Vaccines don't cause autism (duh)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I don't remember saying that it caused optimism.

Also, killing the debate is a terrible idea imo. Shouldn't people be hyper sensitive and scrutinize injections? It's not like there's never been an unsafe practice by the government that was lied about (e.g. thalidomide, cigarettes). A former CDC doctor, William Thompson, just came out saying that there were cover ups in his research about links between autism like features and vaccines.

I'm not saying vaccines cause autism, I'm saying keep doing research. Killing the debate on injections for millions of people is a bad idea, it should be scrutinized. If I go on vacation to somewhere remote I'll get a vaccine over getting whatever foreign diseases are a risk, just saying I should atleast be allowed to have concerns and questions no matter how stupid you think that is.

So I once again guess that when asked for articles you will not provide any..........

[troutman]

Contrary To Popular Perception, Autism Rates Haven’t Increased

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/bo...ent-increased/

Amanda Baxter, an epidemiologist at the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research in Australia, and her colleagues pulled together data from 1990 to 2010 on autism spectrum disorders from around the globe. They found the prevalence of autism was 7.5 in 1,000 in 1990 and 7.6 in 1,000 in 2010—a small difference that wasn’t statistically significant. Moreover, they found no significant variation in autism rates between different regions of the world. (You can read the entire study at Psychological Medicine (pdf).)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by troutman

Contrary To Popular Perception, Autism Rates Haven’t Increased

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/bo...ent-increased/

Amanda Baxter, an epidemiologist at the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research in Australia, and her colleagues pulled together data from 1990 to 2010 on autism spectrum disorders from around the globe. They found the prevalence of autism was 7.5 in 1,000 in 1990 and 7.6 in 1,000 in 2010—a small difference that wasn’t statistically significant. Moreover, they found no significant variation in autism rates between different regions of the world. (You can read the entire study at Psychological Medicine (pdf).)

.1 good lord!

[SportsJunky]

Another good PBS Nova link. The show airs tomorrow night.
http://seattletimes.com/html/enterta...ccinesxml.html

For sheer survival, we live with acceptable risks.
We eat knowing we might choke. We go down steps realizing we could break our necks. We drive fully aware of the 36,000 traffic fatalities each year.
That leads to the risk of vaccines. Science is clear: They are very low risk and historically effective in eliminating major deadly diseases from the nation and globe.
Enter what are called the “anti-vaxxers” — Jenny McCarthy and a growing minority of parents — who question vaccine safety and feed enough fear to cause a worrisome decline in immunization rates nationwide.
PBS’ “NOVA” addresses this controversy in “Vaccines — Calling the Shots,” which airs at 10 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 10, on KCTS. The balanced look at the importance of vaccines gently but clearly concludes that vaccines are safe and effective, but without dodging or downplaying the mild, occasional serious and rare deadly risks vaccines can pose.

WHO says the historic success of the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines means more than 10 million people who would have been paralyzed are walking today. Most younger doctors nowadays have never seen a case of the measles, which once infected about 500,000 Americans a year, with 500 deaths and 48,000 hospitalizations.
Before a vaccine was developed in the 1920s more than 15,000 Americans a year died from diphtheria. Only one case of diphtheria has been reported to the CDC since 2004. An epidemic of rubella, or German measles, infected 12.5 million Americans in 1964-65, killing 2,000 babies and causing 11,000 miscarriages. In 2012, only nine cases of rubella were reported to the CDC.
Vaccines given to infants and young children the past two decades “will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths, with savings of upward to $300 billion in direct costs including medical expenses and more than $1.3 trillion in societal costs over that time, as children spared from illness will be able to contribute to society,” the CDC states.

[Knut]

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So I once again guess that when asked for articles you will not provide any..........

why would I when this quote is directly above you

"Oh god no, not this one again, this is about 5 years old now and is hilariously bad. Good friend covered this back then, tore it a new one in fact."

I'm simply not posting links in this thread when there are such condescending viewpoints. It's not a conversation, it seems as if on your side you are just waiting to pounce. Why would I engage in that when the articles I post wouldn't even be something I completely believe in but found interesting and would be attacked by numerous posters at once for doing so. Maybe if I see some civility yeah I'll gladly start posting links but until then there's no point.

But we've been over this, I'm just making a victim of myself, taking my toys and being a child or whatever. Seriously, if you along with several others were less condescending I would have posted things. It's too many people waiting to attack at once and not a pleasant experience especially when I'm not even certain about what to think on the matter and one side vehemently attacks the other as scum of the earth danger to humanity. So I once again ask your side to be less condescending......

