This is topic MMR vaccine not to blame for autism in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=054874

Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
 
Court says vaccine not to blame for autism
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to talk about this so much, so, pardon some vagueness.

Having seen a lot of the documents that were likely produced in these cases, having put together chronologies for alternative preservatives (to thimerosal) and for medical records associated with plaintiffs, having seen clinical trial details and adverse experience reports concerning the vaccines and so on, I cannot say anything against this ruling.

That is not said with any lack of compassion for the families who have autistic children, because, again, having seen so many medical records outlining the difficulties facing them, how could one not feel for them?
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
As the article said, this has been scientifically established for quite a few years now. Whatever the cause of Autism and like illnesses is, it is not vaccines.
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
As the article said, this has been scientifically established for quite a few years now. Whatever the cause of Autism and like illnesses is, it is not vaccines.

Sadly, hype goes a long way.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
I feel sorry for the families involved, but I'm glad that science won the day.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
quote:
Worry about a vaccine link first arose in 1998 when a British physician, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, published a medical journal article linking a particular type of autism and bowel disease to the measles vaccine. The study was soon discredited, and British medical authorities now are investigating professional misconduct charges against Wakefield.
It seems against the spirit of science when someone is threatened with professional misconduct charges for publishing an article proposing something that goes against the current scientific ideas--whether it turned out to be right or not.

You know, people who doubt vaccines have more reasons than just a possible link to autism. You all are talking as if science and vaccines go hand-in-hand. Science would continue to test and study and actually investigate deaths and illnesses that happen after vaccines are given.

I've read the anecdotes about the parents who give their children vaccines and then their child gets sick or dies, and in those stories, the doctors completely ignore any possible correlation.

And I get it--Anecdotes are not data, but how can you have complete scientific statistical DATA if when a child dies or gets sick right after being injected with a vaccine nobody writes down that he had been vaccinated shortly before? Sure, there may not be a connection, but if doctors and other medical professionals are assuming there is no connection, how can there ever BE honest statistics reporting any sort of possible correlation between death/illness and vaccines?

It's like it's already been decided that vaccines are safe enough, and you're just wacky if you question whether or not it's a good idea to pump an infant with so many of them all at once.

And if you decide that the known risk (however small) to your child from taking vaccines outweighs the risk that your child may be exposed to an illness then you must be a bad parent.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Science would continue to test and study and actually investigate deaths and illnesses that happen after vaccines are given.
And you're suggesting that this doesn't happen?

quote:
if when a child dies or gets sick right after being injected with a vaccine nobody writes down that he had been vaccinated shortly before?
Define 'right after', and then cite your source please.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Kata, the claims are that he knowingly falsified data, not just that he was incorrect.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
My source is the stories on the http://www.thinktwice.com website.

I'm suggesting that based on those stories, a common trend is that nobody is keeping track. Read through the stories. I understand that even on the warnings for the vaccines, there are a small number of children who do die from them. My problem is how statistics don't seem to be kept on it when it actually happens. If no one keeps track, how do we know the numbers are accurate? How can we really assess the risk? And how many of those children could have been saved if the doctors had paid attention to the fact that the bad reactions started "right after" administration of the vaccine and treated accordingly? Instead, the children get more and more doses, because after all, vaccines never hurt anybody.

I said right after because it ranges from directly following to several days or weeks later in the stories I read.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yes, it has been decided that those vaccines are safe enough, by conducting large studies that check, extensively, whether having such a vaccine increases the chances of autism (much less near-immediate death, which would be much easier to figure out, since there's no problem detecting that).

And the large numbers of parents avoiding vaccines are already starting to endanger large numbers of people by doing so -- notice the rapidly increasing numbers of cases of measles in recent years. Not taking a vaccine is only a safe thing when almost everyone else takes it. There is a significant public health risk to many people not taking vaccines, which is why it should be the default, and absent other considerations, mandatory for many particularly problematic diseases. There are still plenty of people alive who remember when measles was widespread: ask them what they feel about vaccines.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
rivka, then I withdraw my objection. The article should have stated that.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Do you understand how a medical study works? Even if people are failing to keep track of things they should be in day-to-day care, when a study is done, they establish groups that will be studied and record everything that happens to them. Nothing is missed. If there was such an absurdly high death count, it would be readily apparent in the studies that have been done.

