or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability. - Page 2

post #21 of 82
Thread Starter 

Similar trends are also seen in England. 

 

"In 1993, fathers aged <35 years accounted for 74% of live births within marriage in England and Wales, while only 25% of such births were to fathers aged 35–54 years. Ten years later, these percentages were 60% and 40%. Figure 1

1

 illustrates these trends. If this trend continues, the proportion of fathers >35 years will further increase."  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566050/

 

Scientists believe that this increase may account for 20-30 percent of autism diagnoses. 

 

"But the study, published online in the journal Nature, provides support for the argument that the surging rate of autism diagnoses over recent decades is attributable in part to the increasing average age of fathers, which could account for as many as 20 to 30 percent of cases. The risk of chromosomal abnormalities, likeDown syndrome, increases for older mothers, but when it comes to some complex developmental and psychiatric problems, the lion’s share of the genetic risk originates in the sperm, not the egg, the study found.

 

“This study provides some of the first solid scientific evidence for a true increase in the condition” of autism, said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at the Yale School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research. “It is extremely well done and the sample meticulously characterized.” 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/health/fathers-age-is-linked-to-risk-of-autism-and-schizophrenia.html?_r=0

post #22 of 82

How many autistic children were born to men over 35 prior to 1935?

post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

How many autistic children were born to men over 35 prior to 1935?

Who knows?  Autism was of sufficiently low numbers, if it existed at all (and I am willing to say that some quirky people of the past would have been labeled Aspergers today, and some mentally disabled people of the past would have been labeled autistic today, but no where near enough to account for todays numbers) that it was not studied as there was little need.

 

 

I will also say the amount of money devoted to autism research given the severity of the problem today is shockingly low.

 

Take a look at this funding chart:

 

http://www.brighttots.com/Autism/Statistics.html

 

"Autism Funding Research

In the late 1990’s The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded $5 million in autism research. Today, NIH total funding is $29 billion. Only $80 million of the total $29 billion NIH funds only $80 million is distributed to autism research. This represents 0.28% of the total NIH funding. Much more funding is significantly needed.

Autism Funding compared to other childhood disorder and diseases

•        Leukemia 1 in 25,000 funding $310 million
•        Muscular Dystrophy 1 in 20,000 funding $175 million
•        Pediatric AIDS 1 in 8,000 funding $394 million
•        Juvenile Diabetes 1 in 500 funding $130 million
•        Autism 1 in 150 funding $42 million"

 

 

I am also quite tired of the fighting between factions:

neuorodiversity versus treatment

genetics versus environment

it is mostly better diagnosis versus there is a real increase.

 

All this fighting results in nothing being done.  This benefits the culpable parties (whomever they may be) the most, and our children and future children the least.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 7/8/13 at 3:38pm
post #24 of 82

Has anyone ever looked at whether children of older fathers are more likely to have severe vaccine reactions? Or autoimmune disorders?  Or food allergies?  Or intestinal problems?  Or learning disabilities/ADD/ADHD?

 

And let's not forget that older fathers are more likely to have stable jobs, health insurance, and stay-at-home wives.  In other words, their children are far more likely to have been take to the pediatrician for every recommended vaccine.

 

There are plenty of autistic children who do NOT have older fathers. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a father's age/autism link for others.

 

There are some autistic children who were not vaccinated; that doesn't mean that vaccines are not a factor for the autistic children who had seizure reactions to vaccines and subsequent brain damage resulting in autism.

 

 

A link between older fathers and autism does not disprove or even weaken the link between vaccines and autism.

post #25 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Has anyone ever looked at whether children of older fathers are more likely to have severe vaccine reactions? Or autoimmune disorders?  Or food allergies?  Or intestinal problems?  Or learning disabilities/ADD/ADHD?

 

And let's not forget that older fathers are more likely to have stable jobs, health insurance, and stay-at-home wives.  In other words, their children are far more likely to have been take to the pediatrician for every recommended vaccine.

 

There are plenty of autistic children who do NOT have older fathers. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a father's age/autism link for others.

