Vaccination & epidemic

What do you think about Evan Harris' allegations against Wakefield? What do you think about the resurgence of measles? What do you think about the fact that Wakefield is more or less entirely irrelevant to the fact that not vaccinating kills or harms more children than vaccinating does?

Originally Posted by jinx

Nice troll.

This is your only reaction to being asked to think for yourself?

[jinx]

By an troll, yes.

[DanaC]

I have always felt, instinctively, and please, don't jump all over me for that, I am not a medic, I have no reason or desire to become an expert; but I always felt, that it seems an awful risk to throw so much at a youngster's immune system in one fell swoop.

Whether it was the vaccinations that sent my baby eczema mental or not, it occurred within a couple of days of the first lot and then stayed like that for 15 years, before calming down some. Given the immuno connection with eczema, and a bunch of other conditions of a similar nature, I am inclined to think, instinctively that it may have been connected. It's very difficult to show a clear path of causality in a lot of these conditions. But we have higher than ever, and rising, levels of such conditions.

I think there is a case to be made for giving vaccinations at a higher age, and one at a time. I don't know about over there. But over here we put our children into the social scene of playgroup/nursery/school, at a very young age. Personally, I think we should be holding off an extra year (or two) before sending them into the fray, and then perhaps we don't have to vaccinate so quickly?

Originally Posted by jinx

By an troll, yes.

Oh, yes, clearly all my posts here over the course of the last several months, especially my poetry and the personal information I've shared, reveal me to be a troll.

Or is that how you always dismiss people who expect a higher level of intellectual integrity in debate?

Originally Posted by DanaC

I have always felt, instinctively, and please, don't jump all over me for that, I am not a medic, I have no reason or desire to become an expert; but I always felt, that it seems an awful risk to throw so much at a youngster's immune system in one fell swoop.

Whether it was the vaccinations that sent my baby eczema mental or not, it occurred within a couple of days of the first lot and then stayed like that for 15 years, before calming down some. Given the immuno connection with eczema, and a bunch of other conditions of a similar nature, I am inclined to think, instinctively that it may have been connected. It's very difficult to show a clear path of causality in a lot of these conditions. But we have higher than ever, and rising, levels of such conditions.

I think there is a case to be made for giving vaccinations at a higher age, and one at a time.

I agree with parts of this... and that's how I handled my kids' vaccinations. At a higher age, and one at a time. There are clear risks, and known ways to minimize them.

However, "thinking instinctively" that a vaccine caused your child's eczema is a sort of magical thinking.

If there is a directly chartable correlation between specific vaccinations and increasing rates of eczema, it makes sense to suspect that the vaccinations are at fault... that's one aspect of science. But it's a long step from "These vaccines have the potential side effect of causing eczema so we should be aware and cautious about giving them in combination or at too early an age" to "These vaccines have the potential side effect of causing eczema so we should stop using them and put our children, and others, at risk of contracting some horrific diseases with far greater potential for severe harm".

That's my sole point. Thanks to the anti-vaccination mob, kids are getting measles again, and mumps. And POLIO, for fuck sake! Polio! WTF.

It's pretty screwed-up.

[Undertoad]

Whether it was the vaccinations that sent my baby eczema mental or not, it occurred within a couple of days of the first lot

When my first dog went into seizure, it was the day after his heartworm pill. My ex went online, googled seizures and heartworm pills, and found a lot of concerned dog owners finding their dogs having seizures within 48 hours of taking heartworm pills.

Of course; because dogs with the most concerned owners give their dogs heartworm pills once a month, so if they go into seizure there's a 1/15 chance it was 48 hours after a pill. The seizure was actually due to a brain tumor, as it is most of the time, but explain that to the overly-concerned owner who has just found 5 other overly concerned owners.

So that's exactly it Dana, the causality is hard to get to, partly because self-selecting overly-concerned owners can now create their own troubling evidence...

...BUT as well as, perhaps, to find new hypotheses to test with diligent home science, as performed so excellently by Clod.

Of course if they are not so diligent they may wind up treating their children as labs for BAD science...

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I agree with parts of this... and that's how I handled my kids' vaccinations. At a higher age, and one at a time. There are clear risks, and known ways to minimize them.