And while the studies on autism are quite conclusive, the studies on other adverse effects are orders of magnitude moreso. The possibly negative side effects (and some do have them) of different vaccines are well understood before they are ever generally administered.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
My problem is how statistics don't seem to be kept on it when it actually happens. If no one keeps track, how do we know the numbers are accurate?

*blink* WHAT?!?

(This is what happens when you get all your information from such a one-sided source, BTW.)
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Statistics are different from a medical study. I am saying that recording events that immediately follow a vaccination should be made part of statistical data.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
My problem is how statistics don't seem to be kept on it when it actually happens. If no one keeps track, how do we know the numbers are accurate?

*blink* WHAT?!?

(This is what happens when you get all your information from such a one-sided source, BTW.)

I misspoke. I meant that statistics didn't seem to be kept in those particular stories. Maybe they were and the doctors/others just didn't mention it to the parents, but I think they should have mentioned it. If those incidents weren't reported, then the numbers would be off.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I understand the feeling, because I lack faith in the medical profession myself. I saw my father dying from lack of oxygen, and his doctors doing nothing. We finally demanded that he see a pulmonary specialist and right away that specialist discovered that he was having a reaction to heparin, and his lungs were full of clots from that reaction. There were other signs that the whole care team neglected. They'd take his temperature with an ear probe and get 107. Then shake it and take it again and get 107 again. Finally after 4 or 5 attempts they'd get 103 and write that down. I saw dozens of times when scary numbers were discounted as the machine not working right. Once, for instance, after being dosed multiple times on Thanksgiving day with morphine (the actual amount wasn't written on his chart each time), his monitor said his blood pressure was in the 30s. The nurse raised the feet of his bed, lowered the head, and got a number in the 60s which she wrote down. The 30s number was dismissed as a glitch in the machine. If there's anything we're taught over and over in the nuclear industry it's to believe our instruments!

Other things we were told. O2 saturations in the 80s, 90s, whatever, it's all about the same. Definitely not true. O2 sats below 90 are cause for big concern.

This pattern held across multiple doctors and nurses in multiple fields, multiple units.

Months after Dad was killed by Heparin, it comes out that there are serious problems in the heparin supply. FDA and doctors colluded to dismiss concerns, because it's so important for so many dialysis patients, etc. Do we really know that heparin is now safe? I don't feel any confidence in that at all. If you don't take things seriously when they happen, then they generally keep happening again and again.

Another example is the way the question of HIV in the blood supply was treated in the 80s. For a long long time, far too long, the response was simply "The blood supply is safe", and nothing was done. Finally they were forced to admit the problem, and took steps to minimize it. But did they learn from their mistake? I don't think so. We tried multiple times to inform the Red Cross that Sasha tested positive for Lyme disease, a debilitating condition, after having given blood. Any potential recipient of his blood products would not know they'd been exposed, would not have the telltale bullseye rash. They'd only find out years later when chronic symptoms began to appear. It's so much worse than just crippling arthritis, too. Late stage Lyme, similar to late stage syphilis which it is a relative of (though it's primarily transmitted through tick-bites not sexually) makes you go insane. The Red Cross has never followed up with us on the issue. We don't have any knowledge of whether the recipients have been told. We keep calling to ask and they can't tell us anything. My personal guess is that it went to some file on someone's desk and no further. It's criminal.

Is it easier to be a whistle blower or just to sweep any problems under the rug and say it's not really a problem? We know the human tendency is to do the latter. Unfortunately, the regulation of the medical profession is so spotty that this tendency isn't usually overcome.

So, while I know nothing about vaccines and autism, I don't at all fault those who question whether the link has really been definitively disproven. It's so much easier to just go with the flow and say everything is safe. It's not the fault of the people involved. Anyone who raised a big stink would likely be fired and ruin their career. It's the fault of the system. We need to fix it.
 
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
 
quote:

And if you decide that the known risk (however small) to your child from taking vaccines outweighs the risk that your child may be exposed to an illness then you must be a bad parent.

