Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Hi, everybody!

I just had a comment about Board Question #57223, which discussed reasons that people might not want to vaccinate their children.

I am generally in favor of vaccinations (please keep that in mind as you read this post), but I don't think it is appropriate to term those who oppose vaccination as "hippies," or wackos, or some other similar term. I know people who oppose vaccinations (or suspect that they might have some negative effects), and those people certainly don't fit into those categories:

• One of my parents' neighbors is a nurse. Two of her younger children are autistic (she'd given birth to other children who were non-autistic previously) and both of them had received vaccinations. She suspects that the vaccinations may have had something to do with it (if I recall correctly, she and her husband decided not to vaccinate their youngest child, and she is developing normally as of yet).
  
  One of my best friends has a little sister who got sick and almost died after receiving a rubella vaccination. (It's been awhile since he told me this, so it might not have been for rubella, but I'm pretty sure of it.)

This isn't intended to be proof of the horrors of vaccinations, of course; I don't even remember all of the particulars of these accounts. I just wanted to point out that some people are against (or at least wary of) vaccinations because of conclusions they've drawn from their own personal experience. I would still say that if there are any risks to vaccination, the benefits certainly outweigh the risks; however, I can understand why some people might feel otherwise (especially my friend's family).

Yes, this is specifically the problem, hence why I asked the question. There is no causation evident between autism and vaccinations, yet because of a few anecdotal cases of correlation, it makes people wary. This is (and I'm not intending here to sound insulting, so please don't take it that way) foolish. We have to be careful that we don't assume just because two things apparently happened in sequence that they are related.

On the opposite side of the coin, vaccinations protect against very real threats. However, since they are threats that are extremely rare, we don't take them as serious. Most parents are far more concerned to have an autistic child than that their child get sick with mumps or measles, though the latter is often fatal, and easily preventable, whereas the former is not fatal, and not (yet) preventable.

It has always seemed foolish to me to avoid doing something with a proven beneficial effect under the auspices of avoiding something that isn't really caused by said behavior.

It's not just because of a few anecdotal cases of correlation. There was a study published years ago that straight out said that vaccinations were linked to autism. Caused quite a stir. Recently another study was published that basically debunked the first one, showing all the flaws in the first study, plus doing another study that showed no correlation at all. It was big news.

The thing about vaccinations and autism is that often autism shows up where kids are progressing normally, and then suddenly around the 18 month mark they regress and start to show problems. So it is very easy to look at what is going on at the 18 month mark and blame the vaccinations.

Now, the regression thing isn't what happened with my son- that's what happened with my nephew. My son has been "behind" since birth- difficulty learning to nurse, learning to sleep, didn't look at peole until 6 months old, etc. But as we kept learning more and more about him, my pediatrician recommended a relaxed schedule of vaccinations. She does them, but not at the "4 shots every visit" pace that others do. And if my kids aren't healthy - stomach bug, cold, whatever - she tells us to wait until next time. As Dragon Lady pointed out, there are studies either way. So since we knew my son was on the Autism Spectrum, we are being extra careful.

My brother and his wife are very against vaccinations, so my neice doesn't have any. It wasn't about autism for them. There are a lot of scary stories about healthy kids that were permanently harmed by the vaccinations. He told me to read up about it and make up my own mind, and I found that for every story about someone's child that got terribly sick from the vaccine, there was a story about someone who didn't get the vaccine and got the disease instead, and paid the price. One horrible family had BOTH- the first child nearly died from a vaccine that went wrong, so she vowed to never get vaccines again, and then the third child got whooping cough. Both are currently equally rare, since the diseases are so rare while everyone else gets the vaccines. To me, I looked at that as an even break. Bad things can happen either way, so I just trust my doctor. Heck, bad things can happen when you walk down the street.

Oh, and wryness- thanks for pointing out that I am not a hippie. Or a wacko. But I do have to go down and get the vaccine form signed by the health department, since my kids don't have the legislated amount by preschool age. It's my choice. I will say this though- the chicken pox vaccine is a load of crap. Chicken pox kiled less kids than drowned in bathtubs each year, and even the literature on the vaccine says it wears off after 10 years, while getting the chiken pox protects you for life. If you get chicken pox as a child, you will be sick for a week. If you get chicken pox when you are 25 or older, you will be hospitalized. Seriously, who thought this up?

I received all my vaccinations, and I turned out (mostly) okay, as did all my siblings.

People who don't vaccinate their kids are like drunk drivers: a threat to society who think "it won't happen to me". Compromising herd immunity ought to land you in jail.

Dragon Lady wrote:It's not just because of a few anecdotal cases of correlation. There was a study published years ago that straight out said that vaccinations were linked to autism. Caused quite a stir. Recently another study was published that basically debunked the first one, showing all the flaws in the first study, plus doing another study that showed no correlation at all. It was big news.

Yes, and this "study" as you point out was based on a few anecdotal cases. That's why it was torn apart by subsequent studies. This goes into a larger problem of media sensationalism in general; a study saying that children might get autism from vaccinations is likely to get lots of air time (what would you call it on the internet? Bandwidth?) versus a study that says that no, it most likely won't. I can see the headlines now: "Are you injecting your children with autism?" That sounds like a pretty interesting story, that many parents are likely to tune in for/click on. On the contrary, "New study suggest that conventional wisdom is right, and vaccinations are actually very safe" is unlikely to generate much attention. Hence we become terrified of everything (hyperbole intended, but you get the point.)