So what you're saying is, you chose to delay the vaccination schedule that is clearly and strongly urged by the American Academy of Pediatrics? Exactly as the generationrescue.com people say you should? Sounds like you're fighting against the wrong people, Tiki. You keep referring to some mythical "anti-vaccination mob," except by your own admission, you acted exactly like 90% of them do.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So what you're saying is, you chose to delay the vaccination schedule that is clearly and strongly urged by the American Academy of Pediatrics? Exactly as the generationrescue.com people say you should? Sounds like you're fighting against the wrong people, Tiki. You keep referring to some mythical "anti-vaccination mob," except by your own admission, you acted exactly like 90% of them do.

Nope, with the full cooperation of my pediatrician, I delayed vaccination to the recommended upper age limits, and spaced them out so they weren't getting hit by round after round of vaccinations all at once. I didn't exceed the recommended upper age limits for each given vaccination, but I wouldn't, in most cases, find it unreasonable for parents to do so on an individual basis if they were basing their choices on known risk/benefit factors. It is not uncommon for some vaccines to be delayed for medical or developmental reasons.

The anti-vaccine people that I refer to in my OP are against vaccinating their children at all. They don't do it. I'm not talking about delaying vaccinations or spacing them out, I'm talking about not doing it at all. There are significant and growing numbers of them.

That's why measles, mumps, rubella, and polio are making a comeback. Unfortunately, they put a lot of people at risk in addition to the children whose parents chose not to vaccinate them.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Tiki

The anti-vaccine people that I refer to in my OP are against vaccinating their children at all. They don't do it. I'm not talking about delaying vaccinations or spacing them out, I'm talking about not doing it at all.

Perhaps the "people" you refer to don't, but the link you gave (www.generationrescue.com,) identifying them as "the anti-vaccination lunatics" says the following:

Consider delaying vaccines until your child is 18-24 months old.
...
Consider no more than one vaccine per doctor’s visit.

It seems rather evident that you didn't click on your links, Tiki...

[Griff]

Turns out we're all on the same side. Nobody wants a measles comeback, nobody wants another child to develop autism, everyone wants to space out vaccines better... It is fun to tweak each other with magical thinking comments, but we don't progress without challenges to received wisdom. The present vaccines are good enough for the life or death throw-down we are in and they have bought us time, but now that something equally horrific to a minority of children has asserted itself free inquiry is not to be opposed under the guise of science. After all, those children could be the canarys in the coal mine. Once upon a time, flushing our shit directly into the Susquehanna was vastly superior to having a city full of out-houses but thankfully we kept looking for a superior solution.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Tiki

Oh, yes, clearly all my posts here over the course of the last several months, especially my poetry and the personal information I've shared, reveal me to be a troll.

Or is that how you always dismiss people who expect a higher level of intellectual integrity in debate?

A troll is as a troll does, in 1 thread or all of them. You can write all the poetry you want, but you started this thread off with name calling, then moved on to ignoring post content, making snarky, meaningless, pointless remarks, and then threw in some hyperbole. Oh but now you want some intelligent debate.

Yeah, I'm not impressed.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Griff

Nobody wants a measles comeback

This is absolutely true, but at the same time... is it the bogeyman that some make it out to be? I don't know. It's certainly worth looking into.

Keep in mind that (in the US) we do not vaccinate for typhus, typhoid, TB, and one of the biggest pre-vaccine era killers: scarlet fever. Yet, their prevalence decreased right along with the diseases we do vaccinate for.

The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, and as the CDC points out, it reduced measles deaths from about 400-500 per year to 1 or 2 - although there were epidemic years in 1970-72, 1976-78, and 1989-91.

According to the Vital Statistics of the United States, in the 63 years prior to the measles vaccination introduction, death rates declined from 13.3 per 100,00 to 0.2 per 100,000.

Originally Posted by jinx

A troll is as a troll does, in 1 thread or all of them. You can write all the poetry you want, but you started this thread off with name calling, then moved on to ignoring post content, making snarky, meaningless, pointless remarks, and then threw in some hyperbole. Oh but now you want some intelligent debate.

Yeah, I'm not impressed.

Sounds like you're feeling defensive. That's your issue, not mine.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Perhaps the "people" you refer to don't, but the link you gave (www.generationrescue.com,) identifying them as "the anti-vaccination lunatics" says the following:



It seems rather evident that you didn't click on your links, Tiki...

I posted that link for the reference to Jenny McCarthy.