A Vaccine Thread for EllaJac

[valsa]

valsa I feel you're very irrespectful. I want to say lots of stuff but I know I'm not the best placed for being the moralist toward how you should ask around other people. It's a heated argument for both sides, but the least you could have is some decency and I don't see it. It's not helping your argument at all. That's all.

I'm not out to change people's minds so the finger wagging isn't going to do much good.

I like the seatbelt analogy.

Me too.

[valsa]

This is not an extreme viewpoint by any means, so please stop with the "omg Beeks doesn't agree with VALSA so she must be a gay-hating FUNDIE!" crap.

I know I'm on ignore but I do hope you see this, because apparently your reading comprehension is as bad as your ability to do a little research into things before citing them.

I never said you were a gay-hating fundie because you don't agree with me. I said that the fact you backed your ignorant claim with a fraudulent study and without doing any research on the veracity of said study reminds me of the fundies who do the same.

[Deleted03]

I'm not out to change people's minds so the finger wagging isn't going to do much good.

Me too.

so you're just freely insulting others, that's much better. whatever-

[valsa]

so you're just freely insulting others, that's much better. whatever-

No, but I don't consider my job to try and change people's minds. Also, the heated type of arguments on this thread are exactly how I've ended up changing a whole lot of political views I've had over the past ten years. Some people don't change their minds with hand-holding and flowery words. Some people need to be smacked in the fact with their own stupidity before they'll start considering that they may be wrong.

[Beeks]

I like the seatbelt analogy.

It's not a horrible one, except I can't think of many situations where it'd be better NOT to wear a seatbelt, but with vaccines there are such situations (egg allergies is one).

Bottom line: I like vaccines. Vaccines are good. I'm not the anti-vax nutjob Valsa is trying to make me out to be.

However, I am FOR more research, I am FOR more options/choices and I am FOR parental choice. I think providing parents with more options (allowing them to split up vaccines, for instance) will ultimately lead to more vaccinations and less disease. Condemning people who are simply trying to do what they think is best for their children isn't going to help - it's just going to fuel the anti-vax fire. More research, continuing to improve vaccine safety and providing parents a number of options all seem like reasonable requests to me. Just like we've made seatbelts and carseats better and safer since the invention of cars, we should keep trying to improve vaccines instead of just trying to browbeat people into submission and calling them ignorant for questioning vaccine safety.

[FakePigtails]

It's not a horrible one, except I can't think of many situations where it'd be better NOT to wear a seatbelt, but with vaccines there are such situations (egg allergies is one).

Bottom line: I like vaccines. Vaccines are good. I'm not the anti-vax nutjob Valsa is trying to make me out to be.

However, I am FOR more research, I am FOR more options/choices and I am FOR parental choice. I think providing parents with more options (allowing them to split up vaccines, for instance) will ultimately lead to more vaccinations and less disease. Condemning people who are simply trying to do what they think is best for their children isn't going to help - it's just going to fuel the anti-vax fire. More research, continuing to improve vaccine safety and providing parents a number of options all seem like reasonable requests to me. Just like we've made seatbelts and carseats better and safer since the invention of cars, we should keep trying to improve vaccines instead of just trying to browbeat people into submission and calling them ignorant for questioning vaccine safety.

But there's NOT a scientific basis for splitting them. The combos currently used were tested, studies done etc etc. *If* someone has a family history of reactions, getting the shots at different times makes sense, but for the vast majority there's no point in that much less splitting something like MMR apart. To do so is to give in to false ideas about the vaccines and encourages people to think there was something wrong when there wasn't. Look at thimerasol. No difference in autism rates with or without it but they took it out anyway due to public pressure and people still don't get vaccines because now the goalpost is moved to aluminum or whatever else and there's a false impression that the vaccine was unsafe before.

Improvements that need to be made will, but what I see is a bunch of people who don't understand the science calling for various things that aren't needed and then get mad because the people who know what's going on (rightly) ignored them.

[Terrie]

It's not a horrible one, except I can't think of many situations where it'd be better NOT to wear a seatbelt, but with vaccines there are such situations (egg allergies is one).

Bottom line: I like vaccines. Vaccines are good. I'm not the anti-vax nutjob Valsa is trying to make me out to be.