People who don't vaccinate their kids are like drunk drivers: a threat to society who think "it won't happen to me". Compromising herd immunity ought to land you in jail.

So what about the kids that have died from the effects of the vaccines? Because that is the ugly truth the drug companies don't talk about. Does it happen frequently? No. But it does happen. And being aware of that certainly shouldn't put you in jail. Besides, if you get the vaccinations and someone else doesn't, it does not affect you. You are "protected". So let other people make their own decisions about thier lives, eh?

bismark wrote:People who don't vaccinate their kids are like drunk drivers: a threat to society who think "it won't happen to me". Compromising herd immunity ought to land you in jail.

It's harsh blanket statements like this that landed you your reputation, bismark. As has been discussed, some people don't vaccinate their kids because they believe that they are doing the right thing. They are not doing it for a good time or to get a high as a drunk driver is. Your accusation is not only flawed, but also inconsiderate of specific cases, and hurtful to those who have researched and honestly believe they are doing the right thing for their child.

Remember, married old man, you're trying to tone it down a bit. You're welcome to your opinion. Just not at the expense of someone else.

The thing is, there are NOT studies either way. There is ONE bogus study that used false science and was retracted. All the other ones do not show a correlation between vaccinations and autism. Anyone not vaccinating because of a fear of autism is simply misinformed and is not doing the best thing for the child.

As for other dangerous effects of vaccinations, unless you know of an allergy that runs in your family, there is absolutely a higher risk involved with not getting the vaccination than with getting it. Plus, most of the ingredients that used to cause allergic reactions have been removed from vaccinations or you can at least request a preservative-free vaccination.

This is not a matter of deciding between two equally attractive options. This is a matter of choosing what is best for your child or choosing what you *think* is best for your child based upon incorrect information. Anyone without any special reason not to ought to vaccinate their children.

TheAnswerIs42 wrote:[Besides, if you get the vaccinations and someone else doesn't, it does not affect you. You are "protected". So let other people make their own decisions about thier lives, eh?

Wrong.

Without herd immunity, diseases are able to flourish and mutate, thus making other's vaccinations worthless. I'll dig up references when I have the time.

Dragon Lady wrote:As has been discussed, some people don't vaccinate their kids because they believe that they are doing the right thing.

Drunk drivers drive home because they think (based on their incorrect knowledge) that they can do so safely.

Dragon Lady wrote:[H]urtful to those who have researched and honestly believe they are doing the right thing for their child.

I've had many drunk friends be very offended when we took away their keys. Doesn't mean they should have the right to do something dangerous to others.

You're welcome to your opinion. Just not at the expense of someone else.

When other's opinions are at the expense of me and my own children's safety, then I think I have the responsibility to strongly denounce such damaging opinions.

Those who voluntarily choose to not vaccinate their children, by compromising herd immunity, are directly threatening children who for legitimate medical reasons cannot be vaccinated.

Here's the way I see it right now (now that I've thought about it some more -- I'm only focusing on vaccines and autism, though):

• I was vaccinated when I was young, and I turned out fine (just don't ask for a second opinion from anyone who knows me, okay? )
  The LDS Church (and many others) have participated in vaccination campaigns against diseases (such as measles). These campaigns have saved thousands, if not millions, of lives.
  
  However, many people, parents and others, wish to find an explanation for the aberrant appearance of autism (statistically, 1 out of every 150 children develop autism or a closely-related disorder). The cause of this development is still undetermined, so I don't think it's completely illogical to suspect vaccination (which often happens close to that time period). It is definitely incorrect to say that vaccination causes autism, or to say that this idea has been proven, but (considering the scientific world is pretty much in the dark as to why autism occurs) it's not unreasonable to start looking at possible factors and related causes; at the very least, vaccination and autism are often related by their time of occurrence.

So, considering these factors (and the idea of "herd immunity," which I'm not going to develop here) a parent's decision seems to be between:

• a) Not vaccinating their child and risking a future illness, and possibly infecting other children, or
  b) Vaccinating their child; which protects them from the disease, according to the scientific community; but presents the risk -- definitely not proven, but still possible, and as good of a guess as any I think has been proposed so far -- that the child may develop autism.

So it's a decision between what we suppose to be a known probable benefit and a possible (but unproven) risk.

My current opinion, without having done much research, is that vaccination is still the way to go. However, I don't think we should label the reasoning of those who choose not to vaccinate as "illogical" -- it may be unproven, but for all we know, vaccines could cause autism. Even if they did, I would still say (once again, without having done research) that the risk of disease is greater than the risk of autism, so we should go with vaccinations.

But let's not call those who choose to not vaccinate (as my mom would say) "waka-waka."
---------------
(I thought this about.com site was a pretty good starting point for reading about this issue, if anyone is interested.)

bismark wrote:Those who voluntarily choose to not vaccinate their children, by compromising herd immunity, are directly threatening children who for legitimate medical reasons cannot be vaccinated.

