ur a poop

:lol:

At least Flint has style.

oh wayull shazammmm.....thanks for edjumacatin me, thar tiki....you suuuure is smart. yoooo must be wunna dem collidge gerls....



I may not be all that bright, but I'm smart enough to recognize an arrogant twat when i hear one.

Good job of proving my point... when unable to come up with an actual rebuttal, resort to childish name-calling. What exactly is up with the chip on your shoulder regarding education, anyway? You realize that I have a third-grade education, right... that I never went to high school, let alone graduated it, never took my GED, and I am so excited about going to college now because I'm thirty-eight and have no degree at all? I have sixteen credits in miscellaneous classes I've taken at PCC over the last 20 years, and that's it.

Everything I know, I know because I like to read about things, and I like to know as much as possible about something before I form an opinion. I also like to continue learning about things I'm interested in so that if I'm mistaken about something I can change my mind. I don't think that's a bad thing, and it's a trait I admire in other people.

So if you want to ignore the actual relevant content of my posts and fixate on your apparently terribly insecure perception of me as some smug ivory-tower twat, go for it, but in that case we really have nothing further to say to each other, ever, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped taking cheap pot-shots at me in every thread I post in.

Whether it makes sense or not, that's what is being reported.

A resurgence in the disease has been attributed to less people immunising over the last 10 to 15 years, so it's more prevalent in general, which means it's more likely that an unimmunised child/baby could come into contact with the disease.

That's a usertitle waiting to happen.

As I understand it, there has to be roughly 95% vaccination rates for them to be effective at a societal level. Currently, the NorthEast of England is running at about 85% takeup (with some areas of the NE even lower): worryingly, this region is currently experiencing its biggest measles outbreak for 20 years.

That sounds about the same as the figures we get over here Dana.

It's a concern. So much so that I worry about taking Max out in crowds because he could get whooping cough. I know it's alarmist to base my reaction on an isolated case, but my aunts friend just had to bury her 1 month old due to the disease. I don't want to take the chance, and it's a shame that there's a higher risk now than there was previously simply because some people choose not to immunise.

I do think that the medical profession could go a long way to alleviating the situation if they were more sympathetc to those parents who wish to stagger the vaccinations. By trying to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, they are pushing away people who are open to the idea, but have concerns about multiple vaccination.

I've never heard of any docs over here having a problem with it. There are guidlines for how to make the immunisation effective, but honestly, if it means an extra few visits to the docs, surely that's financially beneficial to them anyway, and I suspect that's how most of them here would view it.

Max is having his immunisation today. He'll be having all the scheduled 2 month shots.

No, see, it's not a red herring... It started with you suggesting that Jenny McCarthy and all her anti-vaccine minions are causing MMR uptake to decline - which would then cause measles epidemic and OmGZ!!!11! polio too!!!

I posted statistics which show that measles(along with several other communicable diseases) was in decline (98% decrease) for decades prior to the introduction of the applicable vaccines, if any were even introduced at all. I also posted information showing that there were measles epidemic years post vaccine introduction but pre-Wakefield. My intended point being; we might not suddenly return to the 1800's if we take a minute and do some safety studies on the vaccines we use today.

You then declared the information I shared to be completely irrelevant
because of your ignorance of the existence of bacterium based vaccines
and what you thought that implied about the importance of hygiene.
Presented with new (to you) information you didn't even pause to
consider, you jumped right back into arguing. You may have
admitted to being wrong, but only before launching into another tirade about how illogical "my argument" was. Since it's not all about you, I went
ahead and posted complete, accurate information, for others who may be
following along.

For the record, my argument is; first, do no harm. My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.

With all three of my kids, my doctors have been very accommodating, and offered (without my asking) to special-order single vaccines they don't stock.

It was really a non-issue.

Unless I missed an entire post of yours, I already explained why the statistics you posted weren't relevant, Jinx, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you still think they are. You and LJ have consistently gone with hysteria and namecalling over rational discussion, and I really just can't take you seriously at all.

This, however, is totally relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v_85tAey9s

You, madame, are genius.

It's far easier for parents here to exempt their children from all vaccines than it is to selectively vaccinate. It's nothing like 10 years ago though, thanks to doctors and school officials becoming better informed (school officials used to think it was their business).

oh look!... more reasons you're so great! yay tiki! you win at life!