[Thor]

Originally Posted by AcGold

why would I when this quote is directly above you

"Oh god no, not this one again, this is about 5 years old now and is hilariously bad. Good friend covered this back then, tore it a new one in fact."

I'm simply not posting links in this thread when there are such condescending viewpoints. It's not a conversation, it seems as if on your side you are just waiting to pounce. Why would I engage in that when the articles I post wouldn't even be something I completely believe in but found interesting and would be attacked by numerous posters at once for doing so. Maybe if I see some civility yeah I'll gladly start posting links but until then there's no point.

You are right, I could have been nicer about refuting it, and for that I do apologize. Its hard when you are so active in the debate like myself on social media, the sheer amount of emotion shown by those against Vaccines, the insults and of course seeing the same arguments that have been debunked used over and over has its affect on my patience at times. I can do better.

I just keep running into the same people where ever I enter this debate, one of the most frustrating things is having a person who is "just asking questions" post links to things that have been refuted over and over, then taking the time to point this out, give good links to science based evidence countering the article they posted, only to have them then move on and post something else often from the same source and have to repeat the whole process.

You just feel like, how much more evidence can you post and how much can you refute before people accept the overwhelming scientific consensus? Sadly very few people are genuinely willing to change their minds and often become more convinced of their own stance after having their links and studies debunked right before their eyes.

[troutman]

The PBS show had an excellent segment showing how immunity and vaccination works. The vaccine tricks the white blood cells into defending against a mild form of the disease, then the left over white cells form a "memory" and will be ready to defend against the real disease in the future.

The bottom line of the program - the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/im...-vaccines.html

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

why would I when this quote is directly above you

"Oh god no, not this one again, this is about 5 years old now and is hilariously bad. Good friend covered this back then, tore it a new one in fact."

I'm simply not posting links in this thread when there are such condescending viewpoints. It's not a conversation, it seems as if on your side you are just waiting to pounce. Why would I engage in that when the articles I post wouldn't even be something I completely believe in but found interesting and would be attacked by numerous posters at once for doing so. Maybe if I see some civility yeah I'll gladly start posting links but until then there's no point.

But we've been over this, I'm just making a victim of myself, taking my toys and being a child or whatever. Seriously, if you along with several others were less condescending I would have posted things. It's too many people waiting to attack at once and not a pleasant experience especially when I'm not even certain about what to think on the matter and one side vehemently attacks the other as scum of the earth danger to humanity. So I once again ask your side to be less condescending......

Oh good lord.


The reason people have a condescending attitiude you and other with your thoughts/opinions is because they are blatantly wrong and dangerous.

To be clear it isn't "my side" it is "science's side".

I guess the good thing is that eventually the anit-vaccine crowd and their offspring will eventually "die off".

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Oh good lord.


The reason people have a condescending attitiude you and other with your thoughts/opinions is because they are blatantly wrong and dangerous.

To be clear it isn't "my side" it is "science's side".

I guess the good thing is that eventually the anit-vaccine crowd and their offspring will eventually "die off".

The unfortunate thing is that because they don't believe in herd immunity they're going to take some good science-loving people with them.

I'm not sure I understand AcGold's position though:

You're scared someone is going to refute your evidence backing up a claim, so you still make the same claim but provide no evidence at all? That doesn't seem right...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

The unfortunate thing is that because they don't believe in herd immunity they're going to take some good science-loving people with them.

I'm not sure I understand AcGold's position though:

You're scared someone is going to refute your evidence backing up a claim, so you still make the same claim but provide no evidence at all? That doesn't seem right...

There are a lot of things about AcGold's position that doesn't seem right...

[Harry Lime]

I can't believe I'm writing on here again... First of all, Troutman, thank you for the pbs link above, I enjoy their programming and will watch when I get the chance. I agree that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

I flipped through the last page or two of this thread, and there seems to be two viewpoints at play. Is there room for a third?

I would have liked to discuss in some depth the composition of the vaccines themselves. The changes that are being made to the delivery seem to be based on two things, cost and reaction to deaths and injury. I realize that this is not an uncommon practice in drug development, but this is a set of products that are nearly universally given and generally required at a very young and vulnerable age.

The militant reaction of support for vaccines are giving companies a pressure free ride in terms of composition, where this should be one of our most heavily scrutinized products. Can one be pro-vaccine, but safely have this viewpoint?

(Also, I've been sending some citation nazis over here to get it out of their system, so that one is on me. Sorry. I think of this thread as a kind of therapy, so that citations in other threads are for people who want to actually learn more about a subject. It's like the House of Commons in here, sometimes.)

