What is acceptable risk? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 19 Old 08-08-2013, 02:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
As per your request, I am posting my specific questions for you in a separate thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


At exactly what point would you think the risks outweigh the benefits? For example, if a vaccine has the potential to prevent 1000 cases of a disease that kills 3/1000, but the vaccine itself kills 1/1000, would that be an acceptable risk? What about lifelong disability that may be caused by a vaccine, like autoimmune disorders, seizures, or brain damage? How many of such vaccine-induced, non-death disorders are acceptable to you?

Please tell us the exact tipping point of acceptable risk for you.
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#2 of 19 Old 08-08-2013, 09:19 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
lurk.gifcrochetsmilie.gif
applejuice and Marnica like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#3 of 19 Old 08-09-2013, 06:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Bakunin, we're still waiting for your answer! You DID suggest that these questions be asked in a separate thread, so....
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#4 of 19 Old 08-09-2013, 11:12 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Nm

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#5 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 04:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Why do you care about bakunin's opinion so much? Even the title of the thread says that. We discuss the issues, not the people here remember.

Seems a bit like baiting to me..... But that's just my opinion.

Bakunin suggested that my request belonged in a separate thread, so I complied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


This is a request about perception. In this thread (and others) I've been making arguments based on the data not solely on my perception. The topic should be in a different thread.

Our posts are all based upon our perceptions. Bakunin even directly asked for ours via the poll he set up. I think it's quite appropriate to ask for his, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to accuse me of baiting. Would you mind editing your accusation? And then I'll be happy to edit my response. Thanks! smile.gif
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#6 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 07:41 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
If Bakunin chooses to dodge this question, could somebody else please answer it? I asked the same thing in another thread and didn't get any takers.
applejuice likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#7 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 08:59 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, I did state that the question was more appropriate for a different thread. I never said I'd be part of it and didn't expect the question would be asked specifically to me.

 

Truth is, I have made several requests to taximom5 and others to counter the over 40 papers provided by AAP that do not find any evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. I provide the link to the list here: http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

In fact, the original request was made about two weeks ago, related to when taximom5 provided a link claiming to have 67 papers proving a link between vaccines and autism, yet most of the links weren't even about vaccines (see post 57 that lead to request here http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1384366/bioethicist-says-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences/40).

 

My request was done in an appropriate threat (in post 182 I make the request again http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1384366/bioethicist-says-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences/180). So taximom5, can you provide scientific evidence showing consensus on a link between autism and vaccines? My request did indeed come first. If you answer my request, I'll answer yours
 

bakunin is offline  
#8 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 10:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

Yes, I did state that the question was more appropriate for a different thread. I never said I'd be part of it and didn't expect the question would be asked specifically to me.

Truth is, I have made several requests to taximom5 and others to counter the over 40 papers provided by AAP that do not find any evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. I provide the link to the list here: http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf
In fact, the original request was made about two weeks ago, related to when taximom5 provided a link claiming to have 67 papers proving a link between vaccines and autism, yet most of the links weren't even about vaccines (see post 57 that lead to request here http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1384366/bioethicist-says-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences/40[/UORL]).

My request was done in an appropriate threat (in post 182 I make the request again
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1384366/bioethicist-says-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences/180). So taximom5, can you provide scientific evidence showing consensus on a link between autism and vaccines? My request did indeed come first. If you answer my request, I'll answer yours

 

Bakunin, you stated a blanket disagreement with the relevance of the 70 studies I offered. Frankly, I don't believe you read them all. In fact, I wonder if you read any of them. I dont believe that you took the time or effort to even try to understand. As far as I can tell, your mind has been made up for a long time.

So it wouldn't matter what studies I provide.

More importantly, I'm not interested in playing your nasty little game of "You show me evidence that I won't shoot down (which doesn't exist, as I plan to shoot down anything Taximom5 says) and only then will I agree to answer your unrelated question."

Such games are inappropriate, immature, and destructive.

My questions are genuine ones, and relevant to the discussion. They are also unrelated to your supposed challenge. I would hope that you have the maturity and wisdom to answer them honestly and directly, rather than playing one-upmanship games as an excuse to avoid answering them.
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#9 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 11:56 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

Truth is, I have made several requests to taximom5 and others to counter the over 40 papers provided by AAP that do not find any evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. I provide the link to the list here: http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

In fact, the original request was made about two weeks ago, related to when taximom5 provided a link claiming to have 67 papers proving a link between vaccines and autism, yet most of the links weren't even about vaccines (see post 57 that lead to request here http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1384366/bioethicist-says-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences/40).

