There were zero cases of vaccine causing of autism. Zero as in none - except where people were lying. Or using what is classic junk science reasoning. A benchmark of a liar was the poorly educated Jenny McCarthy. Many believed her only because she made claims that were contradicted by numbers and well proven facts. Her credibility came from the same thing that made Kim Kardasian famous.

Did you get actual facts with numbers? Or just read hearsay that must be true because it was on the internet? Your job is not to convince anyone. A contributor defines what facts are. Where are these numbers that were used to prove an MMR vaccine dangerous?

We know vaccines only increased autism because liars (including Dr Wakefield) were intentionally deceitful. Done because he could so easily manipulate many who know by ignoring numbers. Dr Wakefield fled the UK in 2004 when it was obvious he was going to be censured for treachery and intentionally counterfeit research. He moved to where he could set up a clinic to continue his lies: Texas. After 2010, his lies were so egregious that he was very publicly stripped of his UK license to practice medicine. In part, because he was using lies about vaccines and autism only to enrich himself.

And so again the question. It is not about you convincing anyone. It is a question – based in nothing but logic - about how you came to a conclusion that was otherwise only promoted by hearsay, lies, and myths. What numbers were used to make an informed decision? Hopefully not what is well proven to be a lie promoted by the obviously dumb Jenny McCarthy – about vaccines creating autism. Since we have no numbers to justify any such conclusions, then where did you find numbers that said something different?.

You're ignoring the timeline. McCarthy, Wakefield, etc.... all that was going on at the time this thread was created. I've linked the page that shows info from 1998. My kids were born in 98 and 00.

Where's the proof that more children were harmed by measles mumps or rubella than were harmed by vaccines?

It's very clear to me why clod avoids this thread. You fuckers don't listen. You're more interested in telling someone they are wrong than trying to relate to them.

I said I was not going to change anyone's mind, and wouldn't try to. I also said you won't change mine. I guess you took that as a challenge.

The goddamned fact of the Motherfucking matter is that we did what we did. We did it on purpose. Giving me shit about it at this point is asinine. Persisting after being asked over and over to stop it is fucking rude. Knock it the fuck off.

I've said repeatedly that if the situation changes, I'm not opposed to vaccines. If my kids had been injured by the vaccines, I would not be able to Un vaccinate them and make them back to the way they were.

It was not my responsibility to obtain facts and numbers; to protect the kids. The question was whether you did. Your answer was not to convince anyone. Just to state how you reached a decision.

Medical research, confirmed by statistics, has repeatedly confirmed these diseases are far more destructive than any few adverse reactions. Every peer reviewed study that contradicted that fact was later proven bogus.

This research is repeated constantly. A vaccine in 2010 appears to be less effective than it was in the 2009 study. Same vaccine was even less effective in 2011. Why was that discovered? Because people who make decisions by doing numbers are analyzing this stuff constantly. Infant vaccines remain, by far, the best solution. That conclusion, based in numbers, has not changed.

No numbers in multiple replies confirms you made a decision without numbers. Question answered both by omission and with profanity. No numbers in multiple posts is a damning symptom. So you answered the question.

Previous vaccination scams were reported and then exposed. For example, a 1981 study in England claimed permanent brain damage in one out of every 310,000 kids. NBC aired those claims in 1982. Meanwhile, the study was exposed as false. But now many (who routinely know by ignoring numbers) automatically knew vaccines harmed kids. It was the first thing heard; so it must be true. Facts be damned.

Accusing MMR of being ineffective or dangerous has been classic junk science reasoning. No numbers makes that obvious. Same reasoning was used by a stripper named Jenny McCarthy to cause death and harm to so many kids. She also will not apologize for lying even though her only information source (Dr Wakefield) never provided honest numbers.

This is getting way personal.

A discussion on the pros and cons of vaccinating is one thing. Challenging a dwellar to justify parental decisions from a decade ago is not right. This is not the place. We do not have that right.

Jim and Jinx made their decisions according to the information and climate of a different time.

I made a distinction. Nothing challenged his decision. Asked was whether the decision was based in facts or numbers. Or based in subjective speculation. He has said (by omission and profanity) that the decision was based in subjective speculation.

Also provided were facts that show that others made the same mistake. Why (for example the 1981 England study). And that researchers do these numbers frequently. His was a very common mistake. To think a decision was based in numbers when, in reality, it was only based in subjective speculation.

A common joke that discusses this thought process is , "It must be true. It's on the internet."

Another and similar example. Is your computer plugged into a power strip protector? Why spend so much money for something that does not protect from typically destructive surges, and has a history of sometimes causing house fires? In this other example, did you read the numbers? Or use hearsay and subjective speculation to assume 'protector' and 'protection' sound same; so it must do protection? Similar question was asked about vaccines and now about safety.

Again his and That does not challenge anyone. It demonstrates how easily people make decision without facts. A benchmark for identifying subjective and uninformed decisions is forming a conclusion without perspective (ie the numbers).

