn/remodeled/reformulated. Why is it such a leap to consider that current vaccines might prove similarly problematic?
Answer: it is not out of the realm of possibility. As the great BBE said on Jane's thread about vaccinations: give it fifty years and the link between autism and vaccinations will be established, and we will look back "shaking our heads" at all this vaccination business wondering what the hell people were thinking (paraphrasing--sorry BBE).
It's not a leap at all. That's why after these questions were initially raised there were dozens of different studies done by scientists around the world to investigate further. They found no link. As the panelists in the trial referenced at the top reported, there was no credible suggestion of causality in the peer-reviewed data. Anecdotal experiences, coincidental correlations, and data from phone surveys by advocacy groups are no substitute for hard research.
And it's ruled in favor of the best evidence.
Likewise, with respect, remember the Scopes Monkey Trail? The one that made it illegal to teach little kids about Darwin? Good thing that one got challenged, eh? Or today we might have Vice-Presidential candidates walking around telling people we once ran around with dinosaurs.
This court empanels three independent experts to evaluate the available studies and literature relevant to the case at hand an present their finding to the judge. Their standard of proof is very low, mere likelyhood rather than smoking-gun causation. The three in this case unanimously voted that there was nothing there.
Now I'll grant that for all this it's still possible, but after a lot of looking no good evidence has been found to suggest that vaccines are more likely a trigger than microwave ovens, food additives, or any number of other things. Given that autism rates have continued to rise despite dropping vaccination, I'd call it less likely than many other possible factors. Balance that against the clearly visible harm that non-vaccination causes in the form of outbreaks of preventable diseases.
Barring some startling new discovery, forgoing vaccination is betting on a very long shot against a whole field of fast horses. Sometimes a longshot wins, but I wouldn't bet my child's and others' health on one.