 

 

I will spend a little time countering.  Can't have misinformation kicking around wink1.gif

 

For fun I decided to take a critical look at the the first 3 studies provided in the 40 papers.

 

Study #1 - This was too easy.  Remember this study? We had a huge discussion on it when it came out.   http://jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf  entitled Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism

 

discussion:

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1380655/new-study-shows-no-connection-between-full-vaccine-schedule-and-autism

 

The thread is huge, and I am not going to rehash it again, but here is Dr. Sears rebuttal, which I agree with: 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Bob-Sears/116317855073374?ref=ts&fref=ts   

Dated March 29

 

"I pretty much only have one major criticism of this study. You would probably find the exact same results no matter what group of kids you studied. Pretty much all children in any given span of years receive the exact same number of shot antigens. (By the way, an antigen is simply a protein or sugar germ-related ingredient in a vaccine – some vaccines only have a few, some have many.) Virtually all kids WITH autism have had the same shots as kids WITHOUT autism. So, why would it even be useful to study this? You’ll get the same results every time, whether you study 1000 kids or 100,000 kids. They all get the same shots on the same schedule. They would have gotten the same results if they’d studies asthma, cancer, or any other chronic problem. All this study proved is that all the kids in that HMO got about the same vaccines over that 5 year time period. This doesn’t give us any useful data on how vaccines would have or would not have influenced the rate of autism."

 

#2.  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/1134.abstract

 

 There are a number of issues with the second study.  A major one is that it is not about autism.  The study looked at how children performed on a variety of cognitive ability type tests and charted them according to how timely their vaccination was.  There were virtually no kids (9 out of about 1000) who were completely unvaxxed intentionally.  They considered more than 30 days a delay in vaccination.  If anything, I think the study demonstrated that among neurotypical children, those whose parents were organised and were able to get to appointments on schedule were more likely to have children that perform well on tests than children who come from a more chaotic background.  Geesh - what a surprise.  

 

#3.  Not about autism!  

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/5/e1139

 

Results:

 

"Comparing infants with inborn errors of metabolism (n = 77) versus matched control subjects (n = 1540), similar proportions were up to date for vaccines at 2 years of age, and there was no evidence of delay in receipt of recommended vaccines during the first year. Vaccination of children with inborn errors of metabolism (n = 271) was not associated with any significant increase in emergency-department visits or hospitalizations during the 30 days after vaccination. Secondary analyses suggested that there may be increased rates of hospitalizations 2 weeks after vaccination for the sickest 1- to 4-year-old children."

 

Bonus - cuz I got bored:

  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cont

 

#4  study on post vaccine seizure rate of MMR versus MMRV in 4-6 year old.  So related to autism - NOT.

Mirzam, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#10 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 12:07 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

Truth is, I have made several requests to taximom5 and others to counter the over 40 papers provided by AAP that do not find any evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. I provide the link to the list here: http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

 

 

Bolding mine.  That is not what the 40 papers are about.  Some are not on autism (as discussed above).  The other seem to be, if their title relfects the contents.  That being said, they are almost exclusively on MMR or thimerosal and autism.  Some peoples concerns extend beyond MMR.   A lot of the studies are old,  or refelct data collected quite a while ago.  Yes, this is relevent if there is something in our current environment (or on an epigenetic level) that makes us more likely to have a vaccine reaction now.

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#11 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 06:21 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I will spend a little time countering.  Can't have misinformation kicking around wink1.gif

 

For fun I decided to take a critical look at the the first 3 studies provided in the 40 papers.

 

Study #1 - This was too easy.  Remember this study? We had a huge discussion on it when it came out.   http://jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf  entitled Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism

 

discussion:

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1380655/new-study-shows-no-connection-between-full-vaccine-schedule-and-autism

 

The thread is huge, and I am not going to rehash it again, but here is Dr. Sears rebuttal, which I agree with: 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Bob-Sears/116317855073374?ref=ts&fref=ts   

Dated March 29

 

"I pretty much only have one major criticism of this study. You would probably find the exact same results no matter what group of kids you studied. Pretty much all children in any given span of years receive the exact same number of shot antigens. (By the way, an antigen is simply a protein or sugar germ-related ingredient in a vaccine – some vaccines only have a few, some have many.) Virtually all kids WITH autism have had the same shots as kids WITHOUT autism. So, why would it even be useful to study this? You’ll get the same results every time, whether you study 1000 kids or 100,000 kids. They all get the same shots on the same schedule. They would have gotten the same results if they’d studies asthma, cancer, or any other chronic problem. All this study proved is that all the kids in that HMO got about the same vaccines over that 5 year time period. This doesn’t give us any useful data on how vaccines would have or would not have influenced the rate of autism."