 

There are some autistic children who were not vaccinated; that doesn't mean that vaccines are not a factor for the autistic children who had seizure reactions to vaccines and subsequent brain damage resulting in autism.

 

 

A link between older fathers and autism does not disprove or even weaken the link between vaccines and autism.

 

Do you have any numbers or stats that prove that the children of older fathers tend to get more vaccines than the general population?  In any case, I always thought it was precisely the families that had stay at home moms with husband that had good stable jobs and health insurance that were least likely to vaccinate. 

 

If, as scientists have asserted, 20-30 percent of the autism cases are caused by having older fathers in conjunction with environmental factors and increased awareness/diagnoses I think that does weaken the notion that vaccines have a major (I'd say none at all) impact on the rise of autism diagnoses. 

 

For example (and I am making up these numbers for the record) 

 

30% is from an increase in paternal age

40% is from greater awareness and increased diagnoses

30% from an environmental factor

post #26 of 82

Vaccination is an environmental factor.

 

What makes a child more susceptible to environmental damage? Germline.

post #27 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Vaccination is an environmental factor.

 

What makes a child more susceptible to environmental damage? Germline.

 

I guess I should have specified environmental factors not associated with vaccines.  

 

Many scientists will say they do not believe that vaccines cause autism but believe there are environmental factors that might. 

post #28 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Do you have any numbers or stats that prove that the children of older fathers tend to get more vaccines than the general population?  In any case, I always thought it was precisely the families that had stay at home moms with husband that had good stable jobs and health insurance that were least likely to vaccinate. 

 

Do you have any numbers or stats that prove this? 

 

It's certainly true that stay-at-home moms whose husbands' health insurance provides for free well-baby/vaccination visits are certainly more likely to get their children vaccinated on schedule than, say, parents in their early 20's who are juggling college, jobs, and an infant.  Working moms who have to use a precious vacation/sick day to take a perfectly healthy baby for a checkup are much more likely to let the schedule slide than a SAHM.

 

If, as scientists have asserted, 20-30 percent of the autism cases are caused by having older fathers in conjunction with environmental factors (like injected chemicals) and increased awareness/diagnoses I think that does weaken the notion that vaccines have a major (I'd say none at all) impact on the rise of autism diagnoses. 

 

For example (and I am making up these numbers for the record) 

 

30% is from an increase in paternal age

40% is from greater awareness and increased diagnoses

30% from an environmental factor (like injected chemicals)

post #29 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Do you have any numbers or stats that prove that the children of older fathers tend to get more vaccines than the general population?  In any case, I always thought it was precisely the families that had stay at home moms with husband that had good stable jobs and health insurance that were least likely to vaccinate. 

 

If, as scientists have asserted, 20-30 percent of the autism cases are caused by having older fathers in conjunction with environmental factors and increased awareness/diagnoses I think that does weaken the notion that vaccines have a major (I'd say none at all) impact on the rise of autism diagnoses. 

 

For example (and I am making up these numbers for the record) 

 

30% is from an increase in paternal age

40% is from greater awareness and increased diagnoses

30% from an environmental factor

Fwiw:

 

" Based on the abovementioned research, approximately 53% percent of the increase in autism prevalence over time may be explained by changes in diagnosis (26%), greater awareness (16%), and an increase in parental age (11%).  While this research is beginning to help us understand the increase in autism prevalence, half of the increase is still unexplained and not due to better diagnosis, greater awareness, and social factors alone. Environmental factors, and their interactions with genetic susceptibilities, are likely contributors to increase in prevalence and are the subject of numerous research projects currently supported by Autism Speaks."

 

http://blog.autismspeaks.org/2010/10/22/got-questions-answers-to-your-questions-from-the-autism-speaks’-science-staff-2/

post #30 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

"Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding 75,000 dollars, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children." 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15231927

 

In any case, I said " I always thought" meaning I wasn't sure. You stated it as fact. I would like to see some statistics or studies that show what you are asserting is true, since I have now at least shown something. 

