Jump to content
IGNORED

A Vaccine Thread for EllaJac


Brainsample
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am not anti vax, but I cannot stand this argument. Science is a THEORY. Ask any scientist, and the point is they make the best guess based on THEORY. No science is a fact. I agree, there is no link between vaccines and autism that can be found by using the Scientific method. I have never stated that. My statements are simply you cannot lump everyone together. Science does not PROVE anything, it's point is to disprove and reach an agreeable consensus based on the scientific method. You can firmly believe in the scientific theory and make different agreements about vaccination.

You are using the layman definition of "theory" and not the scientific definition of theory. A theory in a scientific context is a hypothesis that has been proven.

Or to quote the National Acadamy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#toc

I am a scientist and I completely disagree with your presentation of theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Beeks

    24

  • Terrie

    15

  • valsa

    28

  • Brainsample

    14

Please refer to the numerous articles written about the difference between scientific and colloquial use of the word theory. I'm not trying to be rude, and I agree that you must use your own brain when making health decisions.

A good scientist will not call something 'fact' because that closes the endless conversation and discovery. That does not mean that something is not proven.

Or it may mean that some factors have not yet emerged and will over time.

Another issue is that the CDC only tracks what they identify as problematic -- immediate symptoms. There are many treatments and drugs that were once the established standard of care at one point, but they change because long term problems became an issue later in life. We didn't know. It absolutely may be the case with immunizations. And if the CDC and vac producers found out that their products did contribute to a health problem, do you think that they would be very open about it? Can you imagine the lawsuits? I'm not a conspiracy wacko, but I've seen enough in my life to date that must admit that there are conflicts of interest and money and concerns about legalities, and I've witnessed coverups. I did research to help reviewers/editors of scientific and medical journals evaluate articles submitted for publication, and stuff that my reviewers turned down for one journal did get submitted to others and were published without major revision. And they had bad science in them.

My own physician loves Mercola and encourages her patients to read his site -- and I think of Mercola as medicine's version of Doug Phillips. But like Doug, I embrace some mutual interests and some general beliefs, mixing some very good ideals in with some miserable ones. And both are always trying to make a buck, too. vaccines.mercola.com/ Mercola makes many good points and voices many good concerns.

So when it's a baby, and it's YOUR baby, I think that as a parent, you have more of your child's best interest in mind than does the CDC or a vaccine producer, or maybe even some doctors who just don't want to be bothered. That's where that emotion factor kicks in and very well should for those who have some concerns or other knowledge of the risks. If five or ten kids from your state died the previous year because of vaccines, you might not want to get something like the Hepatitis vac (not to be confused with HIB which is a far more important vac by comparison for an infant and young child).

Confidence in your own good practitioner is vital, and they want to see the best outcome for your baby and for your family. Those are the kinds of physicians that often follow their gut for good reason, a right brained function that makes them good at what they do. For some, that will mean the standard schedule, all the way. For others, it will be a different case. Ideally, you make those decisions together for your child. (But we don't always get the ideal, either.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See why lump everyone in together? I believe in gut feelings as well as science data and despise Jenny McCarthy. There is a grey area here. Science is such a subjective subject that to claim it has no grey, or to claim you can't believe in a grey, is just ignorant.

I do believe that science if full of grey areas. Life is full of grey areas. I am talking about the divide between people who believe that the way to deal with grey areas is with rigorous scientific process and those who prefer anecdotal evidence/personal experience. I do think the debate about vaccines comes down to this. The scientific evidence is clear. You either believe the evidence or you don't. You either accept the science or you don't. I understand that you believe in gut feelings AND science - so do I. I think it is the step after the hunch that is important. I use hunches all the time but I back them up with research. I just can not accept something is true just because I want it to be true - I have to test it and then I modify my ideas in light of the information I uncover. In many of the fundamentalist blogs I read I don't see this need to prove things. Indeed it is through my reading of these blogs that I have come up with this idea. Fundamentalists don't seem to need the kind of proof I do - they just believe what they believe because the King James Bible says it is so. In my opinion I see a growing divide between people who accept the science and the scientific process and those who don't. I am sorry you found my opinion ignorant. Perhaps I was clumsy with my words. Even if you disagree with my ideas I hope I can at least convince you that I have offered my opinion in the spirit of debate - not ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science to me will be always improving current thought and helping humanity. As I have said in a previous post, I think people need to look at photos of what happens to these people. I have seen photos of people with tetanus(lock jaw) and those people have immense amount of pain. Rotavirus is one of the top reasons for death in infants because dirrahea causes dehydration. Until you see what happens to people without the vaccine then you cannot see the real harm in not vaccinating.

