So we have 2 choices, science based research or conspiracy theories based on a non science education and feelings.
Is that the choice, the choice that affects the lives of thousands if not millions of children in the world?
Unfortunately, it seems like the conspiracy theorists are taken more seriously by the mainstream media and given lots of face time, whereas scientists are made out to be elitist and lacking compassion.
Unfortunately, it seems like the conspiracy theorists are taken more seriously by the mainstream media and given lots of face time, whereas scientists are made out to be elitist and lacking compassion.
The problem is YOTUBE gives them power, the dumb media figures bring 1 anti vaccine person and 1 pro vaccine person.
Its about misinformation and paranoia, just ask the UK and that religious village in the Netherlands.
National Immunization Awareness Week Messages 3 & 4
Some more information that I recieved
Quote:
Where can I find credible information about immunization?
Is the National Vaccine Information Centre a credible website to get information about immunization? At first glance one would think so by the name and the high quality look of the site. However, if you use the tools below to help you assess the quality of the information on this site you soon discover that first impressions may be deceiving. The person that developed the site does not have not medical or scientific training and has several publications listed that she stands to profit from. In addition, the site contains very few references to the scientific research that has been done to show the safety of vaccines and relies heavily on personal stories or opinion.
With the increased ease of internet access, more and more people are going there for health information. The internet can provide a wealth of credible information about immunization, but it can also provide just as much MISINFORMATION.
So how can you tell when information on the internet is from a credible source? There are several questions that you should ask yourself when assessing information on the web. Here are a few from a resource found on the first website listed below. To get more detail about these questions to help you determine if a site is credible please clink on the links below.
1. What is the purpose of the website?
2. Who is sponsoring the website?
3. What organizations support the website?
4. How is the website maintained?
5. Who are the authors on the website?
Remember, anyone can create a website. Be aware that information reported on the internet or in the media, even by celebrities endorsing a cause, may not be valid, or if valid may not give you all of the information. Only proper research methods guarantee the information is trustworthy. Always check the source of the information you read.
The above information was taken from an information sheet posted on the Canadian Coalition for Immunization Awareness and Promotion. The website, along with a few other sites containing tools to assess information on the web, are listed below.
In September 2008, a provincially funded immunization program was implemented to help protect females from developing cervical cancer resulting from infections with HPV. The immunization team at Alberta Health and Wellness has received many calls and letters asking about the details of this program. Below are some of the most common questions we responded to:
Who is eligible for this vaccine under the provincial program?
All Grade 5 girls have been offered the vaccine beginning September of 2008 in conjunction with the hepatitis B immunization program in the school setting. In addition, the HPV vaccine will also be offered free-of-charge to all Grade 9 girls over a three year period, beginning in the 2009/2010 school year and ending in the 2011/2012 school year. Three doses of HPV vaccine are recommended in order to develop adequate protection from the HPV strains contained in the vaccine.
The vaccine is licensed for females between the ages of 9 to 26 years. Why is it not being offered free-of-charge to all of these girls and women?
As with every new immunization program, target groups need to be identified and start dates determined. These decisions define who will, or will not, be eligible for vaccine free-of-charge. Many factors go into making these decisions: the age group the vaccine is most effective in, cost, and available human resources to administer the program. When starting a new immunization program, it is critical to ensure that all of the existing public health immunization programs continue to function without interruption.
There is no capacity within Alberta Health and Wellness to fund a HPV program for all women between nine and 26 years of age and some people will fall outside of the program guidelines.
Where can I get the vaccine if I do not qualify for it under the provincial program?
Three options are available for individuals that are not included in the eligibility groups for the provincially funded program:
- You can purchase this vaccine through a prescription provided by your family physician, and have your physician administer the doses of vaccine;
- Several Alberta Health Service (AHS) zones offer programs to purchase this vaccine on a cost recovery basis; or
- Some private health insurance companies will cover part of the cost of the vaccine. Please check with your provider directly to determine if you have coverage.
As the details for access to the vaccine will vary by physician office, insurance provider, and AHS, you should contact them directly for more detailed information.
