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.
Anyway, my purpose in posting the video here was to try to bring about some understanding, in light of the recent controversy over the measles vaccines. I know for me, it really cleared up some issues. I've been a bit disturbed over the labeling of people as anti-vaxxers, when in fact many have legitimate concerns and reservations and are trying to protect themselves and their children from future suffering.
Trying to shout people down, labeling and threatening them doesn't bring about understanding or agreement. Sometimes simply listening to someone's concerns and providing them with an easily understandable source of information and some choices is enough to allay someone's fears. All the hysteria and enforcement by authorities is enough to make a concerned parent run in the other direction, because what it does, is confirm for the parent that there indeed must be something wrong.
Anyway, my purpose in posting the video here was to try to bring about some understanding, in light of the recent controversy over the measles vaccines. I know for me, it really cleared up some issues. I've been a bit disturbed over the labeling of people as anti-vaxxers, when in fact many have legitimate concerns and reservations and are trying to protect themselves and their children from future suffering.
Trying to shout people down, labeling and threatening them doesn't bring about understanding or agreement. Sometimes simply listening to someone's concerns and providing them with an easily understandable source of information and some choices is enough to allay someone's fears. All the hysteria and enforcement by authorities is enough to make a concerned parent run in the other direction, because what it does, is confirm for the parent that there indeed must be something wrong.
I have a difficult time relating to anti-vaxx. When I was growing up, the overwhelming majority of our parents' generation had first- or second- person understanding of just how terrible a contagious disease could be. We lined up for any inoculation recommended.
Variolation was dangerous, and pioneers like Lady Montagu understood that a certain percentage of people would die from it. They also understood that the percentage of unvariolated people who would die was quite a bit higher. Then as now, it is a numbers game, and modern vaccines are orders of magnitude safer than variolation was.
I'm posting this here because the Health & Wellness forum doesn't want the pro and anti vaccine issue.
So I just saw this documentary on smallpox and how the vaccine came about. By the way, I have to put in a plug for fine British ladies who traveled in foreign lands, were keenly observant and brought their knowledge home with them. Also kudos to the Turkish medics for the fine work they did in developing the rudiments of vaccination.
Anyway, I highly recommend this video to those who are leery of vaccines (often with good reason). I realized that it's not so much the idea of vaccines, but how they are formulated and administered in so-called modern times, that turns people off and they get wrongly labeled as "anti-vaxxers". It seems to me that they did it right back in the day. Are there risks associated with vaccines? Yes. Do they have to be as risky as they are today? No.
The problem is that smallpox vaccine and its predecessor methods was way more risky than today's vaccines.
How do you perceive that today's vaccines are more risky? What are your concerns about how they are "formulated and administered"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarc
Anyway, my purpose in posting the video here was to try to bring about some understanding, in light of the recent controversy over the measles vaccines. I know for me, it really cleared up some issues. I've been a bit disturbed over the labeling of people as anti-vaxxers, when in fact many have legitimate concerns and reservations and are trying to protect themselves and their children from future suffering.
Trying to shout people down, labeling and threatening them doesn't bring about understanding or agreement. Sometimes simply listening to someone's concerns and providing them with an easily understandable source of information and some choices is enough to allay someone's fears. All the hysteria and enforcement by authorities is enough to make a concerned parent run in the other direction, because what it does, is confirm for the parent that there indeed must be something wrong.
Almost all parents want to protect their children from suffering. The problem is that the anti-vaccine movement is very real and is powered by pseudoscience and misinformation. This results in parents who are still convinced vaccines cause autism. They do not. There has been tons of research and none points to vaccines as a cause of autism. The state of science literacy is so poor in this country that parents cannot understand that just because event B follows event A it does not mean that A caused B. They cannot understand risk to benefit analysis and will insist the measles vaccine is riskier than the disease when the risk of death from measles is one or two in 1,000 and the risk of any serious adverse event from measles vaccine is one in 1,000,000.
The "hysteria and enforcement by authorities" in NY could have been avoided if the people with affected and exposed family members had simply cooperated with those authorities. Instead they are having measles parties, and even their religious leaders have not been able to convince them to cooperate and have explained that their religion does not forbid vaccination. They have been provided with "easily understandable" information. They choose to believe anti-vaccine rhetoric.
I had a conversation about vaccines with the pediatricians, husband and wife, now retired, who took care of my sons when they were children. One of them described the ordeal of trying to explain vaccines to one parent, hoping to convince her to vaccinate her child, trying to get her to allow the most pressing one - just one, and getting nowhere.
There are parents who think a few hours on the internet, focusing on anti-vaccine websites, trumps the education of their child's pediatrician and all of the research done on vaccines worldwide. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action: those who know the least tend to think they know more than they do. They cannot be educated.