However, I am FOR more research, I am FOR more options/choices and I am FOR parental choice. I think providing parents with more options (allowing them to split up vaccines, for instance) will ultimately lead to more vaccinations and less disease. Condemning people who are simply trying to do what they think is best for their children isn't going to help - it's just going to fuel the anti-vax fire. More research, continuing to improve vaccine safety and providing parents a number of options all seem like reasonable requests to me. Just like we've made seatbelts and carseats better and safer since the invention of cars, we should keep trying to improve vaccines instead of just trying to browbeat people into submission and calling them ignorant for questioning vaccine safety.

Seat belts can be dangerous for those who are, for instance, very short -- like small children. There's a reason why they now have kids in booster seats based on size, not age.

As for "safer vaccines" the problem is that you're setting up a false dichotomy. The entire point of the vaccine schedule is that it is the safest one we have -- for right now. As new information becomes available and we gain more understanding, it does change. When you raise that argument, you imply that those in favor of vaccines are, somehow, against safer vaccines. Vaccines, just like car seats and seat belts, are safer than they used to be. You also imply that, if vaccines were safer, anti-vax views would not exist. Except that this is an issue I follow, and most of them don't want "safe" vaccines. They want NO vaccines. They don't believe that a safe vaccine exists.

[Beeks]

Seat belts can be dangerous for those who are, for instance, very short -- like small children. There's a reason why they now have kids in booster seats based on size, not age.

As for "safer vaccines" the problem is that you're setting up a false dichotomy. The entire point of the vaccine schedule is that it is the safest one we have -- for right now. As new information becomes available and we gain more understanding, it does change. When you raise that argument, you imply that those in favor of vaccines are, somehow, against safer vaccines. Vaccines, just like car seats and seat belts, are safer than they used to be. You also imply that, if vaccines were safer, anti-vax views would not exist. Except that this is an issue I follow, and most of them don't want "safe" vaccines. They want NO vaccines. They don't believe that a safe vaccine exists.

No, I don't, because like I JUST said I am both in favor of vaccines AND for safer vaccines. So obviously I think you can be both.

I did not imply that if vaccines are safer anti-vaxers wouldn't exist - I said more people would get vaxed. There will always be fringe nutjobs who won't be satisfied no matter what.

[Beeks]

But there's NOT a scientific basis for splitting them. The combos currently used were tested, studies done etc etc. *If* someone has a family history of reactions, getting the shots at different times makes sense, but for the vast majority there's no point in that much less splitting something like MMR apart. To do so is to give in to false ideas about the vaccines and encourages people to think there was something wrong when there wasn't. Look at thimerasol. No difference in autism rates with or without it but they took it out anyway due to public pressure and people still don't get vaccines because now the goalpost is moved to aluminum or whatever else and there's a false impression that the vaccine was unsafe before.

Improvements that need to be made will, but what I see is a bunch of people who don't understand the science calling for various things that aren't needed and then get mad because the people who know what's going on (rightly) ignored them.

I do see your point but at the same time, if it will cause more people to get the vaccine, I'm for it. You used to be able to split up MMR and now you can't. I know a good number of people who are either foregoing MMR altogether or delaying it for an extended period of time just because of this. If you could still split it up, they would get it. I don't see the HARM in letting people split vaccines if that's what they want to do, and if it causes more kids to be vaxed then what's the big deal? Like I said though, I understand your point about it implying that it's not safe together. I just disagree and see it as providing options and encouraging more people to get vaxed.

[FakePigtails]

Here's another take on it: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... -decision/

The problem is that it perpetuates the false idea that there was something wrong with the vaccine and it's part of the culture of distrust towards doctors that has led to the anti-vaccine movement becoming such a problem. If someone sees that the vaccine is now split (or thimerasol removed) then oh gosh! My child's doctor was encouraging us to inject that dangerous substance into our child!

Trust gone.

That's the problem.

[emmiedahl]

I think many people in the anti-vax crowd would not be for them if doctors could eliminate side effects (you really can't, some people will always have genetic conditions that will be worsened or 'activated' by immune events such as receiving a vaccine). Consider the autism link which has been completely debumked. It is still the major argument that I hear, and no one wants to accept that this objection is no longer scientifically valid.

It's a counter-culture badge of honor to not vaccinate. Most of the people I know who don't do it are either hippie types who believe anything unnatural is evil or fundies convinced of the Godliness of their choice. No amount of change will bring over either crowd. Some people have been swayed by bad science and Jennie McCarthy, but they don't really care about studies either. They don't want change, they want a scapegoat.

Vaccines are constantly being changed and developed to be made safer even though there is really no money in it for the companies. There are changes being made, not because of Jennie McCarthy, but because the medical field is not one where things stay stagnant.