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I guess the good thing is that eventually the anit-vaccine crowd and their offspring will eventually "die off".

Not to take away from the rest of your post, which is bang on. However, this statement isn't really true.

The issue is this.

People do not vaccinate their children. This allows for an outbreak to occur (like the recent measles one). Children who cannot be vaccinated, and some vaccinated children get measles, suffer and possibly die.

To me the anti-vax crowd is split into types:

1. The hard core anti vax. They will see this outbreak and either not care because it won't happen to their kid, or if it does it will help their immune system naturally. These are the complete wackos, but comprise a very small portion of the population.

2. The uniformed but half committed. The people who read articles off Facebook shared by other uniformed scare prone people and believe it. They bang the anti vax drum hard, until an outbreak occurs. Then they are the first to run to the mall and fight someone to get the vaccine they should have got months or years ago.

3. The lazy. Just didn't do it cause have better things to do.

To be honest. #1 is so small that the risk to the rest of us is minimal. Some communes in interior BC would outbreak but who cares, it wouldn't really impact the main population. #2 and #3 are the big problem. They are in much greater numbers, and allow for an outbreak to start in the first place.

Honestly, you will never win over the hard-cores, and in fact they are the least dangerous. It is the borderline anti vax crowd who are the worst to me. The I refuse to vaccinate until an outbreak that cause the most damage.

So go get your kid vaccinated please, quit being lazy or stupid. Sorry I didn't want to be all condescending, but it is really that simple.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I would have liked to discuss in some depth the composition of the vaccines themselves. The changes that are being made to the delivery seem to be based on two things, cost and reaction to deaths and injury. I realize that this is not an uncommon practice in drug development, but this is a set of products that are nearly universally given and generally required at a very young and vulnerable age.

The militant reaction of support for vaccines are giving companies a pressure free ride in terms of composition, where this should be one of our most heavily scrutinized products. Can one be pro-vaccine, but safely have this viewpoint?

(Also, I've been sending some citation nazis over here to get it out of their system, so that one is on me. Sorry. I think of this thread as a kind of therapy, so that citations in other threads are for people who want to actually learn more about a subject. It's like the House of Commons in here, sometimes.)

Harry, I agree with that these products should be heavily scrutinized.

Are they currently not?

If the "formula" for want of a better term is changed, is that just given a free pass?

What gets me and I guess I shouldn't point it all at AcGold (but he is currently driving the bus in this thread) is the people that say let's have a discussion. Ok, let's read what you are basing you thoughts/opinions on and then chat about them.

We then get crickets and tumbleweeds.

I am willing to read objective articles on this topic.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Not to take away from the rest of your post, which is bang on. However, this statement isn't really true.

The issue is this.

People do not vaccinate their children. This allows for an outbreak to occur (like the recent measles one). Children who cannot be vaccinated, and some vaccinated children get measles, suffer and possibly die.

To me the anti-vax crowd is split into types:

1. The hard core anti vax. They will see this outbreak and either not care because it won't happen to their kid, or if it does it will help their immune system naturally. These are the complete wackos, but comprise a very small portion of the population.

2. The uniformed but half committed. The people who read articles off Facebook shared by other uniformed scare prone people and believe it. They bang the anti vax drum hard, until an outbreak occurs. Then they are the first to run to the mall and fight someone to get the vaccine they should have got months or years ago.

3. The lazy. Just didn't do it cause have better things to do.

To be honest. #1 is so small that the risk to the rest of us is minimal. Some communes in interior BC would outbreak but who cares, it wouldn't really impact the main population. #2 and #3 are the big problem. They are in much greater numbers, and allow for an outbreak to start in the first place.

Honestly, you will never win over the hard-cores, and in fact they are the least dangerous. It is the borderline anti vax crowd who are the worst to me. The I refuse to vaccinate until an outbreak that cause the most damage.

So go get your kid vaccinated please, quit being lazy or stupid. Sorry I didn't want to be all condescending, but it is really that simple.

yeah that statment was tongue in cheek

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

To be honest. #1 is so small that the risk to the rest of us is minimal. Some communes in interior BC would outbreak but who cares, it wouldn't really impact the main population. #2 and #3 are the big problem. They are in much greater numbers, and allow for an outbreak to start in the first place.

Honestly, you will never win over the hard-cores, and in fact they are the least dangerous. It is the borderline anti vax crowd who are the worst to me. The I refuse to vaccinate until an outbreak that cause the most damage.