I don't think this is a fair way of framing the controversy. I agree with fugu on the dangers of avoiding vaccines - it's nothing personal. The stakes are higher than just one kid.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I want to make it clear that I believe there are risks of not trusting, as well as risks of trusting. It's just that my experiences force me to be very skeptical.

Also, again, I want to stress that it's not the fault of the people involved. The system needs to change. The way the nuclear industry does it is that we have a "concerns" program where any concern anyone might have about nuclear safety in any way is recorded, anonymously if needs be, and studied carefully by a full team. If the person doesn't feel it's been addressed appropriately, they can always anonymously go to the NRC. The NRC takes lots of steps to be sure the regulators don't become good friends with those they regulate. Each plant has a resident inspector from the NRC who is swapped out frequently to prevent too close a relationship from forming. Every single time anything unexpected happens, even if it's nothing to do with nuclear safety, we record it and do a cause analysis and share our findings with the industry as a whole. We're trained constantly to have a questioning attitude, to stop, put the work in a safe configuration, and ask questions any time we're unsure of what's going on. "One Minute Matters", "Stop Think Assess Respond (STAR)", pre-job briefs, three part communication, we have dozens of tools and techniques drilled into us all the time for keeping safety first.

Studies have shown that as many as 1/3 of the patients in hospitals have their health negatively affected by mistakes made in the system. Some sort of additional oversight or rules or training needs to be done to reverse this. It's totally something that needs to be done.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
And by not exposing your child to a vaccine, you are "free-riding" off the other parents' kids who, hopefully for you, are getting vaccines in sufficient numbers to protect your child via herd immunity.

The only reason that the risk for getting a vaccinated disease is so low in the first place is because everyone else is taking the vaccine.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
I misspoke. I meant that statistics didn't seem to be kept in those particular stories. Maybe they were and the doctors/others just didn't mention it to the parents, but I think they should have mentioned it. If those incidents weren't reported, then the numbers would be off.

Parents (or patients, when we're talking about someone other than a small child) can call as well. And should if they believe the doctor has not, or may not have. There is both a paper form and a web form, as well as the 800 number.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ladyday:
quote:

And if you decide that the known risk (however small) to your child from taking vaccines outweighs the risk that your child may be exposed to an illness then you must be a bad parent.

I don't think this is a fair way of framing the controversy. I agree with fugu on the dangers of avoiding vaccines - it's nothing personal. The stakes are higher than just one kid.
Not for me.

We haven't decided when or if we're going to vaccinate our daughter, so she doesn't go out much. It's been months, in fact, since I've taken her out of the house. And when I go out, I try to limit my own exposure to people and I wash my hands when I come home.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
I misspoke. I meant that statistics didn't seem to be kept in those particular stories. Maybe they were and the doctors/others just didn't mention it to the parents, but I think they should have mentioned it. If those incidents weren't reported, then the numbers would be off.

Parents (or patients, when we're talking about someone other than a small child) can call as well. And should if they believe the doctor has not, or may not have. There is both a paper form and a web form, as well as the 800 number.
That's good to know. I'm glad to hear that information like that is being tracked. The thought of being one of those parents absolutely terrifies me.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
We haven't decided when or if we're going to vaccinate our daughter, so she doesn't go out much. It's been months, in fact, since I've taken her out of the house.
That's kind of sad.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
She's not even one yet. Why would she need to socialize with people other than her parents?
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
My source is the stories on the http://www.thinktwice.com website.

D:

That's a crazy person website!

Just look at their FAQ its scary that people actually believe this.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I've mostly read the stories.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
She's not even one yet. Why would she need to socialize with people other than her parents?

I was too hasty. At that age she obviously doesn't care, and isn't missing out on anything much. I'm sorry.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
It's okay. It actually is sad, but not for those reasons. I can't wait until I have a chance to let her go outside and play in the grass and the sun. (Unrelated illness in the family and my balancing being a full-time worker with full-time mother keep me from it.)

For now, I'm keeping her away from contagions as best I can, and seriously considering when and if to vaccinate.
 