I have a difficult time relating to anti-vaxx. When I was growing up, the overwhelming majority of our parents' generation had first- or second- person understanding of just how terrible a contagious disease could be. We lined up for any inoculation recommended.
Variolation was dangerous, and pioneers like Lady Montagu understood that a certain percentage of people would die from it. They also understood that the percentage of unvariolated people who would die was quite a bit higher. Then as now, it is a numbers game, and modern vaccines are orders of magnitude safer than variolation was.
"Anti-vaxx" is, in my opinion, an inaccurate and unfairly applied blanket label. In my case, for example, being inoculated for smallpox and polio makes sense, and I'm more than happy to take the risk that comes with those vaccines. So am I anti-vaxx? Nope. Just selective. When it comes to survivable childhood illnesses that confer lifelong immunity, I'd prefer to take that particular risk.
The gross over-prescription of antibiotics has rendered those former miracle drugs all but useless. And I'm just a lay person, but it looks as if the medical community is going to walk that path again with vaccines. In fact it seems we may already be taking the first steps. You'd think we'd have learned that lesson, but no.
How do you perceive that today's vaccines are more risky? What are your concerns about how they are "formulated and administered"?
I think i answered this for you before. Too many or the wrong additives, series of vaccinations given all at once or not enough time in between. I received mine on a schedule, spaced out over time. I believe this gave my body time to absorb and adapt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Almost all parents want to protect their children from suffering. The problem is that the anti-vaccine movement is very real and is powered by pseudoscience and misinformation. This results in parents who are still convinced vaccines cause autism. They do not. There has been tons of research and none points to vaccines as a cause of autism. The state of science literacy is so poor in this country that parents cannot understand that just because event B follows event A it does not mean that A caused B. They cannot understand risk to benefit analysis and will insist the measles vaccine is riskier than the disease when the risk of death from measles is one or two in 1,000 and the risk of any serious adverse event from measles vaccine is one in 1,000,000.
I have no clue whether or not vaccines cause autism. More to the point are the questions "What DOES cause autism? And what would be the cure or the preventative?" Maybe if those questions could be answered definitively, parents wouldn't lay the cause at the door of vaccines. And again, I'm just a lay person, but autism sure looks like an epidemic to me. And a very cruel one, I might add. And if sufficient numbers of parents have formerly healthy and bright children who develop autism shortly after receiving vaccines, I would say there is cause for concern. At what point is it no longer a coincidence?
I realize this theme of "Correlation is not Causation" is very popular at the moment. The correct way of putting it would be that correlation is not necessarily causation. Because otherwise, it just looks like some cognitive dissonance invalidation of the scientific method. But I agree that science literacy is very poor. So poor, in fact, that it seems to have infected the scientific community itself. This is not lost on the masses. They see declines of various sorts everywhere in society, educationally, politically, financially, in shoddy products, etc. Why would the scientific community be immune, especially in these times of regulatory capture?
You can tell us that the risk of any serious adverse reaction from the measles vaccine is one in 1,000,000. But what is considered serious? Certainly death is serious. But one could consider a severe lifetime handicap of some sort to be serious, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The "hysteria and enforcement by authorities" in NY could have been avoided if the people with affected and exposed family members had simply cooperated with those authorities. Instead they are having measles parties, and even their religious leaders have not been able to convince them to cooperate and have explained that their religion does not forbid vaccination. They have been provided with "easily understandable" information. They choose to believe anti-vaccine rhetoric.
That's a shame about the measles parties. When I was a kid, all I had to do was go to school, highly recommended by "the authorities", back in the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
I had a conversation about vaccines with the pediatricians, husband and wife, now retired, who took care of my sons when they were children. One of them described the ordeal of trying to explain vaccines to one parent, hoping to convince her to vaccinate her child, trying to get her to allow the most pressing one - just one, and getting nowhere.
There are parents who think a few hours on the internet, focusing on anti-vaccine websites, trumps the education of their child's pediatrician and all of the research done on vaccines worldwide. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action: those who know the least tend to think they know more than they do. They cannot be educated.
Yes, it IS an ordeal for the doctors. I think if more parents saw the video that is the subject of this thread, this would give a basic education on the subject of vaccines in general. It certainly was enlightening to me. The measles vaccine in specific, however, might be a different story.
"Anti-vaxx" is, in my opinion, an inaccurate and unfairly applied blanket label. In my case, for example, being inoculated for smallpox and polio makes sense, and I'm more than happy to take the risk that comes with those vaccines. So am I anti-vaxx? Nope. Just selective. When it comes to survivable childhood illnesses that confer lifelong immunity, I'd prefer to take that particular risk.
The gross over-prescription of antibiotics has rendered those former miracle drugs all but useless. And I'm just a lay person, but it looks as if the medical community is going to walk that path again with vaccines. In fact it seems we may already be taking the first steps. You'd think we'd have learned that lesson, but no.