When dealing in abstracts and the hypothetical that tenor of conversation is fine. But challenging Jim on how he reached his decisions and then judging those decisions in a combative manner is always going to provoke emotion, because this isn't hypothetical and abstract it's about his kids and how he's raised them.

And don't even think of bringing up the children thinking emotionally and adults thinking logically stuff, because that just doesn't fly in the world of actual human beings.

You are reading into that post something that I never put into it. Read only what is posted. If you see emotion in my post, then ask yourself why you added your own biases to what you read. For that matter, cite specifically the personal attack.

Now please answer the question about surge protector. It is the point. Do you plug your computer into a surge protector? Or do you also find that to be combative?

I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.

Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.

One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.

I didn't ignore your request for numbers twice, tw. You ignored the numbers. I said jinx did tons of research. That means she did more than 2000 researches. Number.

Also, I linked a page that listed the number of deaths by measles and by vaccine injury. More numbers.

I'm not responsible for the whole herd. I'm responsible for my kids. If more than zero kids died or suffered lasting health issues from vaccine injury, and none died from the disease. .... Seemed like an obvious equation. These are the only numbers that actually have relevance. The risk was greater than the reward. We never said that we would never ever take a vaccine. We decided to wait until they knew more about the risk. Or until there was a real and present danger from a disease that could be averted by a vaccine.

My use of profanity indicates only that you are a fucking Martian. You are just using this topic as a spring board to rant about your favorite subject. Namely, that you are somehow superior because you are hyper logical and devoid of human feeling. Good luck with that.


I don't use a surge protector. I have some high tech thing Zippy sent me that actually works.

People make decisions emotionally all the time. I see them do it every day. This was not an emotional decision. We took our time, looked at all the information available at the time and decided to wait. I didn't keep the notes. Dana is right. You're way over the line here.

You can slander whoever you want about falsifying studies. Seems more likely to me that a business that has lots of money riding on the approval of their drug would lie about the numbers.

I suppose it's not possible that some of the vaccines people give their kids are not strictly needed. Not possible that there is some kernel of truth to the accusations that the mmr shot can cause encephalitis. I don't really give a fuck. I'm 100% sure that my kids are healthy and whole.

I put a lot more thought into this decision than 85% of upper management did.

Most people just do what the doctor tells them to. If shit goes wrong, they sue the doctor. They abdicate their responsibilities to their kids because they are either too busy providing for them, or because they are fully indoctrinated into the system, and that's just how people do this stuff.

I guess that's why people want to give us shit for *thinking for ourselves. Because they didn't. So they are actually defending their lack of effort by disparaging our decision. Glatt is the only one that I've seen be honest here. And Clod of course. Correct me if I'm wrong. .. did any of you that are reading this do more than 30 minutes of research about what chemicals the doctors were injecting into your children? Or did you simply do as directed? Right or wrong. Did it even occur to you to question it? Don't you love your children? (see how that feels? )

* to be honest. ..I have to give the credit to jinx. I was too busy working to give it more than a cursory look, and it probably wouldn't have even occurred to me to. Jinx had the time. She also is not afraid to question authority.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying Jim and Jinx approached the decision emotionally. It's this thread and this conversation which will always provoke emotion. Because this is about questioning and casting judgement on someone's parenting.

Thanks for the compliment. :blush:

To be completely honest about how I don't know what the fuck I'm doing here, I signed up for a flu shot tomorrow. They're doing them at work for free again, like they do every year.

I think there's a risk associated with getting a flu shot. I didn't used to think that way years ago. I just trusted that they were completely safe. So now I'm taking it as given that there is a small risk of serious problems associated with the flu shot, but I also don't want to get the flu. I was riding on a Metro train last week, and there were a bunch of people in my car coughing. I realized we were coming up on the winter and the illnesses that get spread around then. And I just really wasn't so thrilled about that thought. So when I saw a reminder email about these free flu shots being given just down the hall, I decided to sign up for one.

I get sealed up in a train car with about 100 strangers twice a day. I think my immune system gets a good workout from that, but I also think it exposes me to more than most people. So this year, I'm shrugging my shoulders, and rolling up my sleeve.

I don't pretend to have any answers.

I am a former big-L Libertarian. Why former? L'ism is sort of dependent on the notion that the "social contract" is bullshit. But to my surprise, over time, I found it was actually kind of valid. We are all dependent on each other. Our identities, survival, and success are completely bound to the culture and society we are in, WAY far more than we acknowledge.

You are not responsible for the whole herd. And yet the whole herd depends on you. You have always given back to the whole herd, in many ways. Raising a strong family with good values. Going to work and being productive. Paying taxes. Giving a shit about others. You have given more than you have received. You've done more than I have, and I thank you for it.

This is all kind of separate from the question of whether to vaccinate. It may be that your contribution to the herd, in this case, is challenging the status quo.

I have about 30 hours in just for this thread. Of course I don't have kids. But right here in the thread we have someone who has spent probably 16 years studying medicine and who does have kids. You dismiss her beliefs as conspiracy theory.