After Tower's posts in the WHO thread I wanted to post this, but it really isn't topical there so I'll bump this thread with it. Interesting new piece:
If you are a parent, be warned it is VERY difficult to watch all the way through.
EDIT: Removed, feeling more calm.
Follow-up debate on the Australian program Sunday Night:
It’s amazing to see how emphatically people are for or against this. Obviously as it involves children I understand the emotion, But I’m surprised there are not more people (although I have seen a few here) posting about how this issues is confusing and frustrating as it does not seem there is a clear message.
To be quite honest I had heard about possible unsafe dosages of mercury being used in vaccines to extend there shelf life and how that was possibly causing autism in small children. I had concerns about vaccinations long before I heard Jenny and Jims take on it. I think that probably goes for most people. To think or say that any persons decision about vaccinating their child is based on Jenny or Jim ranting I think is an untrue assumption. People had these concerns before hand and they are just famous people with the same concerns. They are not making my mind up either way, but I will be watching to see who answers their questions and how.
For me I think the human body is made to deal with toxins, we have a system to filter them out and it can deal with many when the exposure is moderate or the dose is small enough… my worry would be that a new born’s system is not up to speed yet and I think personally I would simply wait a extra few months before vaccinating. I think the risk would them be minimized as the babies body would have the capacity to deal with toxins in that amount, at 1 month or 2 I’m not sure that still the case.
I wonder if a study has been done relating the amount of preservatives, McDonald cheeseburgers and steroids in the food breast feeding mothers consume relates to autism… seems to me many of our diseases are growing at rate about equal to our terrible diets getting worse.
It’s amazing to see how emphatically people are for or against this. Obviously as it involves children I understand the emotion, But I’m surprised there are not more people (although I have seen a few here) posting about how this issues is confusing and frustrating as it does not seem there is a clear message.
To be quite honest I had heard about possible unsafe dosages of mercury being used in vaccines to extend their shelf life and how that was possibly causing autism in small children. I had concerns about vaccinations long before I heard Jenny and Jims take on it. I think that probably goes for most people. To think or say that any persons decision about vaccinating their child is based on Jenny or Jim ranting I think is an untrue assumption. People had these concerns before hand and they are just famous people with the same concerns. They are not making my mind up either way, but I will be watching to see who answers their questions and how.
For me I think the human body is made to deal with toxins, we have a system to filter them out and it can deal with many when the exposure is moderate or the dose is small enough… my worry would be that a new born’s system is not up to speed yet and I think personally I would simply wait a extra few months before vaccinating. I think the risk would them be minimized as the babies body would have the capacity to deal with toxins in that amount, at 1 month or 2 I’m not sure that still the case.
I wonder if a study has been done relating the amount of preservatives, McDonald cheeseburgers and steroids in the food breast feeding mothers consume relates to autism… seems to me many of our diseases are growing at rate about equal to our terrible diets getting worse.
It's certainly possible that our diet contributes to disease in some way--type 2 diabetes and heart disease are just two examples. But Autism is a poor example for any kind of historical argument because the one thing that has changed most dramatically is the method by which it is detected.
What this means is that comparing autism "rates" as a baseline to years ago is very, very dumb. It's maybe the dumbest thing about the "Jim and Jenny" argument. The reason there appears to be more autism now than in the past is probably in large part that we are now better at detecting it.
It's certainly possible that our diet contributes to disease in some way--type 2 diabetes and heart disease are just two examples. But Autism is a poor example for any kind of historical argument because the one thing that has changed most dramatically is the method by which it is detected.
What this means is that comparing autism "rates" as a baseline to years ago is very, very dumb. It's maybe the dumbest thing about the "Jim and Jenny" argument. The reason there appears to be more autism now than in the past is probably in large part that we are now better at detecting it.
See while I don't disagree that we are more efficient at detecting and properly diagnosing Autism (and many other diseases), to say that the number of cases has not increased over the years and that we are simply finding and catogorizing them better seems very wrong to me. Sure our diagnostic abilities have increased but not to the extent that we have seen autism cases rise.
