In light of recent outbreaks of measles and other vaccine preventable illnesses, and the refusal of anti-vaccination advocates to acknowledge the problem, I thought it was past time for this post.
Dear parents,
You are being lied to. The people who claim to be acting in the best interests of your children are putting their health and even lives at risk.
They say that measles isn’t a deadly disease.
But it is.
They say that chickenpox isn’t that big of a deal.
But it can be.
They say that the flu isn’t dangerous.
But it is.
They say that whooping cough isn’t so bad for kids to get.
But it is.
They say that vaccines aren’t that effective at preventing disease.
But 3 million children’s lives are saved every year by vaccination, and 2 million die every year from vaccine-preventable illnesses.
They say that “natural infection” is better than vaccination.
But they’re wrong.
They say that vaccines haven’t been rigorously tested for safety.
But vaccines are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than any other medicine. For example, this study tested the safety and effectiveness of the pneumococcal vaccine in more than 37,868 children.
They will say that doctors won’t admit there are any side effects to vaccines.
But the side effects are well known, and except in very rare cases quite mild.
They say that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
It doesn’t. (The question of whether vaccines cause autism has been investigated in study after study, and they all show overwhelming evidence that they don’t.)
They say that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism.
It doesn’t, and it hasn’t been in most vaccines since 2001 anyway.
They say that the aluminum in vaccines (an adjuvant, or component of the vaccine designed to enhance the body’s immune response) is harmful to children.
But children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines, and far higher levels of aluminum are needed to cause harm.
They say that the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (and/or the “vaccine court”) proves that vaccines are harmful.
It doesn’t.
They say that the normal vaccine schedule is too difficult for a child’s immune system to cope with.
It isn’t.
They say that if other people’s children are vaccinated, there’s no need for their children to get vaccinated.
This is one of the most despicable arguments I’ve ever heard. First of all, vaccines aren’t always 100% effective, so it is possible for a vaccinated child to still become infected if exposed to a disease. Worse, there are some people who can’t receive vaccinations, because they are immune deficient, or because they are allergic to some component. Those people depend upon herd immunity to protect them. People who choose not to vaccinate their children against infectious diseases are putting not only their own children at risk, but also other people’s children.
They say that ‘natural’, ‘alternative’ remedies are better than science-based medicine.
They aren’t.
The truth is that vaccines are one of our greatest public health achievements, and one of the most important things you can do to protect your child.
I can predict exactly the sort of response I will be getting from the anti-vaccine activists. Because they can’t argue effectively against the overwhelming scientific evidence about vaccines, they will say that I work for Big Pharma. (I don’t and never have). They will say that I’m not a scientist (I am), and that I’m an “Agent 666” (I don’t know what that is, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not one).
None of these things are true, but they are the reflexive response by the anti-vaccine activists because they have no facts to back up their position. On some level, deep down, they must understand this, and are afraid of the implications, so they attack the messenger.
Why are they lying to you? Some are doing it for profit, trying to sell their alternative remedies by making you afraid of science-based medicine. I’m sure that many others within the anti-vaccine movement have genuinely good intentions, and do honestly believe that vaccines are harmful. But as a certain astrophysicist recently said “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it”. In the case of vaccine truthers, this is not a good thing. Good intentions will not prevent microbes from infecting and harming people, and the message that vaccines are dangerous is having dire consequences. There are outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses now throughout the United States because of unvaccinated children.
In only one respect is my message the same as the anti-vaccine activists: Educate yourself. But while they mean “Read all these websites that support our position”, I suggest you should learn what the scientific community says. Learn how the immune system works. Go read about the history of disease before vaccines, and talk to older people who grew up when polio, measles, and other diseases couldn’t be prevented. Go read about how vaccines are developed, and how they work. Read about Andrew Wakefield, and how his paper that claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism has been withdrawn, and his medical license has been revoked. Read the numerous, huge studies that have explicitly examined whether autism is caused by the vaccine…and found nothing. (While you’re at it, read about the ongoing research to determine what IS the cause—or causes —of autism, which is not helped by people continuing to insist that vaccines cause it).
That may seem like a lot of work, and scientific papers can seem intimidating to read. But reading scientific articles is a skill that can be mastered. Here’s a great resource for evaluating medical information on the internet, and I wrote a guide for non-scientists on how to read and understand the scientific literature. You owe it to your children, and to yourself, to thoroughly investigate the issue. Don’t rely on what some stranger on the internet says (not even me!). Read the scientific studies that I linked to in this post for yourself, and talk to your pediatricians. Despite what the anti-vaccine community is telling you, you don’t need to be afraid of the vaccines. You should instead be afraid of what happens without them.
Edited to add: This video is an outstanding summary of many of these issues. I encourage you to watch it.
“Humans try to make sense of the world by seeing patterns. When they see a disease or condition that tends to appear around the time a child is a year or so old, as autism does, and that is also the age that kids get particular shots, they want to put those things together. Parents watch kids more carefully after they get shots. Sometimes they pick up on symptoms then. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn’t mean that one caused the other. This is why we need careful scientific studies.”
Note: For people coming via a direct link, please also feel free to participate in a follow-up discussion
here.
1/13/15: Edited to update broken hyperlinks. If you find any additional broken links, please don’t hesitate to let me know. –JR
4/19/16: Edited again to update more broken hyperlinks. If you find more, keep letting us know and we’ll keep fixing them. –CM
Violent metaphors 
Bravo! Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Bravo indeed. I am not a medical professional but I am a scientist and a parent. Every parent needs this information. The growing anti-science attitude in popular culture is more than a little scary. I won’t attempt to tell anyone what to do with their lives, but I had a long discussion with our pediatrician and my kids are and will be vaccinated on schedule. Our family gets annual flu shots also. If my pediatrician accepted non-vaccinated kids I would find another one. As organisms evolve we know that antibiotics fail; thus far vaccines are our most effective defense against communicable disease.
Click to access full-publication-myths-and-realities-5th-ed-2013.pdf
Here is a link to more detaile info supporting vaccination.
Yes!
This is true.. BUT, for myself, if I get the flu vaccine I get bronchitis. So, I never get the flu vaccine anymore and never have gotten the flu.
Chicken Pox…. When I was young they tried to introduce it at chicken pox parties in the 1970’s. Never got it. My pediatrician used a scaple and introduced it into my body about age 10 my body fought it off. Then at 14 I had a rash on my back. The only place that it was, looked like hives. ER doctor thought it was hives. In the 5 counties surrounding mine and in the county I lived in no reported cases at the time I got the chicken pox. It was over Winter Break…No time off of school or anything. SO, getting the chicken pox vaccine or the flu vaccine should be that person’s choice.
Like the Hep B Vaccine…I got it about 12 years ago for the first time. Ten years later we did titers because I was doing a job in health care. No titers for Hep B. So, we re-did the vaccine sequence. Two years later I barely have any titers for Hep B. Soon my body will have fought off the Hep B vaccine.
There are vaccines I would advocate for and some I wouldn’t. My full brother was fully vaccinated and still got the Mumps and the Measles. No one else in my family had either of these diseases since my great grandparents time.
I don’t get the PPD, but the x-ray. Being vaccinated for tetanus and small pox plus other diseases that you got vaccinated for in the 1970’s yeah later in life you need them. BUT something like chicken pox, you get better immunity if you actually get the disease. Others like HPV, Chicken Pox, Flu virus, you have a better chance of not having the bad strains than you do the ones in the vaccine. There were years that I didn’t get the flu vaccine and I was the only person in the place I worked and of my friends that didn’t get the flu. Everyone who got vaccinated got a different worse strain of the flu. This happened year after year after year including in my college days.
So, if it was up to me. Everyone would get their childhood ones I got. Then as you get older you pick what you want to do with your body. I choose to keep my tetanus up to date because I work with metal. I would get the shingles vaccine if my titers were too low. I have seen what shingles can do to a person. But, I would never start out giving the chicken pox vaccine to anyone. You must let your immune system work for itself for a while. IF you NEVER get any virus how do you fight off the odd ones that aren’t contained in vaccines? Perhaps I don’t get the flu because I never have gotten the flu vaccine. Or perhaps it is because once I had the original strain of pneumonia. Could the flu be an offshoot of pneumonia? I have never had pneumonia since I opened a trunk from the middle ages during college at an internship. Hard to diagnosis but probably gave me some immunity to viruses that aren’t around today. So, something has to be said about what comes around can go around. A vaccine is never a promise that you can’t get a virus or disease you have been innucluated against. You can still get it, but they say it won’t be as bad. Well, tell that to one of my nephews, who got the chicken pox vaccine, He almost died from the chicken pox just like my full brother almost did. One had the vaccine, the older one didn’t have the vaccine.One generation apart, one difference, the vaccine, same symptoms chicken pox all over except for on the palms of their hands and the bottoms of their feet. My nephews female twin, just like me when I had it. They thought it was hives on her back, She had the vaccine and I didn’t.
You can’t get bronchitis from the flu vaccine. You can get bronchitis from a viral infection that you contracted before or after you got the flu vaccine, however.
Everyone has anecdotal evidence about how some vaccinated person had such-and-such worse than a non-vaccinated person and whatnot. Here’s the thing: There’s a whole lot that goes into why certain people get a more severe version of an illness than someone else, and vaccines aren’t the only factor. Your nephew may not have had the booster for the chicken pox vaccine at the right time, or was exposed to a more aggressive form of the virus than your brother, for example. It’s not as simple as “The vaccine didn’t work.”
Hep B vaccine is an inactive protein. Your body didn’t “fight it off”…it’s not an organism or even alive. That you had a weak immune response and your brother had non-protective responses actually argues for a B cell-mediated or CD4 T cell-mediated immune *deficiency* running in your family, though likely a mild one. Your mild response to chicken pox might even support this…when people get “sick” it’s actually their IMMUNE system that leads to most tissue damage and symptoms such as fever, headache, rashes/sores, etc. it sounds like you were fairly young when varicella (chicken pox) reactivates in you, also a sign of a poorly functioning immune system. I think Bruton’s agammaglobulinemia is X-linked…severe problems in male cases but mild in female carriers.
Thank you!!!!
Jennifer, entirely in the mode of helping you understand the world according to — oh, whoever. Any reference to the number 666 which, by context, implies an evil motive, is based on the last verse of Chapter 13 of the book of Revelation in the King James Version of the Holy Bible. To get the full flavor, you’ll need to read the entire chapter, but the 18th (and last) verse reads:
Revelation 13:18: “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number IS [in italics in the Bible but can’t do that here] Six hundred threescore AND six.”
Hence, the source of great evil. On the other hand, Robert Heinlein postulated that it was the number of parallel universes that would eventually be available for exploration by humans.
You pays your money and you takes your choice. Personally, I think I’ll count as evil those who seek to make money trafficking in human misery, including people like Wakefield who tell lies, claiming they’re science, and exposing defenseless children to great harm.
Best wishes, and continue your good work.
For the record, “666” is the numerical value of the letters in how you write “Emperor Nero” in Hebrew.
Who was referred to as “the Beast” by the groups opposed to Roman occupation who wrote the Revelation of St John.
The thing that baffles me about the whole “Number of the Beast” thing is that it’s not actually a secret what it means. It wasn’t SUPPOSED to be a secret. The whole POINT is that everybody was supposed to know that it meant Emperor Nero.
There are plenty of things in the world that are clearly labeled and easy to find out — like “vaccines work and save lives” and “666 means Emperor Nero.”
“Life is like a box of chocolates: there’s a clear label on the top of the box explaining what everything is, and you have to be remarkably stupid to not know what you’re going to get when it’s all studied, understood, and marked out.”
“Life is like a box of chocolates: there’s a clear label on the top of the box explaining what everything is, and you have to be remarkably stupid to not know what you’re going to get when it’s all studied, understood, and marked out.”
I am weak, You have made my day!
Funny bit? 666 is not even the right number, as the math was based on faulty interpretation. That number should be 616, actually. Funnies aside – that was a GREAT article. Thank you.
666 is correct in Greek because of the way proper nouns ending in vowels are handled. 616 is correct in Latin.
Yes, this, thank you.
Antivax bullshit is personal for me because chicken pox nearly killed me as a kid (my pediatrician told my parents I was the worst case he’d seen in 35 years), and then as a young adult, influenza caused asthma complications so severe I refer to the year that followed as The Year Of The Cough.
Other diseases stem from chicken pox. My daughter had a mild case of chicken pox. Vaccines weren’t offered then. CP virus stays in your body after it’s gone. That virus causes shingles, a very painful disease that can come back many times. While it normally occurs in elderly patients, my daughter had her first episode around 8 years of age, and has had it many times since. The shingles virus also caused her to have a disease called trigeminal neuralgia, a dibilitatingly painful disease. She had to undergo surgery on her brain stem, and continues to take drugs to try to control the spasms and horrific pain. A simple vaccination would have prevented this series of events.
Shingles at 8, that must have been terrible! I’m sorry that your daughter is in such pain. I’ve been fortunate to escape most medical sequelae from chickenpox, despite how ill I became with it at the time. Cases like hers and mine could both be mostly prevented through vaccination, and hopefully such complications will become less and less common as the chicken pox vaccine gains impact.
So sorry your daughter has had so much trouble after having chicken pox. You are the first person I have heard of whose child has also had shingles. My youngest had chicken pox around 10 months old, too young to get the vaccine since it was not given until a child’s first birthday. Just before her 5th birthday she broke out in shingles. Luckily hers were mild.
Again I am so sorry your daughter is going through all this.
So many little things can go wrong to cause someone not to be able to keep herpes viruses dormant. I got an HSV1 infection when I was in my thirties and had a bad staph infection. Most people that get HSV1 in their thirties never have symptoms past the initial symptoms which most people would think is just a mild viral illness and I have a ridiculously good immune system that causes me trouble. So, when I had symptoms my doctor was convinced it must have been something else and then when it cleared in three days with no treatment she was sure it was something else. But no it is HSV1, the problem is I have this antibody that binds other antibodies and does all sorts of things good and bad and it made an antibody complex that responded to the initial infection and for some reason my immune system thinks it is a proper antibody for it and didn’t make a new one. The antibody complex is very good at neutralizing the infectious material in the blood so it basically works like a lot of the medications by preventing the spread to new cells and clears very quickly, but it doesn’t do anything until the virus is active. A proper antibody would keep it dormant in the nerve cell.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. This post is perfect in every way. Calm and non-derogatory and linked to supporting evidence. I am directing everyone I know here.
Here here, I agree with this entirely.
One minor point, its aluminium not aluminum just read the correct si periodic table
Aluminium vs aluminum just depends on whether the periodic table you’re looking at uses the original proposed name (aluminum, one i) or the one that was altered to fit with the “ium” endings of other elements; both spellings are valid. As long as we’re nitpicking, though, the expression is “hear, hear” — as in, “hear him” — and not “here, here.” 😉
Depends on which side of The Pond you’re from. ‘Murcans spell it Aluminum, Limeys spell (an pronounce) it Aluminium.
Looking for a single link in this mishmash of misinformation that compares rates of autism between fully unvaccinated children and fully unvaccinated children but despite your assertion that “The question of whether vaccines cause autism has been investigated in study after study, and they all show overwhelming evidence that they don’t.” I couldn’t find a single one. Your claim has no scientific merit whatsoever.
Above should read “between fully unvaccinated children and fully vaccinated children”
I was fully vaccinated as a child and am not remotely autistic. This should prove it.
While I do not agree with Plasma, I should point out that your response, as anecdotal evidence, is not valid for refuting the claim.
If you want to learn more about the non-link between Autism and vaccines, start with “The Immunization- Autism Myth Debunked.” (Recame, Michelle A.), International Journal of Childbirth Education. Oct 2012, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p76-78, and move on to the sources Recame cites. ISSN 0887-8625
So were my children…ages now 32 and 29…no autism, btw, none of their classmates either…
I am autistic. But vaccines didn’t give me autism. There’s absolutely no evidence to support that allegation.
On the other hand, not being vaccinated has resulted in life-threatening illness for me on two separate occasions. So. If I ever have kids, I know which I’m going with. Alleged risk of a non-lethal thing that does not itself cause suffering (others’ reactions to it, on the other hand, are a very different story) based on a long-debunked study by a fraudulent hack, vs actual risk of a potentially-lethal thing that can cause severe and prolonged suffering (in some cases, lifelong suffering). It shouldn’t even require debate.
An aside: According to the most recent CDC report, the increase in cases is almost certainly due to change in diagnostic criteria and improvement in public and professional awareness and education and not an actual increase in prevalence. Most kids who would be diagnosed autistic now would have been diagnosed as developmentally delayed, language delayed, emotionally disturbed, movement disordered, and/or with speech impediments thirty years ago. Some would’ve flown under the radar entirely and just been written off as weirdo kids who don’t fit in for whatever reason. Some would’ve been called “gifted” and would’ve had all their weirdness chalked up to “gifted kids can be a bit weird” (many don’t realize that it is possible to be gifted in one area and delayed in another). Kids like me, who had complicating issues early in their lives would just have it written off as being a bit slow to catch up on the social skills and coordination fronts due to preterm birth and being sick kids (sick/preterm kids can be autistic, too, just fyi. I was). As understanding increases, a greater number of people are getting the correct diagnoses and therefore the right type of support to allow them to achieve their full potential. This is a good thing, not a bad one.