I believe the feels part is on you. You don't have to feels if you don't want to. I believe you want to. It's OK, we all do. We are defining ourselves by how others react to us. We all want to be loved and respected by others. It's part of the social contract.

On that basis, I am willing to stop discussing it and even offered to delete the thread and move on. But it's an important thing to discuss in this world, and I wish we could continue to do it here.

The minor pain of honestly discussing hard questions helps our society reach herd immunity against ignorance.

Also, going against conventional wisdom means people will challenge you. Maybe even be mean and sarcastic. (Not sarcasm!) I've been there, big time. Better fetch that helmet brother.

We make thousands of decisions every day. Some are more meaningful and require more thought and varying degrees of research. Of course tw's standard response is you have to have the facts and numbers.

Well duh, that would make life so much easier, but getting the right facts and right numbers isn't that easy. Pre-internet is was fucking near impossible unless you had connections in that field. The internet has been a help but still a minefield of misinformation and outright bullshit. Even with the ability to access the right information it might take days, weeks, even months to get it. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Yeah, yeah the children's health is worth investing the time, nobody will argue that, but that's what people like Jinx did. Whether you agree with her conclusion or not, you can not justifiably claim she didn't try to do the best for her kids.

Hindsight is usually 20-20, but even then it's not always possible.

I am not sure what gave you that impression. I did ask if there were financial pressures on doctors to maintain vaccination quotas. She denied knowledge of it. I have no reason to disbelieve her on that point. It does not mean it's not happening, though.

Doctors offices are businesses. Big practices are organized like big businesses. They get paid by the job, just like a mechanic. If a young doctor in a big practice is not overseen and reviewed by seniors, I'd be very surprised. If that young doctor had a noticeably higher percentage of unvaccinated patients, there would be questions asked. That doctor I mentioned seemed quite upset that we were delaying the mmr vaccine. Not frantic, but frustrated to be sure. Maybe offended that we were questioning her recommendation. ... anyway, if she HAD seen 'so many kids die of measles' it would have HAD to have been in another country. But she didn't say that. So she was deceptive at best. She was trying to scare us into doing as she wanted.

I don't recall discounting orthos experience or acumen. Although, as far as I know, she is neither an immunologist, nor a pediatrician. What kind of Doctor is an ortho? Orthopedic? Is she qualified to offer advice or cast judgements?

I recall saying that I knew I was not going to change her mind. But, instead of affording me the same respect, she chose to lecture me on the benefits of vaccines, and she chose to state that I smeared all hard working physicians by questioning their motivation. She chose to talk down to me as though I were ignorant about this topic. I'm not. I may not have the same priorities as she does, but I'm not uninformed. I know that the sun causes the rooster to crow.

A Phd does not confer intelligence. It does not even mean you have a better source of information anymore. She mentioned journals. Who publishes those? It's not conspiracy. It's business. Pharma companies see doctors as front line salespeople. If any one has a biased source of information, Its doctors. Couple that with the inherent superiority complex they usually develop, and I'm sorry, but I'll think for myself. I accept the information she offers. I'll weigh it against the risk myself.

While we wait for Ortho's answer, Jinx's degree is in what? I honestly don't know.

And Jenny McCarthy's?

Ok, you're gonna act like that. Great. Have fun agreeing with each other in this thread. I'm out.

Act like what now?

And when we do not have perspective (numbers are just one example), then we take extreme care. And make a guess only after accessing the risk. BTW, why is the Silicon Valley so innovative? They make mistakes. Then do not get angry. Instead they learn why they made a mistake. That was the point lost when some, instead, well, it will be explained.

You may think so. But read what I posted. I never even implied that. And am rather confused how one would reach that conclusion without adding, well, its explained below.

If I was criticizing lumberjim's and jinx's parenting skills, then you would have read multiple reasons why I reached that conclusion. At this point you should know I routinely provide multiple reasons for a conclusion. This post will be a classic example.

A first post discussed conclusions about vaccines and surge protectors. What do both have in common with parenting skills? Nothing. That was a clue that you were reading what was not posted.

Many (probably most) only read what they expect to read. A conclusion based in motivated reasoning. How do surge protectors define bad parenting skills?

The point was bluntly about how people make conclusions. As discussed previously. This topic goes right back to how children think verses how adults think when using a pre-frontal cortex. No way around that reality. Children and adults who are thinking like children entertain a "motivated reasoning" process. Adults eventually discover that something must be read at least three times to understand it - especially when a concept is new. Otherwise motivated reasoning takes hold.

If you understood it with a first reading, then it said only what you already knew it would say. And probably overlooked the most important part (numbers).

At this point the emotional, using motivational reasoning, will see these words but not read what is posted. Since I have already touched on a reality that angers, then many will not reread to understand the actual topic in that first post.