 

#2.  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/1134.abstract

 

 There are a number of issues with the second study.  A major one is that it is not about autism.  The study looked at how children performed on a variety of cognitive ability type tests and charted them according to how timely their vaccination was.  There were virtually no kids (9 out of about 1000) who were completely unvaxxed intentionally.  They considered more than 30 days a delay in vaccination.  If anything, I think the study demonstrated that among neurotypical children, those whose parents were organised and were able to get to appointments on schedule were more likely to have children that perform well on tests than children who come from a more chaotic background.  Geesh - what a surprise.  

 

#3.  Not about autism!  

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/5/e1139

 

Results:

 

"Comparing infants with inborn errors of metabolism (n = 77) versus matched control subjects (n = 1540), similar proportions were up to date for vaccines at 2 years of age, and there was no evidence of delay in receipt of recommended vaccines during the first year. Vaccination of children with inborn errors of metabolism (n = 271) was not associated with any significant increase in emergency-department visits or hospitalizations during the 30 days after vaccination. Secondary analyses suggested that there may be increased rates of hospitalizations 2 weeks after vaccination for the sickest 1- to 4-year-old children."

 

Bonus - cuz I got bored:

  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cont

 

#4  study on post vaccine seizure rate of MMR versus MMRV in 4-6 year old.  So related to autism - NOT.


I correct myself. As the AAP document title says, the evidence is about Vaccine safety in general, not just risk of autism. However my original post did state this correctly.

kathymuggle's rebuttal is based on a small misstep from my part. Having said that, there are some weaknesses on your statements I'll have to point out:

- Reference to Dr Sears. Although a medical doctor, he does not have any research publications (his book does not count as a research publication since it didn't go through the scientific review process). His alternative schedule suggestion has received wide criticism among researchers and the majority of health professionals. http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/features/robert-sears-alternative-vaccine-schedule?page=3 Even the Dr himself admits that not taking vaccines is riskier than taking them (see page 3 of webmd link). Also, he has sold over 40,000 copies of his alternative vaccine book http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.full Is is possible that he promotes his 'choice message' as a means to make money .... lots of it.

 

- You claim rebuttal to my argument based on the science. In the scientific context rebuttals are done with scientific references. None were provided. Your interpretation of the results of the second paper misses the point, children who are vaccinated in time do not show any signs of neuropsychological adverse events (as stated in their conclusion). This implies that vaccines do not cause any issues on learning.

 

- the claim that some of the autism vaccine papers are old is a bit strange. Afterall, the argument that there is a link has been running around since the 90s. Do you mean, that those people in the 90s were wrong but peoples belief of a link these days might be correct? Do you have any strong scientific evidence supporting this? Anyway, your claim is wrong, the list is in chronological order, evidence as recent as 2010 is provided

 

Can you counter the general safety of vaccines list provided by AAP (an incomplete list by the way) with your own list of academic research kathymuggle?

bakunin is offline  
#12 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 06:28 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Bakunin, you stated a blanket disagreement with the relevance of the 70 studies I offered. Frankly, I don't believe you read them all. In fact, I wonder if you read any of them. I dont believe that you took the time or effort to even try to understand. As far as I can tell, your mind has been made up for a long time.

So it wouldn't matter what studies I provide.

More importantly, I'm not interested in playing your nasty little game of "You show me evidence that I won't shoot down (which doesn't exist, as I plan to shoot down anything you say) and only then will I agree to answer your unrelated question."

Such games are inappropriate, immature, and destructive.

My questions are genuine ones, and relevant to the discussion. They are also unrelated to your supposed challenge. I would hope that you have the maturity and wisdom to answer them honestly and directly, rather than playing one-upmanship games as an excuse to avoid answering them.


Feel free to proceed to the original post (link above). The link title says 67 but they're not even 67 papers on the website. Furthermore, most are not even related to vaccines, but autism alone (the reason I know is because I read them. Did you?).