Imrpoved detection may explain some of the increase but I would find it hard to believe it explains away all of it.
better seems very wrong to me. Sure our diagnostic abilities have increased but not to the extent that we have seen autism cases rise.
What seems wrong to me is people making these decisions and forming opinions on these matters based on nothing more than what seems wrong to them.
Chemotherapy seems wrong to me.The iron lung seems wrong to me. While we're at it, manned flight, the large hadron collider and my wireless modem seem wrong to me.
But I'm no expert. I'm not a doctor, and I don't play a Pet Detective on TV.
There are experts though, doctors and chemists and epidemiologists and all sorts of people who know about this stuff, and they don't base it on what seems wrong to them. The whole "science" thing is behind it. They didn't just make it up out of thin air.
I read through this thread and some very interesting points. My fiancee and I were discussing this the other day (before I saw this thread). A point that we brought up but couldn't address was:
My "generation" (late 20s) and my cousins' "generation" (mid 30s) were all vaccinated with MMR. I can't say I know 1 person that has "autism." To me, autism is relatively new. Therefore, is autism such a broad definition that previously undefined behavioral actually did exist in my day but just weren't called autism? Or, did something change - vaccines, amounts, etc...?
Has this been clarified in this thread or in studies? The best I could gather from opponents of vaccines was the content and amounts are dangerous. Are these different than what I received 20-odd years ago?
The fact that they removed the mercury preservatives from vaccines (due to public pressure, not any science) and autism rates continued to increase indicates that there isn't a link at (and many many studies have also shown no link).
So then they jump to "toxins" claiming things like antifreeze and formaldehyde are in vaccines, when it isn't true... usually it ends up being the anti-vaccine person not understanding that different chemicals are in fact different even if they do contain the word "glycol", or that the formaldehyde in vaccines is the same as what's in the body, and in far smaller quantities.
They just recently found some genes related to autism too.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
The fact that they removed the mercury preservatives from vaccines (due to public pressure, not any science) and autism rates continued to increase indicates that there isn't a link at (and many many studies have also shown no link).
So then they jump to "toxins" claiming things like antifreeze and formaldehyde are in vaccines, when it isn't true... usually it ends up being the anti-vaccine person not understanding that different chemicals are in fact different even if they do contain the word "glycol", or that the formaldehyde in vaccines is the same as what's in the body, and in far smaller quantities.
They just recently found some genes related to autism too.
So is it that "autism" was attributed to other things for kids my age (just unruly, the ever popular ADD, etc...) and it always existed in a significant percentage of the population or has something caused there to be an increase and "autism" is relatively new?
I read through this thread and some very interesting points. My fiancee and I were discussing this the other day (before I saw this thread). A point that we brought up but couldn't address was:
My "generation" (late 20s) and my cousins' "generation" (mid 30s) were all vaccinated with MMR. I can't say I know 1 person that has "autism." To me, autism is relatively new. Therefore, is autism such a broad definition that previously undefined behavioral actually did exist in my day but just weren't called autism? Or, did something change - vaccines, amounts, etc...?
Has this been clarified in this thread or in studies? The best I could gather from opponents of vaccines was the content and amounts are dangerous. Are these different than what I received 20-odd years ago?
There's only been one study that claims to find that MMR vaccines cause autism, and it has been completely discredited (including not disclosing ethical problems with people paying for the study, missing data that went against the desired findings and use of contaminated samples to support the desired findings). No other study has been able to reproduce the findings, and there have been many that tried.
The MMR vaccine has never had mercury in it.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
So is it that "autism" was attributed to other things for kids my age (just unruly, the ever popular ADD, etc...) and it always existed in a significant percentage of the population or has something caused there to be an increase and "autism" is relatively new?
Good question, I don't know. From what I understand autism is a lot more well defined and identifiable than something like ADD (ADD just being a "spectrum" of behaviours).
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Good question, I don't know. From what I understand autism is a lot more well defined and identifiable than something like ADD (ADD just being a "spectrum" of behaviours).