 

I stated in a previous reply that I meant environmental factors not associated with vaccines. You don't have to believe that vaccines cause autism to believe that there are environmental factors at play.  A lot has changed in the last 50 years other than an increase in vaccines. 

post #31 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Fwiw:

 

" Based on the abovementioned research, approximately 53% percent of the increase in autism prevalence over time may be explained by changes in diagnosis (26%), greater awareness (16%), and an increase in parental age (11%).  While this research is beginning to help us understand the increase in autism prevalence, half of the increase is still unexplained and not due to better diagnosis, greater awareness, and social factors alone. Environmental factors, and their interactions with genetic susceptibilities, are likely contributors to increase in prevalence and are the subject of numerous research projects currently supported by Autism Speaks."

 

http://blog.autismspeaks.org/2010/10/22/got-questions-answers-to-your-questions-from-the-autism-speaks’-science-staff-2/

 

Like I said, I was making up the numbers but I don't think that disputes anything I said.  Other scientists believe that fathers may account for up to 30 percent of diagnoses.

 

"Environmental factors, and their interactions with genetic susceptibilities, are likely contributors to increase in prevalence and are the subject of numerous research projects currently supported by Autism Speaks." 

 

Like I said, environmental factors do not have to include vaccines.  From the article I linked earlier:

 

"In the end, these kinds of mutations may account for 20 to 30 percent of cases of autism, and perhaps schizophrenia, some experts said. The remainder is probably a result of inherited genetic predisposition and environmental factors that are the subjects of numerous studies.

Dr. Stefansson and other experts said that an increase in the average age of fathers had most likely led to more cases of autism. Unlike other theories proposed to explain the increase, like vaccinations, it is backed by evidence that scientists agree is solid." 

Like this part I just copy and pasted they acknowledge that there is a big environmental/genetic component but also do not think that vaccines are a cause. 

post #32 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Like I said, I was making up the numbers but I don't think that disputes anything I said.  Other scientists believe that fathers may account for up to 30 percent of diagnoses.

 

"Environmental factors, and their interactions with genetic susceptibilities, are likely contributors to increase in prevalence and are the subject of numerous research projects currently supported by Autism Speaks." 

 

I wasn't trying to dispute what you said in that post (although 30% sounds high…must go read earlier link) just sharing some data I found on reasons for the current (ish) autism rates.   It is an area where it seems we are in essential agreement, minus whether or not vaccines could make up part of environmental causes.   Take it while you can, pro-vaxxer and non-vaxxers do not always agree on this forum.  wink1.gif

 

I do suspect that some of the autism rate that is related to older parents might be because older parents are often more financially established, and therefore more likely to seek diagnosis for high functioning autism and aspergers.  I don't think age correlates to seeking more diagnosis when it comes to moderate-severe autism, though.  I imagine all almost kids with moderate-severe autism have a diagnosis, or will get one shortly. If the parents do not have the resources to seek a diagnosis the school will - a nonpotty trained, non verbal seven year old will get a diagnosis even if the state has to pay for it.  

 

It would be interesting to see if they have parsed out the degree of autism with regard to parental age and see if that matches that of the degrees of autism in the general.   


Edited by kathymuggle - 7/8/13 at 7:26pm
post #33 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding 75,000 dollars, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children." 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15231927

 

In any case, I said " I always thought" meaning I wasn't sure. You stated it as fact. I would like to see some statistics or studies that show what you are asserting is true, since I have now at least shown something. 

 

I stated in a previous reply that I meant environmental factors not associated with vaccines. You don't have to believe that vaccines cause autism to believe that there are environmental factors at play.  A lot has changed in the last 50 years other than an increase in vaccines. 

Yes, however I always find it inconceivable that there are many people who freely admit they believe there is some environmental factors at play - they are willing to be very general and open minded about what those factors may be given that yes so many things are different and we are exposed to so many more environmental toxins ect.  YET those same people's minds slam shut with the very notion that vaccines may play a role in the increase as well. Not that they are a smoking gun, but that they may be one of many environmental factors at play. IMO all this really does is highlight how actually close minded they really are about what really is going on. To say that the available studies/evidence that has actually been done on this subject can conclusively say vaccines play no role would be incorrect. 

post #34 of 82
Thread Starter 

"To say that the available studies/evidence that has actually been done on this subject can conclusively say vaccines play no role would be incorrect." 

