Journal Of Immunotoxicology

[miriam]

continues to explore the autism/vaccine connection.

"Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. "

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086

and http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

[stik]

From http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html:

University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage), but not scientifically linked to autism. As for Ratajczak's review, he told us he doesn't find it remarkable. "This is a review of theories. Science is based on facts. To draw conclusions on effects of an exposure on people, you need data on people. The data on people do not support that there is a relationship. As such, any speculation about an explanation for a (non-existing) relationship is irrelevant."

[miriam]

So vaccines have only been scientifically linked to brain damage but not autism? Am I supposed to be relieved?

[stik]

It's not the most reassuring conclusion out there, no. 

I found Storm's statement about encephalopathy to be really vague.  I'd like to see some data on frequency and severity and probably a few other things. 

But for my purposes here, the part that's most relevant is Storm's assertion that conclusions about the impact of vaccines need to come from studies of people, not studies of theories. 

[no5no5]

You should keep in mind that finding a link is not the same as finding causation.

For example, if I sometimes have an upset stomach when I eat chocolate, does that mean that chocolate caused my upset stomach?  Of course not.  It could be that sometimes when I eat chocolate I also drink a cup of milk and milk is actually the cause of my upset stomach.  It could be that I sometimes eat chocolate when my body is trying to fight off the stomach flu and when I eat the chocolate I'm giving up eating healthier foods, which could have staved off the onset of my stomach flu for a few more hours or even a day.  Et cetera. 

I do think that it is pretty clear that vaccines can cause fever.  Fever can (rarely) cause febrile seizures.  Febrile seizures can (rarely) be associated with complex seizures.  Complex seizures can (rarely) be associated with encephalopathy. 

I would also point out that there is a real and proven risk of brain damage from VPDs. 

[miriam]

Comparing chocolate to vaccines?  

If you get stomach aches when you eat chocolate, you may have a problem digesting something in the chocolate; it does not mean you ignore the symptoms. You can avoid chocolate if you choose.  If you continue to eat chocolate and endure permanent damage from eating the chocolate, you can still sue the chocolate company.  You cannot sue a vaccine company for permanent damage from a vaccine.

That is a bad example because there are not laws in every state demanding that you eat chocolate on a specified schedule in order to attend school. There are not paediatricians who will turn you over to CPS or refuse to treat your child with chocolate or  if you or your child refuse to eat chocolate.  If you think chocolate makes you sick, you are free to avoid it, whether you imagine the stomach ache it or not.

As for the danger of "VPDs" let me direct you to the CDC's own description of measles in 1967:  

QUOTE For centuries the measles virus has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man. The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare. /UNQUOTE

Can we say the same about the measles component of  the MMR?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/pdf/pubhealthreporig00027-0069.pdf

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by miriam 

As for the danger of "VPDs" let me direct you to the CDC's own description of measles in 1967:  

QUOTE For centuries the measles virus has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man. The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare. /UNQUOTE

Can we say the same about the measles component of  the MMR?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/pdf/pubhealthreporig00027-0069.pdf

Agreed.

The risks of VPDs have never and will never magically make the vaccines safe.  Wanting to avoid a very slim potential risk of brain damage from VPDs by vaccinating is just taking on the potential risk of brain damage from the vaccine.  

[miriam]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Agreed.

The risks of VPDs have never and will never magically make the vaccines safe.  Wanting to avoid a very slim potential risk of brain damage from VPDs by vaccinating is just taking on the potential risk of brain damage from the vaccine.  

OK.  But the medical profession does not want parents to have that choice.  They have gone to every state legislature to mandate "no shots, no school". The only brain damage a child is allowed to sustain is of the iatrogenic brand - only doctors and pharmaceuticals are allowed to cause brain damage.  Has that been done for chocolate and stomach aches?  

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by miriam 

OK.  But the medical profession does not want parents to have that choice.  They have gone to every state legislature to mandate "no shots, no school". The only brain damage a child is allowed to sustain is of the iatrogenic brand - only doctors and pharmaceuticals are allowed to cause brain damage.  Has that been done for chocolate and stomach aches?  

I agree.  It's a violation of basic human rights IMO.  We are messing with Mother Nature and it's not good.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by miriam 

Comparing chocolate to vaccines?  

  I thought it was pretty obvious that I was using chocolate and stomachaches as an example of the difference between correlation and causation, not in an attempt to show similarity between chocolate and vaccines.  I'm sorry if you didn't understand that.

