or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccinated vs unvaccinated study - Page 3

post #41 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Where do you get this stuff?  There are not three doses of the MMR on the childhood vaccine schedule, nor is there a recommended "adult booster" if you've been vaccinated as a child (which the vast vast majority of adults born after 1957 have) 

 

I got this stuff from the CDC.


There are 2 MMR doses required for children, even though 95% gain what used to be considered lifetime immunity from one dose.  Many children get their second dose well before kindergarten, though, and schools are requiring a dose within 12 months or less before starting kindergarten, so those children who got 2 shots by age 4 or so are required to get a third shot to enter kindergarten.  If your child is only a toddler, you would not have encountered this yet.  The rest of us have, though.

The adult immunization schedule that I posted makes it look like all adults need at least one MMR booster.

 

And, as Mirzam so clearly pointed out, it is now clear that the MMR's effectiveness wanes within a few years.

In other words, all this time you thought we had "herd immunity" to measles, mumps, and rubella, we clearly didn't, because a large segment of fully vaccinated individuals did not have the required immunity.

post #42 of 77
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

I wouldn't hold your breath for this study. One of the questions given to the Colleen Boyle of the CDC following the Congressional Committee meeting on austim, in 2012 (I think) was asking the CDC if they would ever conduct a vax vs unvax study and the answer is essentially "No". The CDC said the only 'ethical' study, in their opinion would be a blinded, prospective study. The patients would be chosen at radom and, regardless of choice,  some would be vaccinated and some unvaccinated. The CDC would take the choice entirely away form the patients (parents). These patients would then be followed for 20 years, like clinical trials for drugs. The CDC has never done such a study like this before, only historical studies. So why propose this if not to weasel out? They also said they wouldn't be able to find enough unvaccinated kids (they can have mine), so they won't do a retrospective study.

 

This information was revealed by Brian Hooker, PhD, who got hold of the CDC answers from an insider, these answers have not been released to the public.

 

You can hear him speak about his at the 40:24 mark of this interview:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaX0Jqy70DA

 

Thanks for getting back on topic. 

 

If you read the link in my OP, there *aren't* enough unvaccinated children to do this study.  They make up less than .3 percent of children in the US.

 

You have to also remember, and this was another point the author of my OP brought up, that there is not an "unvaccinated children" database that researchers can use.  They would have to be individually found.   The parents of the unvaccinated children would have to then give permission to have their children included in the study and be carefully tested and evaluated by doctors. 

 

Your comment "they can use my kids" is another problem with not having a randomized sample.   Sure, you are probably super willing to include your unvaccinated children that don't have autism or other medical conditions.  But the opposite would be true as well.  Parents who have unvaccinated children with autism (but who might still be against vaccines thinking that their children's autism would have been *worse* had they been vaccinated etc) are probably not going to be as willing to include their children in the study.  They know it makes the other "side's" position stronger.  

 

I mean imagine if there was a study on whether or not vaccines caused asthma and the sample of vaccinated children were carefully chosen and not random.  Would you accept those results? 

 

These are just some of the MANY issues with the kind of study being proposed.  

post #43 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

Thanks for getting back on topic. 

 

If you read the link in my OP, there *aren't* enough unvaccinated children to do this study.  They make up less than .3 percent of the population. 

 

You have to also remember, and this was another point the author of my OP brought up, that there is not an "unvaccinated children" database that researchers can use.  They would have to be individually found.   The parents of the unvaccinated children would have to then give permission to have their children included in the study and be carefully tested and evaluated by doctors. 

 

Your comment "they can use my kids" is another problem with not having a randomized sample.   Sure, you are probably super willing to include your unvaccinated children that don't have autism or other medical conditions.  But the opposite would be true as well.  Parents who have unvaccinated children with autism (but who might still be against vaccines thinking that their children's autism would have been *worse* had they been vaccinated etc) are probably not going to be as willing to include their children in the study.  They know it makes the other "side's" position stronger.  

 

I mean imagine if there was a study on whether or not vaccines caused asthma and the sample of vaccinated children were carefully chosen and not random.  Would you accept those results? 

 

These are just some of the MANY issues with the kind of study being proposed.  

 

You're welcome!