We know numbers prove benefits of infant vaccines far outweigh the risks. Facts and updated numbers from research repeatedly say so (including recent numbers that expose a decreasing effectiveness in one vaccine). Why do so many know otherwise? "Motivated reasoning" partially explains it.

Dr Kahan of Yale discusses, for example, how conservatives tend to value individualism, hierarchical organization, and a belief in ensuring their own prosperity. Therefore a "sacrifice of one for the many" (what should be a familiar quote) is contrary to many conservative beliefs. As a result, a CFL light bulb that is environmentally friendly creates a very negative response from this group. Their motivated reasoning explains why CFL bulbs sell least to most conservative thinkers. Even though its advantages over an incandescent bulb and numerous and significant.

Michael Shermer in an October issue of Scientific American further demonstrates the problem by using himself as an example. Citing his bias for unrestricted gun access. Opinions that were challenged by extensive research into guns, homicides, and accidental shootings eventually changed his motivated beliefs. He said Shermer then discusses a trend he noted at the 2013 FreedomFest in Las Vegas. A commentary in Machine Design, notes (unfortunately) that scientific facts today must be 'tailored' to reader biases. Well, I did not do that, did I? I simply posted facts bluntly as facts without any concern for what was completely irrelevant here - the reader’s emotional biases. I expect you to know the minute you have assumed insult or cheapshot, then you know you have not grasped the point. And probably overlooked a perspective (the numbers). Again, most readers never see written numbers (the perspective) until after multiple rereads.

So, have you followed rather complex concepts posted here? If you did not read this at least three times, then you did not. A second benchmark point to add to one about rejecting claims that are only subjective; not quantitative. If your conclusions are not tempered by perspective (the numbers), then what was read may be a victim of motivated reasoning.

That first post says nothing critical about anyone. It is completely about how people see vaccines as dangerous when no quantitative research (even 30 years ago - 1982) said that. And about people who do same with surge protectors (ie assume it is high tech; therefore must do protection).

To suspect infant vaccines are more dangerous than beneficial is a perfect example of motivated reasoning. Defining one as easily manipulated (brainwashed) as the stripper and actress Jenny McCarthy. No quantitative conclusion even ten years ago could justify subjectively inspired fears. And yet that is what so many of us use for knowledge. Saddam's WMDs were another perfect example. The inability of TEPCO top management to make a decision to save three nuclear reactors from meltdown is another perfect example. Another is management that all but murdered seven Challenger astronauts. How many instead assumed these were accidents? At best, one could only conclude these were classic examples of brain freeze.

A conclusion based in emotions is not what the pre-frontal cortex does. But is a characteristic of how children think. When incapable of grasping something that contradicts beliefs, many have a brain freeze; simply resort to the brain mostly used by children. Many simply and foolishly decide based upon what makes them comfortable. People can die because of it.

Moving on. Did you ignore a statement about computer adjacent protectors even creating house fires? Why did that not get most of your attention? Were you reading for facts? Or reading only to be emotional or stay in your comfort zone? I intentionally included that ‘bait’ to see who would grasp for facts. How many instead remained in a 'feel good' mode; used motivated reasoning to even ignore how fires get created?

I never criticized anyone's parenting skills. I noted how people entertain their emotions rather than grasp facts and numbers. This fear of vaccines has long been a perfect example.

I simply demonstrated how lumberjim, et al were easily manipulated by Jenny McCarthy, et al type myths. Does not matter when they did the research. It was still a conclusion from reasoning also demonstrated by Jenny McCarthy. Never a criticism of lumberjim or jinx. And yet lumberjim did exactly what so many do when motivated reasoning is exposed. A majority get angry rather than learn from their mistakes. A majority get angry rather than do what Michael Shermer does (professionally).

I'm late to the conversation; I was driving all day. I'm sorry LJ has left.

For anyone else who wonders if doctors are under pressure to 'maintain vaccination quotas', the answer is no. Vaccines do not make money. They are break-even at best, sometimes a money-loser. Most pharm companies have gotten out of manufacturing vaccines because of the Jenny McCarthy craziness and the huge lawsuit settlements given by jurors who believed Jenny McCarthy rather than the facts. The few remaining vaccine manufacturers sometimes can't keep production up, and we experience shortages at times. This has the potential to bite us big-time, in the next pandemic.

Procedures are what make a profit, because that's what insurance companies have decided to pay most for. Vaccines make nothing.

What kind of doctor am I? I've been a family physician since 1986 and have seen MANY children because, in Ontario, pediatricians are strictly referral specialists. No one is allowed to take their children to a pediatrician for primary care. Family docs see all the kids for preventive and primary care. I'm currently finishing a residency in Preventive Medicine and Occupational/Environmental Medicine. I will finish my Master of Public Health next spring. I'll write board exams next fall that will require that I have a specialist's level of knowledge about vaccines and immunizations. My pre-medical degree was a double major in biochemistry and chemistry. But it doesn't matter how qualified I am. That's not going to change anyone's mind who thinks vaccines harm us and that all doctors are in league with Big Pharm to get rich by forcing immunizations on the public.