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on that I suppose.

post #35 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"To say that the available studies/evidence that has actually been done on this subject can conclusively say vaccines play no role would be incorrect." 

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on that I suppose.

I don't agree to disagree with people whom I think are flat-out wrong.

 

Both the CDC and the FDA admit that the studies regarding vaccines and autism are inconclusive.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg

CDC Chief Julie Geberding admits that vaccines can cause some cases of autism

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNWTOmEi_6A

After 2 minutes of waffling, the CDC's Dr. Coleen Boyle admits that there has never been a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzy5oFwA1ik

Dr. Boyle admits that the current vaccine schedule is not based on when vaccines are needed. but are timed so that they can vaccinate as many children with as many vaccines as possible, even if they don't have regular pediatrician visits.  The current vaccine schedule has never been studied for safety in comparison with unvaccinated children, but the rise in autism has kept pace with the rise in the number of required pediatric vaccines, with spikes occuring in children born in years of increased required vaccinations.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-gGYQihaM  (Skip to the 5:30 mark)

The FDA's Karen Midthun says, "We can neither accept nor reject a causal relationship"  regarding thimerosal and autism.  And that's JUST thimerosal.  We're not even talking about thimerosal PLUS aluminum, or any of the other vaccine ingredients.  She admits that THEY JUST DON'T KNOW.

post #36 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I don't agree to disagree with people whom I think are flat-out wrong.

 

Both the CDC and the FDA admit that the studies regarding vaccines and autism are inconclusive.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg

CDC Chief Julie Geberding admits that vaccines can cause some cases of autism

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNWTOmEi_6A

After 2 minutes of waffling, the CDC's Dr. Coleen Boyle admits that there has never been a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzy5oFwA1ik

Dr. Boyle admits that the current vaccine schedule is not based on when vaccines are needed. but are timed so that they can vaccinate as many children with as many vaccines as possible, even if they don't have regular pediatrician visits.  The current vaccine schedule has never been studied for safety in comparison with unvaccinated children, but the rise in autism has kept pace with the rise in the number of required pediatric vaccines, with spikes occuring in children born in years of increased required vaccinations.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-gGYQihaM  (Skip to the 5:30 mark)

The FDA's Karen Midthun says, "We can neither accept nor reject a causal relationship"  regarding thimerosal and autism.  And that's JUST thimerosal.  We're not even talking about thimerosal PLUS aluminum, or any of the other vaccine ingredients.  She admits that THEY JUST DON'T KNOW.

 

You can think I am wrong all you want.  The vast majority of doctors, scientists and researchers fortunately agree with me.  

 

"After 2 minutes of waffling, the CDC's Dr. Coleen Boyle admits that there has never been a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study." 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "admits". It is a fact that a randomized double blind study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids has never and will never be done. There is nothing to "admit".  If there was a double blind randomized study would you enroll your child knowing there was a 50% chance he/she might be put into the vaccinated group?  Yeah didn't think so.  So It'd be great if the anti vaxxers would stop saying it should be done if they themselves would not be willing to participate in it. Very hypocritical. I know that's not what you were saying in that paragraph but I have seen it many times from anti vaxxers and just felt like addressing it. 

 

In any case, there is a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids, although it did not look for autism but overall health and there was no difference except that unvaccinated kids were more likely to get VPDs.  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

post #37 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

You can think I am wrong all you want.  The vast majority of doctors, scientists and researchers fortunately agree with me.  

 

"Fortunately?"  Why is it "fortunate" that doctors, scientists, and researchers agree with you?  Is it "fortunate" that the vast majority of doctors, scientists, and researchers thought that Semmelweis was wrong?

 

"After 2 minutes of waffling, the CDC's Dr. Coleen Boyle admits that there has never been a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study." 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "admits". It is a fact that a randomized double blind study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids has never and will never be done. There is nothing to "admit".  If there was a double blind randomized study would you enroll your child knowing there was a 50% chance he/she might be put into the vaccinated group?  Yeah didn't think so.  So It'd be great if the anti vaxxers would stop saying it should be done if they themselves would not be willing to participate in it. Very hypocritical. I know that's not what you were saying in that paragraph but I have seen it many times from anti vaxxers and just felt like addressing it. 