But if you want to compare the risk of brain damage and death associated with MMR vaccination versus the risk of brain damage and death associated with measles, I'm happy to discuss that.  First, with respect to the vaccine, the CDC says:

Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)

[...]

Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr

The NIH says:

There is no evidence that [febrile seizures] cause death, brain damage, epilepsy, mental retardation, a decrease in IQ, or learning difficulties.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000980.htm

But even if we assume that the correlation is also causation, unprovoked (non-febrile) seizures occur in only about 6% of children who have febrile seizures (and of course their risk is more associated with other factors).  Still, that leaves us with no more than 6% of 1/3,000, which is .002% (or 1/50,000) of children who will at some point have an unprovoked seizure associated with vaccination.  And the NIH says:

Death or permanent brain damage from seizures is rare.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000694.htm

So even among the 1/50,000 kids who have at least one seizure associated with vaccination, it would be "rare" for death or brain damage to occur.  And that's without any proof that any of those kids had seizures caused by vaccination. 

But let's push on to the risk of death or brain damage from measles, shall we?  These are the risks estimated by the CDC:

Even in previously healthy children, measles can be a serious illness requiring hospitalization. As many as 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about 1 child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis. (This is an inflammation of the brain that can lead to convulsions, and can leave the child deaf or mentally retarded.) For every 1,000 children who get measles, 1 or 2 will die from it. Measles also can make a pregnant woman have a miscarriage, give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby.

In developing countries, where malnutrition and vitamin A deficiency are common, measles has been known to kill as many as one out of four people. It is the leading cause of blindness among African children. Measles kills almost 1 million children in the world each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

Personally, I don't think the numbers even compare.  Even if we assume the absolute worst about vaccines, the risk of measles (if one gets measles) is far, far greater. 

Edited by no5no5 - 4/1/11 at 4:51pm

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

Personally, I don't think the numbers even compare.  Even if we assume the absolute worst about vaccines, the risk of measles (if one gets measles) is far, far greater. 

That's kind of the point.  You have to GET measles to have a risk of side effects.  You only have to get the vaccine to have the risk of side effects - and the risk is undertaken several times during one's life if they follow the CDC's recommendation.  So that risk is multiplied by every single person who takes that particular vaccine every time they take it.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

That's kind of the point.  You have to GET measles to have a risk of side effects.  You only have to get the vaccine to have the risk of side effects - and the risk is undertaken several times during one's life if they follow the CDC's recommendation.  So that risk is multiplied by every single person who takes that particular vaccine every time they take it.

And what do you think your risk of getting measles would be if there was no vaccine?  My understanding is that it was nearly 100% by the age of 10 before the introduction of vaccines.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869647/?tool=pubmed

[miriam]

Having had measles myself and watched my siblings and contemporaries recover, I will take disease over the vaccine any day.  A generation ago, reflecting the culture, so did the Bradys; the debate was not over vaccine versus disease, but whether or not to have a male or female doctor, who, made a housecall!  

Symptoms: a slight, fever, a few dots, and a great big smile!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk29607gSWA&playnext=1&list=PLD14DDFB01C3BB68D

If anyone took American, European literature, or read diaries, one would know that measles, mumps, rubella and even pertussis were childhood diseases that were overcome easily. Chicken pox is now being painted with the same brush, but most people will recall that is not true.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by miriam 

Having had measles myself and watched my siblings and contemporaries recover, I will take disease over the vaccine any day.  A generation ago, reflecting the culture, so did the Bradys; the debate was not over vaccine versus disease, but whether or not to have a male or female doctor, who, made a housecall!  

Symptoms: a slight, fever, a few dots, and a great big smile!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk29607gSWA&playnext=1&list=PLD14DDFB01C3BB68D

If anyone took American, European literature, or read diaries, one would know that measles, mumps, rubella and even pertussis were childhood diseases that were overcome easily. Chicken pox is now being painted with the same brush, but most people will recall that is not true.

Seriously, the fact that you and a few other children did fine is supposed to negate the fact that nearly one million children per year die as a result of measles?  Does the fact that my DD did fine with her MMR vax mean that the vax is nothing to worry about?  Because she did totally fine. 

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

And what do you think your risk of getting measles would be if there was no vaccine?  My understanding is that it was nearly 100% by the age of 10 before the introduction of vaccines.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869647/?tool=pubmed

And somehow the human race survived.