Who publishes scientific and medical journals? They are edited by peer-review committees of respected scientists who examine submitted papers for study design, quality, and contribution to existing knowledge. Anyone who publishes a paper or serves on an editorial board must disclose all potential conflicts of interest. Big Pharm does not publish the journals.

I think a question was asked about whether there is any evidence that measles, mumps, and rubella actually cause harm greater than the vaccines against them do. Rubella is a mild illness in the sufferer, but a scourge when unborn children encounter it. An unvaccinated person could have rubella and not even realize it, communicate it to an unvaccinated pregnant woman, and the result would be catastrophic damage to the baby. Mumps causes deafness and orchitis resulting in infertility. Measles is what causes encephalitis, not the vaccine. It also kills via pneumonia. There is no treatment for these diseases. They're virus-caused and we don't have good antivirals against them.

Public and preventive health are concerned with the social contract. They focus on the health of populations, and vaccination is a population issue. When the herd is immune, it's protected; when a significant proportion is not immune, disease outbreaks occur. We didn't see measles, mumps, and rubella for a few decades in the late 20th century because immunization rates were extremely high. Now we're seeing outbreaks as a result of immunization refusal. Not lecturing; it's just information.

Encephalitis is a known potential side effect of the MMR vaccine. Of course the corollary assumption is that it's rare, but check your package insert. It's written right there.

The MMR vaccine is a live attenuated virus vaccine. In a severely immunocompromised person (including unborn children), it may cause disease. Disease then carries the potential complication of encephalitis. We don't give live vaccines to pregnant women or those who are severely immunocompromised. The conditions under which the vaccine could/might cause it are extremely rare (this is not an assumption - see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/...ffects.htm#mmr), but every possible risk of adverse reaction must be listed on the insert. Encephalitis is not a material risk of the MMR vaccine. We, and our children, face much higher risks from the disease.

One of my children developed varicella (chicken pox) encephalitis when he contracted it at 8 years old. There was no vaccine then. It was a horrible thing to watch him go through.

Of course. And risk vs. reward is the debate everyone should be having, both on an individual and a collective level. But that involves acknowledging that there is some level of inherent risk. It's the "100% safe guaranteed no matter what" rhetoric that causes people to mistrust doctors.

Interestingly, all the doctors I know are notorious about hedging their answers when it comes to any medical knowledge. Every procedure carries risk; every assumption could always use more research. Except this one thing.

The link I provided above is to a page that specifically discusses vaccine risks. This is public information. More importantly, Vaccine Information Sheets (VISs), which provide information on the benefits and risks of the vaccine to be given, are required by law to be given to every patient/guardian prior to them receiving the vaccine. See http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/...facts-vis.html.

You're right, clod, every procedure carries risk. The material risks from vaccines are very, very small. Nevertheless, every medical office provides information on those risks with every vaccination.

Eta - That said, you and LJ have both expressed frustration with feeling that providers were too overbearing in encouraging immunization. It's probably the most successful, best-documented public health measure. Just as you are passionate on the topic, most physicians, after learning about the rates, complications, and mortality due to these diseases prior to the availability of vaccines and the drop in those measures after, tend to be passionate about it too.

Using death to assess risks is an extremely stringent end point.
Even using the signs and symptoms of the disease is quite narrow,
and fails to describe the entire situation of many families.
Some families have stay-at-home mothers or fathers... but not all.

For example, a working mother may be faced with difficult issues of child care
if/when the child becomes ill with an otherwise preventable disease.

If that working mother is also a single working mother,
the situation probably even more difficult.

If that single working mother is also low income, a sick child can lead
to significant loss of income... and possibly even the loss of her job.

To think about a single, working, man taking time off from his job
to care for his sick child is yet another POV ... for me that's almost too weird !

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/...ffects.htm#mmr
Some numbers by the vaccine people. Note what counts as a moderate reaction.
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.

The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.

Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.

Mild Problems

Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)

If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.

Moderate Problems

Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)

Severe Problems (Very Rare)

Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage

These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.

It was a long time ago, but here is my 2 cents from my sometimes selective memory. My kids got all the recommended vaccines. With the older girl we were able to spread out the shots over a longer schedule and were able to get some vaccines commonly given in multiples as individual shots on individual days. She had no significant issues just mild swelling and fever. With the younger the politics of vaccination were in play and we were badgered into pretty much following their schedule. Little Griff had significant swelling and fever and gave us at least one long over-night of screaming baby with associated parental guilt. Beating up on vaccine skeptics is common place even among people who normally question the interplay of government and corporations. I get that it's important, many of my age-mates were exposed to German measles en utero and suffered serious birth defects. I just think that people are unable or unwilling to discuss this topic like adults because, maybe rightly, it could suppress vaccination numbers. This lack of discussion can itself harm children because 1 in 3000 is significant, at least to the 1 in 3000.

We are given an info sheet with every vaccination our kids get. I told them last time not to waste the paper, but they insisted i have it anyway. Apparently it is required.