 

However, my point is the CDC speaks weasel words, with their pathetic attempt and getting out of doing this kind of study. There are plenty of unvaxed children to do a retrospective, historical study, the kind they do all the time.

post #44 of 77

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post



Have you had your MMR booster yet?

 

you didn't respond to Taximom5's question

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post"As an adult, do I need the MMR vaccine?

You do not need the MMR vaccine if you

  • had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella
  • are someone born before 1957
  • already had two doses of MMR or one dose of MMR plus a second dose of measles vaccine
  • already had one dose of MMR and are not at high risk of measles exposure"   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm

well, did you have your booster? and are you up to date with everything else? did you get a meningitis vaccine too?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

 

If you read the link in my OP, there *aren't* enough unvaccinated children to do this study.  They make up less than .3 percent of children in the US.

 

 

yet you go crazy over that .3% that is making your herd go awry :laughand the effectiveness of most vaccines is not even close to 90%, many -85% if you are lucky 

 

AND again, how many of the .3% are unvaccinated AND have autism? You have claimed in numerous threads they are out there, how many are there?

post #45 of 77
Thread Starter 

There is no recommended adult booster for the MMR if you've been vaccinated for it as a child, which I have been.  So no.  Additionally, my immunity to measles and rubella was confirmed by by OB.  Over 20 years later and my immunity is still going strong! :thumb

 

To be clear, .3% is how many *completely* unvaccinated children there are.  Meaning zero vaccines ever.  There are many many many more that are missing vaccines or are under vaccinated. They stopped after the 2 month vaccines, or just didn't get the MMR etc. 

post #46 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

There is no recommended adult booster for the MMR if you've been vaccinated for it as a child, which I have been.  So no. 

 

 

So yes:

 

http://shotnurse.com/MMR.php

 

Who should get the MMR vaccine and when?

 


 

"Adults should get a booster of MMR vaccine:

  • A second dose of MMR is recommended for ADULTS who 1) live in a community experiencing a mumps outbreak and are in an affected age group; 2) are students in postsecondary educational institutions; 3) work in a health care facility; or 4) PLAN TO TRAVEL INTERNATIONALLY. "

 

So, let's see, that's ALL college students, and anyone who plans to travel internationally.  Going across the border to Canada or Mexico is considered international travel.

 

"A second dose of MMR is recommended for adults who 1) have been recently exposed to measles or are in an outbreak setting; 2) have been vaccinated previously with killed measles vaccine; 3) have been vaccinated with an unknown type of measles vaccine during 1963–1967; 4) are students in postsecondary educational institutions; 5) work in a health care facility; or 6) PLAN TO TRAVEL INTERNATIONALLY."\

 

"Generally, anyone 18 years of age or older, who was born after 1956, should get at least one dose of MMR vaccine, unless they can show that they have had either the vaccines or the diseases."

 

In order to "show" that you have had either the vaccine or the disease, you need to produce records.  If you have moved, if your childhood pediatrician has retired, moved, or changed jobs, if your childhood pediatrician kept records in the days before electronic records, it is often impossible to produce those records.

In addition, most pediatricians generally recommend that you just go ahead and get the vaccine anyway, just to be "safe."

 

post #47 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

There is no recommended adult booster for the MMR if you've been vaccinated for it as a child, which I have been.  

 

 

NO that is inaccurate

 

there is recommend booster for the 50+ if they meet the need - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5440-immunizationa1.htm  please see the chart from the CDC under MMR you will see the booster (diabetes, heart conditions,liver conditions, HIV, alcoholism, etc) - 1 to 2 doses for those under 49 and for those over it's 1 dose

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

To be clear, .3% is how many *completely* unvaccinated children there are.  Meaning zero vaccines ever.  There are many many many more that are missing vaccines or are under vaccinated. They stopped after the 2 month vaccines, or just didn't get the MMR etc. 

 

YES, to be clear .3% has you in a dizzy!                          Mercy I am a ghast!  These little disease bombs the PROvaccers are so deathly afraid of that they wage a insane war about is minuscule and you chances of coming in contact with one is totally unrealistic!!!!! Yet the FEAR is abundant!

 

Oh, how UN-realistic PRO-vaccine FEAR-mongers are!