Dear “plasmarules”:
You must have missed this link in the article above:
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full
The question itself is incredibly biased, to the point that such a study might never be possible without violating ethical guidelines on human medical experimentation. Where can one find large numbers of “fully unvaccinated” children? No IRB (institutional review board) would allow such a prospective study, given the known harm and death vaccine-preventable diseases cause. Indeed, are there any countries on the planet where no vaccines are given, aside from enclaves of the most extreme anti-vax, or a remote tribe in the Amazon? No retrospective study is possible in a way that would satisfy any anti-vaccine crusader nor rigorous scientist, given that you have to go back to pre-1700s century civilization (pre-smallpox vaccine) to find large populations of “fully unvaccinated” people. The next problem would be in comparing to them that set to “fully vaccinated” people, since today’s full set of vaccines was not even available until after I became an adult. Living conditions between the 18th and 21rst centuries are so different that such a comparison would be highly difficult to control for all other factors.
Here’s one clue for plasmarules, so he understands exactly what I mean by his demand being unethical: Smallpox and other diseases brought by Europeans wiped out large parts of native American populations. Even if an IRB were insane enough to approve the study he demands as “proof”, then where are you going to get enough volunteers to put their infants into the “fully unvaccinated” arm of the study you are demanding? Will your anti-vax friends offer up their kids as sacrifices to their beliefs? Note that they will have to be fully informed as to the consequences of their actions, including the possibility of a high death rate. Secondly and possibly more difficult: Where are you going to find licensed physicians willing to violate their Hippocratic oaths to “do no harm”? I guess you will have to recruit from the homeopaths and naturopaths, who don’t have a medical license to lose for killing their patients.
For the rest the people reading: Plasmarules is an example of the Dunning Kruger effect, mistakenly thinking he knows more about medicine that the doctors and scientists he is criticizing. He tries to set an unreachable bar, then will use that absurdity as “proof” that we don’t know “enough” about vaccines to “know” they are safe. He is ignoring everything Jennifer wrote above by posing his absurd question.
For Jennifer: Thank you. Shared on my facebook page for my non-scientist friends to read. (My scientist friends already vaccinate their kids.)
Not true, study done comparing vaccinated children and invaded kids on Finland; sad to say same rate of autisim in both. Look it up. Study is the gold standard.
JerryA… LOVE your response. Its so true.. half my Facebook feed (and unfortunately many of my friends) suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. i worry about the consequences of this shift away from science because anyone and everyone is now a medical expert because they can google things on the internet. I think google needs needs a disclaimer; “google is not a sciencelab, when you google something, it does not mean you are researching something” or something of that nature.
Thanks for this info. Never heard of dunning Kruger effect..I always referred to my friends as having confirmation bias! Another thing to add to my repertoire.
@plasmarules-actually, those studies were done circa 1798-1943, when vaccination was invented by Edward Jenner. You will find no reports of autism prior to that time, with reports starting to pick up after 1943-when the term was invented. Why is that? Its because prior to that time kids died of smallpox (extinct due to vaccination), rubella, measles, and a host of other childhood diseases. You can’t have autism at age 18 if you are dead at age 3.
There is no such thing as a fully unvaccinated child-unless you wish to include “bubble babies” with no T-cells. Children are passively immunized in utero to a host of pathogens, and are immunized to a multiplicity of pathogens immediately after birth (perhaps you are not familiar with the anatomy of the birth canal?) and during development. If you would like to see what an unimmunized human looks like please proceed to you nearest bone marrow transplant clinic, where you will find some of the sickest people you have ever seen.
Immunization is the stimulation of the immune system to produce T-cells and B-cells to specific carbohydrate and protein antigens present on whatever the immune system recognizes as “non-self”. If the immunizing agent is non-infectious analog of something that will kill you, so much the better. That is what a vaccine is-a non-infectious analog of something that could or would kill you. If you think that vaccines don’t help health, talk to your grandparents about their fear of coming down with measles, smallpox, German measles; about houses being placed in isolation, schools closed for weeks due to infectious disease outbreaks.
I would be very glad to do the experiment you suggest-you just find me 10,000 unvaccinated children age and socio-economic status matched to 10,000 fully vaccinated children, and we’ll do a nice 20-year longitudinal study. You also get to find the funding for this study and get IRB approval for the study.
Scott- Many people in the anti-vax crowd believe that immunity due to vaccination and immunity due to disease is somehow magically different, even if immunity is caused by the same protein. It’s their reasoning, well, magical thinking, behind deliberately exposing their children to measles and other diseases, because it’s “natural”. (So is arsenic, but I’m not exposing myself to that either.) The same magical thinking leads them to non-treatments such as herbs, “essential oils” and “homeotherapy”, i.e. quackery. They think they can use their magical elixirs to prevent measles from causing a 1.6% rate of hospitalization and 0.3% rate of death (in developed countries, but up to 30% death!! if malnourished), compared to vaccines with a 0.0002% rate of harm. Somehow, they never explain why the magic waters and oils cannot prevent harm from vaccines… In other words, you’re giving a rational argument to people who have accepted the irrational.
JerryA-I know I’m fighting a losing battle, but I’ve worked at Universities all my adult life, so I’m somewhat used to jousting at windmills. Perhaps we could invite all the anti-vaxers to a lovely meal of Amanita phalloides, Ricinus communis nuts, Dicentra cucullaria, and Strychnos nux-vomica nuts. All perfectly natural and the source of pretty toxic compounds-respectively alpha-amanitin, ricin, bicculline and strychnine. Did it ever occur to the anti-vaxers that viruses and bacteria are also perfectly natural-and deadly?
Scott Nelson–You obviously are a very compassionate person who is willing to listen to every side of an issue and allow others to draw their own conclusions.
I am so GLAD that you wouldn’t joke about genocide.
You are a truly special person and the world is a better place because you have free speech.
RN- I do grow tired of hearing how “natural”=safe and man made = dangerous, when, as a biochemist, most of the most toxic compounds I’m aware of (and the nature of my profession means I know a lot of toxic compounds) are straight from Mother Nature. She frequently likes to protect her offspring in no uncertain terms
That is what a vaccine is-a non-infectious analog of something that could or would kill you <—that. Perfect. Thank you. And great response.
You missed a few studies. Here is one, that was done in Germany, which compared a vaccinated versus an unvaccinated population.
http://www.vaccinetimes.com/the-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study-a-k-a-the-german-study/
The classic study, though, is the Yokahama study comparing rates of autism when the MMR vaccine was withdrawn for several years due to being out of stock.
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/noMMR.html
There are others, these are what I found in two minutes of simple web searching.
I call bull on that ‘study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated’, the ‘vaccine times’? Come back with a peer reviewed journal plz.
The “vaccine times” post discusses an actual scientific research article and includes a direct link to said article. Please do not be lazy and attack without first looking at it. The post is well written and fairly careful about the results and limitations of the science.
>I call bull on that ‘study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated’, the ‘vaccine times’? Come back with a peer reviewed journal plz.
You know that’s an appeal to authority, right?
Many pro-science persons run to the safe high ground of “Peer reviewed journal” when confronted with evidence they don’t feel like actually critiquing. The problem is that a hand-waving dismissal of something because it’s not in a “peer reviewed journal” is an inverse appeal to authority – the idea that good science can *only* be in journals (and contrariwise, that all journal content is good science)
There are a number of problems with this blind faith in “peer reviewed journals”:
– At least one wholly manufactured article was run in a peer reviewed journal. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/01/over-100-published-science-journal-articles-just-gibberish/
– Many articles in peer-reviewed journals have been subsequently debunked. http://helmont1.tripod.com/
– There are only so many pages in journals, which means that good science can be left by the side of the road because of nothing more than a shortage of paper.
– Saying “peer review” seems to create an aura of legitimacy to the point that papers in journals may not be reviewed as critically as other papers.
Here’s a good summary of these points:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html
Basically when you say “peer reviewed journal” as some kind of touchstone of authenticity, you’re missing the point, which is to *actually review the article.* If an article is presented to support a point, the proper scientific approach is to give the article a skeptical read. If everything looks good, then look for other research on the same topic. If the article fails on one or more aspects of peer review (failure to state methodology, lack of access to data, well-thought-out path from results to conclusions, etc), then *that* is how you criticize the study.
This kowtowing to “Peer reviewed journal” is as valuable as saying “show me one that’s printed on pink paper and I’ll believe you.”
You just cited the Discovery Institute’s blog in support of your position. Was that intentional?
Just to clarify, the Discovery Institute is an Intelligent Design advocate, and I’m a strong critic of their “scientific” approaches. They aren’t fond of me, either: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/evolutionary_an076161.html
Did you actually click the link? The “vaccine times” post is merely a blog discussing a peer-reviewed article, which is linked to in the text. As the anti-vax loons like to say, “DO YOUR RESEARCH” or whatever.
Thanks!
“Looking for a single link in this mishmash of misinformation that compares rates of autism between fully unvaccinated children and fully unvaccinated children”
I’d ask the relevant questions, but it’s apparent that you wouldn’t be able to answer them. Instead, I invite you to formulate a coherent response to this:
Great link!. I like that the author at least concedes that it is very difficult to get a study with an unvaccinated pool of participants large enough to demonstrate a lack of relationship between vaccinations and autism BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. It’s nice when people can be rational and give credence to both sides without name calling, even if they have an opinion one way or the other.
Just like a Creationist. Show them a thousand fossils and development trends and they’ll insist there’s no “intermediate form.”
Short answer, you don’t want to be rational, so no argument will persuade you.
But if you’re scared because the rantings of scientist Jenny McCarthy and her “crystal child” (Who isn’t autistic), wait until after age 5, then immunize. Somehow, all the people who do that avoid the magic autism infection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
Though there’s a strong link between refusal to vaccinate and mental retardation.
“Though there’s a strong link between refusal to vaccinate and mental retardation.”
I think the link is in the other direction, mental retardation leads to a refusal to vaccinate.
Wow! I think you might need to go to a little more elementary blog about how to find proper evidence and what constitutes proper evidence and then come back.
Really? You couldn’t find a single one? Did you try typing “immunization” and “autism” into PubMed? Pretty much every single article you get will be about how there’s no connection.
Will this study of half a million children do you. Vaccinated vs unvaccinated as requested:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa021134
Anyone want to bet that this peer reviewed study, published in a well respected medical journal won’t be good enough? Excuses in 5…4…3…
Ummm did you read the part where 80% of the participants HAD the vaccine? How is that remotely balanced in terms of interpretation/implication? And everyone who knows even a little about scientific research shows retroactive studies are never as robust as studies compared with controlled. Come on. Not saying it doesn’t have credence but like all people with half a brain will assent to it HAS LIMITATIONS. Stop strawmanning, people!! There is legitimacy to people’s concerns. Let people look into these things themselves without criticizing. Can’t you offer the research WITHOUT the attacks and insults?
why wouldn’t it? Or are you suggesting that it’s not representative of the actual population? You are saying that simply because there are more vaccinated children in this study that it’s not valid. I guess 100K children isn’t a large enough sample size.. Let’s look a bit further though. It’s from Denmark. a country with a total population of 5.141 million in 1990, and only 5.340 million in 2000. making those 537K children just about even child born in that decade. Seems like a pretty robust study to me. The point that anti vaccers want to make is that autism occurs more often in children who are vaccinated than those who are not. a retrospective look at autism rates is a perfectly valid tool if the object is to determine if autism occurs in one group or the other in greater frequency. It’s a correlative study whose finding suggest that due to the lack of difference in occurrence rate, that it’s highly unlikely that vaccines cause autism.
It’s not as robust for several reasons:
a) the populations are not as randomized because there may be several legitimate differences groups who choose to vaccinate versus those who do not thus creating confounding variables that cannot be accounted for between the two groups.
b) when you are comparing two groups with such vastly different sample sizes, the margin of error becomes much greater to credit valid results as greater than random chance and a lack of significant difference as valid rather than a significant result being masked in skewed numbers
c) anyone who has actually worked in the field of autism knows that the method of diagnosis is far from precise. It is quite easy to have two developmental paediatricians, two psychologists, two psychiatrists all argue about the presence of autism, age of onset, whether it is Aspergers (which is now not considered on the spectrum), and probably prognosis. This would be an issue in a controlled study with just one or a handful of diagnosticians, nevermind a random group retroactively representing hundreds of diagnosticians from any number of given fields and theoretical frameworks
d) you cannot control for any extraneous factors in retroactive studies such as parental history, prenatal and antenatal exposure, socioeconomic factors diet etc etc etc. When these cannot be accounted for, especially with such skewed sample sizes, none of these other factors can arguably be entirely discredited as having any affect on the results. And if they can’t be discredited then they very well may be affecting the results. Which means your study didn’t prove anything at all.
Shall I go on?
Consider:
1. What was the motivation of this result (to quell mass hysteria around doubts about the link between MMR and autism and thus fears of higher diagnosis of these horrible diseases because of it). I would say the motivation is legitimate but IT DOES NOT DISCREDIT PEOPLE’S CONCERN ABOUT VACCINES.
2. Who funded the research and what are their vested interests? (Likely government and their interest? See above).
3. What statistics were used and what can anyone with a background in quantitative research tell you about use of statistics to support hypotheses? I will leave it at there’s pretty much the perfect test or graph for whatever it is you’d like to focus the spotlight on and greyzone whatever doesn’t support your hypothesis.
4. Should we trust the legitimacy of research that is politically motivated on a very emotionally charged issue in the same way as other bodies of research produced in that same time period? (Not saying we shouldn’t just something to ask ourselves).
5. Are there times we can think of where hype based on scientific research put us in one direction only to be proven it was wrong later? If yes (and anyone who says no is either grossly uneducated or is just being contrary) is it not logical that this would produce a healthy skepticism on the current trend to think of results proving vaccines are perfect are absolute truth and anything to the opposite is the result of whack jobs or people looking or fame or profit? Is there room for a more balanced look at all aspects of this issue? Is it possible both polarities have their valid points and their weak areas where they tend to appeal more to people’s emotions on the subject rather than valid facts?
In which case there is no study anywhere about anything that is going to fulfill your criteria. Pure research, for research’s sake isn’t done anymore. The money required is much too great. Yes there are flaws to every study. What else would you expect from a team working in Denmark, then to use every subject available to them? So what if they had gotten an extra 300K unvaccinated children? would you then be complaining because the sample size is too small when compared against all children born in that time frame? Or should they have neglected to include all the unvaccinated children, so they could then be accused of cherry picking their sample group. Your argument doesn’t hold much water. Any test can be picked apart if the only point of picking it apart is to point out an area where some uncertainty might exist. No study, especially over something as complex as the human body is going to account for ever variable.
Or would you rather have these scientist force parent to have twins? So that they could then force them to vaccinate only 1, while everything else is identical. type of food eaten and amount, type and duration of exercise, amount and quality of sleep, reading, types of books, games, social interaction etc.
Sorry that’s also never going to happen. Therefor we have to make do with what we can, and all current best science demonstrates that there isn’t a casual link between vaccinations and autism.
There is room for reasonable doubt. And where there is room for reasonable doubt, all this scathing hatred against people responding to that doubt and being cautious about proceeding with vaccinating their children with dead or living deadly organisms – even in small amounts – with chemicals as adjuvants that have often been modified DUE to complications – is unjustified and misplaced.
Your claims that studies can’t be improved upon or it’s not going to happen are unnecessarily pessimistic and premature. We have the great science we have today because we didn’t settle 100 years ago, 50 years ago, last year. We should always expect a lot of our researchers when they are potentially using our tax dollars or private donations. Their results also have dramatic implications to the public (clearly, if this discussion forum is any indication). It is absolutely ok to have extremely high standards. And the cost to having anything less is disastrous mistakes… once again, thalidomide ring any bells? How about estrogen pills causing blood vessel rupture in some women?
I have ideas how studies can be improved upon and yes it may require more than one nation working together to produce research. I think the pool of unvaccinated subjects should at least come closer to matching the control sample. I think using a panel of diagnosticians to assess each and every subject and come to their own independent conclusion on any present diagnoses would be helpful. I have more ideas. I am not suggesting perfection. I am suggesting improvement and an admission by all you people that some of this blind faith in research studies is just as biased as the people you condemn who you feel aren’t research literate. Own it. It’s ok. In the end I vaccinated my children so I obviously buy in as well. But I don’t judge other parents for making different choices. I only judge willful ignorance and playground bullying tactics. Why doesn’t anyone get it? You continuously keep missing my point by focussing on what you perceive to be unattainable ideals rather than the core ideas of my responses?
Yet the study that the anti vax folks site again and again has been debunked many times and the “doctor” that conducted it admitted he did it for profit and had his license revoked. Where is your “proof” there is a connection? http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/04/01/cdc-research-refutes-link-between-autism-number-of-vaccines/53289.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/14/vaccine_and_autism_uk_measles_outbreaks_and_andrew_wakefield.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/14/vaccine_and_autism_uk_measles_outbreaks_and_andrew_wakefield.html http://www.bmj.com//content/336/7649/850.1
You must have missed the recent findings that autism is detectable in utero.
I think that’s far from all encompassing or even fully supported yet. There are possible genetic links. Maybe. And it wouldn’t cover all cases/types/manifestations of the disorder. Again, strawmannning. It’s driving me crazy.
This is absolutely outstanding (and I am awed and impressed by the amount of work it represents). Unimmunized children put pediatricians in a quandary … here are some thoughts on that problem: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/03/measles_outbreak_in_new_york_city_should_pediatricians_treat_unvaccinated.html
Is that all you got? Referring people to scientific journals. No wonder they don’t listen.
Not sure if this is satire or real life. All scientific articles represent is the output of people who have spent a considerable portion of their lives learning to make sure that they aren’t fooling themselves, vetted by people who are trying their best to see how the author’s might have screwed up, all whom are expert in how mother nature tries to fool us, and have probably said “@#@$%, I was fooled again” more than the lay public knows, or they care to admit. Its a lousy system, but its what gave us the computer you’re reading this on, the chair you’re sitting on, puts satellites in orbit, took AIDS from a lethal disease to a treatable disease (-in about 15 years from discovery of the causative organism), and took your expected lifespan from 46-48 in 1900 to 74-78 (born in 1998).
