Do you or Do You not Vaccinate? (boy, smart, 2 year old)

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons

If fear is not a valid reason not to vaccinate, how is fear a perfectly valid reason to vaccinate? Isn't that why people vaccinate, because they fear contracting the illness?

The whole driving force behind both sides of this debate is fear that your child will get sick.

I'm not afraid. I have never met anyone with most of these diseases (Private school you know)..Only one, my mom had Polio as a child and I heard some stories so I would rather avoid having my child live in the hospital for 10 months if I can. You know how disruptive to my household that would be. Lucky for me they have a vaccine to prevent this so I take advantage of the fact that I live in a lovely country with plenty of access to such life savers.

Rational fear is acceptable (Being afraid when your child runs out into the street a car will hit him)... Irrational fear is not (Being afraid that a satellite will fall from the sky and squash your child while they play in the street). Same result, same situation but the fear's are NOT the same.

I can see being afraid of vaccines if your child has a compromised immune system or has many allergies, but why would someone be afraid of vaccines if their child has been otherwise healthy?

[AnonChick]

Originally Posted by KsStorm

Trying to find some GOOD information on the statistics of countries that don't do as many vaccinations as we do & the autism rates, but can't find any reliable links. I am not 100% convinced by the studies done so far that "prove" vaccinations don't cause autism. Are we to assume that ALL of the parents who claim they took their children in for shots and afterwards the children were totally different are LYING? That seems kind of far fetched to me.

(For the record, all my 4 kids are vaccinated, no autism in the family that we know of. )

Only to the extent that ALL the parents who claim their children were not vaccinated, but have autism anyway, are all lying.

Which is to say, it's a logical fallacy.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by KsStorm

Another thing I am having a hard time finding ( & I refuse to use Info wars or Whale as a reliable source) is that there is a unusually low rate of Autism in the Amish community. Is this true?

See here: Do The Amish Vaccinate? Indeed They Do, AND Their Autism Rates May be Lower

And a good commentary: Autism, Amish, and Logical Fallacies | TechyDad

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by KsStorm

Trying to find some GOOD information on the statistics of countries that don't do as many vaccinations as we do & the autism rates, but can't find any reliable links. I am not 100% convinced by the studies done so far that "prove" vaccinations don't cause autism. Are we to assume that ALL of the parents who claim they took their children in for shots and afterward the children were totally different are LYING? That seems kind of far fetched to me.

(For the record, all my 4 kids are vaccinated, no autism in the family that we know of. )

I've wondered if there wasn't some sort of natural body response to the injections themselves (not necessarily the ingredients) that can trigger something. I can see why parents who watched their happy baby get fussy after their vac's, maybe develop a fever and go to sleep, then wake up a completely different person would believe there was a connection. Of course MOST kids with autism did not have that kind of dramatic change the day of the vaccine so it probably wouldn't account for everyone. But many kids DO have other injuries, bumps, scratches, illnesses, etc. that can cause the body to react in strange ways. I don't just know.

[bluedevilz]

Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons

My childhood neighbor contracted poliovirus from his rabbits -- the health inspectors came and did the whole investigation. Turned out the pet store had sold him previous lab animals. But outside humans, polio does not naturally infect other species, not even other higher primates... but with all the testing we do, there is a reservoir in our lab animals. If we don't destroy every one of them once we're done testing on them, it can and does become a disease vector.

The data cited for poliomyelitis came from: Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIntyre L, Wolfe S (eds.) (2007). Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (The Pink Book) (10th ed.). Washington DC: Public Health Foundation. pp. 101–14.

The numbers given were outcomes for exposed persons. Since poliovirus is/was a naturally occuring pathogen... one could reasonably assume there is/was a good chance of 100% exposure rate.

1. It isn't possible to contract polio from a rabbit...there is no "reservoir" in lab animals. Rabbits do not and cannot become a disease vector

2. The data cited wasn't incorrect....it was misinterpreted. That is commonly quoted data that has to do with how an INFECTED person with polio may present....NOT how LIKELY someone is to become infected if exposed which is how you presented it in the earlier post...

3. Polio "wildtype" is no longer a naturally occurring pathogen outside of a handful of countries, proving that vaccination programs do work.

4. I have no idea what concept you are trying to convey by talking about "100% exposure rate"? If 100 people are in a room with 1 person with polio THAT is a 100% exposure rate as all have been presumably been exposed...that does not equate, necessarily, to all 100 persons subsequently becoming infected....