[Beeks]

Here's another take on it: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... -decision/

The problem is that it perpetuates the false idea that there was something wrong with the vaccine and it's part of the culture of distrust towards doctors that has led to the anti-vaccine movement becoming such a problem. If someone sees that the vaccine is now split (or thimerasol removed) then oh gosh! My child's doctor was encouraging us to inject that dangerous substance into our child!

Trust gone.

That's the problem.

Like I said, I see your point and I think it's a reasonable one.

Also, I DON'T trust doctors anymore - at least not blindly. My son had so many horrible bowel/digestion issues (constant diarrhea, gagging and vomiting on his food, etc) and medical doctor after medical doctor dismissed our concerns or made idiotic suggestions - like maybe he was doing it on purpose. Right. A baby is gagging and vomiting and having diarrea on purpose. Finally, we switched to a naturopathic physician (these are not quacks - they are licensed and controlled and covered by our insurance) and bam. Issue solved. So forgive me for not blindly trusting the medical community when I've had so many bad experiences with them and so far only positives with our alternative physician.

EDIT: also, it cracks me up that I'm the anti-vaxing nut on this board. In my real-life circle of friends (we live in the Seattle area and it's very liberal/crunchy), I'm the conservative pro-vaxer.

[Patsy]

The problem is that it perpetuates the false idea that there was something wrong with the vaccine and it's part of the culture of distrust towards doctors that has led to the anti-vaccine movement becoming such a problem. If someone sees that the vaccine is now split (or thimerasol removed) then oh gosh! My child's doctor was encouraging us to inject that dangerous substance into our child!

It's a counter-culture badge of honor to not vaccinate. Most of the people I know who don't do it are either hippie types who believe anything unnatural is evil or fundies convinced of the Godliness of their choice. No amount of change will bring over either crowd.

^ These. There are a lot of medical peeps who seem to think there was actually nothing wrong with thimerosal (for adults OR babies), and that the removal of it was just a concession to calm people down - instead it's made them go "there were problems!"

If we can continue fact-checking: does anyone have any idea of reviews that look at whether or not thimerosal actually was that bad for babies? I've read stuff from proper authorities that kind of go either way.

And: does anyone have anything to say about standardised doses? We've been over schedules and combinations, the standard dose thing is something I've heard criticised. I have no particular reason to have a problem with it, but I haven't read up on it that much either.

[Alecto]

I am curious here how many people have actually either had a bad reaction to a vaccine, or have a child who has?

People seem to be very worried, but I know that my reaction to vaccines occurs about 1 in every 100,000 shots.

[Sola]

They don't. Autism. 2009 Jul;13(4):343-55.

Are there more bowel symptoms in children with autism compared to normal children and children with other developmental and neurological disorders?: A case control study.

Smith RA, Farnworth H, Wright B, Allgar V.

This study showed that gut issues were more common in kids with autism than neurotypical kids, BUT that they have the SAME rate as children with other types of neuro and developmental disorders. There is no mystical autistic gut issue.

I've stayed out of this thread because my own personal and professional experience with autism (coupled with my bolshie personality :0) tends to win me no friends in this debate.

But, there is a gut issue with autism (and other development disorders) and it has nothing at all to do with vaccines, food intolerances or inflammatory bowel disease.

Many people with autism suffer from low muscle tone. This doesn't just affect muscles in the arms, legs and back, it also affects internal muscles like the ones in the bowel. If the bowel has low tone then that leads to constipation as it literally isn't pushing the poo out. This then causes impaction and paradoxically diarrhoea. The poo gets backed up and compacted and then liquid poo squeezes past the impaction and out it comes. Repeated impaction causes inflammation of the bowel wall.

[apple1]

But there's NOT a scientific basis for splitting them. The combos currently used were tested, studies done etc etc. *If* someone has a family history of reactions, getting the shots at different times makes sense, but for the vast majority there's no point in that much less splitting something like MMR apart.

1) FTR, I am very pro-vaccine. My own kids (now adults) were vaccinated on what was at that time the exact CDC-recommended schedule. My granddaughter has so far been vaccinated on the CDC-recommended schedule. However, the last group of vaccinations were VERY hard on her, so I could imagine my daughter taking her in, say, 3 visits 2 weeks apart, for the next bunch so that she would not have quite so difficult a time. (Obviously, this is would be up to my daughter, not to me; however, no harm would be done by the 2 weeks interval. I am fairly confident that the main reason for bunching vaccines up in such large batches is to get more parent compliance. Some parents won't or can't take off work to take their kid to the pediatrician 3 times instead of 1 time for each of the several batches of shots. (And, yes, that compliance factor does figure into the recommendations).

