Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 01-06-2011, 10:59 AM   #81
Phaneuf3
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty2hotty View Post
Again, I am on the vaccinate side of this argument. I just think we should cut people some slack who have endured a very traumatic event and are asking questions. It doesn't make them quacks.
Sure, I'll cut them some slack. Some.

I draw the line at them advocating that people stop vaccinating their kids, based on some absurd claim from a washed up has been celebrity while ignoring the real scientific evidence, potentially leading to the entirely preventable illness, disability and/or death of not only their own children but also the children of others.
Phaneuf3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:04 AM   #82
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post
No, I'm not ignoring the fact that 99.99999999% of the people are probably okay from the vaccination. It just isn't a chance I don't want to take with my child. He will receive the vaccination one day.
What chance are you taking? Delaying vaccinations has its own set of associated risks, if the child isn't vaccinated they have an increased chance of contracting whatever it is they were to be vaccinated against as well as decreasing overall herd immunity.

If you are making a value judgment of risks, you have to quantify those risks to ensure you are making the right judgment.

Since there's zero evidence of vaccinations causing autism (and evidence against it), it seem to me that the increased risk of getting sick far outweighs the zero risk of getting autism from the vaccine.

But you said it isn't a risk you want to take, what's your evaluations of all the risks and how do they stack up against each other in order for you to make that judgment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post
If now is the time he will develop autism
No, now is the time he'll exhibit symptoms. The autism was determined long before they were born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post
, I just don't want kick myself later on if he happens to develop autism right soon after he was scheduled to get the vaccination.
This is still flawed reasoning, thinking because B follows A, A caused B. You can't kick yourself over it because there's no causal relationship. Again this is like kicking yourself for potty training them because they got autism at the same time, or kicking yourself for putting them on solid food, or switching to huggies at the same time they started to demonstrate behaviours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post
Is there much harm in waiting a year or two?
The risk of getting sick and decreasing herd immunity. Look at recent outbreaks of diseases that haven't been prevalent for a long time because enough parents are doing what you are doing. There is harm, both potential and real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post
I just feel like his body can handle a little more.
Based on what? And what do you mean by handle? Vaccinations trigger the production of antibodies, it's not a question of handling or not handling, it's a question of having them or not having them.




Sorry, no evidence, and I shouldn't have stated it as fact. Just pure observation on my part.

I am no means a pro on the issue, and by no means I have evidence. Just wanted to say that my two points has made me feel uneasy about the vaccination (mostly the MMR), and that I am going to take some sort of precautions.[/QUOTE]
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 11:16 AM   #83
chemgear
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Apologies if this was linked earlier or in previous threads:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...7796-1,00.html

http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2010/02...er-had-autism/


I thought about this as I was driving out to the San Fernando Valley to see McCarthy and realized she was right: parents will never stop hoping.


It's kinda sad to see that's what she is essentially selling - hope.
chemgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:22 AM   #84
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Today, over 22,000 children died around the world


  • 1,335 children ages 14 years and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes, and approximately 184,000 were injured. That’s an average of 4 deaths and 504 injuries each day
  • 1 billion children are deprived of one or more services essential to survival and development
  • 148 million under 5s in developing regions are underweight for their age
  • 101 million children are not attending primary school, with more girls than boys missing out
  • 22 million infants are not protected from diseases by routine immunization
  • 8 million children worldwide died before their 5th birthday in 2009
  • 4 million newborns worldwide are dying in the first month of life
  • 2 million children under 15 are living with HIV

The most accurate estimates of the causes of child deaths to date, published in the March 26, 2005 of THE LANCET, reveal that worldwide more than 70% of the 10.6 million child deaths that occur annually are attributable to six causes: pneumonia (19%), diarrhoea (18%), malaria (8%), neonatal sepsis or pneumonia (10%), preterm delivery (10%), and asphyxia at birth (8%).




As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically.


