Haiku Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Interesting, thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usetoschool Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Read about that the other day - thought about posting it but then decided not to. The story I read had a lot of information about the man who conducted the study and his possible ulterior motives and possible financial gain from the vaccine alternative he was working on. I think things like this (fake science) make it really hard to get genuine objective truth about a situation. Could be that some vaccines do harm some kids but there is so much emotion and now false information that it will be hard to sort it all out. Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 It has been discredited for so long now that I doubt a retraction will have much of an impact. I think there are a lot of people for whom no amount of discrediting and retraction will change their opinion that vaccines cause autism. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Or anything else they "know" to be true. But when my son was 2 mo old, the (former) pediatrician told me I should follow all his advice even though in 5 years he'd be saying the complete opposite. So I don't always think the medical establishment has it all figured out either. Which makes these types of discussions even harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I think there are a lot of people for whom no amount of discrediting and retraction will change their opinion that vaccines cause autism. Tara Quite right. And the misinformation leads to vaccination avoidance that threatens individual and public health. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 That is funny. My doctor was just telling me the other day that they took the mercury out of the MMR vaccine in 2001 or so. Would that maybe explain why the paper no longer holds true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 That is funny. My doctor was just telling me the other day that they took the mercury out of the MMR vaccine in 2001 or so. Would that maybe explain why the paper no longer holds true? They took it out in California years ago and the autism rates still went up. The study was retracted because the author (Wakefield) lied about his results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 They took it out in California years ago and the autism rates still went up. The study was retracted because the author (Wakefield) lied about his results. Ah....I see. I hadn't really followed it closely. Of course I had heard of the "think it could cause autism" thing, but I hadn't done a lot of research. We generally vaccinate. MMR & Varicella are two that I have delayed getting the last dose of because of reactions when my younger son got them the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Ah....I see. I hadn't really followed it closely. Of course I had heard of the "think it could cause autism" thing, but I hadn't done a lot of research. We generally vaccinate. MMR & Varicella are two that I have delayed getting the last dose of because of reactions when my younger son got them the first time. I got a little carried away. Many people believe he faked the data, but that's not actually why the study was retracted. Daily Kos About a decade ago, Wakefield published a study of autistic children developing symptoms shortly after being vaccinated with the MMR vaccine, and linked this with irritated intestinal tracts. This study was heavily criticized, and eventually most of the authors retracted the conclusion that autism was associated with vaccinations. Moreover, there are allegations Wakefield faked his data, and had serious conflicts of interest. By the time most of this came to light, it was too late, and the modern anti-vaccination movement was born. In its wake are sick children. The General Medical Council didn't consider whether Wakefield's claims were correct or not, only his behavior & methods in conducting the research in which his claim originates. But let's be clear. Wakefield's conclusions have been litigated in court, and reviewed by other medical professionals who've found his claims to be totally wrong. So why did the General Medical Council find Wakefield acted dishonestly and irresponsibly? From the report: Without ethical approval or the proper qualifications, Dr. Wakefield performed procedures such as spinal taps on the children in the study, which were found to be against their best clinical interests. Wakefield gathered blood samples for his study by paying children £5 at his son's birthday party. GMC panel chairman Dr. Surendra Kumar said Wakefield acted with "callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer" in his study. Kumar also said Dr. Wakefield should have disclosed the fact he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR. Also, while Wakefield was making claims about the MMR Vaccine, he had filed for a patent on a "safer" vaccine that he was hoping to sell after he discredited the MMR vaccine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I soooo don't want to get into this debate, so I'll just say that there are two sides to every story. After Wakefied's study was published, the gov't made it clear to all 13 authors that their choices were (1) retract or (2) be disbarred. Most retracted in order to keep their careers. Wakefied and 2 others did not. They have been hounded, vilified, smeared, sued and prosecuted. It bears remembering that a government's "vested interest" in promoting vaccines as perfectly safe, regardless of evidence, is just as strong as Wakefield's so-called vested interest in discrediting them. Half of the members of the CDC committee which recommends which vaccines should be mandatory in this country have close financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, yet few people are complaining about that particular "conflict of interest." Jackie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenn in Mo Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Surely this study of 12 children is not the only study done on this....right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I soooo don't want to get into this debate, so I'll just say that there are two sides to every story. After Wakefied's study was published, the gov't made it clear to all 13 authors that their choices were (1) retract or (2) be disbarred. Most retracted in order to keep their careers. Wakefied and 2 others did not. They have been hounded, vilified, smeared, sued and prosecuted. It bears remembering that a government's "vested interest" in promoting vaccines as perfectly safe, regardless of evidence, is just as strong as Wakefield's so-called vested interest in discrediting them. Do you have a source for this? Other than Wakefield? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Surely this study of 12 children is not the only study done on this....right? There have been numerous studies since. They don't show any association between vaccines and autism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grace'smom Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I soooo don't want to get into this debate, so I'll just say that there are two sides to every story. After Wakefied's study was published, the gov't made it clear to all 13 authors that their choices were (1) retract or (2) be disbarred. Most retracted in order to keep their careers. Wakefied and 2 others did not. They have been hounded, vilified, smeared, sued and prosecuted. It bears remembering that a government's "vested interest" in promoting vaccines as perfectly safe, regardless of evidence, is just as strong as Wakefield's so-called vested interest in discrediting them. Half of the members of the CDC committee which recommends which vaccines should be mandatory in this country have close financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, yet few people are complaining about that particular "conflict of interest." Jackie I have no real opinion regarding this subject but your statement is interesting to me. Why would he continue to defend his research work if it were only motivated by money. Wouldn't he get tired of all the flack he was getting and just stop if he truly didn't believe what he is saying? Whether the vaccine link is true or not I do not know. But your post is very intriguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delaney Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I just don't know what to think about these things because I feel like we really don't get the real information. I vaccinate on the regular schedule and believe that it is not the vaccine that "causes" autism but there is some link there they haven't discovered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) I have never believed in a relationship between MMR and autism. I do think they should explore whether the sheer, overwhelming number of vaccines in the first 5 years of life is safe. They give kids about 38 shots now compared to the 11 I received when I was a child. I cannot help but think that there could be some relationship to the overwhelming number of shots given in the first 5 years of life and food allergies, asthma, and possibly autism:) Of course, I also think there could be other factors as well, but I do not believe that the safety of the current vaccine schedule has ever been adequately proven or studied for that matter:( I just think they aught to consider slowing down the vaccine schedule and consider the actual risk of disease to the child. Right now I think they have the philosophy of let's give them all the shots we can give them now since we may never see the child again. For example I think Dr. Sear's has a good idea of a slowed down vaccination schedule. For example, IMHO the hepatitis B vaccine is a perfect example of a vaccine that can safely wait until a child is a late teenager unless the child is at particular risk. Most children are not at risk for hepatitis B from what I understand. Plus, the vaccine is not effective 20% of the time. So why subject 2 week old infants to hepatitis B vaccine if they are not at risk IMHO? To top it all off, I read of one research article on medscape showing a possible relationship between the hepatitis B vaccine and peanut allergies!!! Granted this is one research article, but my ds's allergist did not dispute my opinion that the sheer number of vaccines given to children may be related to food allergies in some cases:001_huh:. http://www.usnews.com/health/family-health/articles/2008/12/11/vaccines-get-new-scrutiny.html http://www.usnews.com/health/family-health/articles/2008/12/11/a-government-call-for-vaccine-research.html Just for the record I am not ant-vax since I believe that many are important for not only the health of the child but also for others such as the DPT shot, and MMR shot. I am not against splitting up the DPT and MMR shots though which should be an option so that parents can opt to get one shot per visit. My 2 cents:) Edited February 2, 2010 by priscilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 Wouldn't he get tired of all the flack he was getting and just stop if he truly didn't believe what he is saying? Well, yeah, maybe, but just because someone believes something and is willing to fight for it doesn't mean he is correct. Christine Maggiore is the perfect example of this. She was adamant that HIV does not cause AIDS and lead an AIDS-denialism movement. She (and her three-year-old daughter) both died of AIDS-related illnesses. Of course, her followers will claim that neither of the illnesses were AIDS-related. That being said, whether Wakefield believes there is a link between vaccines and autism, his study was shoddy, and that has been known basically from the get-go. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansmama Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 There have been numerous studies since. They don't show any association between vaccines and autism. Unfortunately, the majority of those studies were conducted by the vaccine co's themselves. As for thimerasol (mercury preservative) that was pulled from vaccines in 2001: they never recalled or pulled vaccines still containing mercury that were made prior to that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 As for thimerasol (mercury preservative) that was pulled from vaccines in 2001: they never recalled or pulled vaccines still containing mercury that were made prior to that year. A very interesting book called Vaccinated, by Paul Offit, talks about thimerosol and how it was confused with another type of mercury when determining toxicity levels. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokotg Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 That is funny. My doctor was just telling me the other day that they took the mercury out of the MMR vaccine in 2001 or so. Would that maybe explain why the paper no longer holds true? The MMR is a live vaccine and has never had mercury in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 That is funny. My doctor was just telling me the other day that they took the mercury out of the MMR vaccine in 2001 or so. Would that maybe explain why the paper no longer holds true? No. They don't retract papers for obsolete information. They retract them because the methodology is sloppy and because the results can't be replicated both of which were the case here. Essentially, the results were useless to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 A very interesting book called Vaccinated, by Paul Offit, talks about thimerosol and how it was confused with another type of mercury when determining toxicity levels. Tara Right. Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, not methylmercury and it's methylmercury that has so many health concerns tied to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Marple Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) After Wakefied's study was published, the gov't made it clear to all 13 authors that their choices were (1) retract or (2) be disbarred. What would they be disbarred from? They are research scientists, not attorneys. And the federal government doesn't license physicians, states do. And I don't know of any licensing required for scientists (maybe there is, but I'm just not aware of it) - so just what would they 'lose' by being "disbarred"? The statement has me confused - the logistics of it would seem to make it difficult to implement #2. Edited February 3, 2010 by CynthiaOK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansmama Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 A very interesting book called Vaccinated, by Paul Offit, talks about thimerosol and how it was confused with another type of mercury when determining toxicity levels. Tara Is any type of mercury safe in high doses administered intermittenly? A single vaccine containing thimerosol exceeds recommended safety levels given by even the FDA. I've also read a piece written by Dr. Bob Sears explaining that although we've removed the mercury, we still haven't eliminated the aluminum, which is also known to damage the nervous system, especially in underdeveloped/developing systems. It's a tough subject because their are real risks to every vaccinated, partially-vaccinated, and un-vaccinated child. Every parent needs to read the insert that lists every chemical in each vaccine and decide for themselves what they are/aren't comfortable having administered to their child. As for the herd effect, if you choose to stay current on the vaccination schedule because you believe the vaccine's are effective and safe, then the only real risk is to those children who are not vaccinated, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 Is any type of mercury safe in high doses administered intermittenly? A single vaccine containing thimerosol exceeds recommended safety levels given by even the FDA. For the other type of mercury, the type not used in vaccines. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 As for the herd effect, if you choose to stay current on the vaccination schedule because you believe the vaccine's are effective and safe, then the only real risk is to those children who are not vaccinated, right? Actually I do not believe that is always true. For example, the pertussis or whooping cough vaccine only lasts so long and anyone exposed to a child with whooping cough, which can be devastating, who has not had a booster in 3 years, may need one. The regular booster schedule may not protect you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptwoman Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I have never believed in a relationship between MMR and autism. I do think they should explore whether the sheer, overwhelming number of vaccines in the first 5 years of life is safe. They give kids about 38 shots now compared to the 11 I received when I was a child. I cannot help but think that there could be some relationship to the overwhelming number of shots given in the first 5 years of life and food allergies, asthma, and possibly autism:) Of course, I also think there could be other factors as well, but I do not believe that the safety of the current vaccine schedule has ever been adequately proven or studied for that matter:( I just think they aught to consider slowing down the vaccine