My mother had measles when she was 2.  I'd guess most of that generation had measles.  It used to be considered a generally mild childhood illness, with only rare complications.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

Seriously, the fact that you and a few other children did fine is supposed to negate the fact that nearly one million children per year die as a result of measles?  Does the fact that my DD did fine with her MMR vax mean that the vax is nothing to worry about?  Because she did totally fine. 

You already included a quote saying that in developing countries what malnourishment and vitamin A deficiencies are rampant, those children die of measles.

We're not comparing apples to apples.  There are not one million children per year dying of measles in the US, nor have there ever been.  You're using global statistics as a fear factor, which is totally inappropriate to this discussion.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

And somehow the human race survived.

My mother had measles when she was 2.  I'd guess most of that generation had measles.  It used to be considered a generally mild childhood illness, with only rare complications.

I've no doubt the human race will survive vaccination as well. 

My question is, if "rare" complications for measles meant about 1/20, why are serious vaccine complications, which are on the order of one in thousands or millions, not even more "rare"?

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

You already included a quote saying that in developing countries what malnourishment and vitamin A deficiencies are rampant, those children die of measles.

We're not comparing apples to apples.  There are not one million children per year dying of measles in the US, nor have there ever been.  You're using global statistics as a fear factor, which is totally inappropriate to this discussion.

On the contrary, I don't intend to frighten anyone.  I don't think it makes sense to be afraid of complications that occur on the order of one in hundreds, much less one in thousands or millions.  I think it makes sense to reduce risk, but not to be afraid. 

But I do think that the argument that a disease is harmless because it didn't harm a few people is a specious one.  It's not a harmless disease.  Even in the best of circumstances, it can cause severe complications or death.  That's a fact. 

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

But I do think that the argument that a disease is harmless because it didn't harm a few people is a specious one.  It's not a harmless disease.  Even in the best of circumstances, it can cause severe complications or death.  That's a fact. 

Uh, so is the fact that vaccines can cause severe complications or death.  You're trading one risk for another.  No one said the disease was harmless.  In general, measles was considered a mild disease until the introduction and widespread use of the vaccine, and suddenly it's a terrifying disease that one is sure to die from if not vaccinated?  Any illness can cause severe complications or death.  Even a cold can be RSV in an infant.  

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Uh, so is the fact that vaccines can cause severe complications or death.  You're trading one risk for another.  No one said the disease was harmless.  In general, measles was considered a mild disease until the introduction and widespread use of the vaccine, and suddenly it's a terrifying disease that one is sure to die from if not vaccinated?  Any illness can cause severe complications or death.  Even a cold can be RSV in an infant.  

All I'm saying is that it makes sense to choose a lower risk rather than a higher risk.  Vaccines have a very, very low risk.  Measles also has a low risk, but it is considerably higher.  Again, I never said or implied that measles is "terrifying" or that everyone who doesn't get vaccinated is going to die from it.    I said that it is not harmless.  It was never harmless.  It continues to not be harmless.  IMO, it is much more harmful than vaccines.  IMO, vaccines save far more lives than they endanger, whereas measles endangers many lives without, as far as I can see, saving any.  If you disagree with my analysis as to which is riskier, that's fine.  But I don't understand why you apparently fail to see the benefit of choosing the less risky option. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

All I'm saying is that it makes sense to choose a lower risk rather than a higher risk.  Vaccines have a very, very low risk.  Measles also has a low risk, but it is considerably higher.  Again, I never said or implied that measles is "terrifying" or that everyone who doesn't get vaccinated is going to die from it.    I said that it is not harmless.  It was never harmless.  It continues to not be harmless.  IMO, it is much more harmful than vaccines.  IMO, vaccines save far more lives than they endanger, whereas measles endangers many lives without, as far as I can see, saving any.  If you disagree with my analysis as to which is riskier, that's fine.  But I don't understand why you apparently fail to see the benefit of choosing the less risky option. 

Id wager a guess that bokon sees the less risky option as NOT vaccinating with the MMR - that's why. Im sure she will anwser for herself!  As for your claim that serious vaccine reactions are even more rare than measles complications - well when 90% of vaccine reactions are denied by the scientific and medical communities as being vaccine reactions - it's not too hard to figure out why that is. You know for vaccine reactions being soooooooo rare and all - there are a BOATLOAD of parents out there with damaged children that were just fine before they received their vaccines. All those poor misguided parents left holding the bag caring for their damaged kids who have a wide variety of issues and problems. Misguided because while they KNOW the vaccines played a role in the damage - we all know it was merely a cooincidence.