None of my kids have ever shown the slightest reaction. Lucky for us i guess.

The seizure mentioned in the risk sheet is caused by fever, i.e. a febrile seizure. Some children are susceptible to them and will get them when their temp goes up. They are not epileptic seizures. Stressful for parents but they can happen with any fever - due to a cold, teething, etc.

I meant to say last night that immunization can always be done; it's not an all or nothing decision. There are schedules for vaccination at any age. If anyone is interested in more information, I'd suggest the vaccine pages at www.cdc.gov for a start.

LJ, I apologize for losing my temper and lecturing you rather than providing information friend-to-friend. You're not ignorant, you're not stupid, and it's clear that you care very very much about your children's wellbeing. You listened to the information that your wife gathered at the time, and you and Jinx decided how to best protect your children's interests.

Being passionate about my understanding doesn't make it acceptable to make you feel that you've been assaulted or judged. That's how I came across, although I didn't mean it that way - but it's how I came across. I'm sorry.

I hope you'll accept my apology. You and I both want the best for your children, for my children, for the rest of us. We're well-meaning people. I hope we can share information and discuss concerns and opinions without alienating each other.

Clod said only about a week ago that I challenge because I care, and that is the case. Any other posters, I would simply ignore. We had no idea our bully compatriot was capable of this level of emotion and I had no concept that I was capable of inflicting it.

You are free to kick my ass next time we get together because I have found a way to be a dick to a friend. I don't have many friends IRL and this is one reason why.

I have a flail somewhere around here. It's good for flagellation. :)

I'm sure everyone knows that no one meant to make anyone feel bad. Remember, love means never having to say you're sorry. ;)

UT, I also challenge because I care. I find that, at 53, I still have to curb my temper and my Aspieness enough to not hurt the people I care about. That doesn't say much for me, but I hope that, in the end, Ali's right and we can all forgive each other.

First, this is exactly what I am talking about. Orthodoc provided facts. Those 'feeling' are what many adult do when they added their own emotions and bases to what was obviously a post of facts.

If anyone deserves insult and an apology, it is Orthodoc. Since she has provided facts that coincide with well understood research. And because the research done by lumberjim is completely not apparent.

Orthodoc has done what many have to do when the more easily emotional get emotional. Apologize so as to be political. But in reality, these fears of vaccines is not supported by any facts with perspective. In a logical world, the persion making conclusions without such facts (by only providing credibility to Jenny McCarthy and other anti-social types) would apologize for contributing to myths, hearsay, and lies.

If lumberjim was concerned with the tone, that is the first indication that he is ignoring what is only and most important. The facts.

Second, for some reason, lumberjim is concerned with changing opinions. As if victory was the purpose or important. Those are somewhere between secondary and irrelevant. Facts and perspective are relevant. Does not matter that he does not like the facts. As if the facts were somehow an insult because he did something different. Making mistakes and therefore learning are what humans learn to become adults. Learning how not to have 'motivated reasoning' is not easy and is essential. Emotion is a symptom of 'motivated reasoning'.

A benchmark was provided to determine whether one is being logical. Reasons devoid of perspective (ie the numbers) is a classic example of 'motivated reasoning'. An indication of thought based in emotional, and that junk science is being used for conclusions.

Orthodoc has no reason to apologize. She did what adult are suppose to do - provide facts no matter how it may make the emtional feel. "I killed him because he dissed me" is another example of adults acting like children. People reasoning emotionally rather than reading only what is important - hard facts. Too many people worry about being dissed - like a child.

I think a famous politician once said, "Emotion is the first indication he has already lost the argument." Not to others. It should be obvious (a benchmark) to the one who feels dissed.

TW, you're adorable. Don't ever change.

Jenny McCarthy, at a minimum, owes us all an apology for causing death to so many infants. She won't. She does not learn from her mistakes. Apparently more concerned with 'winning'. She lied. She 'knows' she was decieved. Or at least should know if thinking like an adult.

Can you give me numbers, tw, on exactly how many infants have died in the developed world of vaccine-preventable diseases since Jenny McCarthy started speaking out? For I know you would not just use some indefinable quantity like "so many," without numbers to back it up.

I realize the intent of your question, but here is one easy find...

Wikipedia:
I believe there was one death in the US due to measles in 2012,
but I leave it to the reader to document that one way or the other.

Once again, I believe using "death" as the only end point of risk
is too stringent for making a decision, either for public health or a parent.

This level of emotion?

Frustration an emotion? Disappointment?

The only thing I've said in this thread was that we did what we did and why. The rest has been defending myself from repeated attacks and judgements.

I've pointed out that you were frustrating me by ignoring what I said. And just in case you still haven't gotten that, it is this:

We DID do as much research as was possible about this. We DID weigh the risk vs reward carefully. We chose the path that presented less risk at that time. A course that could be altered when more knowledge became available. It is not too late for my kids to have inoculations. If there comes a day when we feel that the reward outweighs the risk, either because the vaccines become less risky, or because the diseases become more likely to contract, I am not opposed to having them done.