I was in one of those third world countries where Bill Gates is improving life. When you walk down the street and you see children running around naked with no parental supervision(these children would be 3 at most). Malnourished and ill, I"m all for vaccinating these children because I believe that it would improve their quality of life. I hate it when people criticize someone who is trying to do a great thing for these people and they do nothing for their own poor or the world's poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when it's a baby, and it's YOUR baby, I think that as a parent, you have more of your child's best interest in mind than does the CDC or a vaccine producer, or maybe even some doctors who just don't want to be bothered. That's where that emotion factor kicks in and very well should for those who have some concerns or other knowledge of the risks. If five or ten kids from your state died the previous year because of vaccines, you might not want to get something like the Hepatitis vac (not to be confused with HIB which is a far more important vac by comparison for an infant and young child).

Confidence in your own good practitioner is vital, and they want to see the best outcome for your baby and for your family. Those are the kinds of physicians that often follow their gut for good reason, a right brained function that makes them good at what they do. For some, that will mean the standard schedule, all the way. For others, it will be a different case. Ideally, you make those decisions together for your child. (But we don't always get the ideal, either.)

This is pretty much my view on it too, and I hate they way people present it as either following the CDC schedule 100% or not vaccinating at all, and the whole strawman argument that everyone who is skeptical of the current vaccination schedule is ignorant and basing their decisions on Jenny McCarthy or the fraudulent autism study from the UK.

We are doing delayed/selective vax and separating the shots because both myself and my husband had serious vaccine reactions as in the past (mine was a childhood reaction to DTP, then to DTaP as an adult with major swelling, fever, & seizures, and numbness in my arm for close to a month as an adult & his was to MMR with swelling in his brain & a coma for a few days). We are still going to vaccinate our son for these things, but are breaking both shots into their single components and spacing them by a couple weeks, and are waiting until he is more verbal so he can tell us if/how he feels bad in case of any reaction.

My "gut instinct" moment was with the rotavirus vaccine. My pediatrician offered it, because it has to be given before a certain age. I just felt weird about it and I know that the original vaccine had been recalled and was no longer used, and one of the current vaccines was under a recall. My doctor used the other, non-recalled vaccine, but it went under a recall a few days after I was asked to vaccinate with it. My son was/is breastfed, which helps with immunity, and was not in daycare or around many other children, and I was careful not to have him out in public a lot or around people I knew who were sick. If he was in daycare or I had him out at the mall or playgroups often, I may have gotten the vaccine for him. We looked at the rates and seriousness of reported reactions vs. the rates and seriousness of the diseases in order to make our decision. I know that herd immunity may come into play there, but I felt safe with my decision going by what is going on in the world right now, not in some imagined future with pandemic smallpox/polio and vaccinated kids in the minority. I also keep up with what is "catching" in my local area, make an effort to stay home mom or skip putting my son in childcare at the gym when things are catching, and my pediatrician's office has me on a "call list" in case of a local outbreak of something that they have vaccinations for (whooping cough was the threat at the time, but it did not spread here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic keeps coming around and I doubt anyone changes their mind about vaccines. You either believe in reason, logic and scientifically rigorous research or you believe in 'gut feelings', hunches and anecdotes. You either believe the overwhelming amount of medical/scientific data or you trust in Jenny McCarthy et al.

Sigh.

Once again, I am either an Intelligent Scientist vaccinator or a wanna-be dumb blonde non-vaccinator. How patronizing and condescending.

So is any person who disagrees with certain segments of "scientific" research considered a bimbo? What about scientists and doctors who have raised concerns about vaccines, are they just the bottom of the med school class?

Good night, my son's second pediatrician withheld some shots out of concern based on his medical history (HIS idea), but his third insisted we catch right up, the vaccines were no problem, and eventually fired us over the issue. Shall I assume Ped #3 was top in her class at Harvard and Ped #2 had a poster of Jenny over his nightstand?

And I've never heard the word "rigorous" out of the mouths of professionals who have waded through all the actual scientific research. The double blind placebo gold standard obviously isn't and can't be used.