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
quote:
Originally posted by ladyday:
quote:

And if you decide that the known risk (however small) to your child from taking vaccines outweighs the risk that your child may be exposed to an illness then you must be a bad parent.

I don't think this is a fair way of framing the controversy. I agree with fugu on the dangers of avoiding vaccines - it's nothing personal. The stakes are higher than just one kid.
Not for me.

We haven't decided when or if we're going to vaccinate our daughter, so she doesn't go out much. It's been months, in fact, since I've taken her out of the house. And when I go out, I try to limit my own exposure to people and I wash my hands when I come home.

That's fine for most illnesses, but not for measles, which is truly airborne. A person in the prodromal stage of measles will have no visible symptoms and is just as contagious as someone with the full blown rash. AND you don't even have to be in the same room with them to be exposed. You can walk into a room that they were in up to two hours earlier, and your child will be exposed to measles. You won't even know about it until your baby gets sick.

My biggest problem with unvaccinated children is the risk to infants. New babies are fully protected with maternal antibody. That protection begins to wane around 6 months of age and is gone completely by the first birthday. MMR cannot be given until the 1st birthday (due precisely to interfering maternal antibody). So 10-12 month olds are at a very high risk of measles. If they're exposed during that vulnerable window, they're almost certainly going to get sick.

If more than 5% of a population is susceptible to measles, herd immunity is compromised, and every child older than 6 months who has not been vaccinated is at risk.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
But she can't have the MMR until 1? So every baby is at risk from 6-12 months?
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
And the more older kids don't have it, the more at risk all 6-12 months olds are.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Not to mention the risks to the elderly and immunocompromised, such as people in cancer therapy. Because it is carried for a good while without symptoms and is so very contagious, it can wipe through the most vulnerable in a community pretty quickly -- including all those 6-12 month babies who aren't protected. Having herd immunity by having older kids and adults vaccinated protects those babies, and the others, too.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Measles is probably one of the ones that my pediatrician put on the top of the list to get vaccinated against. I think Meningitis was another--does that sound right?
 
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
 
I wasn't aware there was a meningitis vaccine. Mumps, Whooping Cough, and now, Chicken Pox, are all pretty high on the list. Oh, and Tetanus. I'm good for another 5 years on the big T.
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
Whooping cough is very high up there, and one of the first vaccines you are supposed to get. It's not pretty. I vaccinate completely on schedule. None of the anti-vaccine "evidence" seemed at all credible to me....basically a combination of anecdotes, weak correlations, and fear.

I do look at these things one at a time, though. I don't do the flu vaccine because there doesn't seem to be a good "herd" reason to do so. (I can't think of vaccines in any other terms. Individual risk vs benefit depend too much on what other people are choosing to do.)

But while we're on the subject, what do you think of the chicken pox vaccine? I got it for my son but am having second thoughts about it. (My daughter isn't due for another 3 months.) I guess my concern is this: I got the chicken pox as a kid and it was no big deal. I stayed home from school for a week and my mom made sure I gave it to my little brother while it was going around. Now I'm protected. If I hadn't gotten it as a kid, it could have been deadly as an adult. So this vaccine, does it protect people for life or will it wear off just when it is actually dangerous to get the chicken pox?
 
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
 
What, youth earth creationism has finally been chased out of the public square, so the flat earthers need some other cause to jump onto?

Yay.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I've seen a lot of vaccination conspiracy theory BS online, and it make me mad that these people feel like it's OK to endanger children in the name of their almost completely baseless fear-mongering.

Websites like that think twice are disgusting.
 
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
Whooping cough is very high up there, and one of the first vaccines you are supposed to get. It's not pretty. I vaccinate completely on schedule. None of the anti-vaccine "evidence" seemed at all credible to me....basically a combination of anecdotes, weak correlations, and fear.

I do look at these things one at a time, though. I don't do the flu vaccine because there doesn't seem to be a good "herd" reason to do so. (I can't think of vaccines in any other terms. Individual risk vs benefit depend too much on what other people are choosing to do.)