That is perhaps the biggest question for me - why is it all over the news now and why do I actually know many people who have kids that have (suffer from?) autism whereas I didn't know anyone 10 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
There's only been one study that claims to find that MMR vaccines cause autism, and it has been completely discredited (including not disclosing ethical problems with people paying for the study, missing data that went against the desired findings and use of contaminated samples to support the desired findings). No other study has been able to reproduce the findings, and there have been many that tried.
The MMR vaccine has never had mercury in it.
I am definitely not one that jumps on board the anti-vaccine wagon mainly because of the questions I posed above and in this thread. Even without studies and science - my experience leads me to believe that there isn't a correlation between vaccines and autism. Just making decisions based on odds makes getting vaccinated the smart play v. risking a host of terrible illnesses.
It is interesting how one study, misinformation and a trendy opinion supported by celebrities can shape the opinion of so many. Makes you realize how truly powerful Oprah is.
As to why autism seems much more prevalent now? Possibly because those with it are out in the public more? Rather than hiding things away because they think it's an embarrassment, people are open with those things because we now know it's not? I don't know, it's a good question.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Vaccinations in the US will be over... - Jenny McCarthy teams up with Oprah
Quote:
Junk science has a new cover girl
Last Wednesday it was announced that Oprah signed McCarthy to a deal, starting with a blog on the Oprah Web site. Though neither woman's people will confirm details of the deal, it will presumably lead to a talk show, as it did for Rachael Ray and Dr. Phil, two other Oprah proteges. Perhaps not every episode of a McCarthy show will address vaccines and autism, but some surely will.
There is abundant evidence that vaccines don't cause autism. More than a dozen studies, as well as trend data from California and other states, show that neither the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal nor the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism. In March, a federal court dismissed both of these theories in a most definitive way after hearing weeks of testimony and gathering thousands of pages of evidence.
Jenny McCarthy begs to differ. McCarthy dropped out of nursing school in 1993 to become a Playboy bunny and later starred in an MTV show that focused on her bodily functions. She believes that vaccines made her seven-year-old son autistic--and that she "recovered" him with alternative therapies, as she details in her parenting books. McCarthy has appeared regularly on Larry King Live and Oprah to blast the medical establishment, and last year she led a march on Washington to demand that children get fewer vaccines.
Great...
Oprah's worldwide influence will really affect this controvesy. It seems like anything Oprah touches becomes popular. This might really decrease vaccination rates. Not a good move
As to why autism seems much more prevalent now? Possibly because those with it are out in the public more? Rather than hiding things away because they think it's an embarrassment, people are open with those things because we now know it's not? I don't know, it's a good question.
The better answer is that more things arebeing defined as autism spectrum disorders than was the case previously. Things that got ignored, or diagnosed as 'mentally challenged' have been re-classified in many case as part of the autism spectrum. Interesting article in this months Discover Magazine about it....
In some ways this thread has gone beyond some of the basic information presented in this generalist article, but the article is a worthwhile read as a summary of the public policy and current state of science.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
With all that's been going on with Swine Flu and the scare around it, people are looking around for medicines to help protect themselves and their families. Unfortunately, they're being preyed upon by a group whose theory of medicine goes counter to everything that is known about physiology, physics, chemistry, germ theory, and hydro-dynamics. And if you already know that this article is about Homeopathy, than it may not be for you.
Every positive study of homeopathy, when repeated under more stringent conditions, has shown it to have no more effect than a placebo. Take it if you like, but please don't use it to cure Swine Flu. And if there are any homoeopathists out there who can show proof that my article is bunk, I know a man in Florida with a million dollars for you.
The current issue of Reader’s Digest has an article on “The Trouble with Celebrity Science.” “What happens when stars weigh in on medical topics?...Celebrities may be perfectly qualified to evaluate sneakers, but that doesn’t mean you want to learn biochemistry from them.”
Reader’s Digest has published a lot of questionable medical information in the past. They might have written about “The Trouble with Celebrity Science and Reader’s Digest Science.” But they have partially redeemed themselves with this article. Finally, a popular mainstream publication that supports science and is not afraid to contradict Jenny – or Oprah!