Ugh, I just deleted a whole bunch of "scientific evidence" stuff because I do agree on one point (and I've said it before) -- for some, vaccination is a belief system, where people are not willing to open their minds to other possibilities because of loyalty to their own, so discussion starts to seem very futile. Very, very much like religious fundamentalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that science if full of grey areas. Life is full of grey areas. I am talking about the divide between people who believe that the way to deal with grey areas is with rigorous scientific process and those who prefer anecdotal evidence/personal experience. I do think the debate about vaccines comes down to this. The scientific evidence is clear. You either believe the evidence or you don't. You either accept the science or you don't. I understand that you believe in gut feelings AND science - so do I. I think it is the step after the hunch that is important. I use hunches all the time but I back them up with research. I just can not accept something is true just because I want it to be true - I have to test it and then I modify my ideas in light of the information I uncover. In many of the fundamentalist blogs I read I don't see this need to prove things. Indeed it is through my reading of these blogs that I have come up with this idea. Fundamentalists don't seem to need the kind of proof I do - they just believe what they believe because the King James Bible says it is so. In my opinion I see a growing divide between people who accept the science and the scientific process and those who don't. I am sorry you found my opinion ignorant. Perhaps I was clumsy with my words. Even if you disagree with my ideas I hope I can at least convince you that I have offered my opinion in the spirit of debate - not ignorance.

Thank you for explaining your words out a little further. It appeared from your comment that you believed it was either Science to a T or Jenny McCarthy. I will admit my words were callous and I really should think more before hitting the submit button. I understand your viewpoint, and I can only hope you understand mine, agreeing or not. I apologize for calling you ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good night, my son's second pediatrician withheld some shots out of concern based on his medical history (HIS idea), but his third insisted we catch right up, the vaccines were no problem, and eventually fired us over the issue.

This is getting more and more common. It was one of several reasons I changed hospitals when giving birth, We have one mega pediatrics practice with multiple offices that is the only one with privileges in the "local" hospital system and they require you to sign a contract that you agree to follow the CDC schedule with no alterations, all the way from HepB at birth through Gardasil for teenage girls, or else they can fire you. I asked one doctor there and he said he personally wasn't that strict, but it was a practice requirement. Then I found out this same practice has circumcised at least 2 children at birth, without their parents' permission, and somewhat uncertain changed to "oh, hell no".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting more and more common. It was one of several reasons I changed hospitals when giving birth, We have one mega pediatrics practice with multiple offices that is the only one with privileges in the "local" hospital system and they require you to sign a contract that you agree to follow the CDC schedule with no alterations, all the way from HepB at birth through Gardasil for teenage girls, or else they can fire you. I asked one doctor there and he said he personally wasn't that strict, but it was a practice requirement. Then I found out this same practice has circumcised at least 2 children at birth, without their parents' permission, and somewhat uncertain changed to "oh, hell no".

Wait your doctor FIRES you? I'm a little unfamiliar with that terminology... like he asks you to leave the practice? Refuses to see your kids again? Is that the gist of being "fired" by your doctor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait your doctor FIRES you? I'm a little unfamiliar with that terminology... like he asks you to leave the practice? Refuses to see your kids again? Is that the gist of being "fired" by your doctor?

This is big at Cleveland Clinic, and they don't treat their doctors much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother was a normal 3 month old. 4 hours after getting his vaccinations, he started projectile vomiting, high pitched screaming and a fever. NOT a coincidence.

He fell asleep, slept for a very very long time, would not awaken to breast feed...he stopped developing normally that day. He even started to regress. He started having seizures on a daily basis...

16 years later the government awarded my brother a settlement under the vaccination compensation act that basically said that they were able to prove that my brother was normal until the shots.

They KNOW the shot damage kids. They know and they do nothing.

My brother is a 31 year old infant, literally. Yeah...he'll never get whooping cough...big effin' deal. He can't walk or talk. He can't chew and wears diaper. He's been robbed if his life and what his life could have been. We all were.