In the last two days, I've addressed you in two threads, tiki. and in the other one it actually did begin as friendly poking...you insisted on taking it to heart and got all bent. even after i pointed out that i was just kidding around. whatever.

as far as rebutting your points, it's been done already. as i said.....clobble and jinx have done. the issue I was rebutting...that you seem to be ignoring...is this:

When you say: I find that a typical reaction to my pro-vaccination opinion is to assume that I simply haven't read enough.

after having labeled them lunatics .....YOU'RE BEING A HYPOCRITE!

you are making the same assumption you accuse them of making. you don't consider that maybe these people have done EVEN MORE research than you have done. seems like jinx might have done at least as much homework as you have, maybe?

On top of that, your whole tone is abrasive and shitty, and whether you intend to or not, you come off like you know better than the rest of us. I don't give a fuck if you educated yourself ....i have zero issue with your education. I have an issue with your smug super hippie attitude. you're the MOST creative...you're the MOST feeling.....You're the MOST sensitive.

barf

you wanna be strangers?

great!

Funny how Clod has been able to post, for the most part, with a minimum of courtesy and intelligence rather than filling her posts with personal insults and namecalling.

I may have used strong verbiage in my OP, but it wasn't personally directed at anyone. I was stating a strong opinion, rather than targeting an individual for personal insults.

Every interaction I've had with you since I came here - since before I came here, in fact - has involved you insulting me, Jim. Maybe you think it's "cute" or "friendly" to constantly make personal jabs at people, but I don't, and neither do any other adults I associate with. My repartee with you has nothing to do with me thinking I'm more "creative", "sensitive", or "feeling" than anyone else here... it had everything to do with you saying something shitty to me and me jabbing back at you.

Frankly, I think you're a bad person, and I don't want you to talk to me. You clearly don't like me, and I don't like you either. At all.

Thanks.

I see you've finally taken "Fuck you Jim" out of your user title.

It stopped being funny when I realized you actually aren't a nice person.

i've stopped being nice to you, that's true.

I'm still a nice person in a general sense, though.

But the question is, do you not believe immunizing him will raise his risk of autism and a variety of other neurological and immunological disorders, or is it that you have weighed the risks given your family history and find that the risk of catching the disease is greater than the risk of the possible side effects?

Here in lies the problem with most people when it comes to health care and any issue surrounding it, whether it be factual data about the risks and issues or the politics. The majority of Americans are quite ignorant about the issues, risks, benefits, and or relevant data available. I would estimate that a good 85% of patients get their information from the baby channel, CNN, or their equally ignorant family. Yea it's a big problem.

Clod, the latter, although I don't believe there is enough concrete data to suggest there is a link between autism and immunisation. I believe all our lifestyles have changed so dramatically since immunisation really began that there are a huge number of other factors these possible side effects could be attributed to.

For one thing, look at all the other chemicals we regularly expose our bodies to, and that's just around the home. then consider all the chemicals in processed foods etc, aside from exposure to pesticides in the air from farming etc.

I'm sure you get my point. I just don't think autism et al, can be attributed to immunisation. certainly not all cases, and possibly none.

I'd like to think so, Jim.

But you sort of stopped being nice to Tiki for no reason, and you've been a bit of a shit to her, also for no reason that I can see.

WTF?

I think there has been a lot of sensationalism around the issue. The majority of large studies have not found a cause and effect relationship. There is still so much we don't know.

I would suggest that you lack information.

I turned the other cheek longer than i normally would, believe me.

not putting up with the cyclical nature of this particular crazy chick's mood swings anymore, thankyouverymuch.

WTF. Why don't you just leave me alone and stop poking me with a stick, if you don't want to "put up with" me? What information is there, that isn't visible on the board, except the occasions when you called me a liar in chat?

It would really be pretty easy to simply stop making shitty comments about/to me, or the over-the-top name-calling. It's not necessary and I don't enjoy it, and you don't seem to enjoy my retorts, either.

It's easy. I don't go around the board randomly saying shitty things to or about you, or calling you a liar in chat. If you stopped doing it to me, then I would most likely never have any reason to talk to you, let alone to be pissy with you, and we could co-exist in peace without EVER talking to each other or acknowledging each other's existence.

You clearly think I'm horrible

I think you're horrible

Let's ignore the shit out of each other.

See? Easy solution.

you have a deal.

on the count of 3, ignore....


1....



2.....


wait....


I'll count to 3, and then where 4 would go, we'll ignore. ready?

1....


2....


3....


ignore!