schedule and consider the actual risk of disease to the child. Right now I think they have the philosophy of let's give them all the shots we can give them now since we may never see the child again. That's where I sit on the matter too. I'm greatly concerned by the assult to a fragile immune system by so many vaccinations in such short time. Although I disagree with your take on HepB, it's a very contagious illness transmittable through bodily fluids and kids will have the potential to be in contact with other kids blood or body fluids from the time they are around other kids (spit, blood from a fall on a playing feild etc) I don't disagree that it doesn't need to be given as a very young infant, but much beyond 4 years old would make me wary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Here's a newsflash for the posters on this thread who remain convinced that there has been some sort of modern explosion of autism spectrum disorder cases: No there hasn't. There has been an explosion of diagnoses (correct and incorrect). Do you know what Aspergers was called in the 60s and prior? Retarded. Short Bus Rider. Institutionalized. In the 70s? Retarded. Weird. Smarty pants. The kid who got beat up. Do you know why there is an "explosion" of Aspergers cases in Silicon Valley? It isn't what is in the water, it's what's in the sperm. There are a lot of Aspie computer programmers. They had kids. Genetics tend to do their thing. Only now, everyone is FREAKED, and they've stopped vaxing their kids, and so there has been a surge of communicable childhood diseases in that area. All because no one could take a step back and say "gee, when an Aspie marries and Aspie, maybe they'll produce... an ASPIE". (yes, there have been studies done on this, no I'm not looking them up - I'm tired). ASD - it's in the wiring folks, not the needles. asta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 I'm greatly concerned by the assult to a fragile immune system by so many vaccinations in such short time. When I mentioned this once to an immunologist, she sighed and said to me, "Do you have any idea how many viruses the immune system encounters naturally and is in the process of fighting off all the time? Hundreds. Thousands. Vaccines are not a concentrated assault on the immune system." Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I already knew that this was a discredited study but until this week, I didn't know about the unethical nature of it. Can you imagine doing medical experiments on your kid's birthday party attendees? It boggles the mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 When I mentioned this once to an immunologist, she sighed and said to me, "Do you have any idea how many viruses the immune system encounters naturally and is in the process of fighting off all the time? Hundreds. Thousands. Vaccines are not a concentrated assault on the immune system." Tara That's something I've never understood. Vaccines do nothing but provoke an immune response. They just wander in, pick a quiet corner to occupy and the body goes to work building a response just like it does all the time. You really can't get much more natural in terms of a medical procedure. It's basically the equivalent of standing a cardboard army up in front of a fortress to alarm into stationing men on the walls for defense. Real viruses in the real world are the equivalent of marching an army on the fortress with every intent of siege and eventual victory. When it comes to choosing the method that will cause the least stress and risk, I'll pick the cardboard army every time thank you very much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 *shrug* It's not that I disbelieve the Dr. but that I know that Big Pharma has tentacles in everything and I don't trust them, nor the government that lets them get away with so much and do so little because they're all in bed together. I know for a fact that they could have done some wonderful life changing things, but didn't because it wasn't a money maker like pumping out pills is. I don't trust big pharma. I don't trust big agribusiness and I don't trust the government to protect us from them. They're too busy taking their $. I don't do varicella and another one-I can't remember which off the top of my head. I had a Dr of pharmacology tell me to not get the varicella. I listen to him. He was a genius. I also hold off vaccines until the kids are older. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Quite right. And the misinformation leads to vaccination avoidance that threatens individual and public health. Bill[/quote :iagree: It is unfortunate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I soooo don't want to get into this debate, so I'll just say that there are two sides to every story. After Wakefied's study was published, the gov't made it clear to all 13 authors that their choices were (1) retract or (2) be disbarred. Most retracted in order to keep their careers. Wakefied and 2 others did not. They have been hounded, vilified, smeared, sued and prosecuted. It bears remembering that a government's "vested interest" in promoting vaccines as perfectly safe, regardless of evidence, is just as strong as Wakefield's so-called vested interest in discrediting them. Half of the members of the CDC committee which recommends which vaccines should be mandatory in this country have close financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, yet few people are complaining about that particular "conflict of interest." Jackie I would love to see studies to support this evidence you speak of. Afterall, I make my decisions based on scientific evidence. Do you have any to support your statements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Right. Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, not methylmercury and it's methylmercury that has so many health concerns tied to it. And to top it off, not only are they not the same kind of mercury but there are higher levels of methylmercury in a can of tuna than the levels of ethylmercury found in vaccines such as the seasonal flu and H1N1. This kind of thing is what irritates me about mis-information and scare tactics. Many people opt out of seasonal flu vaccines and have opted out of the H1N1 vaccine because of the "mercury" in them but they get much higher levels of the mercury that is known to cause harm in a can of tuna fish but most don't think twice about cracking open a can of tuna. I don't blame most of those people however. They are making their decisions as best they can with the information they have. I blame the people out there that publish articles and make reports on these things that use fear mongering techniques instead of the scientific evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 My reality: I totally, completely, 100% believe the parents who say they had a normally developing baby/child who changed dramatically, substantially and pervasively in the hours after the administration of a shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I LOVE how you worded this! Great explanation! That's something I've never understood. Vaccines do nothing but provoke an immune response. They just wander in, pick a quiet corner to occupy and the body goes to work building a response just like it does all the time. You really can't get much more natural in terms of a medical procedure. It's basically the equivalent of standing a cardboard army up in front of a fortress to alarm into stationing men on the walls for defense. Real viruses in the real world are the equivalent of marching an army on the fortress with every intent of siege and eventual victory. When it comes to choosing the method that will cause the least stress and risk, I'll pick the cardboard army every time thank you very much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smrtmama Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I don't know any families who delay or decline vaccines due to fear of autism. I do know several, myself included, who delay or decline based on other health concerns, with the complete support of our pediatricians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I don't know any families who delay or decline vaccines due to fear of autism. I do know several, myself included, who delay or decline based on other health concerns, with the complete support of our pediatricians. This is where we are. My daughter (8) is current on her vaccines because she has never had any reasons to delay. OTOH, my son (11) needs several of his including the MMR because he is a Leuekmia survivor so his vaccinations were delayed due to immunosuppression because of the chemotherapy. Like you, the delay was with complete support (in fact the recommendation) of his doctors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smrtmama Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 This is where we are. My daughter (8) is current on her vaccines because she has never had any reasons to delay. OTOH, my son (11) needs several of his including the MMR because he is a Leuekmia survivor so his vaccinations were delayed due to immunosuppression because of the chemotherapy. Like you, the delay was with complete support (in fact the recommendation) of his doctors. We delay vaccines until 2 and then do a selective course. However, for several years, regardless of what other vaccines he was getting, my oldest received the thimeresol-free flu shot due to the severity of his asthma and other respiratory problems. I think that autism has become the strawman used to distract from reasonable arguments in favor of delaying, declining, or simply giving fewer vaccines at a time. It's easy to dismiss everyone who does that as being irrationally paranoid over autism. In my case, however, we had serious reason to believe (and our host of care providers agree) that the barrage of vaccines at the 6 month visit triggered my oldest's immunity issues -- asthma, life-threatening food allergy, bizarre eczema manifestations of a type usually found in elderly adults. I know there is research being done into the possible relation between the volume and frequency of vaccines (not any specific vaccine) and the increased rate of allergies. One can believe in the importance of certain vaccines at certain times, and in avoiding other vaccines at other times, without being ignorant of science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 One can believe in the importance of certain vaccines at certain times, and in avoiding other vaccines at other times, without being ignorant of science. THANK YOU! There are still side effects. There are still reactions. There are still risks. In the autism connection, they may not be responsible for all cases, but there are still vaccine related cases (I've known one and the relation was clear cut). In our case, we had a child nearly die from her reaction. We did our research and we have had dr's support our decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 My reality: I totally, completely, 100% believe the parents who say they had a normally developing baby/child who changed dramatically, substantially and pervasively in the hours after the administration of a shot. Ditto here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 In our case, we had a child nearly die from her reaction. We did our research and we have had dr's support our decisions. And that is completely different than running around with your arms in the air screaming, "That study by Andrew Wakefield proved vaccines caused autism! Even though it has been discredited by science, I still believe it!!!" There are people who do this. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 We delay vaccines until 2 and then do a selective course. However, for several years, regardless of what other vaccines he was getting, my oldest received the thimeresol-free flu shot due to the severity of his asthma and other respiratory problems. I think that autism has become the strawman used to distract from reasonable arguments in favor of delaying, declining, or simply giving fewer vaccines at a time. It's easy to dismiss everyone who does that as being irrationally paranoid over autism. In my case, however, we had serious reason to believe (and our host of care providers agree) that the barrage of vaccines at the 6 month visit triggered my oldest's immunity issues -- asthma, life-threatening food allergy, bizarre eczema manifestations of a type usually found in elderly adults. I know there is research being done into the possible relation between the volume and frequency of vaccines (not any specific vaccine) and the increased rate of allergies. One can believe in the importance of certain vaccines at certain times, and in avoiding other vaccines at other times, without being ignorant of science. :iagree::iagree: My son has severe food allergies including peanuts, tree nuts, mango and shellfish. I cannot help but believe that his immune system over-reacted so to speak to the barrage of vaccines he received as an infant:glare: My son's allergist does not disagree with me either:001_huh:. Again I am not anti-vax, I am just thinking a slowed down schedule and an examination of the real risk of disease as in the case of hepatitis B is called for and should be studied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 When I mentioned this once to an immunologist, she sighed and said to me, "Do you have any idea how many viruses the immune system encounters naturally and is in the process of fighting off all the time? Hundreds. Thousands. Vaccines are not a concentrated assault on the immune system." Tara Yes but has it ever been proven as safe to give an infant up to 8 shots in one day? I really think it would be more prudent to give one per visit and in some cases wait till the child is older base on real risk instead of basing the vaccines schedule on the assumption that they will never have a chance to immunize a child again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FO4UR Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I think that autism has become the strawman used to distract from reasonable arguments in favor of delaying, declining, or simply giving fewer vaccines at a time. It's easy to dismiss everyone who does that as being irrationally paranoid over autism. In my case, however, we had serious reason to believe (and our host of care providers agree) that the barrage of vaccines at the 6 month visit triggered my oldest's immunity issues -- asthma, life-threatening food allergy, bizarre eczema manifestations of a type usually found in elderly adults. I know there is research being done into the possible relation between the volume and frequency of vaccines (not any specific vaccine) and the increased rate of allergies. One can believe in the importance of certain vaccines at certain times, and in avoiding other vaccines at other times, without being ignorant of science. :iagree: We still have too many unknown factors with vaccines. As for my family...as anecdotal evidence for my own mind...my child who is fully vaxed has *extreme* asthma/allergies/eczema. My children who are NOT fully vaxed (we stopped after ds6's 1st severe reaction...which was just after "catching up" with his vaxes:glare:) show ZERO signs of having the same problems with asthma/allergies/eczema. Yeah - this is not proof for discreditting vaxes as a whole...but it SHOULD cause their Dr. to think a little deeper before vaxing MY dc. In the grand scheme of things, it's much easier for my dc to avoid dyptheria than to avoid peanuts. Risk. The visual of the cardboard army is cute, but it leaves out the possibility of a bad reaction to "cardboard"...since this is an imaginary illustration we can go there.:lol: There ARE risks with ANY medical procedure/treatment. One idiot practicing bad science is not reason to put our blinders back on and ignore those risks. American parents want honesty, a sober look at risks vs benefits. I don't think vaxes are a bad thing, generally speaking. fwiw. I proceed cautiously...weighing the risk of my dc getting the chicken pox vs the vax....measles vs the vax..... Not to mention, I've had the Rubella booster 3x and it has never "stuck." So, it's not as if the vaccine itself actually performs perfectly against the enemy invader...risk vs benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 THANK YOU! There are still side effects. There are still reactions. There are still risks. In the autism connection, they may not be responsible for all cases, but there are still vaccine related cases (I've known one and the relation was clear cut). In our case, we had a child nearly die from her reaction. We did our research and we have had dr's support our decisions. I doubt this is the one you are referring to, but the case that was "won" in the vaccine court was one in which a child had a pre-existing (but at the time undiagnosed) mitochondrial disorder which a vaccine then "set into motion" a series of events with a "bundle" if you will of symptoms and behaviors that coincide with what most people would call "autism". (Kind of how scientists are speculating that many people carry the gene for MS, but most people never have it "activated" by severe stress or injury) This is a big problem that is being faced (or not) right now. There is no such thing as "autism" or "aspergers". There