Misconceptions


Smallpox is believed to have emerged in human populations about 10,000 BC.[2] The earliest physical evidence of smallpox is likely the pustular rash on the mummified body of Pharaoh Ramses V of Egypt.[6] The disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans per year during the closing years of the 18th century (including five reigning monarchs),[7] and was responsible for a third of all blindness.[3][8] Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease.[9] Smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300–500 million deaths during the 20th century.[10][11][12] As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 15 million people contracted the disease and that two million died in that year.[13]
After vaccination campaigns throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the WHO certified the eradication of smallpox in 1979.[13] Smallpox is one of the two infectious diseases to have been eradicated, the other being rinderpest, which was unofficially declared eradicated in 2010.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 11:25 AM   #85
kdogg
Scoring Winger
 
kdogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
What chance are you taking? Delaying vaccinations has its own set of associated risks, if the child isn't vaccinated they have an increased chance of contracting whatever it is they were to be vaccinated against as well as decreasing overall herd immunity.
There are only a handful of case of measles, mumps, rubella each year.

From the first site I Googled (don't know how old these are):
Measles: approx 1 in 2,720,000 or 0.00% or 100 people in USA
Mumps: approx 1 in 702,842 or 0.00% or 387 people in USA
Rubella: approx 1 in 747,252 or 0.00% or 364 people in USA

If my child is generally at home most of the time, if I were a betting man, I would say he's probably not going to get these diseases being at home.
kdogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:28 AM   #86
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post
There are only a handful of case of measles, mumps, rubella each year.

From the first site I Googled (don't know how old these are):
Measles: approx 1 in 2,720,000 or 0.00% or 100 people in USA
Mumps: approx 1 in 702,842 or 0.00% or 387 people in USA
Rubella: approx 1 in 747,252 or 0.00% or 364 people in USA

If my child is generally at home most of the time, if I were a betting man, I would say he's probably not going to get these diseases being at home.
Is this your child?

peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 11:33 AM   #87
jar_e
Franchise Player
 
jar_e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Threads like this really show the dark side of this "information" age we are in...it gives uneducated, uninformed people the soap box to spread absolutely incorrect and wrong information.

I don't have children and I'm not going to try to emphasize with the decisions parents make every day/hour/etc for their children and trying to rationalize and realize the possible consequences that each decision may have...but it truly concerns me when parents make such ill informed decisions based on anecdotal and "facebook pages" that they derive their info from.
jar_e is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jar_e For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 11:38 AM   #88
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post
There are only a handful of case of measles, mumps, rubella each year.

From the first site I Googled (don't know how old these are):
Measles: approx 1 in 2,720,000 or 0.00% or 100 people in USA
Mumps: approx 1 in 702,842 or 0.00% or 387 people in USA
Rubella: approx 1 in 747,252 or 0.00% or 364 people in USA

If my child is generally at home most of the time, if I were a betting man, I would say he's probably not going to get these diseases being at home.
You do understand though that the whole reason those rates are so low is because of the vaccinations right?

The more people that decide to delay or not vaccinate, the rates will increase, it is happening now, and there have been deaths as a result.

And to make an evaluation of risks, you have to weigh the other factors, here you've just put some numbers on the risks of contracting the disease (assuming you are the only one who decides to delay). What about the other risk, the thing you are trying to avoid by delaying vaccinations, you have to put an evaluation to that as well.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 11:42 AM   #89
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
I've read some studies on vitamin D with relation to flu and cold, and they don't say what you are claiming here. This is a bare assertion, substantiate it with some evidence.

While you are at it maybe you can explain how taking vitamin D can generate antibodies for a particular strain of flu.

On vitamin D being more effective than vaccines for flu:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7061778.ece

http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vi...influenza.html

Also, my measles example was poor as it is not very serious for healthy people, but polio for example has much more serious consequences, may be worth getting that vaccine.

Last edited by mikey_the_redneck; 01-06-2011 at 11:47 AM.
mikey_the_redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:44 AM   #90
BigBrodieFan
Franchise Player
 
BigBrodieFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: H-Town, Texas
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post
I have interest in this issue, as I have a 14 month old little one and had to make decisions to vaccinate him. We did decide to give him almost all of the vaccinations, but did things a little differently. We delayed most shots until he was a several months older, and also split up multiple vaccinations is was suppose to receive at one time. We have decided to wait on the MMR until he is older (probably until he goes to daycare or school).

We decided to do this for two reasons:
1 . We have a good friend who works with autistic children. She said that mostly all parents have a common theme claiming vaccinations changed their children.
2. Every doctor who speaks against vaccinations has their medical license taken away.

I do realize it is in the best interest of the world's population that everyone is protected, but my above 2 points give me an uneasy feeling.

