I skipped my vaccine in October 2012 and ended up at the hospital in January 2013. Got my vaccine in October 2013 and I haven't been sick yet, not even a small cold (and I used to be sick all the time, cold after cold after cold, even when vaccinated). Odd.

 

Just to point out the woman who said her kid developed Autism from Vaciens also said he "Got better after sneezing up yeast." this can be found on Pen and Tellers Bullshit.

 

I will be perfectly blunt: I don't plan on going into detail in this post, because frankly, I don't think anyone is much interested in changing their position in this thread. If they genuinely are, they can ask me questions.

The entire anti-vaccination movement is based on ignorance, misinterpretation, and flat out misinformation. In no uncertain terms, it is bullshit, despite what you may read on blogs or biased websites or what you may hear from b-list celebrities. Pretty much every claim I've seen has been pretty handily disproved by legitimate scientific evidence. There is no concrete scientific evidence to prove that vaccines cause autism, and while there are risks of side effects, they are minor to the point of being effectively negligible.

Vaccinations remain, along with clean water and hygiene, humanity's most effective weapon against disease. In the time since our parents were born, we have effectively eradicated diseases which cause significant suffering, often to children, and expense to society. Reluctance to vaccinate in current years can, and has, led to preventable deaths, and the resurgence of some of these diseases. I live in a nation where vaccination rates have fallen (I believe we have the second lowest rate of vaccination in the industrialized world now), and not only has this had NO effect on the levels of autism and whatever other problems vaccination is supposed to contribute to, but the risk of an epidemic of previously preventable diseases (such as measles) is now a real threat due to the loss of our herd immunity factor.

When you choose not to vaccinate, you put yourself (and if you're a parent, your children) at a very real risk of life-altering consequences due to preventable diseases. Worse, you put the people AROUND you at risk, especially those with compromised immune systems or those who cannot vaccinate themselves due to age or health conditions. Get your fucking shots.

 

I actually agree with you, but my sister doesn't read blogs and stuff. She reads medical journals. She read the original French study, then the US study, then Swedish follow up study.

So there is medical evidence that goes back and forth and back and forth. As long as the scientific community is influenced by corporations, it is difficult to get the actual truth. If we even know what the heck that is.

But like I said, I agree with your points. My son has all his vaccines, but I just choose to do 1 every 2 months then 3 at once.

 

^^^That is why I get vaccinated and so do my children. All the other inconsiderate parents who don't vaccinate thier kids or teach them to cover thier mouths when they cough or sneeze. I don't want them to get my kids sick or me.

 

Agreed its like the Climate change "Debate" (sorry for bringing this up) the people who prophet will hire people to say what they need them to say and morals be damed they will sell there credentials for a quick buck.

 

Sorry, you don't get Shingles from Chickenpox vaccine.

Chickenpox - NHS Choices

Shingles - NHS Choices

How are chickenpox and shingles connected? - Health questions - NHS Choices

 

That's sort of how the scientific community is supposed to work. People post studies and results, then those results are scrutinized and tested and re-tested and potentially alternative conclusions come to light, and over time the weight of evidence "proves" one conclusion over another, at least unless there's a paradigm shift due to the discovery of new evidence that conclusively shows something else (which is extremely rare). In the medical field, this can take some time, not only due to the extremely complicated nature of the science itself, but because of the "noise" caused by human factors and other potential sources of error.

That being said, don't be afraid of science and the scientific community, even in a field like pharmacology, which isn't perfect. Corporate money may drive a lot of research, but most of that research is done by groups and academic locations that (and I can say this from my own personal experience) are truly committed to objective results and socially positive outcomes. The "community" itself in terms of journals and associations aren't perfect, but they do try their best to self-police and scrutinize results, to say nothing of the penalties imposed by various governmental organizations if wrongdoing is discovered. The truth DOES float to the surface, even if it may require being deeply versed in the fields in question to understand it.

There's been "controversy" towards vaccination since basically the time of Jenner, but the short truth is: we're no longer dying of smallpox or being ravaged by polio in the industrialized world.

Funny you should mention that, because that's basically what happened with Andrew Wakefield, one of the "biggest" names in the anti-vaccination movement. Guy published a paper "showing" that the MMR (Mumps Measles and Rubella) vaccine caused autism, made a big impact, and after his results were scrutinized, he was shown to be basically a fraud, who relied on shitty data and worse interpretation thereof, and subjected children to numerous procedures without the input of the hospital ethics board or "requisite pediatric qualifications". Worse, even though his paper effectively concluded it was unable to find a causal link between the vaccine and the condition, he was more than happy to basically imply as such in the press to drum up attention. Later, it turned out that his research had basically been funded by lawyers trying to file suit against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, and that Wakefield himself had received significant compensation from these lawyers. This was a pretty big fucking no-no, and Wakefield was stripped of his medical license. His results, after scrutiny, were also retracted from the journal they were published in.

 

But the US "study" you refer to has been proven to be a scam. Orchestrated to do nothing more than make money off the general public by inciting fear and uncertainty. I can't talk about the others because I don't know much about them but it ain't gonna alter my opinion because there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary regarding this issue.

I would say "Good on you" for getting your kids vaccines but it is nothing to be congratulated about. It'd be like congratulating you for giving them breakfast each morning or loving them. Vaccinations are something that every responsible parent, and community member should do.

The state I live in in Australia recently passed a law that allows preschools (and I think public schools) to refuse service to children that haven't been vaccinated. I personally think they didn't go far enough. Unvaccinated children should not be allowed to attend public schools without a medically backed reason.