are "autism spectrum disorders". They onset from birth to around 3 years of age. More or less. They comprise some or all of a long list of behaviors. Some of the children have mild to severe somatic health issues accompanying their ASD, some do not. Some have serious learning disabilities, some do not. This is why the entire concept of CURE AUTISM NOW is so absurd: one might as well say CURE GENETIC DIVERSIFICATION NOW. The most recent research into ASD is finding exactly what I mentioned before: it is a wiring issue. As in, how the brain is wired. And, since everyone's brain is slightly different, everyone's "version" of ASD is also different. Ergo, kinks, deletions, additions to one's DNA that may never have shown their pretty little faces along the family line, DO show up in an ASD wired brain, and, as a result, the person's body. What researchers are trying to figure out is, why is the brain rewiring itself in this manner? Why is it moving away from, essentially, "being a generalist" towards "being a specialist"? It doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Only time will tell on this one. a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 but there are still vaccine related cases (I've known one and the relation was clear cut). How do you know this? A temporal association doesn't prove causation. Autism becomes apparent in the first years of life, a time when kids happen to be receiving vaccines. Millions of doses of vaccines are given in the first 2 years, and you are bound to see symptoms occur soon after a shot, just by chance. In Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure., Paul Offit tells this story: …it’s hard to make a statistical argument, or an epidemiological argument, to a parent who’s seen something that’s very emotional. There’s a story that I tell, because I think it’s a powerful one. My wife is a privately practicing pediatrician in the suburbs. And she was in the office one day and there was a four-month-old sitting on her mother’s lap. And my wife was drawing a vaccine into a syringe that she was about to give this child. Well, while she was drawing the vaccine into a syringe the child had a seizure, and actually went on to have a permanent seizure disorder—epilepsy. And there had been a family history of epilepsy, so she was certainly at risk for that. If my wife had given that vaccine five minutes earlier, I think there’s no amount of statistical data in the world that would have convinced that mother that anything other than the vaccine caused the seizure, because I think those sort of emotional events are very hard to argue against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 My reality: I totally, completely, 100% believe the parents who say they had a normally developing baby/child who changed dramatically, substantially and pervasively in the hours after the administration of a shot. I believe that they believe that. I don't think they are making it up. But when researchers look at videotapes of these kids they saw evidence of autism before they ever received the MMR. Timing of development of autism Autism symptoms are present before 1 year of age Perhaps the best data examining when symptoms of autism are first evident are the "home-movie studies." These studies took advantage of the fact that many parents take movies of their children during their first birthday (before they have received the MMR vaccine). Home movies from children who were eventually diagnosed with autism and those who were not diagnosed with autism were shown to blinded neurodevelopmental specialists. Investigators were, with a very high degree of accuracy, able to separate autistic from non-autistic children at 1 year of age.(10-14) These studies found that subtle symptoms of autism are present earlier than some parents had suspected, and that receipt of the MMR vaccine did not precede the first symptoms of autism. Autism symptoms are present before 4 months of age Other investigators extended the home-movie studies of 1-year-old children to include videotapes of children taken at 2-3 months of age. Using a sophisticated movement analysis, videos from children eventually diagnosed with autism or not diagnosed with autism were coded and evaluated for their capacity to predict autism. Children who were eventually diagnosed with autism were predicted from movies taken in early infancy.(15) This study supported the hypothesis that very subtle symptoms of autism are present in early infancy and argue strongly against vaccines as a cause of autism. Evidence that autism occurs in utero Toxic or viral insults in utero as well as certain central nervous system disorders are associated with an increase in the incidence of autism. For example, children exposed to thalidomide during the first or early second trimester were found to have an increased incidence of autism.(16) However, autism occurred in children with ear, but not arm or leg, abnormalities. Because arms and legs develop after 24 days gestation, the risk period for autism following receipt of thalidomide must be before 24 days gestation. In support of this finding, Rodier and colleagues(17) found evidence for structural brainstem abnormalities in children with autism. These abnormalities could only have occurred during brainstem development in utero. Similarly, children with congenital rubella syndrome are at increased risk for development of autism.(18-24) Risk is associated with exposure to rubella prenatally, but not postnatally. Finally, children with fragile X syndrome or tuberous sclerosis are also at increased risk of developing autism. Taken together, these findings indicate that autism is likely due to abnormalities of the central nervous system that occur in utero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.