Vaccination for smallpox does not make sense because smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. You will never be exposed to it. That is why no one routinely gets vaccinated against it any more.
Polio is almost in the same basket as smallpox. Your risk of being exposed to it in the US is essentially zero. There have been only nine cases of wild polio in the entire world this year, three in Afghanistan and six in Pakistan. If you visit Pakistan for any length of time you have to prove you have been vaccinated before you are allowed to leave the country. No proof? You get the vaccine at the airport.
You are saying that the vaccines for the two diseases you are least likely to be exposed to are the ones most important to you. I find that hard to understand.
Those childhood diseases are not always survivable, even with the best of modern medicine. In order to get that immunity you have to get sick, often very sick, and sometimes in the ICU sick. Immunity will prevent you from catching the disease again, but you had to be very ill to get there. With the vaccine you skip the really sick part and go directly to being immune. I fail to see the logic that says it is better to be sick to be immune than to not be sick to be immune.
Antibiotics are totally irrelevant to vaccines. The two do not in any fashion work in the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarc
I think i answered this for you before. Too many or the wrong additives, series of vaccinations given all at once or not enough time in between. I received mine on a schedule, spaced out over time. I believe this gave my body time to absorb and adapt.
The childhood vaccine schedule is carefully crafted to provide protection against all of the diseases in the shortest period of time. There is no reason to space them out. Even "Dr. Bob" Sears of alternate vaccine schedule fame admits there is no science to back up his version of the schedule. All spacing does is increase the risk a child will catch something before he gets the vaccine for it.
The additives in vaccines are not dangerous. They are there in tiny amounts, and for most of them you get a far larger amount from daily exposure to air, food, and water. The misinformation about the ingredients in vaccines comes from anti-vaccinationists shifting the goalposts. First it was MMR causing autism, then when it was shown that was not true they shifted to thimerosal. Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines because of the anti-vax hysteria over it. The incidence of autism did not budge. Well, they said, it must be aluminum. Nope.
I have no clue whether or not vaccines cause autism. More to the point are the questions "What DOES cause autism? And what would be the cure or the preventative?" Maybe if those questions could be answered definitively, parents wouldn't lay the cause at the door of vaccines. And again, I'm just a lay person, but autism sure looks like an epidemic to me. And a very cruel one, I might add. And if sufficient numbers of parents have formerly healthy and bright children who develop autism shortly after receiving vaccines, I would say there is cause for concern. At what point is it no longer a coincidence?
You can have a clue now. There has been no evidence found that vaccines cause autism. There is research showing autism is genetic, probably involving the interaction of numerous genes, which means that it is possible that each person with autism has a unique set of genetic circumstances producing it. That means there is unlikely to be a preventative - or a cure. That does not mean there cannot be help for people with autism. It is a shame that so much money and effort has been spent trying to place the blame on vaccines. That would have been better spent on services for families with autism, including respite for caregivers.
The appearance of an "epidemic" is largely due to changes in diagnostic classification. As awareness of the condition increased, doctors diagnosed it more often. Also, for some children having the label increases access to special services.
The thing is that for many families who insist their "formerly healthy and bright children" only developed signs of it after vaccination home videos have shown the children had clear signs of autism before being vaccinated. Many genetic diseases have a specific time frame at which signs and symptoms will appear. For autism that time frame overlaps the age at which children are being vaccinated. Families who have one child with autism and do not vaccinate the next may have the unvaccinated child still develop autism.
Quote:
I realize this theme of "Correlation is not Causation" is very popular at the moment. The correct way of putting it would be that correlation is not necessarily causation. Because otherwise, it just looks like some cognitive dissonance invalidation of the scientific method. But I agree that science literacy is very poor. So poor, in fact, that it seems to have infected the scientific community itself. This is not lost on the masses. They see declines of various sorts everywhere in society, educationally, politically, financially, in shoddy products, etc. Why would the scientific community be immune, especially in these times of regulatory capture?
Correlations are a clue that causation may be there. That is why additional studies have to be done to confirm that causation actually exists. Those have been done for vaccines and autism and no causation can be shown.
Quote:
You can tell us that the risk of any serious adverse reaction from the measles vaccine is one in 1,000,000. But what is considered serious? Certainly death is serious. But one could consider a severe lifetime handicap of some sort to be serious, too.
That is all serious adverse reactions. Some of those certainly can cause significant permanent handicaps, but deaths are rare. The most serious adverse reaction would be encephalopathy; however measles itself is 1000 times more likely to cause that. Measles also causes damage to the immune system that can persist for three years, increasing the risk of getting other infections. There is also a complication called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis that can take years to develop and is always fatal. Immunity from having measles id not better than immunity from the vaccine.
That's a shame about the measles parties. When I was a kid, all I had to do was go to school, highly recommended by "the authorities", back in the day.