(Not having a dig at you in any way Alucard, just continuing the discussion  )

Don't forget to mention the financial interest he had in what he believed should have been offered as the alternative to the MMR vaccine.  

 

People are arguing about 2 issues under the one term of "vaccinations" in here.

There are basically:

1) Vaccinations against dangerous and deadly diseases, mostly done in early childhood.

2) More "optional" vaccinations taken anytime in life, like the flu shot or the relatively new HPV one for girls.

The first are absolutely necessary for society, herd immunity, and eradication of deadly diseases that used to kill tens of thousands. These are the ones with the strongest science for, and weakest arguments/fears against. These are also the ones erroneously accused of causing autism. I have zero respect for people who deny their children these important vaccines, except in rare cases of complications.

The second type are more debatable, though the bulk of the scientific evidence points to these being beneficial. However, for healthy people I won't begrudge them making a choice here.

 

I'm afraid of needles so I don't get vaccinated.

Yes I'm a wuss.

 

In the case of no 2), I would also like to say that while there's not much of a huge disincentive to getting, say, a flu vaccine on a personal level (oh no, you got the flu), or even swine flu (which I caught before the vaccine became widely available, and while it SUCCCCCCCCKED, to the point I don't think I've ever been sicker in my life, but didn't lead to a massive number of hospitalizations or deaths relative to infection rates), I strongly advise others to get vaccinated anyway, for another reason: People with compromised immune systems. I strongly believe all medical professionals should be required by their employers to get vaccinated every year, as well as anyone dealing with the elderly, very young children, or people with immunodeficiency problems. I would strongly advise people who don't deal with those groups to get them as well, because even if catching the illness won't do much to them, it has the capacity to have much greater consequences (such as death) for those groups, and even if flu vaccines aren't totally effective, their use still lessens the risk of transmission to those people.

They've been using these new syringes the last couple years as part of a two-stage assembly (the needle part comes in one package with a cover and attaches onto the vaccine syringe part that comes out of another package) and they are so much better, I swear. Hand to God, I don't even feel them, and they take seconds. I know it's probably not a rational fear, but maybe try and give it a shot this fall, if only because there's a time in the future you will really NEED to get needled.

 

I get vaccinated all the time, because I'm still in the military. But I respect someone's choice to not vaccinate their child.


There is an EXTREMELY strong correlation between the increase in vaccines and in the increase in autism and other disorders. It obviously does not equal causation, but it's interesting to consider.

It's mostly propaganda that determines many of our opinions on this matter, because clearly we all can't conduct independent research.

 

Do consider the correlation to increases in autism even remotely intriguing?

 

Correlation is meaningless in most cases, however, and especially in ones where there are a number of parallel situation factors.

By the same token, you could say that there is an EXTREMELY strong correlation between the diagnoses of autism and the prevalence of celluar phones, or between autism diagnosis rates and average household television screen size, etc. Without positive causal links, it's just coincidence.


One of the biggest factors affecting diagnosis rates of autism is our improved understanding of the disorder, and increased identification and diagnosis. It's like saying the correlation between HIV diagnoses and 3 3/4" GI Joe sales is intriguing.

 

Correlation is meaningless? Isn't that the foundation of data for 99% of research conducted in almost every situation?

You're getting a little off base don't you think? Just because it's an isolated correlation, doesn't mean using facetious examples proves or disproves how drastic the relationship is. It's become almost an exponential leap between the number of autism cases in the world and the growth of vaccinating human beings over the past 60-70 years. Cell phones haven't even been around for more than 20 years.


I'm not saying we should all be afraid of vaccines, but I'm also intrigued at how vehemently people are denying the claims about vaccines, especially people with little or no medical knowledge, or no background in independent research.

If I had the time or resources, I'd love to conduct my own research. Until then, I'll keep my mind open.

 

Just some graph I found, but you get the point. It's an interesting concept if it's related.





I can't attest to the validity of this data. But I'm also curious when people all tend to swarm around the same mindset without independently coming to their own conclusions.

 

Yes, without proven causal links, correlation is meaningless in making an effective, accurate, actionable conclusion.

And commercial cell phone networks have been around for 35 years, not counting the technology itself.

The problem with using graphs you just found is that they're not always accurate, given mercury (thimerosal) has been effectively phased out of vaccines for the last 5 years (starting in around 2004 to 2006) in many places, and autism rates haven't decreased. It's also worth pointing out mercury is also present in fish, high-fructose corn syrup, rice, and fruit.

Be especially careful of the source of information, such as when graphs come from rather biased blogs. I can do the same:

No, the thimerosal in the flu vaccine does not explain why autism rates did not go down | Left Brain Right Brain

As for independent research, Thimerosal was investigated by a an independent expert committee put together by the US National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine, I don't know how you'd get more independent than that in terms of expert scientific research. They found no causal link between the chemical and autism, btw.


I agree that people should do their own research, but I think they should get their information from people who are experts in the field of immunology, medicine, and pediatrics.

 

I dunno. Because maybe, you know, doctors?

Look, we can't "know" everything about everything. We have to trust professionals to SOME degree, right?

Other than Andrew Wakefield, how many MDs (or former MDs) have come out and said "yes, there is some validity to this"?

 

Do you understand how vaccines and medicine developments work? Doctors are paid to introduce new products to their clients.


Do you know many automobile salesmen who tell you not to buy cars because they've noticed a spike in automobile deaths?

Yes, obviously I trust doctors, but I don't allow them to form my opinions for me.

I'm currently engaged in a doctorate program myself, although not in the medical field, and I can assure you, mistakes can be made at any level. Don't assume your doctor's information is acceptable simply because they have experience or academic relevance. Always get a second opinion for important matters.