But while we're on the subject, what do you think of the chicken pox vaccine? I got it for my son but am having second thoughts about it. (My daughter isn't due for another 3 months.) I guess my concern is this: I got the chicken pox as a kid and it was no big deal. I stayed home from school for a week and my mom made sure I gave it to my little brother while it was going around. Now I'm protected. If I hadn't gotten it as a kid, it could have been deadly as an adult. So this vaccine, does it protect people for life or will it wear off just when it is actually dangerous to get the chicken pox?

I've seen someone with whooping cough. It's really not pretty. It also took about four visits to the emergency room for her to get diagnosed, because she had been vaccinated, and it's uncommon enough that many doctors haven't seen it. Which is dangerous in itself. If you catch a disease that doctors have trouble recognizing because they never see it, it will delay treatment. We all got emails at my college that a case of whooping cough had been diagnosed among students and that anyone with a cough that lasted more than a few days or that was violent etc should see a doctor immediately and advise them that you had been exposed.

The flu shot is a more personal decision in my opinion. There are many different types of flu, and the shot offered every year is based on which virus the experts think will be prevalent. The people it is really important for are people who are high risk, like those with compromised immune systems, asthma or other chronic breathing problems and the elderly. Children and otherwise healthy enough don't need the vaccine.
 
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
My source is the stories on the http://www.thinktwice.com website.

I'm suggesting that based on those stories, a common trend is that nobody is keeping track. Read through the stories. I understand that even on the warnings for the vaccines, there are a small number of children who do die from them. My problem is how statistics don't seem to be kept on it when it actually happens. If no one keeps track, how do we know the numbers are accurate? How can we really assess the risk? And how many of those children could have been saved if the doctors had paid attention to the fact that the bad reactions started "right after" administration of the vaccine and treated accordingly? Instead, the children get more and more doses, because after all, vaccines never hurt anybody.

I said right after because it ranges from directly following to several days or weeks later in the stories I read.

ANY website who's FAQ page tells you that WHOOPING COUGH is NOT very dangerous in older children and/or adults should be one that you run away from as quickly as possible. Whooping Cough is a highly contagious, very dangerous illness which often requires hospitalization.

While it is true that the most dangerous side effects are more likely in very young children, you can still have major problems as an adult or older child with the disease. And whooping cough is making a comeback. It is showing up more often and impacting many more children and adults than it has in the recent past.

I don't argue that it must be the parents decision whether to immunize or not, but as more people choose not to immunize due to propaganda like this website, diseases which had been well contained are becoming more prevalent. Immunizations were developed for these diseases because they are dangerous, and difficult to treat. Many of them are still very difficult to treat. I'm not going to tell any parent that they MUST have their child immunized, but websites like this one are working from a false pretense. Immunization recommendations given by doctors have been developed out of years of study, and an understanding that diseases like these are difficult to treat and dangerous. This website and others like it are not using science to prove their points, and they are starting from a false hypothesis. They are assuming that immunizations are bad, and then gathering only information to support their theory.

Edited for clarity.

[ February 13, 2009, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Christine, there's a booster for the chicken pox given to teens (or was my daughter 12? maui babe and CT probably know what age is recommended). It seems to do the trick, as far as studies so far show.

But keep in mind that while most kids who have chicken pox are fine (I definitely was), a not insignificant number require hospitalization (my baby brother, who caught it from me, almost did), and it can cause death.
 
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
 
It's also important because only people who had chicken pox can get shingles as an adult. Shingles can be dangerous too, making the chicken pox vaccine more important in the long run.
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
I had been exposed to chicken pox when I was little, but in the end I never caught it.

I should probably get the vaccine, huh?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Or at least discuss it with your doctor.
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
I just want to back up and clarify some things here.

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
I misspoke. I meant that statistics didn't seem to be kept in those particular stories. Maybe they were and the doctors/others just didn't mention it to the parents, but I think they should have mentioned it. If those incidents weren't reported, then the numbers would be off.