Read that three times, tw, you cocksucker. You just keep on ignoring the facts I present, and focus on the flashes of anger. Why? Motivated reasoning. You expect me to be childish and emotional, so that's what you see. If you had read my posts three times, you'd have noticed that I kept repeating that no one was getting the disease they wanted to immunize against, and some people were being hurt by the vaccine. Those are facts. You say ortho presented facts and numbers. I must have missed those. Just because her opinion coincides with yours does not make it fact. She also said I smeared all doctors. Is that a fact? Or did you lie to make your point? Don't answer. Please.

Here's a tip for you, tw: The transmission of information depends on both the signal and the reception. The way you construct your posts is borderline ridiculous. If it requires three readings to comprehend, then you need to adjust your signal. If people don't understand what you're saying because it is so convoluted that they get a headache from it, they will simply skim it and forget it. You're not hearing what I'm saying, but that's par for the course. Read? You only write.

Anyway, Tony. You decided to pick shit and ask what kind of degree jinx has, when you know good and goddamn well that she has none. Nor do I. And you asked that question with the intent of invalidating her qualification to offer advice or cast judgement on this topic. Thing is, I have offered no advice, cast no judgement about vaccinating.

You'll say that was just in response to my asking about orthos degree. But I was actually asking because I didn't know the answer. The answer is that she is a family doctor, with experience on this topic. Good answer. I respect her opinion more knowing that, and understand her reaction better. But she was still trying to convince me that I had been wrong headed and reckless. She sees that now, I think. Thank you for that apology, ortho. I'm sorry if you felt like I accused you and your colleagues of collusion with big pharma. I only intended to highlight the way that money drives the medical industry just as it does all of them. Family practice doctors, in my opinion, are motivated more by altruistic goals than financial ones.
As for happy monkey and the jenny McCarthy shot....

Here's what you're doing.... It is generally accepted that she is a cuckoo bird. An MTV personality. Easily discredited and ridiculed. So, you want to align her with us because if she agrees with us, then we must be cuckoo too. Well, for the third time, at the time we made our decision, miss McCarthy was not involved in the debate. She was probably still on MTV, or shooting porn. So, that's extra shitty of you. Not only is it a crap way to argue, it's dishonest.

Yours was the comment that put me over the top on this. Congrats.
Prior to that, you did not participate in recent discussion. Your chiming in at that point with that reference said to me that no one is actually hearing what I'm saying, so why bother saying any more? I'm just going around in circles defending my decision from people that are not actually my friends. Fruitless.

That's the difference between real life friends and online friends. Online, there is still that element of performance that makes us want to win an argument. So we say shitty things we would never say in person.

I am dissapoint.

Not only did I not know, I said that I didn't know, directly, in my question.

Here are the words I actually used:

"I honestly don't know."

I didn't know. Honestly. Which is kind of a testament to her, in a way.

YES I DID, AND I WOULD ALWAYS DO SO. It's highly relevant to our discussion, and you know it. It doesn't make her less of a person, doesn't mean she's not whip-smart, doesn't mean she couldn't be right, and BTW, it doesn't address you AT ALL.

I'm very smart, studied STEM fields at a highly competitive college, and I CANNOT EASILY READ MEDICAL STUDIES. It's a long hard slog. For one thing, understanding those studies pretty much requires a deep understanding of statistics, which is coursework I've never had.

I never attacked you. In fact I laced my posts with compliments to you. I truly think you are a better person than I am, and I will say so. You have done more for this world than I have, including raising two awesome and, yes, healthy kids.

But in this thread you created an emotional minefield where every step someone took became an attack on you. Make a dum analogy? That's a personal attack on you. Make a smarter one? That's an attack too. Question - not even attack - the stbx wife? That's somehow an attack on you. STAHP!

Don't take this post as an attack: it's easy, because it isn't, unless I think it is; and I am saying it isn't; and as we are friends, I hope you will take me at my word.

MAN, you're just not getting it.

nevermind. it's fine.

I'm gonna go vaccinate my kids now.

Don't forget to get yourself the shingles vaccine, you know, just in case you have to do any roofing.

Yes. ... that and a helmet. Because. ....

It's even tougher when the studies are bullshit.

There's definitely a hierarchy of journals. Some (many) aren't worth reading and don't even show up on good database searches. You want peer-reviewed journals that have tough standards - The New England Journal of Medicine; Science; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - stuff like that.

Even then, I was taught both in my science degree and in my medical training to NOT read the discussion/conclusions until I'd studied the results for myself. Sometimes authors come to the wrong conclusion, or they miss something that's there in the data. It happens every so often. And you do need formal education in statistics and epidemiology to understand clinical and many other types of medical studies. I couldn't understand medical studies at a time when I could understand any scientific/lab bench paper. It's information - you need to know how the authors are treating the data: what's significant and what's not. And you need to understand study types and error and be able to see where a study is weak, maybe too weak in design to support any conclusion.