I understand that you are unable to find scientific consensus supporting your anti vaccine beliefs, and that's why you decided to make a request about my perception about the safety of vaccines. I don't think that gives you the right to attack people who think different than you. May I suggest you don't live your life that way? Otherwise it would be hard for one to be happy.

bakunin is offline  
#13 of 19 Old 08-10-2013, 08:39 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


I correct myself. As the AAP document title says, the evidence is about Vaccine safety in general, not just risk of autism. However my original post did state this correctly.

kathymuggle's rebuttal is based on a small misstep from my part. Having said that, there are some weaknesses on your statements I'll have to point out  (I would not expect any differently, lol

- Reference to Dr Sears. Although a medical doctor, he does not have any research publications (his book does not count as a research publication since it didn't go through the scientific review process). His alternative schedule suggestion has received wide criticism among researchers and the majority of health professionals. http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/features/robert-sears-alternative-vaccine-schedule?page=3 Even the Dr himself admits that not taking vaccines is riskier than taking them (see page 3 of webmd link). Also, he has sold over 40,000 copies of his alternative vaccine book http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.full Is is possible that he promotes his 'choice message' as a means to make money .... lots of it.  I like Dr. Sears.  To each their own.  I do not like Dr. Offitt, primarily because I feel there was too much conflict of interest in the way his brand of rota vaccine  was inserted into the schedule.  If we are discussing characters  associated with the research of study #1 (and Sears wasn't - he just made a point I agreed with),Offitt  was thanked at the end of the antigen study for his help.  The fact that they sought out perhaps the most famous name in pro-vaxxing for help leads me to believe they were seeking a particular type of conclusion.  And speaking of people who make money,  Offitt is a very wealthy man.  I am not really sure any pro-vaxxer should criticize someone for making money unless they are willing to turn that mirror on those who are pro-vax and stand to gain financially.

 

- You claim rebuttal to my argument based on the science. In the scientific context rebuttals are done with scientific references. None were provided.  I provided my interpretation. You do not set the parameters for discussion, and MDC has not required anyone to rebut a scientific study with another scientific study.  People pick apart studies others list all the time (didn't you do it in response to studies cited by Dinahx, taxi and mammunchkin?  IIRC you did)  Your interpretation of the results of the second paper misses the point, children who are vaccinated in time do not show any signs of neuropsychological adverse events (as stated in their conclusion). This implies that vaccines do not cause any issues on learning.  I did not miss this point, although I think you are.  Bolding mine:  they only looked at 9 children who were unvaccinated intentionally, and they did not separate them out from the "least timely vaxxed."  So how on earth can you say vaccines do not cause learning issues - when there is no unvaxxed control group?  You can't.  

 

- the claim that some of the autism vaccine papers are old is a bit strange. Why?  One paper (for example) has data collected from the birth cohort  1973.  I was born in 72'.  Know how many vaccines I got?  7.  How many do kids today get? Hint: more than 7.  People can easily check it out and decide for themselves if the data in many of the studies listed is on the old side.   

 

 

Mirzam, applejuice and Taximom5 like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#14 of 19 Old 08-11-2013, 06:45 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Vaccinating or not a child is very, very important decision. Why should be reach this very very important decision based simply on opinion when there's so much scientific findings available?

 

And there's the difference between our debate arguments. I rely on the consensus of the scientific research. So when I bring argument to debates here, they are according to the scientific literature. On the other hand, anti vaccine arguments are based on opinions. For example, on what 'they think' a study means. The best way to analyze the effect of vaccines is to look into the science and analyze the findings. That's the reason why I often request the scientific findings against vaccines. They are very hard to come by (because the conclusions are not against vaccines even when the hypothesis is stating a vaccine concern). Many people interpret the small amount of research finding concerns with vaccines the right way: "there's not much research finding negative vaccine results, therefore, there must not be much evidence about negative vaccine outcomes, like say, high rate of serious side effects". Unfortunately, some people against vaccines do not interpret the research findings the right way. They either simply think that the research is wrong (with no real evidence to support that belief), or claim there's special interests taking precedence when all research is conducted (with no real evidence to support this belief either). Post 12 was the first time I made a reference to Dr Offit's research. I expected the conflict of interest to be brought up, so I only brought it up AFTER Dr. Sears was referenced (post 11). How does Dr Sears does not have a conflict of interest again? Let's remember that he has sold over 40,000 copies of his book!

 

About the autism vaccine research being old I restate my argument: "the argument that there is a link has been running around since the 90s. Do you mean, that those people in the 90s were wrong but peoples belief of a link these days might be correct? Do you have any strong scientific evidence supporting this? Anyway, your claim is wrong, the list is in chronological order, evidence as recent as 2010 is provided"

bakunin is offline  
#15 of 19 Old 08-11-2013, 07:50 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

Vaccinating or not a child is very, very important decision. Why should be reach this very very important decision based simply on opinion when there's so much scientific findings available?

This would be a valid question if the "scientific findings," were real science.  How is it science when there's no real placebo?  How is it science when there's no real control group?  Beyond that, how is it ethical that those who make the decisions about what vaccines are given when profit from the sale, presumably basing their "it's safe," proclamations on the "scientific findings?"