 

You have spent a year try your hardest to convince as many as you can your child's at deaths door because of .3% and the world is coming to an end over the "diseases" that are coming back ASAP because of .3%!!!!! You rail and rail over children yet you don't look at the MAJORITY do you? The adults! I know you will twist and twist this to say so many "children" are stopped because the parent stopped after 2 months, MMR (months later- this isn't even given at 2 months! a child has far more vaccines until they even get the MMR) or at age 3 or 4 or what ever. the bottom line is it's TINY, super small yet your FEAR is what is large and how far you think you can throw that fear! 

 

Your chances of being with an under vaccinated ADULD is far, FAR greater - NOT with a zero vaccination FREE child!  You have a better percentage chance of seeing a shooting star - :dizzy

post #48 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

There is no recommended adult booster for the MMR if you've been vaccinated for it as a child, which I have been.  So no.  Additionally, my immunity to measles and rubella was confirmed by by OB.  Over 20 years later and my immunity is still going strong! :thumb

Not quite.  I would say MMR is recommnded to the majority of adults born after 1957.

 

Why is the CDC allowing some adults off the hook for a second dose of MMR but insisting kids have two?

 

Given that your immunity to measles and rubella is still high, you are currently in the clear for those two.  Immunity can wear off, however, so you might want to keep an eye on that immunity at doctor approved intervals, or you could fall into the dreaded "undervaccinated" category.  What about your imminuity to mumps?

 

 

Here are the criteria.  I have cut and pasted the "high risks" below.

 

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post"As an adult, do I need the MMR vaccine?

You do not need the MMR vaccine if you

  • had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella
  • are someone born before 1957
  • already had two doses of MMR or one dose of MMR plus a second dose of measles vaccine
  • already had one dose of MMR and are not at high risk of measles exposure"   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
  • high risk include: 
  • are a college student, trade school student, or other student beyond high school
  • work in a hospital or other medical facility
  • travel internationally, or are a passenger on a cruise ship
  • are a woman of childbearing age

​I would sum it up that most people born after 1957 should have a second dose of MMR.  Students, those who work in the medical field, those who travel, and women of child bearing age make up the majority of the post 1957 adult population, I would think.

Still, I find it odd, that the CDC is letting some people out of a second dose of MMR, while inisiting children be fully vaccinated.   That is not their style.

 

 

 

 


Edited by kathymuggle - 1/31/14 at 6:41am
post #49 of 77

MORE on who should get MMR as an adult -

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/genrec.pdf

 

Immunosuppression

Live vaccines can cause severe or fatal reactions in immuno- suppressed persons due to uncontrolled replication of the vaccine virus. Live vaccines should not be administered to severely immunosuppressed persons for this reason. Persons with isolated B-cell deficiency may receive varicella vaccine. Inactivated vaccines cannot replicate, so they are safe to use in immunosuppressed persons. However, response to the vaccine may be decreased.

Both diseases and drugs can cause significant immunosup- pression. Persons with congenital immunodeficiency, leukemia, lymphoma, or generalized malignancy should not receive live vaccines. However, MMR, varicella, rotavirus, and LAIV vaccines may be given when an immunosup- pressed person lives in the same house. Household contacts of immunosuppressed persons may receive zoster vaccine if indicated. Transmission has not been documented from a person who received zoster vaccine. 

 

Susceptible household contacts of persons with HIV infection should receive MMR and varicella vaccines, and may receive rotavirus, zoster and LAIV vaccines if otherwise eligible. ​

 

MMR and varicella vaccines should be administered 24 months after transplantation if the HCT recipient is presumed to be immunocompetent. 

 

Household and other close contacts of HCT recipients and healthcare providers who care for HCT recipients should
be appropriately vaccinated, particularly against influenza, measles, and varicella. 

post #50 of 77
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Not quite.  I would say MMR is recommnded to the majority of adults born after 1957.

 

Why is the CDC allowing some adults off the hook for a second dose of MMR but insisting kids have two?

 

Given that your immunity to measles and rubella is still high, you are currently in the clear for those two.  Immunity can wear off, however, so you might want to keep an eye on that immunity at doctor approved intervals, or you could fall into the dreaded "undervaccinated" category.  What about your imminuity to mumps?

 

 

Here are the criteria.  I have cut and pasted the "high risks" below.

 

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post"As an adult, do I need the MMR vaccine?