Truth. You hear that argument all the time about vaccinations and climate change. The idea being, science is a system that perpetuates its own untruths because educators’ and researchers’ careers depend upon always being “right.” No one stops to recognize that in these fields much more illustrious careers are made by exposing flaws and mistakes, correcting overlooked errors, and by exposing long-accepted fallacies. Science is a perfect machine operated by imperfect people, but the penalties for stupidity and malfeasance are much greater than the rewards of being correct.
The irony in your statement is that you really shouldn’t be using your computer to post if you are so insanely paranoid that science is some conspiracy, because clearly this vast conspiracy also gave us solid state electronics–and maybe they aren’t safe and don’t work either, right? And don’t drive a car or take a bus–those infernal internal combustion engines are all a conspiracy of people who build “illustrious” careers on fraud, right? Such hypocrisy from narrow-minded thinking is sad, but it perfectly illustrates the mindset of the anti-vaccine crowd. As a pediatrician who has seen unvaccinated children DIE from vaccine preventable diseases, I tell you the science behind vaccines is as sound as the science behind your computer–and if you are too unintelligent to grasp that when it comes to how vaccines eradicated smallpox and will soon eradicate polio and COULD eradicate measles–well I don’t know what more to say to you. –Chris Hickie, MD, PhD.
Wowee look at you waving your degrees around on a blog to make yourself seem more justified in ripping everyone else’s opinions apart….
ever occur to you how much indoctrination goes into your field and calling, DOCTOR? Pun intended. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror next time you talk about hypocrisy.
P.s. How many Pharmaceutical companies wined and dined you this week to help sell their products in your office? And don’t tell me that’s BS because I have friends still in med school or recently graduated who tell me the practice is alive and well. And I see the suits who walk into my doctor’s office with briefcases peddling their wares along with their pretty faces so I know it doesn’t end at graduation.
And before you attempt to tell me how unintelligent you THINK I am, save your breath. I have enough intelligence to know you can tell piss all about me from 10 lines on a blog. With a PhD and MD I think it’s disgraceful you wouldn’t know this obvious truth yourself. I feel sorry for your patients. You have a lot of power for someone who speaks so ignorantly and you clearly abuse it.
“You’re basing your argument entirely on facts. No wonder people won’t listen.” Is that because you’re determined to live the rest of your life in some fantasy world?
People who understand science always vaccinate their kids. People who don’t vaccinate kids don’t know anything about science.
Wow that is a harsh stereotype.
It’s true. As someone who studies biomedical sciences, most AV statement make no sense whatsoever.
If anti-vaxers don’t want to be harshly stereotyped, they should stop being so stupid.
I think there are two flavors of anti-vaxxers. The first are the people who, like Andrew Wakefield, are profiting (via money or fame) off of disputing established science. They’re the ones I have absolutely no sympathy for. The second are the parents (for whom I wrote this and several other articles) who are acting in what they mistakenly believe to be the best interests of their children. I don’t know that it helps to lump them together (i.e. https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/20/the-most-important-playground-conversation-how-to-persuade-a-friend-to-vaccinate/)
I think the profit argument is weak in favour of those sparking healthy debate around vaccinations. I’m pretty sure the profit argument relies entirely on a mass mob who blindly take drugs and shoot their children up with them without question versus the opposite. No one seems to discuss who funds these studies and what their vested interests and ulterior motives might be. Who has all the money and the most to lose? Let’s think about it.
I think it’s hard to argue that vaccines are largely a feel good story with more much more mass benefit than cost. But burying the rare costs doesn’t make them disappear nor does it give people the right to persecute those who bring light to them. Who are you to tell someone who happened to be one of those rare unfortunate exceptions that their sacrifice is worth it so that everyone else can take vaccinations guilt and thought free for the betterment of the masses. Would you feel the same if it was you or your child who was that unfortunate exception? These are real people, real lives, affected forever. The mass benefit never changes the reality of the micro exceptions.
And I once read of a study of an American physician and nurse couple who successfully sued the government for a neurological disorder their son contracted that they were able to prove was related to how many different vaccinations he took in a relatively short time period (but following the regular vaccination schedule guidelines). I wish I remembered any of their names so I could cite it but it was around 2008 when I had my first son that I did the research review. These are people who stake their income, careers, and livelihoods on having a solid understanding and appreciation for the scientific method of research, diagnosis, and prognosis. So I think those that pigeonhole so ignorantly speak more to their own narrowness of understanding rather than those they criticize
All my children have all their vaccinations but I am always alarmed when people start insulting each other for having fears, wanting more information, having doubts or asking questions. When science becomes it’s own blinding hypocritical religion, we really need to start worrying.
ALWAYS research, always have a healthy level of skepticism, always ask questions. Be critical of the person/people who discourage this practice. They are the ones with something to hide or the ignorance not to know better.
Parents have an absolute DUTY to make sure what they are giving their children is safe by asking their OWN questions and doing their OWN research and being encouraged to do so not just blindly taking some people on a blog’s word for it – and a verbal beating if they dare to have a different understanding or opinion. How arrogant and ignorant are you people? YOU people are the ones dirtying the value of science and making it sound dangerously close to a cult-like religion where doubt and inquisition is discouraged. True science always begs for more questions, more research, not absolute certainties that make everyone look foolish later when they are proved false.
If parents wish to judge for themselves the quality of science that goes into the development, testing, and manufacturing of vaccines, they need to get the PhD level education in at least one biological science that will prepare them to perform the analysis. Just as, if they want to manage a retirement plan for themselves and others, they need the appropriate education in finance, the stock markets (foreign and domestic), and the trends in the various industries where they plan to invest. Just as, if they want to design their own automobile, they’ll need the appropriate education in engineering and all of the physics that goes into understanding how the internal combustion engine works and/or the development, manufacturing, and maintenance of the components of the electric motors and the batteries necessary to propel the automobile AND a thorough understanding of all of the legislation and case law that affects construction of automobiles. None of us can be experts in all of these things. Can you design and build your own computer, smart phone, and e-reader? AND do all of the above? And plan, prepare the ground for, plant the seeds, tend them, harvest the crops, and preserve foods as necessary in order to feed your family every year? You MUST be trusting some people in regard to some of these important parts of your lives. How do you judge the quality of the surgeon who offers to save your life if your appendix is infected and ready to burst? Do you monitor him or her doing X number of appendectomies while you develop peritonitis and die? How do you decide on the qualifications of the dentist who fills your tooth? The lawyer who helps you write your will? The title search company that makes sure you’ll have a clear title to the house you want to buy? The pharmacist who prepares the prescribed antibiotic for that potentially life threatening infection you’ve developed?
People aren’t experts in MOST of the important areas in their lives. There may still be some hunter-gatherer cultures in South America and Africa where each adult male is at least competent in ALL of the roles a male in that culture is expected to fulfill and where each adult female is at least competent in all of the roles a female in that culture is expected to fulfill — but I wouldn’t bet on it. That being said, you’re trusting a lot of people whose jobs are less complex than those of the people who study illnesses, develop vaccines, test those vaccines, then get them approved and finally manufacture them and make them available to the public. Perhaps you’re positive that you are entirely as capable at maintaining a modern car as is your mechanic; at assessing whether your food is safe as the FDA; at determining whether that food that’s labeled “organic” really is organic as the FDA and Dept. of Agriculture; at determining whether the laws under which you might be prosecuted are appropriately written as the Supreme Court; etc. I happen to know I’m not, but I’ve been around the block a number of times and have seen a lot of people have their supposed expertise blow up in their faces.
Get real. You simply cannot, in a period of months or even a period of several years, develop sufficient expertise to do the research necessary to determine whether a vaccine is adequately safe and efficacious for general use. The science is incredibly complex and difficult to learn, so you have to decide who to trust. A Google search isn’t going to do a particularly good job of finding trustworthy sources for you. The best you can do is read the scientific literature and see if the studies, as reported, were well designed, whether the researchers appear to have the appropriate credentials, and whether the information on who was studied in any way applies to you. As has been repeatedly pointed out, NOTHING in life is 100% safe; the statistics are clear that getting these diseases carries a far higher risk of disability and death than getting the vaccines; and the science doesn’t yet exist to identify who’s at risk from vaccines who wouldn’t be at risk from the diseases and vice versa. Almost all of our health care providers are doing the absolute best they know how to limit risks, promote health, diagnose disease, and provide good treatments for diseases and injuries where such treatments exist.
@Hancock. I am not stating you need to be an expert. But I feel it’s a parent’s due diligence and duty to be informed. Being informed meaning taking a healthy look at ALL sides of a given argument. And I absolutely don’t think presenting only one side and saying (in simple summation terms) ‘you are stupid, ignorant, selfish, unintelligent (insert derogatory word of choice here)’ if you dare to put any credence into an argument that DOESN’T support your side, well then I think we have a case of hypocrisy in it’s purest form.
If all the research supporting vaccination is so compelling, then all of you so loudly lauding this article should certainly invite parents to learn as much as they can from all sources…. as it will only make this compelling irrefutable research stand out from the rest even more. Right? You have no doubts, after all.
But the reality is, Hancock, there are troubling statistics and evidence of hidden results in the pharmaceutical industry that would result in mass hysteria if it were to be discovered by the mainstream ALL THE TIME. Financially driven or not, pharmaceutical companies AND governments have a hell of a lot more to lose if this happens rather than covering up anything that doesn’t make their results look 100% safe and beautiful. It is YOU all that need to get real. You can put faith in expert information, of course, but blind faith when it comes to health is equally foolish. And yes I think an appendix about to burst and this are two different camps. Don’t strawman my argument to suit your needs. If I have a longer more chronic disease, however, you’ll bet your ass I am going to be asking for second, third, and tenth opinions. As do most people who feel their lives are on the line. It’s not personal. It’s a perfectly acceptable need to have some understanding about something so important, thus regaining a little control in circumstances where you may otherwise feel helpless.
Thalidomide happened. It happened. What do you think the naysayers of that disaster, before it was discovered, were subject to? Good thing they had some healthy skepticism. Their children thank them as well.
LET PEOPLE FIND ANSWERS IN THEIR OWN WAY. From health practitioners, from peer reviewed articles, from family and friends, from Google. All of it. By putting others down you are only driving people further on this ridiculous us vs. them argument. Creating false dichotomy rarely gets people to change their minds. It further polarizes and causes things to become even more emotionally driven rather than intellectual. This argument, as is the case with many that black and white thinkers just can’t get their heads around, is a CONTINUUM not “vaccinators versus anti-vaxx crowd”. Or “smart vs, stupid” or “knowers of science and non”
Yes, I got my children vaccinated and yes, I have my doubts BECAUSE I consider myself quite well-informed. I can appreciate the ravage these diseases play on communities without benefit of access to vaccine and I can appreciate how skewed medical practitioners who are exposed to these diseases, people, and statistics’ view would be in support of vaccine because that just makes sense. Yes I feel fortunate to have access to it freely here in Canada. Yes I work with hundreds of kids with developmental disabilities – many of them autism – and the rate of increase in diagnosis is astounding – and cannot simply be explained by “it’s more recognized and socially acceptable ergo it is more likely to be diagnosed now”. And yes the amount of times I hear from distraught parents that their young children had hit developmental milestones such as babble and making eye contact only to seem to recede in those gains after a severe fever post-vaccination is frightening. And I am NOT about to tell those parents it’s simply coincidence because a few studies are funded and resourced by people with much more to gain by discrediting their fears than vice versa. Are you? No, many of you are at arms’ (or football fields’) length from these issues so you can sit on your thrones of disapproval and imagined intellectual superiority and cite ‘but the retrospective, extremely imbalanced, yet irrefutable, all-powerful research!!!’ (except you leave the retrospective and imbalanced bits out).
And I have a Masters in Physiology/Psychology – emphasis on Neuropsych and Animal Behaviour. Sorry it’s not a Ph.D. but I wouldn’t exactly consider myself a rookie to scientific research considering I have completed and defended my own thesis. I have a healthy appreciation for the Discussion/Limitations section of every research article and can happily come up with at least a dozen confounding variables that the author didn’t have time/space to write about, thought was too controversial, or hadn’t even thought about him/herself.
priceless123, meet Drs. Dunning and Kruger. They might want to study you.
For everyone else: I am referring to the Dunning-Kruger effect, short-hand for saying that people who are not experts in a particular field convince themselves they have learned enough to argue with results published by the experts in that field. Also scathingly refered to as “Google University”, which people like priceless123 are convinced after a few weeks or months grants expertise higher than board certified doctors and tenured professors with PhDs who have worked in a field for decades, hence they can “make up their own minds” to counter the findings of the vast majority of scientists and medical practitioners.
People who say always and never when it comes to human behaviour demonstrate ignorance and a lack of ability for critical thought.
A priceless-could you please document why the increases in autism spectrum disorders could not be attributed to broadened definitions and increased surveillance? Or is that just a “gut feeling”. Since you’ve done a Master’s you should know what that counts for. Please also account for other variables such as increasing parental age at first child, environmental factors, increased survival of preterm babies, increased survival of children with genetic deformities, and other known risk factors for ASD
I think you answered your own question – there are several factors that need more investigation and research. I haven’t done a thorough lit review recently as I have been out of school awhile now, so yes more recently most of my reason to question is anecdotally based on the over 200 families I have worked with for the last few years. Just like this author and many doctors also feel strongly based on their experiences treating their patients. I don’t just work with children and adults with autism but a host of developmental disabilities. This debate has sparked me to want to refresh my literature understanding for sure. I never claimed to be a current research expert and I already exhausted this arugment with another poster.
I think I need to be clear. I am not positing that I believe vaccines cause autism. I AM saying that parents who have concerns and reasons to doubt have valid concerns and have a right and duty to do more than simply blindly shoot up their children because the current mainstream says so. Only some are based on the limitations and political/financial motivations of existing scientific studies. Some concerns have to do with fear and concerns about corruption among lawmakers and policy bodies. Some have to do with how previous mishaps have been handled.
What I don’t think is ok is demonizing people for having these concerns and giving credence to sources that you choose to subscribe to. It’s just as biased and ignorant as those who are being judged for being such.
I will do some homework as admittedly I am behind the times and will post links should it still be relevant. I wear a lot of hats and am responsible to a lot of people so I can’t make this single issue my life presently.
Priceless-actually, in the legal profession, they have a phrase “Asked and answered, move on”. There are a variety of things that could be causing an increase in ASD, but we know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that vaccines aren’t one of them. It makes as much sense as somebody saying “My child was born with a handicap because the sky is blue.” Therefore, I have no problem harassing people who say that autism is caused by vaccines.
If your goal is persuasion with reason then I hardly think “harassment” is the way to go. And guess what. There’s a real world, out there, outside the questionable statistical analysis of a handful of cases. You can say mass amounts of anecdotal evidence (i.e. “varied and rich life experience”) doesn’t count for anything but that’s your opinion. In my eyes, both what I have seen and know through my own experience PLUS what I see and read and know ergo faith in other people’s experience (or research) both have a valuable place. And I think the logical stance is to consider everything and draw independent conclusion rather than attempting to force people through bullying tactics to do what you say.
Brava!
That made my day! Thank you 🙂
While I agree that immunizing children is a good thing, it seems you are glossing over the allergy aspect. My son when he was a small child when we went to get him immunized for I think the Flu vaccine at a public vaccination clinic. At the time he was lethally allergic to egg protein, which the nurse administering believed it contained. So it made absolutely no sense to immunize our son at the risk of his life. I’m interested in what you have to say about that.
If you are allergic to any component of a vaccine, you should of course not be immunized. Nobody debates that, we rely “herd immunity” to protect those not able to be immunized for whatever medical reason-allergies, immunodeficiencies, ect…, making it more incumbent on those who can be immunized to be immunized
Did you even read the whole article? This is addressed. She points out that people with immune deficiencies or who are allergic to components of vaccines rely on everybody else getting vaccinated to help protect them. Your son may not be able to be vaccinated due to his allergy, but if all the other kids at his school are vaccinated he is unlikely to be exposed to the illness. That protects him too.
I read the article 3 times. To a lay person such as myself I have no clue until now what herd immunity is. You might want to consider that not all readers have a scientific background. Thank you very much for implying that I’m stupid. Not a good way to treat people who are actually on your side of the argument.
Randy-herd immunity is the phenomena of a disease petering out if there are not enough susceptible organisms around. It’s very similar to a forest fire dying down when it runs into a thinned forest, or perhaps more aptly, a burned over area. Since the fuel density isn’t high enough to support athe fire, the trees in the burned area are safe, even though they are perfectly able to burn
I apologize for not including a link to an explanation of herd immunity. I’ve updated the post to include this. Thanks for your feedback.
Randy, I just wanted to chime in because the person who implied that you were stupid wasn’t the writer of the article. It was another commenter, one who hid behind “anonymous” to try to make you feel stupid. I would have been ticked off if someone addressed me in that way, too.
When you don’t understand what a concept means, you’re supposed to look it up in a dictionary or on the world wide web. That is what I was taught when I was seven and I was reading books with words way too big for me to comprehend. When I found words I couldn’t pronounce or comprehend, my mom gave me a dictionary and told me to look them up. So now as an adult, when I encounter a word or a term that I don’t understand [such as herd immunity, though I pretty much understood what it means just by the context], instead of looking stupid, I go to Google and look up “Herd Immunity,” and I know what it means. At some point in your life you have to take some responsibility for your own education. Some of us start taking that responsibility sooner than others and some people never take it, but those who do take it will make fun of the people who don’t. Your choice.