Parents (or patients, when we're talking about someone other than a small child) can call as well. And should if they believe the doctor has not, or may not have. There is both a paper form and a web form, as well as the 800 number.
rivka is right on here, and if she were not, it would not literally take years and large legal teams to digest the thousands of documents and millions of pages of AE reports (Adverse Experience reports in all their various forms - WAES, SRRs, MedWatch, etc.) put together by not only by federal agencies but drug companies, doctors, pharmaceutical representatives, consumers, etc., etc. I HAVE WORKED ON THESE LITIGATION CASES and have seen the huge quarterly reports that are compiled and submitted to the FDA as well as reports generated by searching for SPECIFIC conditions, ailments (chose whatever word you like). They have databases holding this information that only Jane could comprehend in their entirety. Everything is getting documented provided it is reported. I've seen the reports, I've redacted the medical privacy information, and not just reports in the US but from all over the world.

This ruling was not reached lightly. There was so much paper to sift through, it's rather boggling that they managed to reach one even now, despite the timing (years ago) of Wakefield's initial (and erroneous) conclusions.

I have worked at this firm for over five years, and the entire time it's been on product/personal injury litigation cases, and the first three years were spent on a vaccine case that had been going on for five years prior to my arrival according to coworkers.

Just saying.
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Christine, there's a booster for the chicken pox given to teens (or was my daughter 12? maui babe and CT probably know what age is recommended). It seems to do the trick, as far as studies so far show.

But keep in mind that while most kids who have chicken pox are fine (I definitely was), a not insignificant number require hospitalization (my baby brother, who caught it from me, almost did), and it can cause death.

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize there was a booster. And if it cuts down on shingles, too, then that is compelling reason to go ahead and do it.
 
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
 
I believe that there is also a new shingles vaccine. However, it is meant for people of a specific age, who have had the chicken pox in the past (as you can't get shingles if you didn't have chicken pox). I know that I'm not considered old enough to get the vaccine for shingles yet (and I'll be 30 at the end of March) but I don't know at what age you should get it. If you're concerned about shingles and are interested in the vaccine you should speak to your doctor.

Also, just as chicken pox can be dangerous to very small children, it can be dangerous to adults who catch it too. I don't know if adults can get the chicken pox vaccine, but it wouldn't hurt to ask your doctor if you've never had it.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The "think twice" website is not a good source. The FAQ is not reliable. It reccomends feeding your kid "wholesome foods" to get a vaccine that has already been administered to stop being effective.

This is not science. Wholesome foods are a good idea, but it has nothing to do with what the site claims it is an answer to.
 
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine recommendations

quote:
Who should get chickenpox vaccine and when?

Children who have never had chickenpox should get 2doses of chickenpox vaccine at these ages:

First dose: 12 through 15 months of age
Second dose: 4 through 6 years of age (may be given earlierif at lease 3 months after the first dose)

People 13 years of age and older (who have never had chickenpox or received chickenpox vaccine) should get two doses at least 28 days apart.

From CDC vaccine information statement
 
Posted by Moridin (Member # 11854) on :
 
I'll just throw out some information on the chicken pox/shingles relationship. Chicken pox is caused by a strain of the herpes virus, and like most variations of herpes, once contracted you are infected for life. When attacked by your body's defenses, the chicken pox virus will retreat to a set of nerve bundles in your lower back, I believe. Severe stress or a depressed immune system can cause a flare up of the virus that results in shingles.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Shingles can be very, very unpleasant. It can cause nerve damage that can be quite painful for months or years after the rash is gone and is very difficult to treat. It can also attack the eyes and cause problems, even blindness.
 
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
I'm thrilled about this ruling. Now maybe some money and publicity can go to things that will actually help children with autism (like ABA and PECS, etc.) and to getting more appropriate special needs programs in the public schools. Speech and language therapy isn't covered by most insurances and is very costly (we pay $100/hour). We're very fortunate to be able to afford it, but not many can. It would be so beneficial to so many families if they could get some assistance with that. Money and publicity are also needed for studies of other things that have been linked to autism (placenta previa, for example) and need further investigation.

FWIW, Aerin has an ASD diagnosis (though I will admit that it's controversial and she has 3 other diagnoses) and we had her vaccinated and we're having the twins vaccinated.
 
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
 
We are vaccinating 100% on schedule.

My cousin died at age 3 from complications after chicken pox. (Reye's Syndrome. And no, she wasn't given aspirin.)
 