You do not need the MMR vaccine if you

  • had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella
  • are someone born before 1957
  • already had two doses of MMR or one dose of MMR plus a second dose of measles vaccine
  • already had one dose of MMR and are not at high risk of measles exposure"   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
  • high risk include: 
  • are a college student, trade school student, or other student beyond high school
  • work in a hospital or other medical facility
  • travel internationally, or are a passenger on a cruise ship
  • are a woman of childbearing age

​I would sum it up that most people born after 1957 should have a second dose of MMR.  Students, those who work in the medical field, those who travel, and women of child bearing age make up the majority of the post 1957 adult population, I would think.

Still, I find it odd, that the CDC is letting some people out of a second dose of MMR, while inisiting children be fully vaccinated.   That is not their style.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Not quite.  I would say MMR is recommnded to the majority of adults born after 1957."

Not exactly.  You only need one as an adult if you didn't have one as a child OR only had one dose as a child that didn't take.  One dose is enough to protect 95% of people IIRC.   So you would have to be in that 5 % AND in one of the high risk categories to really need an adult "booster".  That is not the majority of the adult population by any stretch of the imagination. 


Edited by teacozy - 1/31/14 at 11:20am
post #51 of 77

But are those adults that don't 'need' a booster really immune? You have absolutely no way of telling for definite. Its all speculation. All of it. I have already posted research on waning IgG antibody titers. Then we have measles outbreaks in predominantly vaccinated populations.......

post #52 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

"Not quite.  I would say MMR is recommended to the majority of adults born after 1957."

Not exactly.  You only need one as an adult if you didn't have one as a child OR only had one dose as a child that didn't take.  One dose is enough to protect 95% of people IIRC.   So you would have to be in that 5 % AND in one of the high risk categories to really need an adult "booster".  That is not the majority of the adult population by any stretch of the imagination. 

That is not what it says.  

 

It says if you have blood tests to show you are immune, you are exempt.  Most people do not have such blood tests, although they could get them.  I suspect  most doctors and many patients will just go for the second shot rather than do a titre test with a possible revaccination.  

In any event  - you are off the hook for measles and rubella - but not so for mumps.  If you want to preach herd immunity, you might want to look into it.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 2/2/14 at 3:35pm
post #53 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

"Not quite.  I would say MMR is recommnded to the majority of adults born after 1957."

Not exactly.  You only need one as an adult if you didn't have one as a child OR only had one dose as a child that didn't take.  One dose is enough to protect 95% of people IIRC.   So you would have to be in that 5 % AND in one of the high risk categories to really need an adult "booster".  That is not the majority of the adult population by any stretch of the imagination. 

Your math is what is not adding up!

 

5% - is a joke! :laugh

 

MOST born after 1957 now are or have entered into the military, medical field or live with or are starting to care for an at risk family member. AND those who received it between 1963 & 1967 as well.

Let remember, 1st it's about MONEY$$$ and it cost far less to do one visit vs a titers test and another visit - just give the vaccine, Taxi also pointed out most people simply do not have their records either- again, they will be given the vaccine- it's cheaper to do so, 2nd, military and medical fields also DO NOT titer test MOST- just give the vaccine, 3rd the populations is not quite 50-50 and we do know that the male population are not giving birth, their titers are also not being tested, 4th (and it's been posted in the vaccine section before) many women also have had multiple doses because each pregnancy they are not immune, 5th more and more people deal with family members that are immune compromised, somehow to you that adds up to 5% of the population in need and getting? 

 

 

 

one does isn't even what we are giving children currently, you are not being realistic 

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.pdf

Children should get 2 doses of MMR vaccine:

  • First Dose: 12–15 months of age

  • Second Dose: 4–6 years of age (may be given earlier, if at least 28 days after the 1st dose)

    Some infants younger than 12 months should get a dose of MMR if they are traveling out of the country. (This dose will not count toward their routine series.)

    Some adults should also get MMR vaccine: Generally, anyone 18 years of age or older who was born after 1956 should get at least one dose of MMR vaccine, unless they can show that they have either been vaccinated or had all three diseases. 

 

 

http://www.immunize.org/shop/views/adultsched_pg3.pdf

Measlescomponent:AroutineseconddoseofMMRvaccine,administeredaminimum of 28 days after the first dose, is recommended for adults who 1) are students in postsecondary educational institutions; 2) work in a healthcare facility; or 3) plan to travel internationally. Persons who received inactivated (killed) measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type from 1963 to 1967 should be revaccinated with 2 doses of MMR vaccine. 