*My mother, by the way, is a layperson like yourself.
And an even less likely way to encourage people on the other side of debate that this way of thinking might be more valuable, helpful, or accurate.
If a person like your son has a valid medical reason to not be immunized (some do exist) then it is even more important that healthy people with no valid medical reasons to avoid immunization get vaccinated. This brings up the herd immunity and protects your child.
An egg allergy rules out getting the flu vaccine, at least as it is currently made, but I hope it does not stop you from vaccinating your child with all of the other vaccines not made using eggs.
As an allergist/immunologist, I work frequently with kids who have food allergies. There are established protocols to manage vaccination (flu included) in children with food allergies. Even children with anaphylaxis to egg can be safely vaccinated, but should see an allergist first for evaluation. The amount of egg in the flu vaccine is so small that it is incredibly rare for someone with an egg allergy to react to it. There are people who may have an allergy to the vaccine itself but we also have testing for that and almost always still give the vaccine in graded doses even if testing suggests an allergy. As immunologists our goal is to make sure EVERY healthy child can get vaccinated for the sake of our less fortunate patients who have immune deficiencies that prevent them from getting vaccinated. Please make an appointment with an allergist if you have more questions. I hope that provides some clarification.
Thank you- I stand corrected about egg allergies, and happily so.
There are flu vaccines that are safe for people with egg allergies. Allergic reactions are the most common of the rare serious side effects. No one is denying that and people with allergies that cannot take a certain vaccine are depending on the protection the rest of us provide.
Most people with egg allergies can now be immunized with flu vaccine. From the CDC: “All currently available influenza vaccines are prepared by inoculation of virus into chicken eggs. Hypersensitivity to eggs has been listed as a contraindication to receipt of influenza vaccine on most package inserts. However, several recent studies have documented safe receipt of TIV in persons with egg allergy (21–29), and recent revisions of some TIV package inserts note that only a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to egg protein is a contraindication. In general, these studies include relatively fewer persons reporting a history of anaphylactic reaction to egg, compared with less severe reactions. Several documents providing guidance on use of influenza vaccine in persons with egg allergy have been published recently (30–32).” http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6033a3.htm?s_cid=mm6033a3_w
I believe she addressed that when she referred to children, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated. Having an allergy to a component in the vaccines is a valid reason to not vaccinate. That is why herd immunity is so important, and why those kids who can be vaccinated are.
you can get an egg free vaccine.
ever heard of dilated cardiomyopathy? google it. my son is 3. he has dilated cardiomyopathy…there is no cure. a heart transplant is the only thing that will prevent an early death. he got this from swine flu at 4 months old. get the egg free vaccine.
Or, if you don’t want to do the work of reading the science, if you love yourself some anecdotal evidence, get some anecdotes from people who know what they’re talking about.
Talk to people like my Mum, who remembers children DYING from measles and whooping cough and then watching that change with the introduction of the vaccines. Listen to their stories of how, once heard, that ‘whoop’ can never be forgotten as you know it can mean death.
Speak to your doctor, who will tell you that there is no specific anti-viral treatment for measles and that one in 1000 cases lead to brain fever, with resulting brain damage (if not death).
Talk to my cousin, whose child was born with a congenital condition that means that the common cold can be deadly, then say it’s fine for perfectly healthy kids to go unimunised because it only affects them and their families.
And please, do not start with me on that nonsense about autism. The ‘study’ that started that was not only flawed, by any measure, but now appears was also FAKED. (http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20110105/bmj-wakefield-autism-faq) IT’S NOT TRUE. And you know what? Even if it were, even if there was a miniscule chance that a vaccine could cause autism, I would rather have an autistic child than a dead one. And yes, I do have a child and yes I vaccinated her and that exact thought was what was in my head when I did it. So shove that in your anecdotal pipe, vaccine-deniers and get a clue.
Thanks for the post, Jennifer.
Amen! I have an autistic son, and I vaccinated all my children and would do so again. The implication that possibly dying is better than having autism is offensive. I hate the anti-vaccination crowd so much.
I think that one of the arguments against science is that it’s nothing but a big system of back-pats and yes-men.
The truth of the matter is, as much as scientist A comes up with something, scientist B is going to say, “No. I don’t take your word for it. I’m going to find out for my ownself”- because that’s what scientists do. Recent work by the above-quoted Neil Degrasse Tyson is an example of this. When people talk about “the scientific community,” what they’re actually talking about are a group of people who are going to try their hardest to prove each other wrong.
But then, of course, if the people arguing against science KNEW anything about science, they’d already know this.
I have a severe dairy allergy. IF my allergy was caused by vaccinations instead of genetics, I would much rather skip over the piece of pizza with extra cheese than, you know, be unable to walk from childhood polio.
IF vaccinations caused autism (which they don’t), I would rather have a son with a sensory perception disorder than a grave from where my son died from the measles.
My son has a bleeding disorder that means we have to see a pediatric oncologist. THOSE kids, the ones we see there in wheelchairs, or the ones who don’t have any hair left- THOSE are the kids that we need to vaccinate for. Because while the chicken pox might just make my kids a little sick, the chicken pox would undoubtedly kill those children. I can’t live with that.
This,. ohh so much this.
❤
This.
See also: Why you should stay home when you’re sick, even if it’s “just a cold.”
For you, it’s just a cold. For someone with CF or immunodeficiency or what have you, it’s a potentially life threatening infection.
Question: Is there a way that you can add a picture to this article? Most of the Anti Vaccination/ anti science movement happens to be on pinterest, if you add a pic then we can link to it and start inundating that section of the web with useful information such as your article. (especially with your links to sources for people to look at) Unfortunately, the anti science/ vaccination people know this and their information spreads like wildfire, whereas our data and articles don’t and they can’t move around as quickly.
That’s a very good suggestion. I will add a photo tonight–thank you!
Edited: I’ve updated the post to include a photo.
You forgot a side. Some of us think the world is overpopulated and a little death is necessary. Imagine if 55 million people didn’t die every year.
Death may be necessary, but that doesn’t mean *you* get to choose to kill *my* child, or anyone else’s healthy children.
Yes, we’re overpopulated. But not-vaccinating is not anything resembling a healthy or even sane cure for that.
you forget most of these deaths are children…you’re saying this is ok?
I think the person who posted about the millions of deaths that could happen if we just didn’t vaccinate was being sarcastic as hell trying to penetrate the impenetrable cloak of ignorance worn by a previous poster. Obviously, none of us pro-vax folks are willing to tolerate even one avoidable death or disability, especially in an innocent child.
except if that disability was a result of a vaccine. Hmm.
well considering the alternative. The removal of small pox and diphtheria alone would be worth the risk. It’s actually quite common for medicines, treatments and surgeries to be performed if the reward significantly outweighs the risk. If vaccines could be made 100% failsafe, with 0% risk then of course we would want that. However that’s completely impossible (or least with our current technology, maybe one day we\ll have the ability to genetically map each person for a vaccine that produces no side effects and works forever – but I won’t hold my breath for it.) as anyone with a masters degree in physiology should know. The risk vs reward factor of vaccines is so very heavily weighted to the rewards side that it’s borderline willfully negligent to not get children, who do not have allergies or immune system issues that contraindicate, vaccinated.
It’s only willfully negligent if you think in terms of numbers instead in terms of lives. I agree, from my viewpoint I tend to side with you. And perhaps it is statistically more likely these days to contract Pertussis, Polio-like symptoms, diptheria or tetanus than it used to be. But this wasn’t always the case. Parents 10-20 years ago may have felt it was more likely they could see their child have a severe complication from a vaccine than contract a disease that had been virtually absent for years. And yes, I don’t need a lesson in herd immunity I am just stating what I think might be plausible.
Having seen and worked with enough families devastated from an inability to cope trying to care for one or sometimes multiple children with severe developmental disabilities who swear things changed post vaccination, I am not willing to judge the decisions of another about what they feel will protect their children. If they are willfully negligent the justice system in their regions can decide that based on ALL the facts of their particular cases and reasons not just some kangaroo court here on the internet. This is a far cry from leaving your child on the street on failing to feed your baby. Comparisons to the like is unfair, inaccurate, and don’t do justice to the intricacies and complexities of this issue.
My science background, career of choice, and life experiences have taught me to have a more balanced view on what can be ascertained from research studies. One day formula is god, the next it’s breastmilk. One day birth control is related to increase in cancer, the next day it’s associated with decreases. Thalidomide was a drug of choice until enough babies were born with deformities. Mercury supposedly didn’t cause any damage in vaccines but it has all but disappeared as an adjuvant. Why would that be, I wonder. Come on. Healthy skepticism should be encouraged not pegged as criminality. A parent has a right to make an INFORMED decision. All of your (and the posting community’s on here, generally) ire is misplaced in criticism of parents. Criticize underhanded self-serving politicians and pharmaceutical companies, and people in positions of power who regularly abuse that power. The wariness and mistrust of these people and citizen malaise goes far beyond the vaccine debate and you all know it. It’s because facts touted as irrefutable one day are disproven the next, you regularly hear of people in court for misusing their power as physicians and lawmakers and these stories resonate with people. I am not even going get into the horrible track record of Big Pharma or I’ll be here all night. But I know enough to know what I don’t know and to respect the other. And I’m going to suggest you all do the same and leave it at that.
Also sometimes parents don’t know about contraindications for getting vaccinated until it’s too late. The fact that there are several contraindications is reason enough for fear, pause and a desire for more balanced facts. How will I always know my 6 week old may have a contraindicated disorder for his first dTaP? What if initial bloodtests and ultrasounds didn’t/couldn’t pick it up?
How many times do parents not realize giving most vaccine to children with fever is contraindicated and how many doctors check? I know at least a few times I have come in with one of my boys for a scheduled visit and even after saying “my son has a fever” (which should signal to them… hold off on the scheduled vaccine until next visit) one of the nurses would come in ready to inject? Imagine if I was less informed or was less willing to challenge authority? People are right to be wary and this should not be demonized!
Diseases that we vaccinate against are not usually eliminated due to the fact that not every country has access to them. 15 years ago I lived rather close to the Mexican border, and Polio was a big deal. We heard about it all the time from the news across the border. Our society isn’t like old Europe’s. We’re not stationary, we migrate much more than they did. Our society is at greater risk due to this not less which means do to the mobility of our population our herb immunity is much less robust than people think. be skeptical, but don’t base that skepticism on pseudoscience BS spouted from an actress whose only claim to fame is spreading her legs for playboy.
You are right, that what we think we know about the human body is always changing, and usually because of someones healthy skepticism about it. However they try to get the best science process done to “prove” their theory. Which means they may also have to disprove someone else’s. So far, no one from the other side has done anything at all like a legitimate study that shows a casual link between vaccinations and an increase in autism rates. So far they haven’t even been about to disprove that the increase is due to a broader definition of autism and better screening for it.
We don’t vaccinate based on what the best possible bad consequence of a disease outbreak is. Much like emergency medicine (which is what I do) we work off of the worst possible outcomes. We don’t say well most people who get the flu are uncomfortable, and spend a couple days at home, feeling like shit… we consider the number of people that the flu has, and does kill every year. The object is to prevent death and severe physical harm which includes the brain, to protect the weaker people (the elderly, the very young, and those people with compromised immune systems).
However short of hooking every child every where to a CAT/MRI and doing continual brain imaging after being given a vaccine. In order to verify that no chemical change to the brain took place. The accuracy in testing that your expecting doesn’t exist. So how can we “prove” it? Which in turn means that there in no 100% guarantee that something bad will not happen due to a vaccine. However the risk/reward ratio is so very heavily skewed in favor of vaccines. We know for a certainty what the diseases we vaccinate against do. We know they kill, main, cripple, disfigure. We know that most vaccinated children don’t have any problems at all. Medicine is all about risk vs reward, this really isn’t any different.
Yes some pro vaccers are rabid.. and so are many anti-vaccer’s. I wish civil discourse were possible.
Yes abuse of power happens, but then so does people taking advantage of the uniformed. worried, or just plain gullible. IE snake oil salesmen.
And to argue on one hand that the odds of having a mortal/severe case of any disease are slim and there for not to be overly worried about, While on the other hand arguing that the even slimmer chance that you may have a bad side effect from a vaccine is reason not to get them. just seems highly counter intuitive.
I’m more than willing to hold a conversation about it. Until they mention the pin-up doll as an authority. then I kinda lose my mind.
Yes parents should educate themselves, and be properly educated (not coerced) about vaccines by their PCP. It’s a fair question to ask what the contraindications are, and how do I know if my child has them. And I won’t ever demonize a person for getting that information.
I will demonize them for some of the other reasons I’ve seen and heard for why they don’t immunize their children. To include “well Jenny said” and “my friend didn’t”
Really, Mike, I think your points are all valid. Which is why my kids are vaccinated. Civil discourse – owning the areas that could use improvement and admitting that there is a certainly an emotional component to this (on both sides) – would be a great start imo. I am not about to say with absolute confidence that there is no relationship between vaccinations and neurological/developmental issues even if rare. Courts have supported parents who have sued so I know that not every “expert” is convinced either. I don’t think it has been nearly as “disproved” as everyone claims, though I concur it’s harder to prove a non-relation. I prefer to take my (and my children’s) chances in order to avoid MMR and dTP for sure. But that is my informed decision. I am not about to vilify others for coming to another decision they feel is informed. I agree that I would hope they dug a little deeper than doing what their family did or what Jenny McCarthy said. But I think it’s unfair to put all doubters in this pot. It’s a nice strawman representation that makes the pro-vaccination crowd look more legitimate, justified in their open hostility.
Vaccination does not = immunization, Empirical issues can be anecdotal conclusions
There is such a huge difference between vaccination not being 100.0000% effective (what is?) versus your first sentence that I call it deliberately misleading nonsense. As far as your second sentence(?), it is so incomplete as to be nonsense as well. Let me add my own equation: Your Information content added to this discussion = 0. *If* you really have a doctoral degree, I hope it is in marketing and not in medicine of any sort. (It sure is not in a scientific field.)
Vaccination is a way to immunize. Why the semantics?
Thank you for pointing out those that cannot be vaccinated or are more prone to disease count on herd immunity. With the prevalence and understanding of so many disease in today’s world, mumps and measles shouldn’t be two more things for oh, say, cancer patients, the chronically ill, etc to worry about.
Exactly. To use a personal example, my (now deceased) sister was one of those who couldn’t be vaccinated because of a chronic illness. I have complete sympathy for those who must depend on herd immunity to protect themselves or their children.
thank you, thank you, thank you. Did I mention thank you. The stupidity must cease.
Reblogged this on Geek science fact of the day and commented:
A fantastic piece of sensible, rational writing. Do read it.
As someone who studies the 18th century history of western medicine, I can say that many people died and physicians labored to make vaccines as safe and effective as they are today.
According to the London Bills of Mortality, 108,886 people died from small pox between 1700-1758.
Likewise, during the same time span, the following number (approx) of people died in London and the surrounding parishes alone.
Measles: 10,000 people
Whooping Cough: 4,430
And that’s just those diseases…
The ‘natural’ days were not clean, they were not safe, and infant mortality was so high that people took to not naming their children until they turned 3-5 so that they wouldn’t get attached to them.
Yes, thank you for your comment! Evidently the anti-vaccine movement is also telling parents that vaccines brought cancer into the world:
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/an-open-letter-to-my-facebook-friends/#comment-32902
Taking advantage of parents’ ignorance (I recognize that not everyone knows paleopathology) is just despicable.
Hm… Back to the Book of Mortality (not to be confused with the Wheel of Morality…)
Cancer killed 3,538 people in London and the surrounding parishes between 1700-1758.
i’m still boggled by people who won’t get their kids vaccinated because think they know more than what has been irrevocably proven and have a profound misunderstanding of herd immunity. relying on other children being vaccinated to protect your own is like refusing to wear a life vest after jumping a sinking ship in a raging storm and expecting other struggling survivors to keep you afloat. it’s an odd combination of arrogance and ignorance.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!
gray area statements like this by Dr. Bill Sears:
The problem is, no mainstream researcher has yet to PROVE that vaccines are a contributor to autism. And because vaccines play an important role in preventing disease, we will need some pretty solid proof that vaccines contribute to autism before some will be taken off the market. Right now the Centers for Disease Control’s official statement (paraphrased) is that autism is clearly on the rise, that there is not enough evidence to prove a link between autism and vaccines, and that further research is being done on the matter.
I think it’s important to keep an open mind. Although vaccines themselves may not be harmful, many of additives, are considered toxic. For example, vaccines now use aluminum instead of mercury, but we are just beginning to understand how aluminum affects the brain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/
Anne, the aluminum issue has been addressed. If you look at the links I post above you’ll find that the amount present in the vaccines is tiny– far less than that present in, for example, breast milk.
They do not use aluminum instead of mercury. They use an aluminum salt as an adjuvant and it is not a recent thing. Aluminum in salts are as poisonous for you as chlorine in salts. Mammals have a good mechanism for eliminating salts and the elements are tightly bound.
Reblogged this on Adventures and Musings of an Arch Druidess and commented:
I remember polio. I had the
Thank you! I was born blind in one eye and partially sighted in the other because some stupid selfish person went out in public and exposed my mother so she got the measles. I had classmates that were deaf because of measles and mumps and a few that had polio. Do we really want to be raising a generation of blind and deaf kids when a simple shot could prevent it. Wait until people start sueing the parents of the kids with measles.
Reblogged this on scraps from a bemused mind. and commented:
So well written, measured, even, thoughtful.
Please read, follow the links, educate yourself.
I think all the hormones put in animals for food have more to do with more children having Autism, than vaccines , think all the hormones also explain earlier puberty as well.
Btw my son is on the autism spectrum and I highly doubt the vaccines are to blame, pretty sure my father must of had aspergers.
It looks like not even epidemics of measles are “that big of a deal” for some in the community. Because of course, you can’t interview the people who *didn’t* recover from measles… http://community.babycenter.com/post/a48759415/help_news_of_local_measles_outbreak
Reblogged this on Terryflowers Blog.
I’m going to follow up on your links as soon as possible. I really appreciate the way you wrote and that you didn’t put those confused parents down, or employ scare tactics. I am one of them. I’ve been reading about vaccines for 7 years, sitting on the fence, wanting to keep my kids safe, finding some of the anti-vaccine information compelling, and yet not feeling able to respect that information as it comes from these sites that also seem untrustworthy.
Recently, a friend pointed me to a website where someone had taken those graphs (you know the ones that show that every disease was declining before the vaccine was introduced for that disease, as proof that improved sanitation was the true cause of disease decline?), and showed how the data points had been selectively chosen to make those graphs. I was amazed! It was wonderful!
I know about herd-immunity. I’ll read your link soon anyhow. But, I was wondering if you could address this person’s argument about it? http://www.h4cblog.com/vaccines-and-the-myth-of-herd-immunity
I can’t quite see why he would be wrong – regarding vaccines wearing off and most of our adult population no longer having immunity. But I really want to know.
And, also, years ago I was hearing about a rise in Shingles cases among children, supposedly because of the vaccination. Do you know anything about this?
Thanks!
Hi again. I also have another question. I’m reading your CDC link to whooping cough information. I’ve never heard of getting the Tdap with each pregnancy – that must not be the recommendation here in Canada. But anyhow. I’ve read in the last few years also that the outbreaks of pertussis recently haven’t been attributed to unvaccinated population – but that the disease itself is shifting and becoming immune to the antibodies produced via the vaccine. Is this true? In particular, I remember reading a CDC page about this, about pertussis outbreaks not being caused by people who aren’t vaccinating. Thanks.
No, there is a problem with the vaccine induced immunity. It only last 5-7 years and begins to wane in efficacy after 2 years in teens and preteens. The outbreaks are always in areas with low vaccine uptake rates, but they spread to the vaccinated too.
The measles portion of the MMR most likely last for life. I had one in 1972 and I have strong immunity for all three.
Well, he is actually wrong about everything because he is not using the concept correctly. The first problem is there is only immunity, there is no difference between vaccine induced immunity and pathogen induced immunity. Second, tetanus is not a communicable disease so has nothing to do with herd immunity. Even if everyone on earth were vaccinated for tetanus except 1 person, if they got a cut and it was infected with a tetanus toxin producing bacterium they would get it.
So, herd immunity is just having so many immune people, whether through illness or vaccination, that a pathogen cannot gain access to the susceptible people because they are hiding in the herd. The pertussis vaccine is actually a good example of herd immunity breaking down. I am from a generation that got the DTP instead of the DTaP, immunity from DTP is of the same duration as a natural infection (15-25 years). When they switched to the DTaP which causes less side effects but is not near as effective we started having outbreaks of pertussis because immunity wanes in adolescents instead of when you are out of college. Europe just approved two new acellular pertussis formulations, hopefully they will prove to have the right antigens for effective long term immunity.
I want to know who is saying that Whooping Cough isn’t bad for kids.
I’m 36 years old. I went to Disney World. I came back with Whooping Cough. While I was vaccinated as a kid, no one ever told me I needed a booster.
As I suffered through that, I thought that if I had a smaller body and didn’t know how to catch my breath, this shit could be fatal. Let me explain to all the people who think that vaccinations aren’t necessary what happens to you when you get whooping cough.
You cough until you CANNOT breathe. You gasp for air. They had to give me an inhaler just to get me through the worst of it.
You cough so hard that you shit and pee your pants. One day, in the course of 15 minutes, I had to change pants 4 times. You just cough and cough and cough and your body just gives.
You cough until you either pull something or bust a rib. It was near the end of the worst that I tore a muscle in the right side of my chest. Think about coughing with that pain. Just think about it for a minute.
When I went to the doctor, she told me that there had been more outbreaks in the past three years than in a LONG time. She said that while people still occasionally got it, in the recent past, outbreaks had been getting worse.
Gee. I wonder why.
Vaccinate your kids. Adults, go see what boosters you need to get. I had just had a physical a month before and wasn’t informed about boosters. I had no idea. Go to your doctor and ask him what you need.
And those of you who aren’t vaccinating because of bad research: shame on you. You put my health, the health of my family and the health of everyone in danger.
Shame. On. You. Your ignorance will do us all in.
Thank you for sharing your story. I am so sorry you had to experience this. I took care of a little boy who had whooping cough once, and I will never forget how awful it was for him.
Reblogged this on vaxplanations and commented:
Highly recommended reading
Wonderful post, thanks for writing it!
I would love to write a lengthy comment on how much I love this article but my healthy and boisterous and very clever vaccinated child is keeping me very busy this morning.
But I will say this: my 5 month old baby brother caught measles from the child of some well meaning antivaxxer he was so sick and suffered so much. He was never the same afterwards. It was horrific to watch him suffer. Not only that, we had to take him to the doctors and sit in a waiting room with vulnerable people who may not have had the option of being vaccinated. It was a tense situation. When it came to vaccination time for my own daughter those memories made it all a no-brainer and I jabbed her like the cute pink chubby pin cushion she was
I have only one question…I will not get into a vaxx vs. non-vaxx argument, but why do you (those who are so pro-vaxx) want to take away my right, as a parent, to choose what is right for my children?
I don’t want to take anyone’s rights away. Parents want to make the best health decisions possible for their children, but they can’t do that if they’re being given bad information. And unfortunately, they are being given bad information. I want to help parents become more scientifically literate, so they are better able to evaluate medical advice on issues such as this.
The intentions of people who tell you not to vaccinate may be good, but the tragic thing is that the consequences of not vaccinating will happen regardless of good intentions. Make no mistake: these illnesses are very serious, and outbreaks are happening right now in otherwise healthy children whose parents thought they were doing the right thing by not vaccinating.
Tonyarn, did you even read the article? This is *all about* the vaccination issue. I don’t want to take away your parental rights. I respect your right to choose to homeschool your kids or send them to public school or private school, you can choose to feed them cow’s milk, goat’s milk or soy milk. You can make a million decisions a day about what’s best for your kids. But this isn’t just about what’s best for your kids. It’s about what effect your vaccine decision may have on other people, other children, society as a whole. The whole point is that the decision not to vaccinate affects much more than just your children.
I read until I couldn’t take any more. I obviously should have read all, but I could see/feel all you were doing is discounting a non-vaxxing parent’s research and choices. Also, I am an RN, please don’t belittle my knowledge with “I want to help parents become more scientifically literate, so they are better able to evaluate medical advice on issues such as this.”
I’m failing to see where the separation between vaccination and parental choice is here.
You do not learn enough getting your RN to evaluate the actual research unless you go into a research specialty.
What Sullivan said is not an insult, by the way, just reality. I’m a research biochemist with several graduate degrees. I’ve taught nurses and pre-med students in graduate school. In general, medical folks are taught facts, but not how to do scientific research nor how to tell if what you are reading is good quality research. (There is a separate class on that for rearchers.)
I don’t believe that I am qualified to do research on epidemiology nor immunology, but I can follow along if it’s explained in a vaccines-for-dummies approach. 🙂 Even in my own field, in some ways I have to assume the other scientists are honestly describing their work. On the other hand, I can tell almost all of the stuff passed around on the anti-vaccine blogs and news reports is simply wrong or grossly misinterpreted. It sounds good, especially to a non-scientist, but it is not true (horrible honest misrepresentations are the least of it; dishonest alt-med disproved in the 19th century is the worst).
You’re having to choose between honest science versus quackery disguised as science and labeled “parental choice”. You’re being lied to both by well-meaning but ignorant laypeople, and by unethical charlatans pushing snake oil (essential oils, homeopathic magic water) for profit. This isn’t a matter of ‘different interpretations’ of a scientific question, but a choice between medicine versus fear-mongering. I’m sorry if I come across as too passionate. As a scientist, I’m insulted that pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are being hyped by the media as being equal to science and medicine. As a parent of a teen on the autism spectrum, I am outraged that so much money has been spent on anti-vaccine lies and quackery instead of research on the real causes of autism and treatment / help for my kid.
My kids have an immune deficiency (being a nurse, you should know what CVID is, right? Thank god my kids don’t have Severe Combined Immunodeficiency. As a nurse, you’d know that chicken pox or even a cold would be FATAL to a baby with SCID). They were vaccinated, but because their B cells don’t make antibodies, the vaccines were not effective. So, in addition to the antibody replacement therapy they get weekly, they depend on herd immunity to protect them. So they can have as normal a childhood as possible, and grow up. So – yes, I do want to infringe on your “parental right to chose not to vaccinate your children” so that MY CHILDREN HAVE A BETTER SHOT AT GROWING UP.
Because what you choose for your children affect every child around them. Its not taking away your right, its educating you. If you think the science and technology of vaccination is dangerous, well, so is the air you breath, the water you drink, the food you eat, and the phone or computer you used to (not?) read this article and comment on it. I’m sure you drive your car to the grocery store, bring your kids to school or events or friends’ houses… Maybe you should rethink that one, too.
Nobody is. Even if they were, they would only be taking away your ‘right’ to be wrong.
Why do you as an antivaxxer want to take away my right as a parent to keep my child healthy? Also, why would you take away your children’s rights to the best medical care?
My children can make their own medical decisions once they turn 18. As of now, I have that right. Unvaccinated kids are healthier than their vaccinated counterparts. My kids have the best medical care, thank you very much. Your children are your responsibility, not mine.
I’m sorry, but we live in a society. If you want to live in a very remote area either just with you and your children or in a community of others who share your beliefs regarding vaccination, then as unwise as I consider your choices, that’s your business. If you make sure to provide your children with the appropriate and hopefully life and function saving care necessary when they are exposed to vaccine preventable diseases — for instance, tetanus — or when a new family joins your community and you discover that one or more members of that family were prodromal (coming down with) a disease that spreads like wildfire through your unvaccinated community — go for it.
I, however, accept that I have a responsibility to protect not only my own children but also the children of others; I also have a responsibility to protect those who are currently on chemotherapy, those who are immune deficient for any reason, and those who can’t be vaccinated due to allergies and such. I do NOT expect all of those people to remain shut up in their homes so they can avoid exposure to measles and other vaccine preventable diseases. You apparently don’t care about those folks — I wonder what you expect of other drivers on the roads. I mean, that person driving the Hummer or the Ford 350 truck shouldn’t have to pay attention to others on the road by your logic; they owe you NOTHING They’ve chosen to drive a vehicle that lets them mostly ignore the rest of the public and if you don’t like the way they drive — stay home.
You can take your attitude a long way if you so choose. However, please remember that this society in which I live tries to protect children from parents who will not provide basic medical care for them — an injured minor who is bleeding to death will get the necessary blood products even if his/her parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses because the ER doctor will get the child made a temporary ward of the court so that a judge can give the necessary consents. Where I live, parents who believe that a child with Type 1 Diabetes (the kind of diabetes that requires insulin to preserve life) should be prayed over but not taken to a doctor or emergency room to receive care, will likely go to prison if the child dies due to that neglect; we accept a responsibility as a community to protect the innocent. You DO owe the minor children of others something; I DO owe the members of the public that patronize the library where I volunteer something. I owe them the right NOT to be unnecessarily exposed to infectious diseases I might otherwise get. I protect myself with annual flu shots — but in that process I also protect others.
Wake up. We OWE others certain behaviors on our part that help protect them from things they CAN’T protect themselves from. They OWE us the same.
As an RN you understand perfectly the usefulness of washing your hands between one patient and the other, right? I am sure that whatever hospital or clinic you work on enforces that. You realize that your kids will not do that when they interact with other people in their day to day life. Therefore they may be vectors of an undetected infection to other people (even if they never have symptoms, as I’m sure you know). The responsibility of them infecting other people is yours, not the other kids’ parents.
The fact that you are an RN does not imply that you have all the knowledge about the issue. None of us to, therefore we study and update our knowledge. And even if you have it, you may refuse to pay attention to it because of other reasons. We humans are very keen on not following the evidence simply because it causes us pain to have to accept our errors. Therefore we look for excuses not to.
I hope one day you go again through the arguments without feeling attached to your previous stance. It is never late to correct our errors. It would make you a better human and it will help us all (including your children).
Give the arguments in this post a honest chance. They were written with good intentions for people just like you.
Please
A fellow healthcare professional.
tonyarn, just out of curiosity, why is it that you suppose children aren’t dying & being crippled by polio now, when less than a hundred years ago it was a huge problem? What changed (besides vaccinations), at the same time vaccinations were introduced, that alleviated this? If unvaccinated children are healthier, why do they die in greater numbers than vaccinated children, when preventable diseases are introduced into a population? You must have a theory as to this?
Can you honest tell me that as a people we are healthier since the introduction of vaccines? Let’s be intellectually honest here.
Yes. https://twitter.com/HistoryInPix/status/412134962025222144/photo/1
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/in-short-both.htm
Approximately 72% of persons infected with polio will have no symptoms. About 24% of infected persons have minor symptoms, such as fever, fatigue, nausea, headache, flu-like symptoms, stiffness in the neck and back, and pain in the limbs, which often resolve completely. Fewer than 1% of polio cases result in permanent paralysis of the limbs (usually the legs). Of those paralyzed, 5-10% die when the paralysis strikes the respiratory muscles. The death rate increases with increasing age.
Now that we got that out of the way, let’s be honest. We have more allergies, more type 1 diabetes, more autoimmune diseases, and even more autism whether you believe it is caused by vaccines or not. We are not, as a people, healthier than we were prior to the advent of vaccines. Let’s look to the Amish for what our health might have been like prior to vaccines, although I realize that some Amish are beginning to vaccinate now. They are much healthier than your average American.
Where, please, did you get your data on the health status of the Amish? Without much trouble I found this from the CDC:
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
NATIONAL IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM
RECORD OF THE MEETING OF THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES
October 26-27, 2005
Meeting held at the Atlanta Marriott Century Center Hotel
Atlanta, Georgia
“An investigation of a poliovirus infection in Minnesota was begun when the state laboratory isolated a vaccine-derived poliovirus from a seven-month-old Amish girl. The child had three healthy siblings, and she had traveled to Wisconsin to visit relatives at age two months. From age five months, she was repeatedly ill with fevers, diarrhea, pneumonia, conjunctivitis, and bronchiolitis. After numerous hospitalizations (attended by her mother and grandmother, who changed her diapers) and outpatient visits, she was admitted at the age of 6 months to a Twin Cities children’s hospital. The child was diagnosed to have severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), and is scheduled to undergo bone marrow transplantation.
“The contact may have occurred in school, where the water supply was inadequate and outhouses were used.”
” In the Amish community surrounding the index patient, Some children were rumored to have died in infancy, but that seems not to be unusual in the Amish population. ”
Now maybe you can equate deaths of infants with general good health of a population and maybe inadequate water supplies combined with use of outhouses (which, in my experience, rarely have running water in them, making adequate water supplies and scrupulous hand washing upon return to the classroom vital) mean good health practices that promote good health to you — but at least one Amish community shows some real signs of less that ideal health conditions to me. Of course, if you’re going to live where potential fecal contamination is an ongoing threat, perhaps you’re in a real bind — because any live polio virus will travel quickly through the population but so will the attenuated virus from the vaccine. The attenuated virus, if ingested, will probably create immunity in those with normal immune systems — but for the poor child mentioned in this study, it almost killed her. Good hygiene would have prevented the child’s illness but obviously that was lacking. When you limit your education and refuse to study science, the germ theory may be a bit beyond your comprehension — and hands that “look clean” may be assumed to “be clean”.
I regret using anecdotal evidence in this discussion, but it seems that only anecdotal evidence is convincing to some of the readers and contributors.
It is a rare Amish community that doesn’t have indoor plumbibg and running water in this day and age. Here’s some info for you…
http://www.naturalnews.com/027930_Amish_health.html
http://blogs.discovery.com/dfh-sara-novak/2012/05/why-the-amish-healthier-and-what-it-should-tell-us-about-our-society.html
http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/295-the-amish-dont-get-autism-but-they-do-get-bio-terrorism.html
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-amish-way-why-amish-healthier-5266185.html
Do you need any more, or is that enough for tonight?
I have my maternal grandmother’s family Bible — that includes the births and deaths for her generation. On the deaths page are 3 of my grandmother’s siblings who died within a week of each other, probably of diphtheria. None of my siblings (6 living, one who died of an adverse drug reaction in 1946) have died of a vaccine preventable disease — we’re now aged 57 to 75. So, we are definitely healthier. Oh, none of us has permanent lung damage from pertussis, none of us is scarred from small pox; none of us have ever had diphtheria or tetanus. All of us had out children fully vaccinated from birth onward. None of the children of my generation, nor of the next generation has any form of autism spectrum disorder, and believe me, I have a fair number of nieces and nephews. As far as I know, none of my great nieces and nephews nor of my great great nieces and nephews have any problems related to vaccine preventable diseases or to vaccines. I’d say we’re significantly healthier than my grandmother’s generation. Improved health means that we live longer and have better quality of life than did our parents, much less our grandparents.
A non sequitur side comment — my maternal grandfather and grandmother traveled by covered wagon from somewhere in Utah to Oregon somewhere between 1910 and 1914, so they exercised regularly, got lots of fresh air, and didn’t eat a lot of processed foods.
tonyarn’s link to the natural news website is not proof of, well, anything. That is a website filled with conspiracy theories and junk masked in science-y sounding words. Healthwyze is pretty much the same. And a yahoo blog? None of those are in the same class as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (I often wonder if the people who write natural news are on the same planet and talking about the same reality.) It’s like using the comics in your newspaper to reply to a point made in a science textbook.
Thanks for not caring that your vaccinated child could cause another child’s death.
*UNvaccinated
Has it occurred to ANY of you by ganging up on the one person who dares to have a different opinion from you and insulting her, you are actually achieving the opposite of your stated goal to protect your poor innocent law-abiding families?
If you really had the children of society at heart, a much more balanced approach that avoids insult and polarization would likely be much more effective. You take the moral highground but all I see is a bunch of bullies hiding behind what they tout as intellectual truths and outraged righteousness. I think you are all MUCH more interested in sounding important to yourselves than actually promoting your stated cause. Either that or you know absolutely squat about the art of persuasion.
Has it ever occurred to those who have the misfortune of having a child with a disorder such that they can’t be vaccinated that other children will be in his/her shoes? The reality is that, just like children with deadly allergies, the responsibility WILL largely fall on you to take extra precautions – with or without “anti-vaxxers” around. You all cite so many stats. So you’d all know that the rates of those choosing not to vaccinate, overall, are still an exceedingly small minority. Otherwise those studies discrediting any kind of side affects would actually BE more legitimate because there would be adequate balanced numbers of unvaccinated children with which to complete the study instead of the existing 1/5th – 1/10th control sample sizes, right (oh shit, that’s right you can’t have it both ways and still sound credible as an intellectual… or will you try anyway?)?
You are all going to be putting your feet so far down your throats should they ever make a link between vaccines and developmental and neurological disorders that is actually accepted by the mainstream. There have been legitimate court cases and quietly hidden away statistics from existing studies that have demonstrated this but, for now, you’re happy to accept that all of that is ridiculous and the work of psychologically unstable and intellectually weaker paranoid naysayers.
Shame on you for bullying others. She has a right to put her children first as you do yours. If you honestly thought vaccinating your child would cause autism but would protect everyone else, to tell me you’d do it anyway “to protect everyone else’s children” is to lie to yourself. You’re not vaccinating your kids to protect everyone. You are vaccinating your children to protect YOUR children with the nice added benefit of being able to claim you are thinking about everyone else. What good citizens you are! *pat pat* As am I. I am sure this person is choosing not to because she feels based on what she knows it is the best way to protect her children. And should she be proven wrong it is for the people in her life (courts, teachers, children’s aid, etc) to decide if they have the right to overrule her decision. It sure as shit isn’t yours.
I was a teacher once and I would be apprehensive about a school not encouraging the kids to visit their doctor when appropriate. I’m really not that curious why you don’t trust your doctor or doctors in general, but I guess I can understand. Things aren’t perfect. There’s no perfect shot or perfect immunization. It’s sometimes scary. I’m not a doctor so I can’t understand the science behind it. But I would gladly support the administration when they encourage parents to do the right thing to not spread around disease in school, like washing their darn hair to stop bringing lice to school to spread around. That’s what I remember most.
I find it ironic that the same parents who would be poutraged if their kids caught lice at school think it’s their “parental choice” to allow their special snowflakes to become potentially lethal disease vectors. As far as tonyarn’s assertion that his kids get the “best medical care”, they’re not. He’s choosing to disregard the medicine that most reduced human mortality and damage (diseases don’t just kill, they also cripple). His comments are examples of the arrogance of ignorance and the Dunning Kruger effect.
Yes, I noticed the typo “poutrage” up above, but I think I’ll keep it- it’s too apt.
I1-“he” is a “she” It’s Tonya, RN. 🙂
I stand corrected on your gender, which is not relevant to the rest of the discussion. Now you try it: you have been corrected so many times here by several different people on several topics. Or, you can cling to your certainty and still be wrong. It’s called the “arrogance of ignorance”. (I may be less than gracious at times, but I’m not risking anyone’s life by campaigning against the best medical practice that has saved literally millions of lives. I’m sometimes impolite, but you’re just plain dangerous.)
I wonder what people like you have to say about themselves now having backed equally enthusiastic arguments about thalidomide… or certain birth controls that have know been linked to cardiac failure and stroke.
SO confident in your views and your saintliness as a fellow concerned human. And you call me a false expert lol
How do you know that JerryA was a supporter of thalidomide, or what his position on birth control is?
I am not saying he did. I’m saying there were likely people in that time period who were equally enthusiastic at shaming everyone into not having complete faith about “what the research says”. Thalidomide, lithium, labotomies, infant formula, mercury, birth control, on and on medicine and the research community has had to recant COUNTLESS times on passionate arguments made in favour of “good science” and “irrefutable statistics”. I am sorry, but just because you all choose to ignore things to meet your personal agendas to feel intellectually superior and like you’re a better citizen doesn’t mean I’ll follow suit. I chose to vaccinate my children but not without strong reservations and fears and you telling me those reservations and fears are illegitimate despite the widespread knowledge of the the thousands of life-costing and selfish mistakes Man has made using medicine and research as shields just as protectively as overzealous theologians use god and the bible makes you ignorant in a way that is not so unlike the people you criticize that somehow magically put your vaccinated children at risk.
I am hesitant to write much more on here without posting links as rationale to my position but truly it’s an issue of being extremely busy rather than being uninformed. And to be honest, being the fellow well-read bunch I imagine you all are, I KNOW that you understand the background of what I am referring to here, likely just as well if not better than I do.
I don’t send my “special snowflakes” to a liberal indoctrination prison ie: school. We homeschool, and thankfully I live in a state that says if I homeschool, I don’t have to answer to anyone regarding my choice to not vaccinate. BTW, not vaccinating came AFTER my choice to homeschool.
And one last comment regarding your post before I move on…I’ve luckily found a physician who will vaccinate, but actually prefers not to. Lucky me!
Really really well done article. But i think all the smart people on here need to realize that they are effectively making the argument that by being born you are putting all other newborns, children, and adults at risk of polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, whooping cough. Following the logic, the only way to prevent others from the possibility of developing one of these diseases you need to inject your child with a serum that at least one point has contained fermaldehyde, chicken embryos, various metals, monkey viruses,,hep b, aids, aluminum, and thimerosal, and made by companies that need to keep vaccinating everybody, because if there was no one to vaccinate then this entire investment on the company’s part would be wasted. Sanofi-Pastuer and others like it do not enjoy failed investments.. Speaking of Thimerosal, everyone claims it’s gone, or very rarely used, but if you read the thimerosal section on the CDC website you can’t deny that it is still used as a preservative in all multi-dose vaccines (the best example would be flu shots). Look I’m not going to come on here and call this author of this very well done article a shill for big pharma or whatever. But I will say, at this point in world history, with government corruption having become so rampant and special and corporate interests having taken such a strangle hold on all facets of human life in the USA, I will not side with the very interests that seek to take advantage of us. That includes big pharma, the us government, the FDA, the CDC, the ACA, bill and melinda gate, and oprah. These groups do not want to see everyone healthy. How would they make any money? They want to shoot you up early, and have a customer for life.
And this, folks, is a distillation of the very worst of the anti-vaccine nuttery. You get more formaldehyde in an apple, or from your body’s own metabolism, than from all vaccines combined in your lifetime. You get more mercury from a tuna sandwich than you get from any vaccine. And you get more lies and slander from the virulent anti-vax types than most anywhere else not labeled as conspiracy kookery. He’s “not going to… call this author… a shill for big pharma”… but he does. Dustin, get help, you’re not well.
I think your response, “Jerry”, is exactly what gives the Dustins of the world fuel for their fires. You may feel your opinions are more justified but remember, they only are to you and to people who are already converts to your way of thinking. You may think “oh but all the scientific research” but people have real concerns about the lack of discussion on possible biases fueled by concepts such as who have the resources and who funds the research. People also have real concerns about the lack of mention in these extremist view blogs around the “Discussion” sections of most articles where they discuss at least some limitations to research, what shouldn’t be assumed based on their study and, hopefully, some talk about confounding variables if it is a sound peer-reviewed research paper. People also hate that many real exceptions and questions that have come up in the past are virtually forgotten in the pitch to make an airtight, entirely “logical”, indisputable argument. Anyone who can’t name exceptions and reasons to ask more, despite deciding on one course of action versus another, always gets my back up. The patronizing tone of this article that everyone that doesn’t see the author’s point of view is simply an innocent victim of misinformation too stupid to research further or ask otherwise makes me nauseous. If she’d actually wanted to convince those that don’t vaccinate (I’m not one of them but I can see their points of view as I try to remain a little less, oh I don’t know, FANATICAL in my views) to do so, then treating them like they are misinformed morons was probably not the best approach. It likely just served as reinforcements to believe whatever theory, knowledge and research they hold onto as dearly as you clearly hold onto yours. (But somehow you are better…. anyone smell a little hypocrisy?)
The reality is, Jerry, that mistakes are made… even by YOUR gods uh, I mean, scientists. Hypotheses – even SUPPORTED ones – are NOT absolutes. CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Healthy skepticism and criticism is necessary. I’m not about to take the word of a Ph.D. or an MD as law. They are lay humans with limits to their knowledge and experiences, who are exposed to their own much-more-than-healthy levels of indoctrination that are not so different from me. You do what you will. But you putting others down just because YOU strongly disagree with them. Well, I hate to say it but it makes you look more ignorant and mislead than your self-made intellectual opponents.
By the way before you sign me off as a science illiterate antivaxxer, all my kids have all their vaccinations and I have an MA in Physiology and Neuropsych… and I appreciate the field enough to know that it ENCOURAGES debate, asking more questions, critical thinking, and healthy skepticism. What science does discourage is muting voices and reliance on blind indoctrination from the likes of people like you. I wholeheartedly encourage thorough research and that parents should ABSOLUTELY look for both sides of the argument thoroughly to make an informed decision. And unlike those above I absolutely have a responsibility to the health and safety of MY children first and everyone else’s thereafter. I will not be guilt-tripped into making blind decisions that affect my child to potentially benefit yours. And I would never ask the same of any other parent when considering my child’s health and safety. You want immunity for YOUR child? Then vaccinate them. If they can’t be vaccinated, take precautions as necessary. There are other children in your boat so you would need to do that “antivaxxer” or non anyway. I hate this society who places external blame and, worse, liability for every misfortune they encounter. GROW UP, JUDGE LESS, HELP MORE, BE MORE INTROSPECTIVE and move on.
priceless123, here is the main point you do not understand. This is not a dispute between one informed opinion and another informed opinion. This is a dispute between informed science backed by facts versus uninformed pseudoscience with misinformation and a good number of lies. Maybe it’s your psychology background that makes you equate the two, but they are not equivalent. Reality, in the form of viruses and bacteria, starvation and malnutrition, will kill people who reject vaccinations, reject modern medicine, reject public health, in favor of quackery like essential oils, homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, and all of the feel-good alt-med garbage. Because nature just does not freaking care if we live or die. Your “don’t judge” let-the-parents-decide attitude is helping the anti-vax loons feel good about their stupidity, but it’s also enabling things like the measles outbreak in California. Have you read about that? We could have had measles wiped out, but these anti-vax crusaders have let their “choice” make them murderers. Not all opinions are equal, and not all choices are safe or healthy or worthy of a modicum of respect, not when it can get people killed by vaccine-preventable diseases. As far as your “choice” of having your kids get some vaccines and not others- I really hope your “choice” does not lead to a preventable “hospitalization” or “funeral”.
Some additional questions that might provoke some thought in one or two readers.
1. Suppose I said that I am quite convinced, being a person who has been driving cars for the last 50 years and never having had a wreck while driving on a freeway, and having tested my abilities numerous times over those years, that I can safely drive my car on any freeway in the USA at 85 mph. I do not believe the civil engineers who have convinced the members of my state legislature that driving at that speed is inherently more dangerous than driving a 65 mph on a freeway. As far as I’m concerned, a wreck at 65 mph will kill me every bit as dead as one at 85 mph, if I ever did have a wreck, and I don’t believe there should be any laws that would penalize me for my personal choice regarding the speed at which I travel on a freeway. If you think my driving 85 mph would put you at risk, all I have to say is that you take care of your freeway driving safety and I’ll take care of mine. I have no responsibility for the safety of you or yours, after all, any more than you are responsible for the safety of me and mine. Can you sincerely argue with my position on this matter? After all, I’m not telling you how fast you should drive and, especially when I’m traveling long distances driving faster means I’ll get to my destination a bit sooner and that means I’ll be less fatigued and therefore safer toward the end of my drive.
2. Suppose I say, like Ronald Reagan said, that almost all of the hydrocarbons in our atmosphere come from plants — that if we stopped all burning of fossil fuels we’d still have about the same amount of pollution we currently have. Then, using your logic, I could say that, putting restrictions on how much fossil fuel my car can burn to move me and it a mile is a terrible infringement on my freedom. Limiting the burning of fuel oil to heat homes in the northeast US or limiting the kinds and amounts of coal that can be burned to produce electricity should also be unconstitutional. I don’t believe that the burning of fossil fuels contributes significantly to air pollution, nor does it increase the incidence of respiratory illnesses and deaths. Any evidence you might produce to the contrary is the product of left-wing tree huggers trying to push their “back to nature” crap down my throat and it is agenda driven research, often funded by those idiots in the Sierra Club and shouldn’t be used to try to get legislation passed. Now, if you want to drive a pregnant roller skate and freeze in your dwelling during the winter, that’s your choice. I don’t have a responsibility for your energy usage and you have no responsibility for mine.
Now, I don’t want anyone to think that I am seriously proposing that either of these stances is defensible or justifiable. I’m saying that when people “cherry pick” anecdotal information to provide support for a discussion of science, and when the discussion is in the area of medicine, MOST members of the medical research community are going to refuse to accept those arguments as valid — because, no matter how convincingly an opinion is stated, without carefully analyzed data to support the opinion, it’s nothing more than exhaled hot air.
I don’t recall saying my children don’t have all of their vaccines- they are quite up to date though I spread them out I think is all I said. I hope vaccinating them doesn’t lead to a preventable hospitalization or funeral. But if that happened to someone else’s kids, Jerry, or yours… wait do you even have kids? I wouldn’t be blaming you for hurting your children or others’ children. I’d be seeing what I could do to help. Namecalling and accusations are not going to do anything productive. You seem to have high respect for empirical research so I gather you appreciate reason. Why can’t you see that and come to the same conclusion?
You want to convince people. Model good citizenry, share information when the opportunities present themselves – not force it down people’s throats and throw accusations and insults at them when they disagree. Take questions and fears seriously. Ask people who don’t agree with you to explain their position and why they put value in it. What would it take to convince them to have another position? Judging gets us nowhere. Support and education and modelling are how to speak the same language.
@Hancock… here are some thoughts I have about your point.
Hundreds of thousands of people drive above the posted speed limit every single day without incident. People drive the speed limit under poor road conditions or text while in residential communities and cause horrendous accidents. I am quite certain I learned somewhere that the posted speed limits are well below what is ultimately unsafe because policy makers don’t want to rely solely on people’s individual judgement (I’d have to agree with them) but their decision to do this when people can witness and experience for themselves every day countless exceptions with virtually no consequence makes them doubt what people in positions of authority tell them (and I don’t blame them either). There is always a cost to deceiving people even if it is for the greater good and that cost is wariness and a decrease of faith in what they are told next time by the same people.
Good judgement is hard to legislate but is relevant to both your thoughtful example and this discussion.
And the hydrocarbon argument is a little ridiculous, though I understand your point. I think several VERY well controlled for studies funded from a multitude of sources (in an effort to avoid arguments of bias) would debunk his position (and likely have already, thanks to the IPCC reports) very quickly. The concern with vaccines is the lack of well-controlled studies, the lack of diversity about the agendas of those funding research, the historical legacy of mistrust that policymakers, private companies and researchers alike have generated and continue to make worse by large scale cover-ups, and the emotional stakes attached to either pole of the debate.
Cherry picking in the science/research world happens all the time.. what hypotheses are going to get the most attention, what subjects to disqualify due to being inexplicable outliers, what statistical tests to use to best demonstrate a valid result, what research and researchers to fund, the security to speak out against the mainsream versus being a contract professor/researcher versus a tenure, who to post as first author versus who actually did the research, what limitations are politically safe to include and which are better left unsaid. Even the proponents of this article who choose to focus everyone’s attention on ONLY the positive aspects of vaccination and suppress any discussion of exceptions is in itself cherry picking.
I find it extremely concerning the reverence everyone adopts when talking about science, like it has become the new God of Man. It is many things wonderful and I am quite taken with it myself but it has a place. It’s a tool with which to understand the world and the organisms within it. But it is A tool. Not the only tool, not the ultimate tool, not God. And like any tool it is only as effective as the people’s who are using it skills and jugdement permit. Many of you talk like just because an article or researcher made it into a peer-reviewed journal, it is indisputable law. Evidence suggests anything but. We are constantly modiying, revising, adding to, taking from previous research. It’s its uncertainty and boundless CURIOSITY and willingness to say “I don’t know, but let’s find out” that I love about it. I guess everyone needs something to believe in and I guess in the modern-day western intellectual absence of religion, we turn to Science, our new Idol. I think blind faith – of anything – is just plain scary and leads to hostility and aggression when that faith is challenged or questioned. I choose to remain uncertain, to be conscious that everything I know has limitations and exceptions and may very well be challenged into oblivion at some point in my future, and to make decisions knowing I am doing my best with what I have but that ultimately, I may regret it later. It’s not a nice position to be in but I like to think it helps me become a better person as I age. I wholeheartedly endorse the position 😉
Most of all, JerryA have a little humility. Please. You are not omniscient and neither are researchers or even the scientifc method. You have made mistakes and you will make mistakes; so do I and so does the scientific and medical and political/policymaking communities. (And certainly so do those who choose not vaccinate for no sound reasons other than uncertainty or unfounded fear). Do not criticize when you yourself have done and will continue to do many things in your life that are worthy of criticism but at the time, under the circumstances and knoweldge/experience you had you felt was the best. Hopefully no one is holding to you to those decisions and you are being a hypocrite to make other people who are different stages of knowledge or experience than yourself answer to their positions with your hastily made judgements on the internet.
When you are humble you engage discussion and reduce fear and defenses. People who can let their guards down when sharing alternative opinions are more likely to see the value of other opinions and perhaps adopt some of those ideas moving forward.
So if you and the author and all the other pro-vaccers actually want to see change in how many people vaccinate, talk the talk.
Priceless, recently I read of a debate where people on 2 sides of a different contentious issue were asked what might make them change their minds. The one on the “science” side of the issue answered “evidence” — the one on the “belief” side of the issue said “nothing”. Here you have the difference in the “sides” in this debate. For instance, the nature and content of vaccines have changed over the last 50 years (for some, others are newer but still have evolved) based on evidence mostly and in response to scare techniques on occasion when changes were possible within the parameters of safety and efficacy even when not necessary based on the scientific data. How many of the anti-vaccination posters in this thread have indicated a willingness to change their opinions based on evidence? How many of the pro-vaccination posters have asked for evidence to consider so they could reevaluate their stances if the evidence was convincing?
Remember people from all times in history who offered evidence and were persecuted or killed by “believers”? Galileo, Semmelweis, and others too numerous to mention. Some subjects will probably always be a matter of belief — and should be. Trying to scientifically prove the presence of the soul or the status of life after death in heaven or hell will probably be in that category. However, germ theory, the causes of certain illnesses, and the efficacy of vaccines aren’t in that category.
Medical science evolves. Most of us know that. In the 1960s it was believed that peptic (stomach) ulcers were primarily the result of stress and this was based on some data analysis (though not research as such) of the more common personality types physicians though were most often affected; As a nursing student, I was treated with a Sippy Diet that included an antacid every other hour while awake alternating with 4 ounces of whole milk on the other hours while awake. Now we know that peptic ulcers are generally caused by an infection with H. Pylori and can be prevented/cured with the right combination of bismuth and antibiotics — and that the fat in the whole milk was more likely to exacerbate an ulcer than to help it heal. When the relationship between peptic ulcers and H. Pylori was announced in the medical journals after the original study, and especially when the results of the original study were replicated in other studies, the vast majority of physicians changed how they treated peptic ulcers AND any physician who didn’t change whose patient had a bad outcome would have found him/herself on the wrong end of a malpractice suit that the patient would have won. What equivalent “sea change” in thinking can you imagine for the anti-vaccination groups and the healthcare providers they trust?
@Hancock. Actually I have a lot of personal/professional experience in helping influence people to take new actions and be willing to see things differently. What works for me is being curious about their beliefs and why they are important to them. This curiosity decreases any power differential between us and fosters trust. From that trust grows respect of that person and their ideas/opinions. Some doctors and other helping professionals are fabulous at this and do a great job of convincing wary people to take a risk they believe to be in the patient/client/consumer’s best interest.
Overall I have liked your approach and I think you’re good at doing this. Where I see people falter is when they move out of this territory into emotionally charged reactions that evoke judgement and blame statements. This does not work as a method of persuasion. Intimidation is not the way to go. What’s worse is, it undoes the groundwork of others who know better had that person been on the verge of thinking differently about the issue. (Maybe I should start blaming these intellectual “bullies” for the outbreak of measles rather than who I currently blame — deceiving and greedy institutions, private companies, politicians, and policy makers who have caused an overwhleming wariness and distrust with their poor or misguided decision making or purposeful manipulation of those who once put faith and respect in them (often for less than philanthropic means).
The reason the “anti-vaxxer”, as we are so respectfully referring to them as, said “nothing” is likely because he or she is used to being constantly attacked. Look at this board as a microsmic example of a greater social climate: almost all of you are all like yay, well done, perfect, I couldn’t agree more. There are only maybe 3 or 4 people who have offered a different response and everyone jumped upon/attacked them/focused on the weakest premise of their argument immediately. No backpatting for them, no respect.
If someone shows this person respect and genuinely hears this person out before offering – gently – alternative possibilities, I can gamble money on it that this person will think about what has been said – even if his/her pride doesn’t permit him/her to do so in a vocal or public way.
I think you’d better stop drinking the water — heaven knows what poisons they put in it when they said they were purifying it and the bottled water is for sure more processed than the tap water — and remember, giardia and salmonella are ENTIRELY natural components of untreated water. And it’s time to stop breathing the air, too. The substances put into the air by those same big corporations will no doubt quickly kill you. It is well known that “big pharma” has to be prodded and poked to get it to produce most of the current vaccines because there are minimal profits possible. “Big Pharma” makes its profits on drugs still under patent. For instance, I used to be on a medication — taking 2 tablets a day — that cost my insurance company and me a total of just over $2000 a month — no extra zeros in that number, either. Big pharma IS a problem in this country, but not because of the profits they make on vaccines — because there aren’t a lot of profits there.
Please take your conspiracy theories off to your prepper hideaway and nurse them gently into full blown paranoia because we really do have good drugs to control full blown paranoia now — unlike back in the 1940s and before, when straight jackets were all we really had to offer — well those and prefrontal lobotomies. Best wishes for a long life and good health.
Hancock, as a mother of an immuno- suppressed child, I just wanted to say thank you for your responses. I understand about the medication too. My daughter is tired of all things everything all the kids in her class have and she is also tired of being hospitalized for little things that are easy to avoid like chicken pox. Last chicken pox scare she was hospitalized for a week and pumped full of medication to try and counteract the damage it could cause her. As for medication thank god for insurance when a months supply for her is $8500.00. It is nice to see people fighting for her wellness as well as all the other children out there and not just fighting for number one. Again THANK YOU!
Heather, you’re so very welcome. You have my admiration for some obvious successes as you have promoted the health and prevented the death of your daughter. I hope that some more definitive treatment will be developed to safely provide her with a more competent immune system and I send my best wishes to all of your family. I have been incredibly fortunate that my children, and so far, my grandchildren have been rarely sick and have been restored to health after any illnesses and I’m so very thankful.
Heather, another mom of kids with primary immune deficiencies, thanking everyone who helps to provide the safety net of herd immunity!!
Dustin it’s all about the amounts. Everything on this green/blue planet can kill you if you get too much or too little. You need oxygen to survive right? Did you know that it’s also very bad for you? Why do you think anti-oxidants are so popular? They help negate the effects of free radicals (from oxygen) in your system. Are you going to stop breathing? Lets try simple water yes? Most of our body is made of it, we definitely need it to survive, but pure water is bad for you. Enough pure water will kill you quickly from electrolyte imbalance. In fact just enough water in general will kill you if ingested in too large an amount.
It’s very weird that you, and other anti vaxxers can use the argument that certain chemicals are bad for us in certain amounts, and yet not understand that every chemical if the wrong amount is used is bad (as in lethal) for us. The amount that can be tolerated is what’s important.
let me give a few other chemicals that are both vitally important to humans, and yet extremely lethal if too much or to little is gained.
Potassium – needed for you heart to work properly. too little, or too much and your heart stops..
Magnesium – needed for you heart to work properly, too little or too much and your heart stops.
I could go on, but really the point should be made already if your willing to actually think about it.
Thank you Mike. Well said. Every time I read an anti-vaxxer say they couldn’t possibly put anything with mercury in their itty bitty baby, but they’re going to a measles party… cuz it’s “natural”. *sigh* I feel like saying “Yeah, so it arsenic and tetrodotoxin. Want some?”
Excellent article, thanks for writing it.
Reblogged this on Thad is NOT food and commented:
An excellent read on the subject of vaccinations.
I have been reading all of your responses after reading this article and wow! Please relax everyone. As the mother of a partially vaccinated child, I understand both sides but sometimes something bad happens to change the views of a parent to make a different choice. I have a friend who her first child was vaccinated and her second child has never received a vaccine. Personally this is one of those things that there will never be a resolution for. I like the argument though.
The “choice” to make a decision that threatens the life of your own child and other children should not be available and should not go unpunished. “Personally this is one of those things that there will never be a resolution for.” I disagree. Sooner or later, hopefully sooner, something will be done so that parents no longer have the option of putting innocent lives at risk for no reason other than an unsubstantiated belief. Much the same way we did with the religious fanatics that denied their children medical attention in favor of prayer. I don’t like the argument. There’s nothing to like about an argument between intelligent people backed by facts and delusional, stubborn people backed by irrational fear and conspiracy theories.
I’m not a scientist nor am I all that smart. What I’m going to say is purely from using my limited skill of basic reasoning. There cannot be any truly or purely unvaccinated children because all their parents have been vaccinated. Therefore all the children will have received the “vaccination” in the womb. Is this a correct assumption? That aside I am smart enough to know that refusing to vaccinate your children is an extremely stupid thing to do. I happen to trust the findings of people that are extremely intelligent, well trained, and have absolutely nothing to gain except saving lives. Trusting children’s lives to a group of people citing a debunked study done by a discredited doctor, memes on Facebook, and delusional, irrational, conspiracy theories about “Big Pharma” and not vaccinating the children should be a criminal offense punishable by the loss of your parental rights. No one has the right to be a moron when it comes to the lives of people who cannot fend for themselves.
Steven,
prior to birth and from breast milk children get what is called passive immunity to diseases to which the mother has developed antibodies. This occurs because the antibodies can cross the placental barrier and can be incorporated into breast milk from the mother’s blood Passive immunity can also be provided by injection. You probably have heard about the shots that can be given a person after he/she has been exposed or may (with fairly high likelihood) may have been exposed to rabies? The rabies vaccine given to dogs and cats helps the animals build antibodies that will almost always prevent rabies in the animal regardless of exposure; from certain animals (mostly horses, if I remember correctly) some of those antibodies to rabies can be refined from blood samples — and with careful attention to avoiding disease transmission and unnecessary exposure to allergens — those antibodies can be injected into the exposed person regularly for a period of weeks until the best available evidence assures that any rabies viruses that were transmitted to the person via a bite (for instance) from an infected animal — will be dead and gone. But, the person him/herself will NOT develop antibodies to the rabies virus because her/his immune system never got alerted to create antibodies — the injected antibodies took care of the problem and then were broken down and excreted from the body.
So, the immunity acquired by a baby from her/his mother is limited in duration and is always a “diluted” version of the mother’s level of immunity — so, if the mother’s immunity to measles is waning due to it having been 3 or even 4 decades since the mother had the infection or the immunization, the infant’s immunity will be at a lower level than the immunity of an infant whose mother was immunized against measles a year before conceiving. When you have mothers who are not immune to pertussis (whooping cough) whose babies either are too young to be immunized or simply have not been immunized, if those babies are exposed (say by an older un-immunized sibling) to pertussis, the infant, with its immature immune system can get a lethal case of pertussis — a case that even modern medications cannot control long enough for the baby’s immune system to overcome.
Thank you for the explanation Hancock. I appreciate the time.
What a one sided load of B.S, tell me why we vaccinate our children against HeP B when less than 1% of the australian population has it and most sufferers are Drug addicts sharing dirty needles and homosexuals having unprotected sex. 83% of cases involving whooping cough are from a different strain that we don’t immunise against and more than likely is caused by a mutated strain from over immunisation. Really look at how polio is spread, it’s through fecal contamination, in India they are immunising everyone and that rate of polio has not gone down, simply because of the water contamination and poor sanitary conditions .
Do you really think the elite are giving there kids MMR?
Why are there secret vaccine courts? Why does the law protect big pharm from litigation?
Herd immunity is a false premise and scam produced by the drug companies.
I love all these people that say there scientist on the forum but refuse to read any independent studies.
Don’t forget on record the drug companies put sv40 into vaccines which causes cancer
People should make there own choice and there is 2 sides to each debate-
Just remember the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – false and governments around the world including ours lied.
My 2 cents for some balance
Did it ever occur to you that less than 1% have it because you’re vaccinated against it? Big Pharma makes so little profit on vaccines that there is almost always a shortage. I went back and scanned the posts by the scientists here and every one of them cites study after study and they provide links and everything. All you have to do is click, read, and be willing and able to comprehend. No. Most of the “elite” don’t give a shit about us but they do give a shit about their children and their children’s health depends on them being vaccinated and that everyone else’s children are too. Your “2 cents” is not a balance at all. The facts are crushing you.
Fletch. Vaccine courts aren’t very secret, I googled up the US judgements in about 30 secs. The reason they exist is because the margins on vaccines are so SMALL. All it takes is one or two idiots saying (for a really obtuse argument) “I got vaccinated for X (fill in or favorite organism) 3 days latter I stubbed my toe and developed gangrene, so it’s the vaccines fault I lost my foot to gangrene”. Obviously an absurd argument but by the time you pay the lawyers, it’s eaten up all the profits. The vaccine courts provide a no fault, low cost, way to compensate people for bona fide injuries due to vaccines (nothing is perfectly safe) paid, at least in the US a surcharge on each vaccine administered.
The reason you want to immunize people for Hep B is because the consequences of the disease are so dire. Cirrhosis of the liver, hepatocarcinoma are diseases with poor prognosis and nasty treatments. Last I looked on a map, there were 300,000,000 people with the disease about a 3h plane flight to the north of you. It can be transmitted by body fluids, maybe a cook coughs onto a dish he’s cooked for you-that maybe enough to infect you. You like to risk that? Maybe a daughter borrows a toothbrush from somebody she doesn’t know is infected and comes down with it. Not nice.
BTW, I am a scientist, quite willing to read the other side-but it has to conform to scientific standards. No anecdotal data, except as a jumping off point to to a statistically valid data, the data has to be vetted by people familiar with handling these data sets, and if it makes extraordinary claims, it must have extraordinary data
I can’t say I’m right there with you, but I appreciate the posit of another view clearly informed with some facts that counter the mainstream. I tire of their attempts to belittle people who feel differently as misinformed or undereducated. I especially appreciate that you mention there is more than one legitimate way to look at this topic. It seems to be an idea that is lost to virtually everyone else on here.
don’t believe this bull. getting autism is not from vaccines it is from the fallen world
Well, that sounds extremely scientific.
Hi there. Regarding your link about the side effects of vaccines, I think this link is probably more accurate: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
I was very ill with CP and complications (infected pox) and even had pox in my throat and eyelids. I was very ill for months and it crippled my parents fiancially having to pay a friend to care for me when their sick days ran out. My children have been vacinated for everything. Even if it only lowers their chance of getting a chronic or debilitating illness I’ll take it. Even if vaccinating my children only serves to protect the immune depressed children around them, I’ll take it. Everyone should consider the greater good when making these decisions. Choosing to vaccinate is on balance usually the most sensible choice. The literature is out there, read it!
Can anyone explain why a healthy baby boy, had extreme temperatures for about 2 weeks, whined like a little kitten. and had extreme temper tantrums, which have never stopped for 18 years after his first DPT shot. at 3 months old
he has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome at age 4 and has a plethora of autism based behaviors, after his shots, these problems started immediately after the DPT he is on every kind of autism drugs know to man. His world has become our life, will continue to be.
Well, recent research has used imaging studies of brain function of fetuses in utero and related findings in those studies to the appearance several years later of various forms of autism and variants identified among the autism spectrum disorders. So, can you explain why a baby might have a reactions such as you describe to a DPT (or DTaP or other vaccination) and go on to experience a completely unremarkable childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood?
Proving a negative can be impossible. For instance, can you prove that you did NOT have sex with a specific member of the opposite sex with whom you were alone in a room for 5 minutes last week? Think about it. Not prove, immediately upon leaving the room after 5 minutes alone with that person, but prove it now? Correlation doesn’t prove causation. This is why good research is bound by so many requirements — to make as certain as possible that the outcomes are not based on what the researcher hopes will happen but are based on true measurements of cause and effect. To have a number of people carefully examine the questions being asked in the research to again, promote the best possible reliability of the results. It is NOT a perfect system, and I’ve seen enough medical research done to be fully cognizant of that fact. It is, however, the best system in the world right now for deciding the best possible ways to prevent and control diseases.
I’m terribly sorry your child was so sick after an immunization and that your child has been diagnosed with a form of autism. I recognize people’s intense need to KNOW what caused something like autism in their beautiful and beloved child. I’m just saying that it isn’t give to us to always know why things happen and assigning blame without much stronger evidence as to the cause simply prevents us from searching further for causes and prevents us from, in this case, protecting an innocent child from future avoidable diseases that could terribly complicate an already difficult situation.
Thank you for your sympathy and compassion, Hancock. I’m grateful for the supportive and positive tone here.
Obviously no one here can definitively say what caused this child’s Asperger’s. We can say that it wasn’t vaccines, though. That question has been investigated by many researchers, and the evidence is very firmly against a causal connection between vaccines and autism. (If you read the research linked above, some of it specifically addresses Asperger’s; much of the rest is looking at a wide range of autism-spectrum disorders.)
You are falling victim to the logical fallacy called “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” which is a Latin phrase meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” Post hoc reasoning is when you assume that, because A happened before B did, A must have caused B. In other words, if I put on my nice hat in the morning and then have a very lucky day, I might be tempted to think it’s a lucky hat–wearing it caused me to have a lucky day.
But that’s flawed reasoning. Putting on the hat happened before having a lucky day, but didn’t cause it.
Your comment is using the same reasoning: the child got a vaccine, then the child demonstrated symptoms of an ASD. But childhood vaccines happen very early–you specifically identified a DPT shot at 3 months of age. Parents usually notice ASD symptoms later in a child’s life than that; it’s very difficult to detect developmental delays before a child has had a chance to develop. The fact that the vaccine came before the symptoms does not mean that it caused those symptoms.
Think of it this way: assume, for a moment, that all the research is correct and that vaccines do not cause ASD. The situation you describe would still have happened. The child would have received the shot at 3 months, then the parents would have started to notice symptoms of ASD.
You note that the symptoms appeared “immediately” after the DPT shot, but that’s not necessarily true. All you know for a fact is when the parents (I can’t tell whether that’s you or not) first *noticed* those symptoms. They could have been there for some time before, only noticed after the vaccine. That’s particularly possible if the parents were the victim of anti-vaccine scaremongering, either at the time or more more recently (causing them to look back in their memory and decide the symptoms must have appeared around then).
This has actually been studied as well, although not in as much depth as the safety of vaccines. You might find this article interesting: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/02/autism-signs-appear-in-babies-first-year-but-parents-dont-notice.html Even parents have a hard time noticing the slow development of ASD symptoms. Those symptoms tend to accumulate for some time before parents notice, so that when parents do notice it seems like a sudden and sharp decline in the child while in fact there was a slow buildup all along.
That’s a long way of answering your question, “can anyone explain why a healthy baby boy [developed ASD symptoms] after his first DPT shot.” The short answer is that the boy probably had symptoms before the shot, and would have Asperger’s whether or not he had been vaccinated.
Everyone is worried about the long-term health benefits of your children and your children’s children. Let’s talk about population growth then, shall we? With the trajectory we are on I certainly worry about my children’s long-term health and vaccinations won’t make a whit of difference. In fact, it’s only adding to the problem. But I don’t see anyone saying we should “think of the greater good” when you think of potential solutions to address population control. Because supporting that position, given the implications of action, is unthinkable.
You all want to use science to back all your firmly held emotional beliefs. But the reality is you are all abusing science as badly as people with a given agenda use “God’s word” as a motive among religious folk. I’m not saying vaccination isn’t a good thing. I’m not even saying you can’t show it using the scientific method. What I am saying is that we use science to prove what we want to prove, provided it can be proved and will also conveniently ignore things (or take a lack of interest via scientific study) that don’t support our current ways of thinking. Much like religious zealots blind themselves to any way of thinking that does not support their worldviews. Being all or none is dangerous. Always entertain the opposite. Have healthy skepticism. And do worry about the future and sustainability of our species given our current growth rate. That is hardcore science, my friends, and it is so frightening it’s no wonder it’s far from fodder for mainstream discussion.
I’m all for negative population growth. However just how are you going to affect it? China is, to my knowledge, the only country to have deliberately performed this. And no one is willing to put the same type of draconian laws into effect. Lets start with your suggestions. Lets see what non horrific scientific manner you can come up with to reduce the population of this world. I’ll even give you the benefit that the more affluent nations would actually want to control their population. which still leaves most of the world in need of negative population growth. Do we no longer continue to extend our lifespans? Do we prevent people from breeding? How are you going to force a person to not produce off spring? Yes The greater eventual good of everyone is to limit population growth and resource consumption. However limiting peoples ability to breed is a lot more of an ethical quagmire than whether we should prevent people from getting a communicable disease.
Thank you everyone for, your food for thought comments. I have studied this subject for years . All I need is more information, I appreciate comments from real people.
If one looks on the internet, you more than likely fine more negative comments, than positive comments. Most blaming The DPT shot.
Here I feel I have more realistic comments
Thanks ,to all that posted!
Both issues have multiple facets of ethics, Mike. For us, in our generation now, THIS is most ethical. In a world where people may be forced to feed on each other to survive, they may question the foolproof “scientifically-backed” motives of their ancestors.
I am certainly not suggesting I have answers. I am trying to get people with extreme biases to see and own those biases and stop persecuting others for holding their own biases because they seem less comfortable or popular. Informing is one thing. Belittling, bullying, criminalizing, and dehumanizing are quite another.
People are using science and statistics to shield themselves and to try and restrain others from critical thought in the same way others use God and holy books. I am not saying I don’t believe in the value of science. I adore science and all that we have discovered because of it. I happen to believe in the value of faith and spirituality too, even if I don’t personally subscribe to any given religion. But both can be abused for personal gain. People need to realize this, own this, and guard themselves against blind aquiescence. Because if there is any hope for our species’ survival, it’s in our ability to make full use of our thinking brains. To hold all possibilities. To critically analyse. To remain curious. To problem solve. To be innovative. To separate emotion from reason when necessary and know how to marry the two when needed.
And there will come a time when extremely uncomfortable decisions will need to be made. One way tickets for life-building on a nearby planet, randomized infertility lotteries, genetic engineering, something. And the masses then will try and quell any uprising of opposition by appealing to the same emotional logical fallacies some are using now and always have in one way or another… “you, traitor, trying to compromise my child due to your ignorance” etc. And it will be equally misguided and wasted time that could be put into something more effective in helping effect a solution.
Translate this to now and this issue, perhaps we should focus our energies on improving existing vaccines further or having open forum with those that have misgivings by asking them: “what would it take for you to feel more comfortable vaccinating your child?” and see what they say. Perhaps it will be a more open dialogue with Big Pharma. Perhaps it will be a willingness of governments and private companies to air out their previous dirty laundry, issuing sincere apologies to all those possibly affected, and be open in addressing what they have done to correct past mistakes, in order to rebuild trust and legitimacy among those they have marginalized. Perhaps it will be an in-person demonstration in their region of the statistics and side effects of these communicable diseases versus those related to vaccines, given by their family physicians or other people they trust rather than people they have no reason to trust like you or me. There are a host of options that will serve this author’s aim much more effectively than making people feel like shit on the comments post of a forum 🙂
Priceless, I agree that we shouldn’t attack people on the forum, and I much prefer a measured, calm debate. However, while I generally think that trying to find common ground–such you are doing here–between two extreme positions in political issues is excellent, it is misapplied to a scientific issue such as this. When the majority of scientists agree that the evidence supports a position–such as the fact that vaccines are necessary to prevent certain illnesses and carry minimal side effects–we should pay attention, because that is VERY rare. There is simply no genuine scientific debate on this point–only misinformation being passed around in the form of facebook memes and articles lacking any evidentiary support. It concerns me that the moment a scientist points this out, he or she is immediately accused of working for Big Pharma, or having sinister intentions. It’s not “mean” or “marginalizing” to say truthfully that this issue isn’t really a debate, and there really isn’t a middle ground here from a scientific and medical perspective. Parents need to know this.
It’s marginalizing and mean to accuse parents of being selfish, negligent and willfully harming (or failing to care about harming) other people’s children (you seem to be thorough in reading responses to this which I think is fantastic so I know you’ve seen what I am mentioning) because they have legitimate doubts and fears about vaccinating their children. Why are families winning cases in courts against pharmaceutical companies producing these vaccines if their concerns lack ANY evidence or credibility? Clearly some experts don’t agree with you and their ideas deserve to be heard and taken as seriously as your well-laid and peer-reviewed/backed thoughts. And I think your ideas that people are willfully manipulating parents for personal gains is unfair. I think this occurs much more on the other side of this debate… willful manipulation by hiding exceptions to encourage people to make decisions that support the greater good. That thinking is not necessarily wrong, but it’s reality. And it needs to be said.
A parting thought is I think convincing parents to reconsider their thoughts on witholding vaccination is going to take a more balanced, collaborative approach than assuming they are miseducated, undereduacted, ignorant, or extremely naive. If your assumptions are correct, you are probably not going to convince using emotionally charged arguments (i.e. “you have been lied to”) because they are probably driven by emotional arguments on the opposite pole anyway and now they feel you have just insulted their intelligence.
If your assumptions are incorrect, then there may just be very educated, concerned, and wary people out there – about the way research is conducted, who funds it, and who it serves. You need to own up to the holes in research, the mistakes that have been made, and the real fear behind those contraindications (which don’t always seem so “worth it” when it’s affecting their particular child) even if, overall, your position seems to be the more logically sound one.
I wonder what others’ thoughts are on here about population growth of the species versus availability and sustainability of existing resources? I don’t think the dire long- term consequences can have any legitimate refute, among the “science- literate”, yet as a current society, we largely choose to avoid it as a discussion point that is also something worth discussing “for the greater good” and is, in fact (uncomfortably, I’ll grant you), hopelessly intertwined with this very issue. I think it’s interesting that people are so polarized and emphatic on vaccines based on scientific arguments yet no one is rallying for desperately needed population control measures based on the very same methods and research you are willing to hold as bible in support of total vaccination.
In fact if I were to postulate that all pro-vaccers that are unwilling to also consider supporting stringent fertility controls on a global scale were “willfully negligent, unwilling to consider the health or futures of our children or children’s children” I would be run out of town.
… just some thought about how much of this is cold stone logical irrefutable science-based argument versus an emotional, politically-motivated one. These issues are complex and I believe they warrant more discussion than us versus them to vaccinate or not. We need to discuss all contributing issues which includes health policy and policy-makers, their agendas, the macro versus the micro, other related health issues (both due to non vaccination and because of it), governments, funding, resources, private companies’ personal gain (yes it’s dirty and it exists, it is not just some magical myth the paranoid produce to antagonize you), the whole enchilada. These are big issues and even if any one person doesn’t know every facet of it before choosing to vaccinate their child(ren) if they wish to access it they have a right to balanced discourse, not polarized name calling, and being told, “look it’s all right here in our retroactive studies filled with imbalanced sample sizes and completely unbiased statistics and hypotheses…trust us”. I am more likely to trust people who take a balanced approach and choose vaccination because it is the lesser of two uncomfortable risks/possibilities/consequences rather than a camp that tries to put a halo on pharma, scientists that work for them (and yes, some do or are at the very least funded by them) and vaccines as the undisputed saviours of mankind. It certainly helps fight against these horrible illnesses and this, of course, needs to be lauded. I think the discoverers of this invaluable research have been well-recognized among the scientific and humanitarian elite and lay people alike. But most things have a dark side and a cost – even if the current benefits arguably outweigh the costs. And pretending those costs don’t exist is not a sound way to convince people your arguments are better.
Priceless, you ask, “Why are families winning cases in courts against pharmaceutical companies producing these vaccines if their concerns lack ANY evidence or credibility?” The simplest answer to your question is that they are winning compensation for the known and uncommon side effects of vaccines. As has been said many times, no medicine in 100% safe in all circumstances and when vaccines cause actual harm the victims can be compensated.
But most of the hostility to, and fearmongering about, vaccines is based on myths rather than facts. And families are not being compensated based on the lies being spread by anti-vaxers, such as the canard that vaccines cause autism or are full of cancer-causing viruses. Claims such as the assertion that vaccines cause autism actually do lack any proof or credibility.
The false claims being bandied about by anti-vaxers don’t “deserve to be heard and taken as seriously as your well-laid and peer-reviewed/backed thoughts.” Why would they? False claims should not be “taken as seriously” as true ones, in this case we have the benefit of very, very solid scientific evidence to help us discriminate between false claims and true ones. A smattering of experts supporting false claims doesn’t make them true, or elevate them to the status of solid science. There are, for example, legitimate and credentialed experts who believe in: creationism, crystal healing, demonic possession, ghosts, holocaust denialism, homeopathy, moon landing denialism, perpetual motion devices, reiki, and ufo abductions. (That’s off the top of my head.) None of those things measure up to the solid science, and really, truly shouldn’t be taken as seriously as good empirical data and analysis.
I think it is true that people often become defensive when faced with direct challenges like, “you have been lied to.” (I wrote extensively about it here: https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/20/the-most-important-playground-conversation-how-to-persuade-a-friend-to-vaccinate/) But the tactical considerations shouldn’t be our first or foremost concern. The actual fact is that parents who have been told that vaccines cause autism *were* lied to, by people with malignant motives (such as Wakefield) or who were simply negligent (like those who jumped on the bandwagon without learning the facts, or failed to conform their opinions to the facts once they were known). They should know that. If they can’t hear that message without becoming even more closed-off to real data, then they were unlikely to be persuadable in the first instance.
Your last paragraph expresses a lot of fears about “the way research is conducted, who funds it, and who it serves.” But “research” isn’t done by a shadowy cabal of pharmaceutical data ninjas. The Wakefields of the world can and do perform and publish their own research, as well as examine the research of others. While no human process is 100% perfect or pristine, science is an open and competitive field that rewards empirical accuracy rather than ideological orthodoxy. If the scaremongers had actual facts to support their claims, we would see more of those facts and less of the distortions and empty concern trolling that attends their protests.
Colin I think what I most appreciate about you is your absolute unwavering confidence in; first and foremost, yourself and your opinions; second the concept of “Ultimate Truth” in terms of research studies; and third, your ability to respond in an entirely hypocritical fashion, yet present as an intellectual critical thinker.
You call me a troll yet you have responded upon the same if not more posts. Whereas I attempt to challenge assumptions and invite respectful discussion and discourse (or was for awhile – I admit I have been a bit less cordial in the last few; it’s hard to be balanced and measured when the vast majority of comments on here are anything but), you assert them crassly and with little regard to or respect for what anyone else has to say. Whereas I have in multiple posts thanked others for information or stated respect for their position even if it is not mine, it would appear you simply can’t tolerate anything that doesn’t resonate with your perception of the “truth” and “facts”
Case and point: the vaccination court. You’re convinced that plaintiffs win settlements based on complications stated on the warnings of vaccinations rather than having legitimate arguments based on the evidence presented. Based on “Truth” and “facts”, this makes zero sense. What would be the point of a disclaimer and printed warnings and contraindications of a vaccine if not to protect from liability? They won because they made a good case, the judge considered the facts, decided there was cause for reasonable doubt, and sentenced the drug maker to compensate the plaintiff accordingly and make changes where applicable. And to make a good case, they certainly would have needed CREDIBLE experts to argue in their favour. I am quite certain their credentials would have had to include more than a belief in exorcism and the Holocaust conspiracy. But, please, use more logical fallacies on my positions for your reductions to nonsense. I am happy to entertain.
So tell me exactly how I am a “troll” and by what measures would I qualify where you wouldn’t? Is troll your new word for someone who responds as often as you do but with an opinion you don’t agree with? Do I dare tell you that definition is incorrect? Would it matter?
You consistently talk about peer-reviewed articles like they are Ultimate Truth. Wakefield was a peer reviewed article. Thalidomide, AZT, Lithium, Domperidone, Estrogen pills are all peer reviewed drugs. Infant formula was peer-reviewed as the best diet for an infant, better than breastmilk. Labotomies were a peer-reviewed procedure. Tell me more of your truth and why it should evoke more of my trust than other sources of information? How often are studies discredited or severely modified? How often does it come out that profit and political pressure played more of a role in what “peer-reviewed” research was funded and promoted and what was underfunded, suppressed, or overlooked? Science teaches me there is RARELY one truth about anything. Truth, fact, it’s still far from immune to perception and who is telling the story. You like to paint a picture like there haven’t been many many gross mistakes and flaws in the field of scientific research and premature interpretation of results. I wonder which one of us is truly misinformed. Worse, you like to judge people harshly and hold them accountable to YOUR truth without thinking for a moment that some differing opinions may just have some valid truth of their own. Which leads me to my last point.
You call me troll as if somehow what you think and say is somehow more objectively legitimate and what I think and say isn’t yet you don’t see me calling anyone’s ailing daughter “an insignificant data point”. You use Wakefield’s study as somehow proof to your position, yet Wakefield followed the same protocol and peer-review procedures that all the other studies you hold in such high esteem did and are convinced, without doubt, are correct. Peer review isn’t what shifted confidence in his work – at least not initially. His recant of his position much later did. The existing protocol allows for misleading conclusions and interpretations yet somehow your faith in it is more legitimate than another’s faith in her experiences or alternate sources of information.You dismiss anecdotal evidence as irrelevant yet your science that you claim to hold so dearly does not. You uphold quantitative research yet forget about qualitative – even though they both have a place in science research and some even within the same study. You say you respect empirical based facts yet you ignore the large scale risk-inducing decisions that policy makers make regarding the environment, our food, our health, our climate etc that fly in the face of said facts; yet you choose to focus your efforts on a handful of individuals and defend the institutions and policy-making bodies (like the one regulating and disseminating vaccines). You ask for people to talk your language when posing alternate views by posting empirical-based data, yet though several have, you would not give credence to their position. You critique everyone here based on your brand of logic and reason, yet you’re ignorant to your own blindness and bias privilege as a white male in a seemingly good private sector job in a very wealthy privileged part of the world affords you. Of course you can dismiss alternative medicine. What experience do you have with it? What value do you know of about it among different cultures of the world?
I have infinitely more hope in many of the anti vaccination crowd on here, of being thoughtful about their position and considering other perspectives including the rights they may be infringing upon with their choices, than I do for you. Your posts consistently show an immobile and narrow scope with which you view a complex issue. Arrogant elitist “intellectuals” have proven to be the worst brand of stubborn in my experience. Your willingness to remain blind to your incredible amount of bias and privilege is unfortunate.
I only have this to say on the matter; it’s an excellent resource regarding vaccinations and autism.
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
I think that’s the same research team that published this amazing study: http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/02/organic-food-causes-autism.html