 

In any case, there is a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids, although it did not look for autism but overall health and there was no difference except that unvaccinated kids were more likely to get VPDs.  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

 

The Kiggs study is severely flawed.  Children were listed as "unvaccinated" if the parents were not able to provide documentation of vaccination.  Children who had had ONE vaccine were listed as "vaccinated."  It is likely that some children who were fully vaccinated were in the "unvaccinated" group, whid children who had had one vaccine in their entire lives were in the "vaccinated" group.

 

And yes, we need a vax/unvax study that looks for autism.  And yes, Coleen Boyle waffled for 2 minutes before answering that question. She also tried to avoid directly answering almost every question asked of her.

post #38 of 82
Thread Starter 

""Fortunately?"  Why is it "fortunate" that doctors, scientists, and researchers agree with you?" 

 

It's fortunate because I believe that vaccines save lives and that without them there would be thousands of children dying from preventable diseases. So I like having science on my side. 

 

"The Kiggs study is severely flawed." 

 

And this is the other major problem with a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study that looks at autism.  If there was no link, anti vaxxers would just say the researchers were biased, that they had a reason to prove that vaccines were safe, that it's all about money etc etc etc etc.  They would only accept a study that was done by an anti vaxx group and then the other side would also argue bias.  It would serve absolutely no purpose. Would you accept a study that was done by a vaccine company or the government if it showed that there was no link between autism and vaccines? I seriously doubt it.  Not to mention all the confounding factors  there would be if we cherry picked certain children from certain households that choose not to vaccinate.  Location, diet, environment, education etc.  

post #39 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

""Fortunately?"  Why is it "fortunate" that doctors, scientists, and researchers agree with you?" 

 

It's fortunate because I believe that vaccines save lives and that without them there would be thousands of children dying from preventable diseases. So I like having science on my side. 

 

 

 

This is a great example of narrow-minded thinking.  Basically, you are saying that you believe everything the vaccine manufacturers tell us.  In fact, you're repeating it, verbatim:  "Without vaccines, thousands of children would be dying of vaccine-preventable disease!!"  Which diseases?  

 

Where are the newspaper headlines telling us about the thousands of children who died in the US from these common, mild infections?

 

Mumps?  Measles?  Chicken Pox?    Based on whose studies?  Ask people who grew up in the 1960's and before, and they will tell you that the only disease that ever had any complications was polio, and every mainstream source discussing polio says that 90% of those who had polio had mild or even subclinical infections, and recovered without complication.  

 

Flu?  The vaccine is ineffective, and in most cases, laboratory-confirmed influenze is mild.  Pertussis?  Well, there is a disease that CAN be severe in young infants--but the vaccine is contraindicated for the most at-risk, and does not prevent transmission anyway.  In addition, recent studies indicate that the virus has mutated, and the vaccine is now not adequately effective, even if you don't consider the risks of the vaccine.

 

But your take-home message is, "OMG, we must vaccinate with each and every vaccine or thousands of children will DIE!!  Because the snake oil salesman vaccine manufacturer says so!!!!"

 

And that's precisely the fear-mongering campaign that has been mounted in the last 25 years or so:  "vaccinate your child or you risk your child dying!!"  

 

Now, that would be fine and dandy if the pediatricians also said, "But the risk of dying from one of those diseases is vanishingly small; with today's advances in nutrition, hygiene, sanitation, and medical treatment, even if you get one of those diseases, you're not likely to have complications.  And by the way, we do see a small number of severe adverse reactions to the vaccines; we don't understand who gets those reactions, or why, but the number of severe reactions has increased on par with the increase in the number of vaccinations.   There is no screening procedure in place to identify those more likely to react, and we have difficulty even telling a severe reaction from a unrelated-but-severe event. If you do have a severe reaction, we don't actually know how to treat it, and also you cannot sue us, or the manufacturer."

 

But they don't, do they?