I don't agree with herd immunity. Because the one adverse reaction to it, isn't worth it. esp. when that one is yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were fired by our dentist once. We're pretty sure it was because we came across our dentist very cozied up with his new young associate in a romantic restaurant. Which wouldn't have been a big problem except that he was very married at the time - to someone else. Awwwwwkward! He fired us by letter a few weeks later :shock:

sorry - off topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with herd immunity. Because the one adverse reaction to it, isn't worth it. esp. when that one is yours.
If you know your child is likely to have an adverse reaction, that's a good reason not to vaccinate or to vaccinate differently. If everyone stopped vaccinating because of the possibility of an unpredictable reaction (your argument), we'd have no herd immunity, and endemics again. Unless you wish to claim that the resulting deaths of that would be less than the amount of deaths that occur in normal kids getting vaccinations, no, it absolutely IS worth it.

And that's following from your argument about 'it's not worth vaccinating anyone ever'. Herd immunity as is - with most people getting vaccinated - I daresay saves more lives for people with immune disorders than lives lost from vaccination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why herd immunity is really really important (from Australia's 60 Minutes):

VJbc9Xw3yHc

I'd rather take a chance of my child having an adverse reaction than possibly have them or others go through that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother was a normal 3 month old. 4 hours after getting his vaccinations, he started projectile vomiting, high pitched screaming and a fever. NOT a coincidence.

He fell asleep, slept for a very very long time, would not awaken to breast feed...he stopped developing normally that day. He even started to regress. He started having seizures on a daily basis...

16 years later the government awarded my brother a settlement under the vaccination compensation act that basically said that they were able to prove that my brother was normal until the shots.

They KNOW the shot damage kids. They know and they do nothing.

My brother is a 31 year old infant, literally. Yeah...he'll never get whooping cough...big effin' deal. He can't walk or talk. He can't chew and wears diaper. He's been robbed if his life and what his life could have been. We all were.

I don't agree with herd immunity. Because the one adverse reaction to it, isn't worth it. esp. when that one is yours.

I'm so, so sorry about your brother. That is heartbreaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line: Anti-vaxxers have weighed the possible risks to their Preshus Bayyybeez and the possible risk to overall herd immunity & the risks non-immunized people present to people who have legitimate medical reasons not to immunize, and have come down on the side of selfish. And that's not real christian, is it?

(If it were up to me, unvaccinated kids would be required to home-school or make other provisions for their education. So, keeping them out of public school is a boon - thank you crunchy, uneducated fundie moms!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I would rather take my chances at my child getting sick than having to live like my brother has the last 31 years. Don't think for a second I don't know or worry what could happen to my kids, who are yes, unvaccinated. When there was a whopping cough outbreak at my sons school...I was terrified. My son never got sick, but health is about a lot more things than shots. Its good nutrition and adequate sleep and proper hygine.

I think that vaccines are a very small part of over all health...very small. We, as a society, at a lot more aware of health and staying healthy.

I really believe that every parent has the responsibilty to make educated choices. YES...kids to have vaccination reactions and yes they can be horrible. What I chose to do for my kids doesn't mean that you all have to follow suit. I have to be at peace with my decisions....and I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line: Anti-vaxxers have weighed the possible risks to their Preshus Bayyybeez and the possible risk to overall herd immunity & the risks non-immunized people present to people who have legitimate medical reasons not to immunize, and have come down on the side of selfish. And that's not real christian, is it?

(If it were up to me, unvaccinated kids would be required to home-school or make other provisions for their education. So, keeping them out of public school is a boon - thank you crunchy, uneducated fundie moms!)

Wow. Because that's not incredibly patronizing or anything.

My son is one of those children who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. I still only selectively vaccinate my daughter. I don't owe it to society, to the 'herd', to your kids or to anybody else's children to offer up my kid's potential health and/or lives on the alter of modern medicine. Vaccines need to be made safer if we're going to insist on everybody pumping every single one of them into their children. Stick that in your syringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait your doctor FIRES you? I'm a little unfamiliar with that terminology... like he asks you to leave the practice? Refuses to see your kids again? Is that the gist of being "fired" by your doctor?

Yes, that's it. This particular practice also does it if you are late to or cancel more than 2 appointments within a year, if a check bounces more than once, and a list of other things. Which sucks because, in practice, it means going to a pediatrician in another county that doesn't have privileges at the local hospital.