Many people who voluntarily choose not to vaccinate their children believe they are doing so for legitimate medical reasons. I haven't just been talking autism here, btw. I am allergic to the tetanus vaccine. Should I just give the go ahead to vaccinate Dragon Baby for tetanus without giving a second thought as to whether or not that allergy could be hereditary?

To the room at large:
The "study" that said vaccinations could cause autism was many, many years ago. The major study that thoroughly debunked it was quite recent. Like, in the last few months. You can't really blame people for not hearing about it. There are still thousands of people in this country that don't use Internet widely and certainly aren't up on the most current scientific studies. Many people grew up hearing that vaccinations could cause autism. Now they have kids and they go to the pediatrician and the pediatrician tells them they have a choice as to vaccinate or not. They get those free parenting magazines in the mail that have articles that talk about the pros of vaccinations, and your other options if you're concerned. (Like staggering the shots out instead of getting a billion at once.) It's going to take time to get the word out to the entire country. And there are still (and will always be) a lot of people with genuine concerns about pumping their tiny baby full of drugs and viruses. Not everyone believes in every medical advance we come up with.

Now, I'm not arguing for not vaccinating your children. But I do think that parents should do their own research instead of just relying on what they hear. I have heard very convincing arguments both for and against vaccinations. As a new mother, I was seriously bombarded with all sorts of doubts just before Dragon Baby's first scheduled vaccinations were due. I had never heard anything against vaccinations before in my life. Suddenly I was getting all sorts of information about potential harms of vaccinating. Would I have been reckless if I had told the pediatrician, "Actually, I'm a little concerned. Could we please postpone these vaccines until I've had some time to do some research?" Would I have been responsible if I had just ignored all of those warnings and just accepted everything the pediatrician told me?

Trust me. There are a lot of worries and fears that creep up as soon as that little baby is in your arms. You can't possibly know everything. And most people don't take the trouble of researching and asking questions until the dilemmas are staring them in the face. Most people don't even know what questions to ask and research.

I don't even know what point I'm trying to make here anymore. I guess that's what happens when your response is interrupted 2 or 3 times by a cute little baby that needs food, diapers, and lovin'.

So, um… the end.

Even if you don't know, DL, I know what point you're trying to make.

And I agree. We would be fools not to take a good, hard look at things about which there is controversy. In the case where it involves our health, this goes doubly so. Few things are as critical as our health. That being said, I'm suggesting that almost no parent (barring things like allergies, for which consideration can be made and alternative methods selected) who has actually carefully analyzed and done their own research would choose not to vaccinate. The risks in not doing it are just too great.

However, though I would go so far as to claim it foolish not to vaccinate (again, barring rare individual circumstances) I would not go so far as to call it grossly negligent. Chances are still small that a child will get these diseases, even without immunization. It perhaps might be akin to not having a lightning rod on your house, because you don't like the way it looks, or something. It is a very inexpensive item that can potentially save a home from much damage. But chances are small that lightning will strike your particular house. But when we can do small things to prevent potentially catastrophic consequences, the onus is on us to show that there is a darn good reason not to.

Dragon Lady wrote: The "study" that said vaccinations could cause autism was many, many years ago. The major study that thoroughly debunked it was quite recent.

This narrative isn't quite true. The FIRST study that claimed a link between vaccinations and autism came out in 1998. MANY major studies of the issue have found the link to be bunk, including this one in 2004:

http://www.questgarden.com/20/02/4/0603 ... Lancet.pdf

In 2004, 10 of the original 13 co-authors of the 1998 study issued a retraction of the paper. Finally, this january, one of the original authors was charged with "dishonesty and misleading conduct" by a UK regulatory committee:
http://news.discovery.com/human/vaccine ... nduct.html

Finally, the medical journal that first published the study offered an official retraction this February.

Check out this list of 25 studies "that refute a connection between MMR vaccine and the development of autism."

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf


Okay, so are we all clear that the link between Autism and vaccines is about as likely as the link between Autism and circus clowns?

What I am very concerned about is the modern phenomenon (no doubt related to the internet) of the "armchair expert"—that people think that a few minutes of googling is a substitute for consulting a trained expert. Guys, there is a huge scientific community that spend their entire lives scientifically examining the safety of vaccinations. TRUST THEM.

I stand corrected. But for the record, 1998 was 12 years ago. Isn't that old?

KIDDING!

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Okay, so are we all clear that the link between Autism and vaccines is about as likely as the link between Autism and circus clowns?

Awesome quote.

wryness wrote:I am generally in favor of vaccinations (please keep that in mind as you read this post), but I don't think it is appropriate to term those who oppose vaccination as "hippies," or wackos, or some other similar term.

That isn't to say that some, if not many, of the non-vaccinators aren't hippies and/or wackos. I've known people in either or both camps who refused to vaccinate their children. One such family (of the wacko variety) took their son, who had appendicitis (and they knew it), to a chiropractor because they thought the doctor(s) would experiment on him and try to give him his vaccinations. After a stern rebuke from the chiropractor, they did eventually end up taking him to the emergency room.