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
 
There was a nasty outbreak of whooping cough at my daughter's middle school just this year - I remember reading the letter the school sent home and being quite surprised. I guess it's easy to take those vaccinations for granted and think 'oh, whooping cough, who gets that in this day and age?'.

Also, I agree with Mrs. M, though I don't know if I'd use the word thrilled to describe my own reaction to this ruling. More like exasperated impatience.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Point of interest, the headquarters for Autism Speaks is two blocks from my work.

Anyone want to deliver a (productive) message?
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ela:
This website has some common-sense information for parents who are worried about vaccines:

http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/


Also want to say that I agree with fugu's and CT's comments about herd immunity and vulnerable populations.

Actually a fair amount of pediatricians (including ours) feel he is being misleading with his analysis. A whole lot of this happens in situation B, which is somewhat similar on the surface to situation B, so maybe we should be careful.

Apparently a month or two ago in the AAP official magazine, a pediatrician refutes or applies some skepticism to Dr. Sears' claims.

http://blogs.babycenter.com/momformation/2009/01/07/dr-sears-vaccine-book-is-deconstructed-by-pediatrician/

-Bok
 
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Point of interest, the headquarters for Autism Speaks is two blocks from my work.

Anyone want to deliver a (productive) message?

I signed the Autism Speaks: Don't Speak for Mepetition.

Does that count as "productive"? [Smile]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by maui babe:
Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine recommendations

quote:
Who should get chickenpox vaccine and when?

Children who have never had chickenpox should get 2doses of chickenpox vaccine at these ages:

First dose: 12 through 15 months of age
Second dose: 4 through 6 years of age (may be given earlierif at lease 3 months after the first dose)

People 13 years of age and older (who have never had chickenpox or received chickenpox vaccine) should get two doses at least 28 days apart.

From CDC vaccine information statement
So the fact that I'm pretty sure my eldest got the booster much later than age 6 is most likely because of when it became available?
 
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
I don't recall how old your children are, Rivka, but I do know that the varicella vaccine was not available prior to about 1998 or so. None of my children received it (my youngest was born in 1991), and my two youngest had CPOX in 1999 (right after their baby cousin received the vax - he spent many days with my poxed girls and did not get sick).
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by maui babe:
I don't recall how old your children are, Rivka, but I do know that the varicella vaccine was not available prior to about 1998 or so.

I thought my almost-15 got it at 18 or 24 months. Which would be 1995 or -6.

At that point they were considering whether a booster would be necessary, but no guidelines had been established (IIRC what the pediatrician said). I think she got the booster at 12.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
She's not even one yet. Why would she need to socialize with people other than her parents?
To see the outdoors. People aren't meant to be cooped up in houses for months on end. They're meant to go outside, experience the natural world, breathe air not filled with household dust, see different faces and different places.

That is the reason. Please, take her outside!
 
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
 
I've put off commenting on this for awhile, even though I started the topic. I mostly thought that it would be interesting to see what everyone else had to say on the topic, though I was sure it had been discussed (though not in light of the new information) before.

For the record, baby c is being vaccinated (though a month behind due to insurance complications) 100%. Especially the chicken pox vaccine. Even though I had the shortest case anybody had seen in our family (two days), my brother who caught it after me had it for six weeks. He had an awful case that progressed into his throat and ears as well as up his nose and his er...bottom. Had he not gotten better when he had, they were going to hospitalize him. I don't want her to have to go through that.

I will admit that although I am skeptical of baby c having so many vaccines so close together, I do not want her 'piggy-backing' on other children being vaccinated. I feel that it would be irresponsible of me to do that although I respect other's wishes to not vaccinate or to vaccinate off-schedule. That's their decision with their children and I think that's pretty personal.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
The problem I have with other people not vaccinating is that it does not just affect them and their children. They are compromising herd immunity and there are definitely cases out there linked to weaknesses in herd immunity. When other people's decision endangers the life of the very old and very young (who can not be immunized), that is wrong.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
But scholarette, does herd immunity actually take precedence over your individual child? For instance, we do know that some complications do arise. For instance, in the flu vaccine, a few people become paralyzed. If you thought your child would be one of those, is the use of her limbs for the rest of her life less important than maintaining her portion of the herd immunity?

