Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Letting your children catch and suffer a disease because your pastor told you not to get a vaccine?

Might not be abuse, but you could argue neglect.

Given that most vaccines use questionable agents to improve uptake of vaccine...there are non-religious reasons to avoid certain vaccines. Most have so-so efficacy, while certain diseases who need a vaccine lack anything to catalyse a reaction from the host.

Vaccinology definitely needs a shake-up, as its ethically unsound at the moment.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Halvorsen R (2007). The Truth about Vaccines. Gibson Square. ISBN 978-1-903933-92-3.

Some vaccines work reeeeeally well depending on the pathogen. A good example is polio. Vaccine has a good adjuvant.

Adjuvants are the problem. They are designed to stimulate a reaction in the host. But not uncommonly, they can cause BAD reactions in people, some produce allergic responses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151800/

I'd hardly call him or his sources reliable. I'll do more research when I get out of bed. Also, there's probably a reason he went for a book instead of a peer reviewed article.

The reason these charlatans write books is because they know they have no scientific data to prove their asinine claims.

 Monster Rain wrote:
The reason these charlatans write books is because they know they have no scientific data to prove their asinine claims.

Yup, that's what I was getting at.

I knew what you meant, I just wanted to break it down for the sort of person that thinks the anti-vaccine movement is credible.

I ended up getting into quite an argument with my mother and aunt about the whole mmr jab thing.

My mother was determined (and my aunt backed her up), that it was the right decision not for me to get the jab. Despite me explaining to them about the fraud etc.

People just love to listen to lone morons. There's just something about that one, loud, crazy voice that otherwise intelligent people just want to believe.

It's the whole 'can't prove a negative' thing. Some kid belonging to their hairdressers cleaners neighbours cousin has autism and had the MMR jab. Therefore they latch onto it.

And we get this, or the recent outbreak in Wales.

It's sad and, I still find it so damned frustrating. Though, I don't think it's necessarily a matter of stupidity. My mother is a very intelligent person. A matter of irrationality and falling into the clutches of half the Logical fallacies. I'd accept that argument.

This is the story of how the anti-vaccine controversy started. All that is required is to read the first two paragraphs, if there was ever any question about the validity of the autism link. I'm posting this because it is incredibly rare to find someone's claims so easily debunked and with such prejudice.

And the steam that the Jenny McCarthyists in America gained was entirely the fabrication of an opportunistic ambulance-chaser, who took advantage of many parents who just wanted someone to be responsible for their children's autism beyond a simple force majeure.

At the time my child's first set of vaccines became an issue, I researched this quite a bit. I wish I had saved some of the links.

I was disturbed at the information I found on both sides. Around the same time that Wakefield published his discredited research, it was shown that there were toxic agents in some of the vaccines being given. They were later removed, but the fact that they were there at all is disturbing.

Found it. Thimerosal. Mercury-based preservative. I realize that Wakefield was full of crap, and spawned a huge crap fest, but at no point will I accept the notion that injecting mercury into children is a good idea. Now, that being said, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that thimerosal be removed, and it has, so there's that at least. The CDC review of the subject recommended that the risk of using these preservative containing vaccines is lower than the risk of not vaccinating your children against these potentially epidemic causing diseases, and in light of the research I agreed.

Now, I think the take away here is this: just because Wakefield was a lying piece of filth doesn't mean that there isn't any validity in investigating the contents and long term effects of vaccines. The exposure of Wakefield is often used to bludgeon parents who feel apprehensive about injecting their children with a chemical cocktail that they don't fully understand, implying that they are gullible fools or crackpots if they dare to question the government-backed science. I'm not saying people shouldn't vaccinate, but that they should be able to question the process without the stigma associated with Wakefield and his followers.

Part of the solution is to make sure that accurate, independently conducted research is available to parents in a format that makes it easy for those without a doctorate in medicine (like me) to understand.

There are lots of questions in this process that parents have, and sometimes are afraid to ask. At our pediatrician's, I asked about the mercury issue early on in our visits, and was nearly mauled by a nurse who was only to happy to tell me what a huge idiot I was for even thinking of such a question, that there wasn't any mercury in vaccines, and that there never had been. (As it turns out, yes, yes there had been.) This sort of vicious response to legitimate questioning deters active parent involvement, and doesn't help the process.

It gets even more complicated when it comes to diseases that are eliminated, or nearly eliminated. What about polio? As I understand it, there is no longer any polio in the developed world. As a disease which is spread person-to-person, at what point do we quit injecting our children with potentially dangerous vaccinations (which always carry a risk of side effects) because the risk of contracting a side effect is smaller than the the risk of my child contracting the disease we're vaccinating for? I'm not saying that we're at that point, but I'd like to know where that point is.

TL;DR - My wife and I weighed the pros and cons to vaccination and chose to vaccinate. It's unfortunate that cases like this and the Wakefield fraud have resulted in a situation where it's considered unacceptable to question the process and necessity of vaccines in any way.

Hundreds of millions of children have been vaccinated with various different vaccines in the past 50 years, bringing a massive reduction in all kinds of previously dangerous illnesses.

Quite simply, this has proved there are no significant dangers in vaccines.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Now, I think the take away here is this: just because Wakefield was a lying piece of filth doesn't mean that there isn't any validity in investigating the contents and long term effects of vaccines.

There is plenty of validity in investigating the contents and health effects of vaccines. Which is why its done, pretty much constantly, by a wide number of population health groups around the world. The university I used to work at had seemed to have one on the go at any one time, and while admittedly its did have a specialisation in population health, it was hardly a major medical university.

The issue, simply, is that these studies have pretty uniform results showing that vaccines have health benefits that vastly outweigh the dangers, but unfortunately too many people don't understand that and end up placing their trust in the opinions of semi-celebrity activists and whackjob anti-vaccine sites.

Medical science is so complex that a person can't just sit down and nut out whether something is good for their child - they simply lack the ability to assess the quality of evidence held by each side. It means that at some level they simply have to trust the findings of the various medical boards around the world.

Every instinct we have says we are responsible for this child and so we will make the informed decision on their behalf... and so it isn't a nice thing to accept that we simply don't and can't know enough to make an informed decision, and that we will have to trust the opinions of medical professionals. But, well, it is the right decision.

Slightly off topic but I thought I would ask. When the recent outbreak happened in Wales there was some talk that certain vaccinations were required to attend school in the US.

Is this actually the case? It seems very anti-freedom to me (i.e non USer) and will I heard it on the BBC it was the Jeremy Vine radio programme which is well known for airing the view of the first nutcase layman that comes along (for balance you understand ).

I should also say that I am all for vaccines and both my kids have had the MMR jab (although after much investigation I might add).

Vaccines are indeed required in order to attend school, since it's a public health issue.

The 'freedoms' are preserved in a number of ways. As has been mentioned, you can easily obtain the ability to homeschool your children, in which case it's not required to vaccinate, and the aforementioned anti-vaccination groups (composed of the also-mentioned celebrity activists, whackjobs, and misled parents) can point out a number of loopholes that allow you to circumvent the requirement. (Currently, in our county, they say you can claim that it's against your religion, and the school cannot even question what religion you are.)

But still, notprop, it's actually an issue of some contention in some places. It comes up occasionally, but the government usually comes down on the side of public health, fortunately.

Obviously the risk posed by many of these diseases (specifically measles, mumps, and rubella) are high enough that they outweigh the risks associated with the vaccinations, which is why the school system requires them. There are a number of jobs that require them too.

Question, Kilkrazy- when you said there are 'no significant dangers' in vaccines, are you saying you believe there are no significant medical dangers in vaccines, or that the medical dangers in vaccines are not statistically significant? I agree with you on the second, not so much the first.

The second.

It's always possible that a vaccine might be incorrectly administered or some kind of accident or reaction might happen, as with any medical procedure.

The practical evidence of the results is that vaccines are safe and effective in the overwhelming number of cases.

Hahaha. Okay. I seriously sat around my house for like an hour all baffled, thinking you were saying that allergic reactions and drug interactions didn't happen with vaccines. Too little sleep for Jimsolo. (Did I mention that I have a very, very little baby? )

 notprop wrote:
Slightly off topic but I thought I would ask. When the recent outbreak happened in Wales there was some talk that certain vaccinations were required to attend school in the US.

Is this actually the case? It seems very anti-freedom to me (i.e non USer) and will I heard it on the BBC it was the Jeremy Vine radio programme which is well known for airing the view of the first nutcase layman that comes along (for balance you understand ).

I should also say that I am all for vaccines and both my kids have had the MMR jab (although after much investigation I might add).

Oh yea, thats why most people are vaccinated.

I worked at a health clinic when the MMR scare swept the UK, about 16 years back.

We went out to schools to do the immunizations and there were perhaps 4 or 5 kids in each class who had angry scrawled letters from their mothers, outraged that we were 'trying to give their kids autism' or even 'a death squad from the government'. I wonder sometimes if those poor kids were eventually immunized or if they are all wandering about like ticking bombs, ready to drop dead.

I drew two conclusions during that time, you really cannot fix stupid and stupid seems to be breeding faster than smart... It's weird coming to America and seeing that both this nonsense and Soda Streams seem to be news over here, it's like they never even heard of either before now.

Most people who don't get vaccinated won't catch the disease and even if they do, probably have full health afterwards.

I had measles, rubella, mumps and chicken pox as a child because at that time there weren't vaccines available and lots of children used to catch those diseases.

However the risk of a serious effect from the disease is much higher than the risk from the vaccine.

Yeah, the herd immunity effect that protects those that legitimately can't get the vaccine also helps to protect those that simply choose not to.

The issue becomes when enough people join the latter group that you start having holes in said herd immunity, and as noted earlier in the thread, just getting a vaccine doesn't guarantee you 100% lifetime immunity. The bug can mutate, the vaccine might require a booster after X years that you haven't had, etc, so even if you've got your shots, you still don't want a bug getting a foothold in the community.

 Forar wrote:
Yeah, the herd immunity effect that protects those that legitimately can't get the vaccine also helps to protect those that simply choose not to.

The issue becomes when enough people join the latter group that you start having holes in said herd immunity, and as noted earlier in the thread, just getting a vaccine doesn't guarantee you 100% lifetime immunity. The bug can mutate, the vaccine might require a booster after X years that you haven't had, etc, so even if you've got your shots, you still don't want a bug getting a foothold in the community.

This happened at GC's school. Whooping couugh loses effectively and needs a booster at a certain point (I think it was that). Some loser who didn't get vaccinated caught it from an immigrant and spread around to a bunch of vaccinated kids (including GC) who's vaccination immunity had faded (right about the time they were scheduled for their booster). The vaccination made the illness much less intense but it still nailed a bunch of kids, all because of that one dill weed parent.

 Soladrin wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:



Anyway, if this gets people out of Church

Fixed.

While I don't always (usually) agree with GG, church itself isn't bad. Just like everything else, there are good churches and bad churches. A bad church teaches intolerance of anyone with a different religious viewpoint and attacks groups such as homosexuals. This church and the Westburough baptist cult are bad churches. You can also have good churches, like the caoltholic church where I was raised: one priest left because he was disgusted at members of the order engaging with alter boys and he couldn't be part of a group that tolerated that, and the other priest there taught theology using Simpsons episodes. Man, that was an awesome class. Both priests were great while they were there, made everybody feel welcome, and the only reason I stopped going was the Simpsons priest left to another church and the other priest who hated the actions of other priests from other churches finally retired/quit, as he didn't want to deal with the bs anymore. I have no idea how the new priests are, but is been to one service since, and I didn't feel out of place at all. When I officially move this weekend, I'll be looking for a new church to go to, as it is something I'd like back in my life. I've just found a rash of churches I disagree with.

Frankly any priest that teaches using Simpsons episodes is a good guy in my book.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Frankly any priest that teaches using Simpsons episodes is a good guy in my book.

Depends if (s)he is using new Simpsons, or good Simpsons

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Most people who don't get vaccinated won't catch the disease and even if they do, probably have full health afterwards.

I had measles, rubella, mumps and chicken pox as a child because at that time there weren't vaccines available and lots of children used to catch those diseases.

However the risk of a serious effect from the disease is much higher than the risk from the vaccine.

It depends. I also got all those diseases when I was a kid since there weren't any vaccines for them back in the they, and it is true that all of them are pretty much harmless for children of developed nations. The true problem arises when you don't get immunity to them (either by catching the disease or through vaccination), and then catch the disease when you are already an adult... They become a whole order of magnitude worse when you get them as an adult.

Measles can reach mortality rates of 30% on adults that have compromised immune systems .
Chicken Pox adults and especially on pregnant women get a very high risk of developing pneumonia.
And the Mumps may cause sterility on adult males.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Frankly any priest that teaches using Simpsons episodes is a good guy in my book.

Our Rev has been known to play Shaun the Sheep to the congregation on a sunday morning. She's good like that. Its awesome if you were out late on the saturday...