 

Rubella component: For women of childbearing age, regardless of birth year, rubella immunity should be determined. If there is no evidence of immunity, women who are not pregnant should be vaccinated. Pregnant women who do not have evidence of immunity should receive MMR vaccine upon completion or termination of pregnancy and before discharge from the healthcare facility.

 

• Healthcarepersonnelbornbefore1957:Forunvaccinatedhealthcarepersonnelborn before 1957 who lack laboratory evidence of measles, mumps, and/or rubella immunity or laboratory confirmation of disease, healthcare facilities should consider routinely vaccinating personnel with 2 doses of MMR vaccine at the appropriate interval for measles and mumps or 1 dose of MMR vaccine for rubella. 

 

 

2012 - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6104a9.htm

 

7. Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccination

  • Adults born before 1957 generally are considered immune to measles and mumps. All adults born in 1957 or later should have documentation of 1 or more doses of MMR vaccine unless they have a medical contraindication to the vaccine, laboratory evidence of immunity to each of the three diseases, or documentation of provider-diagnosed measles or mumps disease. For rubella, documentation of provider-diagnosed disease is not considered acceptable evidence of immunity.

Measles component:

  • A routine second dose of MMR vaccine, administered a minimum of 28 days after the first dose, is recommended for adults who 
    — are students in postsecondary educational institutions; 
    — work in a health-care facility; or 
    — plan to travel internationally.
  • Persons who received inactivated (killed) measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type from 1963 to 1967 should be revaccinated with 2 doses of MMR vaccine.

Mumps component:

  • A routine second dose of MMR vaccine, administered a minimum of 28 days after the first dose, is recommended for adults who 
    — are students in postsecondary educational institutions; 
    — work in a health-care facility; or 
    — plan to travel internationally.
  • Persons vaccinated before 1979 with either killed mumps vaccine or mumps vaccine of unknown type who are at high risk for mumps infection (e.g., persons who are working in a health-care facility) should be considered for revaccination with 2 doses of MMR vaccine.

Rubella component:

  • For women of childbearing age, regardless of birth year, rubella immunity should be determined. If there is no evidence of immunity, women who are not pregnant should be vaccinated. Pregnant women who do not have evidence of immunity should receive MMR vaccine upon completion or termination of pregnancy and before discharge from the health-care facility.

Health-care personnel born before 1957:

  • For unvaccinated health-care personnel born before 1957 who lack laboratory evidence of measles, mumps, and/or rubella immunity or laboratory confirmation of disease, health-care facilities should consider routinely vaccinating personnel with 2 doses of MMR vaccine at the appropriate interval for measles and mumps or 1 dose of MMR vaccine for rubella.

 

 

and with outbreaks they give it again

 

that adds up to a large group of the population receiving a second dose of MMR and it's not just 5%!

post #54 of 77

The man who wrote a paper linking autism to vaccination was completely discredited because there was absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

post #55 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

The man who wrote a paper linking autism to vaccination was completely discredited because there was absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Wakefield is hardly the only or primary reason people are concerned there might be a vaccine autism link.  

 

That is all I intend to say on the matter as we have gone over this so many times.  I am only saying it for any total newbies.  Searches on the forum will lead to ample discussions on autism and vaccines. 

post #56 of 77

Back to the original topic. We debated this same thing a while back, and I'm sure there was some good stuff in that thread. This is about the german vax/no fax study which had issues (e.g. small numbers of unvaccinated children) but was even with that able to show a statistical difference in the health of the two groups - the vaccinated children had less vaccine preventable diseases. Everything else was the same within the statistics: 

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study

post #57 of 77

Personally I don't think this about single studies though. There's such a huge body of evidence on vaccine safety and efficacy, that any single study done now can only ever be part of the puzzle. The systematic reviews are much more useful - where the results of many many studies are checked and reviewed. 

 

Here's a press release on one from the Institute of Medicine (which I know many posters will dismiss as being in the pocket of big pharma - I think that's not likely though) on one such review:  http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality/Press-Release.aspx

 

Top line of release: "An analysis of more than 1,000 research articles concluded that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines."