Do you know that vaccines also don't convey 100% immunity? Usually it's something like 85%. Herd immunity is mainly what they're doing, in fact, since individual immunity is somewhat spotty.

They don't tell us this, because they want us to all get immunized. In fact, I have had all my immunizations and I would probably get them all for my kids. But I don't at all fault people who look at their own kids' cost/benefit equation and decide not to.
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tatiana:
But scholarette, does herd immunity actually take precedence over your individual child? For instance, we do know that some complications do arise. For instance, in the flu vaccine, a few people become paralyzed. If you thought your child would be one of those, is the use of her limbs for the rest of her life less important than maintaining her portion of the herd immunity?

Do you know that vaccines also don't convey 100% immunity? Usually it's something like 85%. Herd immunity is mainly what they're doing, in fact, since individual immunity is somewhat spotty.

They don't tell us this, because they want us to all get immunized. In fact, I have had all my immunizations and I would probably get them all for my kids. But I don't at all fault people who look at their own kids' cost/benefit equation and decide not to.

Most of the vaccines I'm aware of are much more effective than that, especially with a booster. The MMR, which this thread is talking about, is something like 99.7% effective after the booster. (95% from first dose)

There is a definite right of the individual vs right of the society aspect to the vaccine debate but the trouble with your scenario is you don't KNOW whether your child will have a bad reaction or not. We know that a small percentage of people do react badly to vaccines but we don't know which ones. If we knew with any kind of certainty that your child would develop a serious complication from a vaccine, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with you abstaining. But that's not what happens. What happens is that people are afraid and decide not to vaccinate, when the odds are just the same as for anyone else that their kids will be fine. They weaken weaken overall immunity and their decision only works out so long as only a few people make this decision.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I have no problem with people who have a specific reason to avoid immunizations avoiding them. And the flu vaccine I think it is fine for anyone to pass on that. I think that healthy people choosing to avoid MMR is selfish. If the rest of the population did not immunize, then the percentages for complications would make immunization the clear cut best solution. It is only because of herd immunity that the small risk of immunization is worse then the risk of getting the disease. And someone who has a higher probablity of complication from immunization has to consider a much higher chance of getting the disease if they pass on immunization- esp since those people have worse risks if they get the disease.
 
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
quote:
There is a definite right of the individual vs right of the society aspect to the vaccine debate but the trouble with your scenario is you don't KNOW whether your child will have a bad reaction or not.
I don't understand the struggle of society vs the individual. If the vaccines are as effective as I think they are, then shouldn't the risk of non-vaccination only affect the parts of society that chose not to vaccinate?

What is the risk to vaccinated kids if my kid doesn't get vaccinated? How does that put the vaccinated part of society at risk?

Note: I believe in vaccinations and my kids are vaccinated. I just don't understand why I should feel threatened if some other family refuses to get vaccinated. More power to them.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Because, as has already been pointed out, infants cannot be vaccinated until they reach a certain age. If herd immunity is compromised then infants would be at a much higher risk than they are now. Not just infants whose parents choose not to vaccinate, but ALL infants born would be at risk.

Also, people who have compromised immunity like cancer patients would be placed at risk, or mothers of unborn children. Like me...I was never vaccinated for rubella...don't know why, just wasn't. It was discovered in routine bloodwork when I was pregnant. As it was, I had little to fear because of heard immunity. I simply carried my baby to term, and then was vaccinated after her birth so it would not be an issue in future pregnancies.

Had I contracted rubella while pregnant, the consequences on my child could have been devastating. Fortunately, herd immunity worked for me. The more people who refuse to vaccinate, the more people in the population are put at risk. Not just the ones who choose not to vaccinate, but others in the population as well.

Not to mention the other costs to society...in medical care and medicines to treat diseases that are easily preventable with vaccines. Vaccinating a child against whooping cough is a lot cheaper than treating that child for whooping cough in the emergency room. High medical costs affect us all...not just the people who are sick.
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
Exactly. My 9-month-old does not have the measles immunity. She won't for another 3 months.

Also, there is the .3% of the time the vaccine just doesn't take.

And there are a few children who cannot get vaccinated for serious medical reasons.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2