I understand your concern, but my point to people who have kids with autism is that almost all children are immunized. How do they know it was the immunizations? Immunizations start at 2 weeks to 1 month old. How could someone possibly know that their child was 'changed' at that point?
BigBrodieFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:50 AM   #91
puffnstuff
First Line Centre
 
puffnstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: wearing raccoons for boots
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan View Post
I understand your concern, but my point to people who have kids with autism is that almost all children are immunized. How do they know it was the immunizations? Immunizations start at 2 weeks to 1 month old. How could someone possibly know that their child was 'changed' at that point?
By the smell?
I changed my kids a lot when they were that age...not as often as my wife would have liked but still...uh wait, not what you meant
puffnstuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:53 AM   #92
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Sometimes I think mikey_the_redneck is a plant designed to pull an opposing side of debate to such an extreme that it makes any debate over issues of science, vaccines etc... so illegitimate and laughable.
Well continue to line up for your annual vaccines and open your wallet for carbon taxes since all science nowadays is tried, tested and true.

I mean you're right peter it is pretty "extreme" to question things like that....
mikey_the_redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:55 AM   #93
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Well continue to line up for your annual vaccines and open your wallet for carbon taxes since all science nowadays is tried, tested and true.

I mean you're right peter it is pretty "extreme" to question things like that....
The investigation of scientism and its impact upon the spirit of our times is one of the primary questions for my academic research. Quibbling over flu vaccines is silly.

http://www.amazon.ca/New-Science-Pol...4340110&sr=8-1
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:56 AM   #94
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Well continue to line up for your annual vaccines and open your wallet for carbon taxes since all science nowadays is tried, tested and true.

I mean you're right peter it is pretty "extreme" to question things like that....
Questioning isn't extreme, but to do so without an ounce of evidence to support your position is, to put it bluntly, idiotic.
valo403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:57 AM   #95
Ashartus
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
On vitamin D being more effective than vaccines for flu:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7061778.ece

http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vi...influenza.html

Also, my measles example was poor as it is not very serious for healthy people, but polio for example has much more serious consequences, may be worth getting that vaccine.
That study does not show vitamin D as being more effective than vaccination - they didn't even compare to vaccination (contrary to what Natural News says, but that site is regarded as one of the worst purveyors of medical misinformation on the internet and shouldn't ever, ever, be relied on). They did compare to anti-virals, which is a totally different thing. Presuming the study was done properly, it does show some possible benefit from vitamin D, or at least that low levels of vitamin D may increase susceptibility, but nowhere close to the level of effect from a flu vaccine for the correct strain.
Ashartus is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ashartus For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 11:58 AM   #96
fredr123
Franchise Player
 
fredr123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
Wow. I hope his billable hourly rate is severely discounted.
It was actually me and I only said it to see how people would react. Sadly, the number of thoughtful looks from the people who took my claim seriously were far more than you'd hope to see.
fredr123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:09 PM   #97
billybob123
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
The swine flu was no more harmful than regular seasonal flu.
Not true.

The issue was that it was infecting people who normally are the least likely to be infected - 5-24 year olds.

Data is in this graph provided by the CDC. Another stat for Germany is found here. Similar age spreads were seen for the 1918 pandemic Influenza virus; which is estimated to have killed 20-30 million worldwide.

Generally influenza infects and kills <5 yrs and >65 yrs.

So yeah, not quite "no more harmful".
billybob123 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to billybob123 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 12:20 PM   #98
billybob123
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
On vitamin D being more effective than vaccines for flu:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7061778.ece
As Ashartus said already, the idiots writing the newspaper article didn't understand that the authors of the journal article compared oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) to Vitamin D. Those aren't vaccines. They're moderately effective anti-virals that are given to severe influenza cases.

Sigh.

Last edited by billybob123; 01-06-2011 at 12:22 PM.
billybob123 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to billybob123 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 12:25 PM   #99
billybob123
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

I think the real problem is people using emotional arguments to try to circumvent epidemiological (i.e. objective) evidence.

How do you argue facts against emotional faith?
billybob123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:33 PM   #100
scotty2hotty
Powerplay Quarterback
 
scotty2hotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Exp:
Default

Just so I am a bit clearer on the issue ..is it generally accepted in the scientific community that:

A. There is 0 chance that vaccines cause autism.

B. There is 1/million chance that a vaccine will cause autism in certain individuals.

C. The jury is still out between A and B?
__________________
I like to quote myself - scotty2hotty
scotty2hotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:34 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016