[bluedevilz]

Originally Posted by Dorthy

The link between thimerosal and autism has been looked into but there are other factors and theories that have yet to be looked into.

Pray tell....what factors and theories would those be??

And tell me....if thimerosal containing vaccines have proven NOT to increase the risk of autism (which is in fact the case) what other "factors" that ARE NOT in thimerosal containing vaccines are we talking about....

Because....thimerosal was not looked at in a vacuum...it was looked at as an agent in vaccines....therefore ANY OTHER INGREDIENT FOUND IN THIMEROSAL CONTAINING VACCINES HAS ALSO BEEN RULED OUT AS A CAUSE FOR AUTISM AS WELL

CDC - Concerns About Autism - Vaccine Safety

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by bluedevilz

LOTS of people THINK their child's autism is related to vaccination...

Problem is there isn't a single shred of evidence to prove it and EVERY study to date has shown NO CORRELATION....NONE

Based on the available scientific data, your statement that you still believe it is possible that vaccination leads to some cases of autism is no different than me saying that I think its possible that Cherry KoolAid is responsible for some cases of autism...

Both statements have equal backing from available scientific evidence....

Here's what my pediatrician told me 11 years ago when all of this "MMR causes autism" crap really started to hit hard (paraphrased, of course b/c I can barely remember what I had for breakfast today, but what he told me stuck a little harder than the oatmeal I think I had):

Mrs. Sawdustmaker, I understand your concerns. But what I need to tell you is that having been a pediatrician for over 30 years now I can spot an autistic child a mile away. And way before 2 years old. Lack of eye contact, lack of reacting "normally" while in "normal stress-filled" situations. I tell these parents that they may need to watch for the signs of autism, but they DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT. So basically, what happens is, they vax their 2 year old and blame the vax because they all of a sudden notice their child "isn't right". It's not like their 2 year old was par for the course to begin with, they just THINK they were and need something to blame even after I've been telling them that there is something else going on and long before 2 years of age.

Apparently people need something to blame.

And what would help is parents of autistic kids, especially those who have more than one, get tested. For whatever! I'm not a geneticist and I'm not a genetic counselor, so I don't know.

I just do not believe that the MMR brings on autism 24 hours after receiving it.

Let's say it did. Why are you blaming the vaccination and not trying to figure out what was wrong with your kid in the first place that a vaccine, given to millions of children who are just fine after receiving it, ended up with the result it did?

Why blame the vax? Or better yet, what is genetically wrong with you and whomever created the baby that produced a child who reacted to a vaccination -if that's what you want to blame?

There are too many fully vaxed kids without autism running around to blame autism on a vaccination.

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by Dorthy

Then how can you be so confident in dismissing every single one of those parents beliefs. They know their children better then anyone else.

And they think their child does no wrong while others run when they see that kid coming.

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by Dorthy

Not necessarily the case. Gene mutations can happen prior to birth or after birth. If there is a genetic factor involved it does not necessarily mean that it has been in the family for generations.

Of course not. But who would know unless one mates with someone else who also has that funky gene?

People (who fall into the risk group) get tested for Tay-Sachs and Sickle Cell because they are aware of it.

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons

However, for many of these diseases the chances that you will contract the illness and have it permanently maim you or kill you is normally very low in a reasonably hygenic environment... even when you aren't vaccinated. (*many - not all*)

Thanks to what? Those who vax?

Care to take that mind-set to Africa? It would save a lot of time and energy and expense.

Take polio for instance - CDC reports that 90-95% of (unvaccinated) people exposed to poliovirus experience no symptoms, 4-5% experience flu-like symptoms, 1-2% suffer aseptic meningitis, and 0.1-0.5% experience poliomyelitis which can disfigure and/or kill.

And that's called asymptomatic polio.

I'm not saying not to get a polio vaccine. I'm not saying that polio isn't a terrible disease. I'm not saying that polio can't maim or kill you. I'm only saying, that given the data, your chances of contracting polio, especially in it's worst forms, are fairly low.

Thanks to what?

The herd immunity theory, and erradicating the disease entirely through vaccination, goes completely out the window when, like polio, the disease can be carried and transmitted by animals.

Polio is transmitted through human feces. And then hand to mouth if you're so lucky to have touched something that someone who was infected didn't wash their hands after taking a potty "break".

"Wild" Polio has nothing to do with animals. It has to do with not getting polio from the vax.