Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's sometimes fun to play "what if" with conspiracy theories. But look at this progress. Real kids and real lives are saved. It is a shame to throw this away for silly conspiracy theories.
I don't doubt that vaccine's work, but when there are ever increasing rates of autism, it isn't unreasonable to examine different variables.
The link between them has indeed been examined, and no connection between autism and vaccination has been found. Period. Those who claim otherwise don't understand how to look at the data, and get their info from the antivax conspiracy movement which was founded on a fraudulent 1998 study.
Quote:
Much of the blame lies with a study published in 1998 that suggested that the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine, or infection with the naturally occurring measles virus itself, might cause autism. Since then, numerous scientific studies have shown that there is no link between vaccines — or any of their ingredients — and autism. And the research used in that study was found to be false, the doctor who wrote it lost his medical license, and the medical journal that published it retracted the paper (this means that they believe it never should have been published).
It was entirely reasonable to look for a connection between vaccines and autism. However, a lot of effort and money has been spent showing there is no causal relationship. Despite that, there are many who refuse to believe the science. Those of us who support vaccines here on CD do so because we understand the science behind them. That science is behind the worldwide consensus on vaccines.
Thank you both, for your time and for the information that you shared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
False equivalence is doing more to polarize us than name-calling is. When "one extreme" is most entirely correct on the facts, and the "other extreme" is mostly wrong, we shouldn't give them both equal standing and voice without stating who is factually correct. THAT'S "AVOIDING OBJECTIVITY!!!
I disagree. Name calling shows contempt for your opponent because of the position that they hold. Second, neither you, or I, have ever been 100% right in all cases; to presume to know that the "other extreme" is "mostly wrong" is to close our minds to facts that might otherwise change our opinions.
The best scenario is to educate your opponent, for in re-evaluating the facts, you will enlighten your opponent, and may very well glean something new for yourself
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhitewaterVol
Any reasonably objective science based investigation into this topic will reveal that vaccines are beneficial and save lives.
Any argument that I have heard against vaccinating, speaks not to the benefits of vaccinating, but against supposed unintended consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhitewaterVol
Refusing to vaccinate children that do not have valid medical reasons for not receiving vaccines is child abuse and should result in the termination of parental rights.
This is an interesting line of reasoning.
There are people with food/chemical sensitivities at ever increasing rates. In unusual cases, people may have a sensitivity to something, and any proof that they can offer is anecdotal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhitewaterVol
Unless the child has a valid medical reason to not receive vaccinations, they should be barred from attending public school until they are up to date on their vaccinations. Religious, philosophical, and other exemptions should not be allowed in a situation where these exemptions create a clear public health risk.
About this I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanigan911
The variable that has changed is the definition of autism. I'm 39, and when I was growing up, the term was used for the people on the deep end of what is now called the autism spectrum. Now, any mild case of what used to be called ADD is considered to be on the autism spectrum.
Thank you both, for your time and for the information that you shared.
You are welcome.
Quote:
I disagree. Name calling shows contempt for your opponent because of the position that they hold. Second, neither you, or I, have ever been 100% right in all cases; to presume to know that the "other extreme" is "mostly wrong" is to close our minds to facts that might otherwise change our opinions.
The best scenario is to educate your opponent, for in re-evaluating the facts, you will enlighten your opponent, and may very well glean something new for yourself.
With regards to vaccines the name calling is mostly on the anti-vax side. You saw how quickly the "pharma shill gambit" was used in this thread, for example. Some pro-vax people have been the subject of really vicious campaigns by hard core anti-vaccinationists. Name calling back by those who were attacked has been in self defense.
Unfortunately the people who propagate myths about vaccines do so because they stand to gain by making themselves look like brave mavericks who know more than "mainstream" vaccine experts. Wakefield, for example, who has been thoroughly discredited, continues to urge people not to vaccinate against measles. His proselytizing in MN contributed to a drop in measles vaccination rate in the Somali community that helped fuel a large measles outbreak.