The hardcores are still very dangerous because they're the evangelicals of the anti-vaccine movement. They're the ones who spread the misinformation and drown out the science with pseudoscience.

[troutman]

Harry, this clip talks about how vaccines can be made safer (ex. Polio):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/po...e-history.html

Narrator: All up, it took nearly ten years to effect change. In late 1999, the U.S. government announced the switch. The U.K. and Australia followed suit several years later. However, in parts of the world where wild polio remains a threat, the cheaper oral vaccine is still preferred.

John Salamone:
This vaccine had a problem, and there was a better one and we fixed it. It worked—the system worked. It took a while. Too many had to suffer, but the system worked.

A new kind of tattoo vaccination that won't require injection by needle:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/ti...-vaccines.html

[Harry Lime]

Thanks again, I'll have to check out videos later however.

A list of some additives and adjuvants to vaccines, the recommendation being to check for sensitivity before being injected, which almost no one does :
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

A list of where some of the ingredients are found :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ne_ingredients

There are alternatives to all of these, without reducing effectiveness, but are more expensive in almost every instance. I don't have time to search, but a little investigation will find the alternatives. Quick example, elimination of formaldehyde :
http://www.ehs.psu.edu/help/info_she...o_Formalin.pdf

The argument seems to usually be that these are found in 'acceptable' or 'safe' levels in all vaccinations, and it is the responsibility of the patient to find out if there would be a negative reaction to a small dose.

A better than safe or acceptable amount would be no amount. Pass the added cost onto the consumer, we would be happy to pay. Just get rid of it. Aluminum, formaldehyde and MSG all have their own health risks associated with them. Why are they present at all when there are alternatives?

[Street Pharmacist]

If you do not want formaldehyde, don't eat ripe fruit.

This Viewpoint, while seemingly logical without investigation, is not logical once you look deeper. Formaldehyde in these amounts is just as safe as none. You get more in your diet than what is injected.

For example, there are various toxic chemicals in tomatoes, but at even large amounts of dietary tomato eating, your risk is the same as not eating any of them. Should we look for tomatoes that are low in these compounds?

Toxicity is really poorly understood in general. EVERYTHING is toxic in some amount. Oxygen, water, etc all have toxic levels. Formaldehyde at these amounts provides the same risk as none, so why remove it and make it more expensive?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Thanks again, I'll have to check out videos later however.

A list of some additives and adjuvants to vaccines, the recommendation being to check for sensitivity before being injected, which almost no one does :
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

A list of where some of the ingredients are found :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ne_ingredients

There are alternatives to all of these, without reducing effectiveness, but are more expensive in almost every instance. I don't have time to search, but a little investigation will find the alternatives. Quick example, elimination of formaldehyde :
http://www.ehs.psu.edu/help/info_she...o_Formalin.pdf

The argument seems to usually be that these are found in 'acceptable' or 'safe' levels in all vaccinations, and it is the responsibility of the patient to find out if there would be a negative reaction to a small dose.

A better than safe or acceptable amount would be no amount. Pass the added cost onto the consumer, we would be happy to pay. Just get rid of it. Aluminum, formaldehyde and MSG all have their own health risks associated with them. Why are they present at all when there are alternatives?

Because they are safe, have been shown to be safe, and are well studied and well understood.

The PBS doc covers all this nicely. The problem is people are taking ingredients and being overly concerned because they don't understand the context and basic chemistry is needed here.

Like has been said, formaldehyde in one apple is found 100's times more in that one fruit than is found in minuscule amounts in a vaccine. I see parents feeding babies fruit baby food with this, no one freaks out there, nor should they. The amounts we are talking about are beyond harmless, yet it sounds scary.

This is the problem, communicating to parents the safety is the problem, people are google warriors and find anit vaxx websites which tout these dangers which are totally detached from the science.

Legitimate concerns are always welcome, but these issues being brought up have been studied and refuted over and over, which is why its frustrating people keep bringing it up.

Context matters, science matters, but distrust in medical science is high, and google isn't helping matters as people seek out sites which agree with their fears and ignore the facts.

This the same stuff you run into when you deal with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, moon landing fakers, etc.. You provide the facts, they refute them based on distrust of authority, conspiratorial ideas, and at some point you just have to stop and listen to the experts, the vast amounts of study and data that has looked into all this, we have decades of research and understand these things extremely well.

Check out the PBS doc, it covers I think pretty much all the concerns parents might have with facts, the risks, and the reality of this issue, which is we are dealing with an incredibly safe medical method with incredibly successful results.