 

Also there are Cochrane Reports on links between some vaccines and some of the commonly feared side effects. I've posted that before although some posters only seem to remember the Cochrane Reports which show flu vaccines have limited efficacy in some groups (lucky the NHS guidelines follow their recommendation in who is advised to be vaccinated, I am confident the CDC guidelines will eventually mutate to include them - it's a slow process with government bodies in my experience). 

 

MMR vaccine safety and efficacy: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004407/using-the-combined-vaccine-for-protection-of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

"We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes….."

 

I assume Cochrane will come out with more in future and look forward to seeing the latest from them.

post #58 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

The man who wrote a paper linking autism to vaccination was completely discredited because there was absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

 

I'm afraid you've been misinformed.


He did not write a paper linking autism to vaccination.  He coauthored a paper linking autism with severe intestinal disorders, and mentioned that the parents had reported onset of symptoms after either MMR inoculation--or, in 1 of the 12 cases, after measles infection.  In the paper, he very clearly stated, "We have not proved a causal association between autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination."


You might be interested in the fact that, out of the parents of the 12 children in the study, ALL of them supported him in the ensuing battle with the GMC.  Many reported that they were misquoted by Brian Deer, who brought the case against Wakefield.  They also all reported that, before Wakefield, no doctor took seriously their reports that their autistic children were suffering from debilitating intestinal problems.  They were all told (as were all parents of autistic children in the 1980's and 1990's) that "autistic children just act like that," and that they were perfectly healthy.

We now know that a subset of autistic children do, indeed, have severe intestinal problems that either cause or exacerbate autistic symptoms and behaviors.  This is now accepted by most doctors who work with autistic children, and by most gastroenterologists.  But the substance of Deer's cases against Wakefield was that autistic children do not have severe intestinal problems; Deer charged that Wakefield was abusing the children by performing colonoscopies on them--even though colonoscopies were the standard protocol for non-autistic children with exactly the same intestinal symptoms.

If you do a bit of research, I think you'll find that an enormous number of facts have been left out of the "pro-vax" version of the Wakefield issue, and others have been twisted.  

 

I hesitate to use the term "pro-vax," though, because it's a bit of a misnomer.  There are people who believe in vaccination who also believe that vaccines result in severe side effects (including brain damage, autism, autoimmune disorders, seizure disorders, etc), and believe that this is a major problem that should be addressed as soon as possible.  There are people who believe that vaccination is a wonderful thing for a few severe diseases, but has become a disaster because of a greedy industry who has managed to sell many unnecessary, ineffective, and dangerously reactive vaccines in addition to the original, helpful vaccines.

Perhaps I should use the term "vaccine damage deniers" instead, although that seems rather cumbersome.  But that is the crux of the issue.  The people who are living with the damage, who have observed it first-hand, and in the cases of some doctors, those who have treated it--these people are calling for recognition of a problem, and the necessary steps to effectively deal with it.


They are being met by denial that the problem exists, from people who haven't seen it first-hand.


It's a bit like seeing your child hit by a car, reporting that your child has been injured by being hit by a car, but being told, "no, because you didn't get the license number, and the accident was not observed by a medical doctor, it must have been in your head, and your child's internal injuries, which are not immediately apparent, had nothing to do with cars, they would have happened at that time anyway, and by the way, you must be anti-car."  Then you're handed a stack of studies, designed by, directed by, funded by, interpreted by, and marketed by the car manufacturers, showing that they have never (in their personally picked test subjects) been shown to cause internal injuries.  Whenever you find a study that shows exactly that, you are rebuked for not trusting your doctor, whose medical education was actually partially directed by consultants of the car industry.

post #59 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post



Perhaps I should use the term "vaccine damage deniers" instead, although that seems rather cumbersome.  But that is the crux of the issue.  The people who are living with the damage, who have observed it first-hand, and in the cases of some doctors, those who have treated it--these people are calling for recognition of a problem, and the necessary steps to effectively deal with it.

 

 

Taxi, I like the term coincidence theorists, personally!

post #60 of 77
Quote:
You might be interested in the fact that, out of the parents of the 12 children in the study

I thought you claimed to be a science teacher. I guess not, since 12 children is an EXTREMELY small sample. Anyone who was an expert would know to not use '12' individuals. It's basic stats.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccinated vs unvaccinated study