La Times Article:School's Risks rise as vaccine rate declines

[SoCaliMommy]

Full Story

I can't believe this article trying to say non vaxed kids are putting everyone else at risk When most of those kids in the school are probably vaxed on schedule, so they have nothing to worry about.

[Marnica]

Same old drivel I read in most newspapers.

[Gitti]

When my children were in school, Vaccines were not an issue. The only one who recommended it was the ped.

What has changed? How did the school get into monitoring children's health? What does it have to do with their role in education the kids?

It has nothing to do with it, but they were bought up just like our politicians.

The reason why they want everyone vaccinated is because they actually know that vaccines don't really work. And if kids then still do come down with a childhood infection, they can just rename it. That's the way it's done and it works.

[EVC]

Yeah, they did a segment on this on the local news last night. What really irritates me is how it is all attributed to fears of autism. Uh, not for most non-vaxer's I know (myself included). Just goes to show little they actually looked into the issue of vax'ing vs non-vax'ing.

[EVC]

Just goes to show little they actually looked into the issue of vax'ing vs non-vax'ing.

Actually, I want to revise that statement. They probably looked into it, but found that the "autism connection" would be the easiest to discredit through published studies, thereby enabling them to portray non-vaxer's as a bunch of dum-dums who don't read "the science" and just fall prey to "internet rumors." Therefore all non-vaxers' concerns are clearly unfounded and based on pseudo-science while they go about endangering the children of better informed vaxing parents

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by EVC

...the "autism connection" would be the easiest to discredit through published studies, thereby enabling them to portray non-vaxer's as a bunch of dum-dums who don't read "the science" and just fall prey to "internet rumors." Therefore all non-vaxers' concerns are clearly unfounded and based on pseudo-science...

Very well said!

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by EVC

Actually, I want to revise that statement. They probably looked into it, but found that the "autism connection" would be the easiest to discredit through published studies, thereby enabling them to portray non-vaxer's as a bunch of dum-dums who don't read "the science" and just fall prey to "internet rumors." Therefore all non-vaxers' concerns are clearly unfounded and based on pseudo-science while they go about endangering the children of better informed vaxing parents

And the reason that published studies are available to debunk the autism connection is because the powers that be have put a lot of time and money into getting these studies conducted and published. The latest ploy is to blame the vaccine critics for all the time and money spent "debunking" the autism connection.

Just keep in mind that about 95% of the studies are bunk and the other 5% have some serious problems.

If there weren't problems with vaccines there wouldn't be this be cloud of bs floating through the opinionasphere trying to muddle everything and confuse people.

[EVC]

Originally Posted by Deborah

And the reason that published studies are available to debunk the autism connection is because the powers that be have put a lot of time and money into getting these studies conducted and published. The latest ploy is to blame the vaccine critics for all the time and money spent "debunking" the autism connection.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. I'm just pointing out what I believe their "strategy" to be in these matters

And frankly, even they if they could prove tomorrow, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that there is absolutely no connection between vax and autism, it still wouldn't affect my vax decision one way or another. It is not the make or break for me, and I don't think it is for most non-vaxers.

But autism is what they've decided to throw out there (because it is so visible, so obvious), then "prove" no connection to vaxes (through any means necessary), and then use that to "prove" that non-vaxers have no legitimate concerns about vax safety and the possible repurcussions of vax'ing. See, we have STUDIES! By SCIENTISTS! They're PEER REVIEWED! So get over it, already, you silly non-vaxers. You were wrong about autism, so you are wrong about everything else, and we are not going to waste any more time or money looking into your foolish concerns.


.........

[Deborah]

Good summary. It is all about framing the issues.

Just an exercise:

Every time you see a mention of Andrew Wakefield by a pro-vaxer, make a note of how they describe him and his study. How accurate are the descriptions? What distortions do you spot? Is there a pattern? Are there obvious mistakes (claiming that thimerosal has been removed from MMR, for example)?

If the facts were really on their side it wouldn't be necessary to spout so much garbage, honestly! And I'm not saying that Dr. Wakefield is perfect and above all criticism. I just think he is a perfect example of how distorted the discussion has become. I don't think I've ever seen a pro-vax discussion of this doctor that didn't have several facts wrong. Or more.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Good summary. It is all about framing the issues.

Just an exercise:

Every time you see a mention of Andrew Wakefield by a pro-vaxer, make a note of how they describe him and his study. How accurate are the descriptions? What distortions do you spot? Is there a pattern? Are there obvious mistakes (claiming that thimerosal has been removed from MMR, for example)?

If the facts were really on their side it wouldn't be necessary to spout so much garbage, honestly! And I'm not saying that Dr. Wakefield is perfect and above all criticism. I just think he is a perfect example of how distorted the discussion has become. I don't think I've ever seen a pro-vax discussion of this doctor that didn't have several facts wrong. Or more.

The one I see quite a bit about him is that the stuff about his financial stake in damaging the reputation of the MMR based on patent applications he filed before his study was published.

[Deborah]

The one I see most often is that is co-authors rejected the original case study. Which they didn't. The co-authors withdrew one statement about the original case study.

And then there is the lie by implication. That the original case study only looked at 12 children, implying that there are no more than 12 children with bowel problems which might be connected with MMR. Just at the Royal Free the team looked at over 200. Krigsman has seen over 1,000 at this point.

[Sileree]

Another is that Wakefield claimed there was a link between MMR and autism in his original case study. :

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by Sileree

Another is that Wakefield claimed there was a link between MMR and autism in his original case study. :

Yep! That is true. And he didn't.

[Deborah]

Dr. Parikh:

Their stories were told despite ample research that has long since debunked the original article by Wakefield et al from 1998 (which linked the vaccine and autism) and the fact that their original article was retracted by the journal (Lancet) that published it.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/121/3/621

Oh well, if it is published in a peer-reviewed journal it must be true...