Just some food for thought, for those who still believe that the entire Wakefield scandal is about one journalist with a personal mission:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5070670.stm

I do put some blame for the reemergence of measles at the feet of delusional celebrities (and if you don't know why I call Jenny McCarthy a "delusional celebrity", it's likely that you have been lucky enough to have missed seeing her old website and the bizarre statements she made there - ooh, remember when she was all into the "indigo" thing?)
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.co...ount/Home.html

There are many factors involved, I absolutely agree. There is usually no one cause of autism even in a specific individual, let alone across all cases. But you can control for all those factors when you study the data, in order to isolate whether one factor is contributing or not. And in the link I provided earlier, they did just that. They surveyed 9,000 families living in roughly the same geographical area, the same culture, the same chemicals. The ones who didn't vaccinate had significantly lower rates of not just autism, but ADHD and asthma as well. This is the only major study that has compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children, which is really the question. All of the other studies compare autistic children to other autistic children, which as you point out, only leads to the conclusion that there are many causes of autism. But that's like saying there are many causes of cancer--you can still reasonably conclude that all the people with lung cancer probably got it from smoking, but only when you compare people who smoke to people who don't, not people who have lung cancer to people who have cervical cancer.

I'm afraid I have a very hard time unskeptically accepting data from privately funded surveys conducted by organizations with an agenda, just as I have a very hard time unskeptically accepting data from privately funded studies conducted by corporations with a bottom line.

I was just trying to find the study that showed a strong likelihood of bias in privately finded studies, but I couldn't find it online. :(

Ah, so you finally got around to answering my earlier question, which is to say that you think they faked the data in that study?

Fair enough.

With regard to my family history, and I'm talking my small sample study of around 100 people, we have all been fully vaccinated, and there are none of us with any of the health issues possibly associated with vaccination.

I'd also like to point out that there are 'cancer clusters' sometimes associated with geographical areas. Also note the fact that non breast fed babies are more likely to suffer from asthma, and possibly take into account that there could be a link between parents who choose not to breast feed but choose to vaccinate. I see a logical connection there because I believe there are similar motivations behind breast feeding and not vaccinating.

It's also possible that they had a greater response to their survey from parents who are anti vaccination simply due to the fact people who are against vaccination in general seem to me to be more vocal.

Also, the people with kids who were vaccinated were probably too busy chasing their hypo kids to do a survey. ;)

I note also that there are a couple of points in the course of the article worth consideration, such as 'All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR)'. It'd be interesting to know what that unusual result was. They also suggest that they don't consider this survey to be proof of the link, only that it proves there should be more research into the issue.

Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...

I think it's really odd, and interesting, that they removed the county with the highest population and the only major metropolitan area in the state.

I am also concerned at the lack of addressing a single very important built-in bias in the survey that is linked to it being a survey and therefore reliant on the accuracy of self-reporting; that families who choose not to vaccinate, unless they are carefully screened, may also be less likely to have their children tested for neurodevelopmental issues. The exclusion of Multnomah County heightens this possibility due to the reduced likelihood of developmental disorder screening in rural areas, and it is compounded, if you restrict the survey to suburban and rural areas, by the correlation between non-vaccinators and homeschoolers, as homeshoolers are far less likely to screen for mild neurodevelopmental disorders.

because reason doesn't have any money. and truth doesn't make a noise.

the pharma companies that fund vaccine development, marketing and apparent brainwashing of physicians.......stand to make money selling their snake oil.

there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.

But the CDC is continuously collecting health data nationwide. They don't "do" a study as much as collection of statistical data is ongoing. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/con...thimerosal.htm

And people selling Nissans tend to advocate the advantages of Nissans because they stand to make money from selling Nissans. It doesn't mean there's anything evil about the people selling Nissans. Just that it's in their best interest to promote their product.

The point is that it doesn't help the argument from either side to demonize any of the stakeholders.

As clod mentions, there isn't really any conclusive evidence (due to lack of non-biased research) and there should be.

Why has this thread begun to sound like a discussion between supporters and opponents of gay marriage, abortion, or Bush?

Because there's two sides (at least) and both have some very valid points which the other side (in general) doesn't want to acknowledge. ;)

*Nods* That's my understanding of how it works over here as well Jinx.

With my eldest niece, my brother and SiL were extremely reluctant to let her have the MMR jab. She had childhood eczema, very much like I did at that age. This was before the autism thing. They tried to get individual, staggered jabs and faced pretty much a brick wall on it. Not sure what the situation was like a few years later when Soph was born, but I have also heard of other parents having problems.

Not sure where I read it now, but a couple of years ago when this was doing the rounds of the cellar before, I went checking out some stuff and found an artcle in which medical professionals were arguing that the problem was parents trying to stagger the jabs, because in their opinion, many parents never take their child to complete the programme, once the first one is done. Which, they said, was why they were strongly encouraging parents not to opt for the single jabs. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe there were very few circumstances in which the NHS would provide single jabs. In order to get single jabs, these parents would have to pay private fees, where parents accepting the MMR would get it for free. Not sure whether that's still the case. I suspect it's another of those postcode lottery situations, where it depends on your local health authority.