I totally agree. Deliberately exposing your child to measles in 2019 is abusive.
Quote:
Yes, it IS an ordeal for the doctors. I think if more parents saw the video that is the subject of this thread, this would give a basic education on the subject of vaccines in general. It certainly was enlightening to me. The measles vaccine in specific, however, might be a different story.
For those who have totally internalized the anti-vax message trying to educate them just makes them dig in their heels and intensify their resistance. It does not work.
There is no different story to the measles vaccine. It is effective and many orders of magnitude safer than getting measles, which is not just a trivial itchy rash.
"Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines because of the anti-vax hysteria over it."
Based on my own experience with thimerosal, that's probably a good thing. As an early adopter of soft contact lenses, I had an eye doctor who switched me from a non-thimerosal solution to one that contained thimerosal. Don't ask me why, probably because of a cute pharma rep who sashayed through his office. Within 48 hours I had a serious case of tomato eyes, accompanied by significant soreness. When I marched into his office to find out what was going on, his response was "Oh, ha-ha, it's not for everyone. You're probably sensitive. Go back to what you were using."
Based on that, I probably wouldn't react well to a vaccine with thimerosal in it. And I wouldn't want to have to find out the hard way.
I'm posting this here because the Health & Wellness forum doesn't want the pro and anti vaccine issue.
So I just saw this documentary on smallpox and how the vaccine came about. By the way, I have to put in a plug for fine British ladies who traveled in foreign lands, were keenly observant and brought their knowledge home with them. Also kudos to the Turkish medics for the fine work they did in developing the rudiments of vaccination.
Anyway, I highly recommend this video to those who are leery of vaccines (often with good reason). I realized that it's not so much the idea of vaccines, but how they are formulated and administered in so-called modern times, that turns people off and they get wrongly labeled as "anti-vaxxers". It seems to me that they did it right back in the day. Are there risks associated with vaccines? Yes. Do they have to be as risky as they are today? No.
Right up to the 1950's, some European countries were pretty brutal in the ay they applied smallpox vaccines. They were literally scratched into the skin over a largish area. This method left big scars. I used to notice such scars on the Italian kids at school.
I was an army medic in the "holiday posting' Of Malaysia and Singapore. That meant wives and kids came
We immunised nearly 1000 people against influenza; a simple sub cutaneous injection. IE small gauge needle, at an oblique angle, which did not puncture a muscle.
We also regularly administered smallpox vaccinations; small gauge needle, no syringe. A tiny drop of the vaccine on the tip of needle. The vaccine was pushed under the dermis, (intra dermis) without drawing bloody. Left a small scar.
Disclaimer ; that WAS 50 years ago. Hopefully things have improved for the better.
Right up to the 1950's, some European countries were pretty brutal in the ay they applied smallpox vaccines. They were literally scratched into the skin over a largish area. This method left big scars. I used to notice such scars on the Italian kids at school.
I was an army medic in the "holiday posting' Of Malaysia and Singapore. That meant wives and kids came
We immunised nearly 1000 people against influenza; a simple sub cutaneous injection. IE small gauge needle, at an oblique angle, which did not puncture a muscle.
We also regularly administered smallpox vaccinations; small gauge needle, no syringe. A tiny drop of the vaccine on the tip of needle. The vaccine was pushed under the dermis, (intra dermis) without drawing bloody. Left a small scar.
Disclaimer ; that WAS 50 years ago. Hopefully things have improved for the better.
"The smallpox vaccine is given by a special technique. It is not administered as a 'shot' in the way that most other vaccines are. It is given using a two-pronged (bifurcated) needle that is dipped into the vaccine solution. When removed, the needle holds a droplet of the vaccine. The needle is used to prick the skin a number of times in a few seconds. The pricking is not deep, but it will cause a sore spot and one or two drops of blood to form. The vaccine usually is given in the upper arm."
Photos of the results at the link.
My scar is on my left arm. My MIL is fond of noting that hers is on her upper thigh, "where no one would see it". She was born in 1923, growing up when women's swimsuits had little modest skirts or legs that covered the upper leg.
"The smallpox vaccine is given by a special technique. It is not administered as a 'shot' in the way that most other vaccines are. It is given using a two-pronged (bifurcated) needle that is dipped into the vaccine solution. When removed, the needle holds a droplet of the vaccine. The needle is used to prick the skin a number of times in a few seconds. The pricking is not deep, but it will cause a sore spot and one or two drops of blood to form. The vaccine usually is given in the upper arm."
Photos of the results at the link.
My scar is on my left arm. My MIL is fond of noting that hers is on her upper thigh, "where no one would see it". She was born in 1923, growing up when women's swimsuits had little modest skirts or legs that covered the upper leg.
Mine is on the back of my left shoulder. I don't remember it. Just have the scar.
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.