2) There absolutely IS a reason to have the MMR available as individual separate vaccines. I personally (and just 2 years ago) had a very bad reaction to the MMR. It was given to me as an adult because it was required by my (hospital) employer when tests showed that I was not immune to the rubeola portion, even though I was immune to the rubella and mumps portion. At that time, no manufacturer was making the separate vaccines. Who know, perhaps if I could have had only the rubeola, I might not had that bad reaction.

Just an anecdote; but there are individuals (not the entire population) for who the separated vaccines should be available.

[apple1]

I am curious here how many people have actually either had a bad reaction to a vaccine, or have a child who has?

I have personally had a bad reaction to MMR (combo vaccine)- see post above.

[sableduck]

I had a febrile seizure as a baby after the MMR vaccine. It's one of the more common side effects. However, a febrile seizure, while terrifying for the parents, rarely has lasting effects. I'd much rather deal with a febrile seizure than measels, mumps or rubella.

[Beeks]

I am curious here how many people have actually either had a bad reaction to a vaccine, or have a child who has?

People seem to be very worried, but I know that my reaction to vaccines occurs about 1 in every 100,000 shots.

I had negative reactions to the hpv vaccine. My doc claimed it was all in my head but it was enough for me to decline the third shot.

My kids have had no issues thus far.

[lovefromgirl]

I am curious here how many people have actually either had a bad reaction to a vaccine, or have a child who has?

People seem to be very worried, but I know that my reaction to vaccines occurs about 1 in every 100,000 shots.

I did, actually, twice that I know of. The first time, I was five and my arm was useless for a week after my polio shot. The second time, age seven, I reacted funny to the MMR--fever, lumpy face, a little rash.

I still would rather have a weird vaccine reaction than the disease itself. They know what went into the shot; wild strains of anything are a crapshoot. I do intend to check what boosters are recommended, given a normal childhood vaccination schedule, for a woman in her mid-twenties. (The price list makes me shudder, so I'm thinking I'd better get them while I'm insured...)

[emmiedahl]

We've had fevers and achiness with childhood shots. The flu shot wipes me out and leaves my arm feeling like hamburger for about a week, but I get it mainly to protect others.

My son had seizures at around six months. If his well-child visit had been three days earlier, I would have thought it was due to the MMR.

[Terrie]

The flu shot wipes me out and leaves my arm feeling like hamburger for about a week, but I get it mainly to protect others..

You, too? I get aching pains all the way down my arm, along the pinkie side. It lasts a few days, and is certainly better than the aches I would get with the flu. For some reason, I am very susceptible to the flu (by the time I was 18, I'd had the flu -- not just a bad cold, but confirmed as the flu -- 5 times). It's probably tied to the fact that I'm prone to upper respiratory infections. The arm ache is worth knowing I won't end up bed-ridden for several days.

[Terrie]

I've stayed out of this thread because my own personal and professional experience with autism (coupled with my bolshie personality :0) tends to win me no friends in this debate.

But, there is a gut issue with autism (and other development disorders) and it has nothing at all to do with vaccines, food intolerances or inflammatory bowel disease.

Many people with autism suffer from low muscle tone. This doesn't just affect muscles in the arms, legs and back, it also affects internal muscles like the ones in the bowel. If the bowel has low tone then that leads to constipation as it literally isn't pushing the poo out. This then causes impaction and paradoxically diarrhoea. The poo gets backed up and compacted and then liquid poo squeezes past the impaction and out it comes. Repeated impaction causes inflammation of the bowel wall.

Actually, thanks for clarifying. I think we're kinda saying the same thing, in some ways. My objection has always been the idea that there is some unique autistic gut issue.

[Jencendiary]

I have had the full compliment of immunizations and boosters, and the worst reaction I ever had was a sore arm or a fever - which are normal & to be expected.

[Beeks]

Actually, thanks for clarifying. I think we're kinda saying the same thing, in some ways. My objection has always been the idea that there is some unique autistic gut issue.

I don't think anybody implied there was...but they do tend to have more bowel issues than typical kids, whether due to low muscle tone or to food intolerances or to something else. It is interesting to me, that's all.