They also don't say, "The current recommended schedule is timed to give the biggest number of vaccines to the infants whose parents don't have a pediatrician, or who don't bother to take their infants to the well-child checkups.  It's not timed for the best outcome for your child.  We can certainly spread them out for you so that, if your child does have a reaction, we'll actually know which vaccine caused it."

 

Nope.  They say exactly what teacozy says, "Vaccines save lives!  Without them there would be thousands of children dying from preventable diseases!!"  Not a murmur of the conflicting evidence, or of the evidence of harm.
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

 

"The Kiggs study is severely flawed." 

 

And this is the other major problem with a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study that looks at autism.  If there was no link, anti vaxxers would just say the researchers were biased, that they had a reason to prove that vaccines were safe, that it's all about money etc etc etc etc.  They would only accept a study that was done by an anti vaxx group and then the other side would also argue bias.  It would serve absolutely no purpose. Would you accept a study that was done by a vaccine company or the government if it showed that there was no link between autism and vaccines?

 

[All the studies that currently do not show a link were funded/directed either by a vaccine company or by the government. Or both.]

 

I seriously doubt it.  Not to mention all the confounding factors  there would be if we cherry picked certain children from certain households that choose not to vaccinate. The studies already cherry-pick subjects.  The last study chose children who had obvious symptoms of autism and/or developental disorders (but no official diagnosis) as a supposed "control group" to contrast with children who had official autism diagnoses. Location, diet, environment, education etc.  

 

And this is the response we so often see from the vaccine defenders when we point out flaws in the studies they quote.  

No discussion of the study or its flaws.  Or even its merits.  In fact, they change the subject entirely.  They start complaining about "anti vaxxers."

 

Rule #578 of the Pharma/Vaccine Defender Handbook:  Under no circumstances should you discuss any valid point made by those criticizing vaccines.  Change the focus to your 

post #40 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

And this is the response we so often see from the vaccine defenders when we point out flaws in the studies they quote.  

No discussion of the study or its flaws.  Or even its merits.  In fact, they change the subject entirely.  They start complaining about "anti vaxxers."

 

Rule #578 of the Pharma/Vaccine Defender Handbook:  Under no circumstances should you discuss any valid point made by those criticizing vaccines.  Change the focus to your 

 

Right. So thousands of children have not died from VPD. Ok you can go on believing that if you wish, but it is not scientific. 

 

Polio crippled 35,000 people a year. That is an extraordinary amount of people. That is almost triple the amount of people that get diagnosed with cervical cancer each year.  http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/post_polio/detail_post_polio.htm

 

Polio was also incredibly contagious.

 

"Polio is a highly contagious illness that can spread easily from person to person. In fact, when a person is infected with polio, it is expected that polio transmission among susceptible household contacts will occur in nearly 100 percent of children and over 90 percent of adults." 

http://polio.emedtv.com/polio/how-is-polio-spread.html

 

Yes it is mainly spread through contact with stool from an infected person.  Do you have any idea how often a person comes into contact with stool? Over 70 percent of shopping carts have fecal matter on them http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/03/03/fecal-matter-72-percent-grocery-carts/  

 

Here are some ways it is transmitted : 

 

  • Eating food or drinking liquids that are contaminated with poliovirus. Poliovirus is commonly found in sewage water.
 
  • Touching surfaces or objects contaminated with poliovirus (for instance, by changing diapers), and then placing the contaminated hand in the mouth.
 
  • Sharing foods or eating utensils with someone infected with poliovirus.

 

Yes in a perfect world 100% of people would wash their hands every time they use the restroom or change a diaper but that is not reality. Studies have shown what a small percentage of adults wash their hands after using the restroom and children would be an even smaller portion.  It irritates me when anti vaxx people act like you have to sit there and eat a literal poop log to get polio.  Fecal matter and e coli are all over any surface that kids and adults touch. 

You do know that Polio is not eradicated right? You do know that people travel internationally from countries where it is still prevalent right? And that it could easily come back if people stopped vaccinating for it? 

The whooping cough vaccine also lessens the degree of severity of the illness which can and does save lives. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability.