Mothering Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,219 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
<a href="http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/11/1352" target="_blank">http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/11/1352</a><br><br>
Was sent this by a fellow selective vaccination family a moment ago when I mentioned the other thread in vaccination to them (about autoimmunes) and I found it somewhat interesting. Thought I would share it here.<br><br>
I know it gets a little tedious in the middle, but it's an interesting read.<br><br><br><br>
Did you change your mind on certain vaccines after thinking about temporal association?<br><br><br>
Answering my own post <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"> I think i go both ways on this. Like, with rotavirus, my cousin's son had a bad week of sickness after the vaccine. That was the nail in the coffin for us doing that one (though we had other reasons on both the 'do' and 'not do' side of the debate). So, for that one, I guess I kinda went with temporal association even though we didn't have diffinitive PROOF that it was the vaccine.<br><br>
But then with MMR, we are probably going to do this. Everything I have read about nuerological issues seems to say to me that it is temporal association and that correlation doesn't mean causation. So, I guess with things that are less defined, I don;t feel as confident that they are immediately associated with vaccination.<br><br>
So, with my relative, he was puking and sick. While also being a known side effect, it was something distinct and documented. But with the MMR, it's different.<br><br>
So this is definitely something I need to think more about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,772 Posts
That's one of the reasons we're delaying the MMR. Even if the MMR doesn't cause autism (and I don't feel safe betting on that), if he did show up with autism right after the MMR vaccine, we'd always worry that it was the vaccine's fault, even if it was just a coincidence with timing. There would be no way to know for sure. So we were originally planning to wait until he was 2, now we feel safer waiting until age three.<br><br>
With 1 in 95 boys in the US now having autism, and less than 200 (I think) cases of measles a year in the whole country, the decision to wait seemed pretty easy. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">But then with MMR, we are probably going to do this. Everything I have read about nuerological issues seems to say to me that it is temporal association and that correlation doesn't mean causation.</td>
</tr></table></div>
I guss it depends on what neurological issues you're thinking of. Some of them are definitely causative. There are statistical clusters that happen after MMR vaccination, and it's pretty definitive. The really bad stuff is pretty rare, though.<br>
So you're back to risk/benefit juggling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,936 Posts
There is so much stuff going on with these little ones that to prove causation would be very difficult. Ironically, the polls at MDC of "are your vaccinated children healthier" have made me feel more certain that the correlation is merely temporal, because so many unvaccinated kids appear to have the same issues.<br><br>
Obviously, these polls are far from scientific, but I'd say they are the icing on the cake, so to speak. I do think that most studies that I've been able to read in their entirety have shown a temporal correlation at most.<br><br>
Also, most of the serious, known, proven side-effects are also side-effects of the diseases themselves. So there is also the question of how to juggle the risks, since you don't know whether your kid is prone to those reactions to any kind of measles infection, or just measles vaccination, or just measles.<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">With 1 in 95 boys in the US now having autism</td>
</tr></table></div>
I believe that's 1 in 95 diagnosed with something on the autistic spectrum, including Asperger's, and that is the most liberal estimate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Also, most of the serious, known, proven side-effects are also side-effects of the diseases themselves. So there is also the question of how to juggle the risks, since you don't know whether your kid is prone to those reactions to any kind of measles infection, or just measles vaccination, or just measles.</td>
</tr></table></div>
But with measles, there isn't any of it in the US, anyway. So for the moment that means the vax is more risky, because the chance of exposure to the wild virus is basically zilch.<br><br>
So then you have to just think about things like herd immunity and the ethics of coasting on other people's immunity.<br>
Which is a whole different question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,936 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">But with measles, there isn't any of it in the US, anyway. So for the moment that means the vax is more risky, because the chance of exposure to the wild virus is basically zilch.</td>
</tr></table></div>
I would phrase this as a conditional:<br><br>
IF there is not any measles in the United States, THEN the vaccine will be more risky.<br><br>
Whether or not measles stays low is not something that any of us, as individuals, can control. We do know that measles has not been eliminated worldwide; that there are many adults in the US who are not immune; that many of these people work with people coming from measles-endemic countries who are also not immune; that some of these travel abroad without getting boosters; and that most babies are not vaccinated until one or two.<br><br>
Thus, we have a relatively large population of people who could be carriers in the event of an outbreak, as well as a ***** in the armour, so to speak, that could allow an outbreak to start.<br><br>
So, "zilch" is not the word I would use to describe the chance of being exposed to the wild virus. I think, "Apparently unlikely but actually unknown, and certainly dependent on the percentage of immune individuals in the population."<br><br>
This is partially related to your point about herd immunity, but it also relates to the way one calculates risk (as a direct calculation or an algorithm) as well as what constitutes the herd. We're not a global herd yet but we are fast becoming one. And I don't think I'm the only one that is a little concerned about relying on Zimbabwe to control pertussis right now, you know? Or Pakistan to control polio. Or Tajikistan to control the measles.<br><br>
I guess I'd just say that if you plan on coasting, watch the waters. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
The reporting system for measles seems to work extrememly well, so the chances of any one delaying vaxer's kid being one of the few in a small outbreak are too small to calculate.<br><br>
I do think a large epidemic is coming, though, as more people with natural immunity are replaced by vaccinated people. I think we're just barely walking the line of herd immunity, and that the measles vaccine has an effectiveness that's considerably lower than presently estimated (just like mumps was not too long ago...over the course of a few months it's estimated effectiveness dropped about 30%) and the CDC's already talking about adding a third dose to the schedule (for the mumps component...but I think it would be a good idea for measles even more than mumps.) So that might end up staving an epidemic off.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top