There is no actual number since many other factors apply - including all vaccine effectiveness. However numbers start in the hundreds. May be higher.

Noted was one reason that complicates accurate numbers. At least once vaccine was losing its effectiveness. Reasons why and if limited only to some sources has not yet been determined.

With seven or eight million researchers in the US, limited funds, a publish or perish system, and a serious decline in peer review, the temptation to fake it, or at least twist it, is huge. I read some numbers the other day about big pharma trying to replicate results of promising studies are having a dismal success rate.

Here are some reasons.

Your post is chock full of emotion. And anger. And no numbers. And resentment that also says you do not want to learn from mistakes.

99% of kids don't get sick. That proves no vaccine is a good solution? Of course not. If 1% of kids are getting sick, then a major epidemic exists. Does not matter what your few examples imply. What matters are well proven facts. We know that fear of vaccines is not based in informed decision. And that where fear of vaccines exists, so does motivated reasoning.

Notice I do not reply with cheapshots. Can you say same?

Jim, i havent done the study myself, but am willing to agree that the risk to your kids not being vaccinated is less than if they were. Especially given the info you had at the time.

My question, and i assume many others here also, is, do you recognise that the risk was/is so low, thanks to the fact that many of these diseases have been severely retarded thanks to high rates of imminisation by others.

If i can speak frankly, i know thats why i get emotional about this subject. I take on the minute risk involved in imminisation so that families like yours can afford the luxury of not doing it.

This is in no way an attack on you. I just wondered if you have ever realised the reason why people like me sometimes get upset by people with similar views to yours. Just wondering if you've ever thought to be grateful for those people who have tqken the risk so that you cqn feel fairly safe not doing so.

My first impulse is to ask if we should compare xoB's "temptations" among scientific researchers
with the "temptations" of, say, auto mechanics or salesmen or ...:bolt:

But aside from such silliness as my impulse, my next one was to question
why advance a "fake it or twist it" condemnation from that link.
It's not really a significant part of the article.
The article talks about several other factors and influences that
come to bear on "replication".

I think it is a reasonably good article, talking about several different
real world issues that researchers face. But many of them are quite
similar to the issues that manufacturers face... similar to proprietary secrets,
little interest from funding agencies for "confirming-type" studies,
etc.

Although the authors seem particularly interested in the idea
that research is not self-correcting, there is de facto evidence that it is.

When there is "competition" between research centers, and/or collaboration on projects,
or the reputations of the investigators, and especially if an individual's career
and/or continued funding, etc. on the line... something that is
non-reproducible becomes evident and controlling.

One thing I (did not see in the article) is a review of the actions
and the lengths to which institutions will go to protect their own reputations
if/when even hints of "falsification" some into play. They usually make it into the lay press.

yes, of course I do. It's awesome to live in America in the late 20th, early 21st Century. I take a WHOLE lot of shit for granted that was a real pain in the ass for people in this country as few as 50 years ago. We all do. I have to make my decisions in the current climate though. I can't justify unnecessary risk out of a sense of gratitude to those gone before. I am vaccinated, by the way.

so, thanks!

you're a big fat liar

a smelly one

Lamplighter found a number, with a cite. It was 2. Do you have a better source than he does?

Effectiveness is irrelevant in this case, since you weren't talking about infection rates, you were talking about death rates. When a baby dies of measles, or whooping cough, there are no other factors--that's what they died from. You said that Jenny McCarthy was responsible for "so many dead infants." I ask again: do you have numbers to back up this claim, or was your hyperbole merely an emotional response that you now regret?

Now Clod, no need to be insulting, the art of intertwining spin doctored information with verifiable facts to make it all seen credible doesn't constitute an emotional response: it's just good old, cold, calculated, completely logical propaganda technique.

He sits on a throne of lies

In the interest of full disclosure, the 2 cases I cited were (only) of measles in the UK among 1300 cases in 10 years .

By adding whooping cough (pertussis) to the taunt, the numbers change...

Here is the incidence in the US by year... note the upsurge in the McCarthey era.
(The incidence of measles follows a similar profile, but at a lower rate.)

Attachment 45719

If death is the insisted criterion, then the data for only one year (2012) includes 18 deaths:

Because I've read 4 different articles on the subject this week, but didn't bother to track them all down.

Childhood Pertussis vaccination doesn't begin until 2 months of age; so, you can eliminate the <3 mos. category (13 deaths) as having been influenced by anyone's anti-childhood vaccination rhetoric. The information you provided here doesn't say whether or not they where vaccinated either, as vaccinations is not 100% effective. You can also eliminate the adult category (55+ years, 1 death) as childhood vaccination and first booster does not confer lifetime immunity; rather, lasting only 3-6 years. The potential influence a Jenny McCarthy type may have had in 2012 is 4 deaths (you didn't specify them as non-immunized versus failed immunization either), not 18 deaths as the tw-lamplighter school of spin doctoring would propagandize.