Parents who buy the anti-vax argument tend to be educated and convinced that surfing anti-vax sites on the internet makes them more knowledgeable about vaccines than people who have studied and researched about vaccines and infectious diseases for decades. It is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action: people who know less than they think they do are convinced that they know more. Pediatricians are giving up on trying to educate such parents. The harder they try, the more the parents dig in their heels. This has resulted in some doctors refusing to take care of unvaccinated children because if they get sick with a vaccine preventable disease and come to the office they risk infecting children who are too young to have completed their vaccines or who have medical conditions that prevent them from taking them.
Any argument that I have heard against vaccinating, speaks not to the benefits of vaccinating, but against supposed unintended consequences.
There are some who deny that vaccines work. There is also an inability to do a risk benefit analysis. Parents will refuse the measles vaccine because of a 1 in a million risk of a true serious adverse event and ignore the 1 or 2 in a 1000 risk of death from measles, not to mention that the adverse reaction to the vaccine is actually one with a much greater risk from the disease itself.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 11-05-2018 at 01:59 PM..
There are some who deny that vaccines work. There is also an inability to do a risk benefit analysis. Parents will refuse the measles vaccine because of a 1 in a million risk of a true serious adverse event and ignore the 1 or 2 in a 1000 risk of death from measles, not to mention that the adverse reaction to the vaccine is actually one with a much greater risk from the disease itself.
This part.. It actually goes so much deeper than this.
Many parents will rely on the "Herd" protection argument.. Where they think "Oh, well, everyone else is getting their kids vaccinated so my little Johnny Jackass doesn't need it".. The only people who should be relying on herd immunity are those who MUST rely on it. Kids undergoing chemo for leukemia and the like generally cannot be vaccinated. So, they MUST rely on the herd immunity. Parents who refuse to vaccinate don't consider them, and often don't consider that there are often hundreds of other little Johnny Jackasses out there whose parents decided to rely on the herd as well.
The other part is that some vaccines actually DON'T work. Or, probably more accurately, in some cases, they do not take. The measles vaccine is stated to be 99% effective. Well.. That still means that out of 1 million children, 10000 are not immune. THEY are relying on the herd as well.
All in all.. Our current vaccines, short of the flu vaccine which is really hit or miss each year are still very effective. Outbreaks you hear about in the US are generally happening in high-immigrant areas where they have not been vaccinated based on the US Standards.
This part.. It actually goes so much deeper than this.
Many parents will rely on the "Herd" protection argument.. Where they think "Oh, well, everyone else is getting their kids vaccinated so my little Johnny Jackass doesn't need it".. The only people who should be relying on herd immunity are those who MUST rely on it. Kids undergoing chemo for leukemia and the like generally cannot be vaccinated. So, they MUST rely on the herd immunity. Parents who refuse to vaccinate don't consider them, and often don't consider that there are often hundreds of other little Johnny Jackasses out there whose parents decided to rely on the herd as well.
The other part is that some vaccines actually DON'T work. Or, probably more accurately, in some cases, they do not take. The measles vaccine is stated to be 99% effective. Well.. That still means that out of 1 million children, 10000 are not immune. THEY are relying on the herd as well.
All in all.. Our current vaccines, short of the flu vaccine which is really hit or miss each year are still very effective. Outbreaks you hear about in the US are generally happening in high-immigrant areas where they have not been vaccinated based on the US Standards.
You make a good point about vaccines not being 100% effective, which I failed to mention. However, even when a vaccine fails the disease is often less severe than it might have been without the vaccine.
The problem is that vaccine refusers tend to live near other vaccine refusers. That results in geographic areas where vaccine uptake is well below the level to sustain herd immunity. Those are the places where larger outbreaks happen.
The outbreak in the Somali community did happen in an immigrant population. However, that is really not where most such outbreaks occur. They have often happened in religious communities, too, such as the one this year in NY and one among the Amish in 2014.