 

I won't speak for others, but I'll tell you how I've made this "very, very important decision."  I look at the "science," logic & reason.  I don't put much stock in the science.  Logically, it makes sense that something foreign injected into a developing person can have an impact on their immediate & future health.  Therefore, the risk of injection needs to be less than the risk of no injection.  So far, for my family, I've found the risk of injection higher.  I do not think it reasonable to take a risk w/ their health when the alternative may involve no risk.  So, it's not reasonable to risk what can happen from an injection vs. the possibility that they may never contract a VPD.  I'd rather the risk be a possibility than a definite.

 

Do you have children of your own?

 

Sus

Mirzam and applejuice like this.

Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#16 of 19 Old 08-11-2013, 07:54 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

Vaccinating or not a child is very, very important decision. Why should be reach this very very important decision based simply on opinion when there's so much scientific findings available?

 

I have posted so many studies over the years.  A simple search will confirm this.  I usually post them when I think the posters is interested, or if I am trying to prove my point.  I was trying to do neither in this exchange.  I took a look at the studies to see if they said what you said they did (40 studies finding no link between autism and vaccines) - and alas, they did not. Of course vaccinating a child is an important decision.  I do think understanding that what people post online is not always what the study say can be of value.  

 

…..

So when I bring argument to debates here, they are according to the scientific literature. On the other hand, anti vaccine arguments are based on opinions. And you have come to this conclusion based on this thread? lol. For example, on what 'they think' a study means. The best way to analyze the effect of vaccines is to look into the science and analyze the findings. That's the reason why I often request the scientific findings against vaccines. They are very hard to come by (because the conclusions are not against vaccines even when the hypothesis is stating a vaccine concern). Many people interpret the small amount of research finding concerns with vaccines the right way: "there's not much research finding negative vaccine results, therefore, there must not be much evidence about negative vaccine outcomes, like say, high rate of serious side effects". Unfortunately, some people against vaccines do not interpret the research findings the right way. Says you.  Goodness, the ego knows no bounds. "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

Voltaire 

 

 

They either simply think that the research is wrong (with no real evidence to support that belief), or claim there's special interests taking precedence when all research is conducted (with no real evidence to support this belief either). Post 12 was the first time I made a reference to Dr Offit's research. I expected the conflict of interest to be brought up, so I only brought it up AFTER Dr. Sears was referenced (post 11). How does Dr Sears does not have a conflict of interest again? Let's remember that he has sold over 40,000 copies of his book!  

 

That is correct.  You did not bring up Offitt, as it is not in your best interest.

I brought up Offitt after you started yelling "Conflict of Interest" with regard to Sears, as it is pretty hypocritical.  

 

About the autism vaccine research being old I restate my argument: "the argument that there is a link has been running around since the 90s. Do you mean, that those people in the 90s were wrong but peoples belief of a link these days might be correct? My concern with the data being on the old side is that we have added many new vaccines since then - as said in the last post.  

 

 

Anyway, your claim is wrong, the list is in chronological order, evidence as recent as 2010 is provided"  Did I say the list was not in chronological order?  I did not.  I said some of the 40 studies were on the old side, as was the data they looked at.  Other people can look and decide for themselves.  I am not sure why you are hung up on this - unless you like saying "your claim is incorrect!"  

I think we are done - or I am.  I set out to prove your claim that  "40 papers provided by AAP that do not find any evidence of a link between vaccines and autism"  was incorrect.  I succeeded.  Some of the studies are not on autism at all.   Many are on one vaccine (MMR) not vaccines as a whole.

 

ta-ta.

applejuice and Marnica like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#17 of 19 Old 08-11-2013, 08:10 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)

Excuse the foray into the 40 studies.

 

Back to the original question!

 

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


"At exactly what point would you think the risks outweigh the benefits? For example, if a vaccine has the potential to prevent 1000 cases of a disease that kills 3/1000, but the vaccine itself kills 1/1000, would that be an acceptable risk? What about lifelong disability that may be caused by a vaccine, like autoimmune disorders, seizures, or brain damage? How many of such vaccine-induced, non-death disorders are acceptable to you?

Please tell us the exact tipping point of acceptable risk for you."

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#18 of 19 Old 08-11-2013, 08:59 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Kathymuggle, your arguments are well-reasoned, thoroughly cited, and far more convincing than bakunin's.
applejuice and Marnica like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#19 of 19 Old 08-11-2013, 09:29 AM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,906
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)

I have changed the title of this thread to make it more appropriate. This discussion can continue if everyone posts appropriately ABOUT THE TOPIC and not about each other or in criticism of posting  behavior. if you cannot do that you will be removed from the discussion. Final warning.


cynthia mosher is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off