So, parents who wanted to stagger their child's jabs, were treated as a problem. And, made to feel that they were being individually, and socially, irresponsible for not simply accepting the MMR as matter of course.

The medical profession, especially after the autism thing, haven't responded to parents with doubts as if they are rational responsible adults; they have instead responded with judgmental hysteria. Parents, who have accepted their wisdom on the need to vaccinate, but who have sought to personalise that according to unknown risks (unknown to the medical profession as well) and their own responsibility to their children, have been configured in the press and by medical professionals as hysterical, irrational and socially dangerous. Rather than facilitating increase in take up, they have pushed away people who were in fact open to their ideas. By insisting that their way was the only way, they made the situation far worse.

funny....i know i said i'd ignore you....but i just happened upon this thread and that deal is now off.

it was posted some 13 hours before the OP....where you use 'strong verbiage' not personal insults. see....i was offended by the tone of the 1st post in this thread because i knew we'd argued about this in the past, and felt like it might be directed at me and my family. now i see that it was, indeed.....even though you've claimed to be speaking in general since i've pointed it out.

fucking lying reality bending hypocrite jerkoff. i cant wait until you get back on your meds.

What I find interesting about that study is that the highest percentage of children diagnosed with ASD or AD falls under the partially vaccinated category. Its not a large difference, but for some individual categories, autism for example, partially vaccinated cases double the unvaccinated, fully vaccinated, and fully+ vaccinated categories.

I'm wondering if this is just a statistical error due to a smaller sample size or if there might be a correlation.

I don't think that line of thinking is productive, or at least, it's not something you should draw direct conclusions from. You might say "There is a systematic bias against my hypothesis." But you should never say "There is a systematic bias against my hypothesis, therefore my hypothesis is true."

Unprofitable studies happening at CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vsd/vsd_studies.htm

Including:

it was just a comment about how things get done. not really about biases. if there is money to be made, it makes sense that many people will want to do it. if not....then it's a lot harder to get money behind that kind of stuff ....especially with all the other areas of research going on.

maybe if there were little ribbons to create awareness.

I think it's really odd that they removed data that they felt was proven invalid and didn't invalidate the entire survey.

Less likely to test for and acknowledge ADHD, I will grant you. But less likely to test for asthma? I find that unlikely. And with autism, well, that just isn't possible, as anyone who has actually lived with an autistic child can tell you. There are a handful of autistic children who are developmentally delayed, but generally calm. The vast majority are a daily struggle of tantrums and are often literally unable to be taken out in public.

Part of that may be because parents often stop the vaccination schedule of younger siblings of autistic children as soon as they realize their older child has a problem. But genetically, those siblings are still far more likely to be autistic than your average vaccinated or unvaccinated kid.

They're not the only ones.. you can see right here in this thread how most people act. It's as if most people don't want a sound discussion on the topic, they've made up their mind and their goal is only to defend their position.

Bump.

So just to clarify for myself. The main issue that needs to be investigated about the vaccinations/vaccination schedule is not whether not it causes the disease, but whether or not it amplifies the severity of a pre-existing condition?
I could see how that might be a possibility, and also why it would be so difficult to track down.

Actually all of those issues need to be researched more completely.

It turns out a shitload of studies have been done on MMR, thimerosal, and simultaneous vaccination.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...10.1086/596476

That's my understanding with stuff like childhood eczema. Certainly that was posited by medical peeps when I was growing up. Our GP considered it a possible reason for my sudden (as in days after) jump from normal childhood eczema, to hospitalised and bandaged head to foot.

The trouble is, because someone has tried to jump the gun and offer proof that wasn't really proof of a correllation with one condition (autism) anybody suggesting any potential link between vaccines and any other condition is shouted down.

Here's what UT's article says

Here's what the study referenced says

this surely isn't the old LJ we've known and loved all these years.

get over it NANCY

Full-blown autism, sure, but what about Aspergers? It's gone untested-for until recently. My best friend's son, who is also my son's best friend, has a mild form of autism, and until recently most of his TEACHERS were unwilling to recommend him for testing because they said he was just shy and needed to apply himself. I've known this kid for years and it's clear to me that he's not like other kids... nor is my youngest daughter... but I could easily see people in a more socially isolated setting, with holistic views (which I have no problem with) seeing these children as simply variations on normal, and not needing testing.

I don't think there is a single thing wrong with viewing ADHD or Aspergers as variation on normal rather than as diagnosable disorders, but you have to admit that replying on accurate self-reporting and excluding the only metropolitan area in the state could have a major effect on the survey, which for these reasons I cannot consider a valid study.