You make a good point about vaccines not being 100% effective, which I failed to mention. However, even when a vaccine fails the disease is often less severe than it might have been without the vaccine.
The problem is that vaccine refusers tend to live near other vaccine refusers. That results in geographic areas where vaccine uptake is well below the level to sustain herd immunity. Those are the places where larger outbreaks happen.
The outbreak in the Somali community did happen in an immigrant population. However, that is really not where most such outbreaks occur. They have often happened in religious communities, too, such as the one this year in NY and one among the Amish in 2014.
Wasn't knocking what you said, because you were absolutely correct, just expanding on it. And you are correct about the areas.. Who is it, the Christian Scientists that also won't vaccinate? The Amish/Mennonites, I didn't think they refused to vaccinate, but I can certainly see how they'd be able to, since I don't believe any of their kids attend a public school. The thing is.. When an outbreak occurs in those areas.. IN GENERAL, the outbreak is contained to those areas.
Immigrant populations, however, will tend to spread it more. The Amish are a close knit community and associate with themselves and not so much with outsiders.. Which not only makes it more difficult for them to catch, but to spread. While the Somali community that is having a current outbreak does tend to associate more with itself than outsiders as well, they don't isolate to the point that the Amish do.
And, yes, I am speaking in generalities here. I don't think you hear too much about outbreaks in Chinatown in NYC.. So, it certainly is not all immigrants.
Wasn't knocking what you said, because you were absolutely correct, just expanding on it. And you are correct about the areas.. Who is it, the Christian Scientists that also won't vaccinate? The Amish/Mennonites, I didn't think they refused to vaccinate, but I can certainly see how they'd be able to, since I don't believe any of their kids attend a public school. The thing is.. When an outbreak occurs in those areas.. IN GENERAL, the outbreak is contained to those areas.
Immigrant populations, however, will tend to spread it more. The Amish are a close knit community and associate with themselves and not so much with outsiders.. Which not only makes it more difficult for them to catch, but to spread. While the Somali community that is having a current outbreak does tend to associate more with itself than outsiders as well, they don't isolate to the point that the Amish do.
And, yes, I am speaking in generalities here. I don't think you hear too much about outbreaks in Chinatown in NYC.. So, it certainly is not all immigrants.
I understand.
The interesting thing is that people who claim religious exemptions pretty much do not have a leg to stand on, because all the major religions in the US allow vaccination. Even the Catholic Church supports vaccines, despite the use of cells derived from tissue from aborted fetuses being used to produce some of them. Christian Scientists are not prohibited from vaccinating.
Most immigrants, including people here illegally, come from countries where vaccination is routine. Here are measles vaccination rates worldwide. MCV is measles vaccine.
Thank you both, for your time and for the information that you shared.
My pleasure!
Quote:
I disagree. Name calling shows contempt for your opponent because of the position that they hold. Second, neither you, or I, have ever been 100% right in all cases; to presume to know that the "other extreme" is "mostly wrong" is to close our minds to facts that might otherwise change our opinions.
The best scenario is to educate your opponent, for in re-evaluating the facts, you will enlighten your opponent, and may very well glean something new for yourself
Well, the name-calling in this thread came from the anti-vax side. I was called a "shill" and accused of using ad hominems (attacking the person) which I did not do.
Quote:
Any argument that I have heard against vaccinating, speaks not to the benefits of vaccinating, but against supposed unintended consequences.
You haven't hung out on a lot of anti-vax message boards, then. Many anti-vaxers tout the benefits of the diseases, a) for giving permanent, lifetime immunity which is not true of all of the vaccine preventable diseases; b) for their supposed benefits in lowering the risk of cancer, which is not supported by research. Plus, disease is "natural".
<snip>
Quote:
That's possible.
Re: autism- I am no expert, however the diagnosis of autism has been expanded in recent years to include "the spectrum". Kids that were in my childhood (50s/60s) considered a little "odd" or "different" are now diagnosed as being on the spectrum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