The "local" issue is not a huge deal for me, because I live near the county line and prefer the hospital in the next county over, and am about equidistant to both of them, but I imagine it's a huge inconvenience for people who live in the western part of the county. Also, it means my pediatrician's office is around 40-45 minutes away, rather than less than 5 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you know your child is likely to have an adverse reaction, that's a good reason not to vaccinate or to vaccinate differently. If everyone stopped vaccinating because of the possibility of an unpredictable reaction (your argument), we'd have no herd immunity, and endemics again. Unless you wish to claim that the resulting deaths of that would be less than the amount of deaths that occur in normal kids getting vaccinations, no, it absolutely IS worth it.

And that's following from your argument about 'it's not worth vaccinating anyone ever'. Herd immunity as is - with most people getting vaccinated - I daresay saves more lives for people with immune disorders than lives lost from vaccination.

When a doctor looks at you and says "Oh well, one for the greater good of all!"...its a fucking slap in the face when it's yours!

I would never tell anyone not to vaccinate...but if you have a real reason to not vaccinate, don't let anyone push you into it. I don't understand why I should risk my kids for anyone elses? Am I selfish...when it comes to my kids...hell yeah! My kids have 2 uncles who had reactions and myself who reacted to my booster to go into school. My kids doctor agrees that my kids are at a higher risk than normal. I am not going to risk them just to make everyone happy. Because in the long run, if they react and become brain injured like my brother, it's not you guys who would have to give up your lives to care for them...it would be me. I would have to live with the fact that I KNEW what would happen...I saw it...and still let my children be hurt beyond repair! How could I live with myself. You can get over illnesses...you can't bounce back from the kind of brain injury my brother has.

I don't expect anyone else to even remotely understand where I am coming from...and I am glad you guys don't...I just ask for some respect because none of you even really have a clue what it's like to have to make that decision.

BTW...I don't agree wth the MMR/Autism link. My son has PDD-NOS and has never had the MMR. So they can just suck it on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your kids have special reason not to be vaccinated, then they need to rely on herd immunity. Nobody here has said that every single person should be vaccinated regardless of risk. But don't expect your anecdote about a terrible adverse reaction to make me believe that vaccination is MORE RISKY for the GENERAL POPULATION than dying of an endemic disease would be if everyone decided not to vaccinate. Your kids, like people I know and love, are relying on herd immunity to keep them alive. It's not the concept of weighing up the pros and cons and consulting with your doctor and going, "You know what, I think it actually might be particularly risky for these kids" that bothers me, it's comments like "I don't agree with herd immunity. Because the one adverse reaction to it, isn't worth it."

Compare "I don't agree with herd immunity. Because the one adverse reaction to it, isn't worth it." to "I don't agree with anti-vax. Because the hundreds of cases that would otherwise have been prevented, aren't worth it". I'm not saying YOU individually need to go and vaccinate your kids because vaccination is entirely without risk. I'm saying that YES, actually, the small number of unpredictable adverse reactions are better than not vaccinating ANYONE, JUST IN CASE, and having lots and lots of these diseases roaming around our communities. Saying "I don't agree with herd immunity. Because the one adverse reaction to it, isn't worth it." implies, to me, that NO-ONE should vaccinate, just in case they have an unexpected adverse reaction. As has been stated a few times by a few different people - if you have special reason to believe you or your kid will have a bad adverse reaction, that's a reason to consider not vaccinating, or doing so differently. And when you do so, you wil be part of the group of people in our community relying on the rest of us to get vaccinated and keep herd immunity up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing - if your child has a known higher risk of reaction? Then I don't think anyone would fault you for not vaccinating. I won't give any biological child of mine a live virus vaccine, because I reacted to it, as did my grandmother (after me, oddly enough, but she'd never had one before.) I think the problem comes down to comparing "Odds my kid is going to have a reaction" to "odds my kid could die from X disease" and the second is always going to be higher with no known risk factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem comes down to comparing "Odds my kid is going to have a reaction" to "odds my kid could die from X disease" and the second is always going to be higher with no known risk factors.

That, and, if everyone used that reasoning for their kids with no risk factors we'd have no herd immunity, and then "odds my kid could die from X disease" would go up exponentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adverse events happen and they are tragic when they happen to someone you love. That doesn't mean that vaccines don't save lives. My mother's cousin was paralyzed and severely retarded from a measles infection that spread to his brain. We can all give stories and those stories matter--they are the framework of our lives--but they do not contradict the general idea that your children are safest when they and everyone else is immunized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.