Benjamin Franklin on Vaccines

[flyingiguana]

https://medium.com/the-archipelago/im-autistic-and-believe-me-its-a-lot-better-than-measles-78cb039f4bea

 

"I’m Autistic, And Believe Me, It’s A Lot Better Than Measles

 

Vaccines don’t cause autism. But even if they did, is being like me really a fate worse than death?"

 

Kind of an interesting take on the current debate

 

[Tanaqui]

Not that interesting when you realize there are people who will literally say, word-for-word, that they'd rather their child be dead than autistic. (I've witnessed this firsthand, or I wouldn't want to believe it myself!)

[DesertBlossom]

https://medium.com/the-archipelago/im-autistic-and-believe-me-its-a-lot-better-than-measles-78cb039f4bea

 

"I’m Autistic, And Believe Me, It’s A Lot Better Than Measles

 

Vaccines don’t cause autism. But even if they did, is being like me really a fate worse than death?"

 

Kind of an interesting take on the current debate

Remember that autism is a spectrum disorder. The author of this article is obviously very high functioning. There are some children with autism who are non-verbal and who have very serious disabilities. To use this blog post to say that autism isn't a big deal isn't very honest either.

[Tanaqui]

Remember that autism is a spectrum disorder. The author of this article is obviously very high functioning.

 

That's a line often used to discredit autistic advocates. However, when examined, you find the term "high functioning" is not used very consistently between individuals, and often not used consistently on any particular individual.

 

As an example, Amelia (formerly Amanda) Baggs, for example, is called "high functioning" when she communicates, despite being unable to live independently, speak verbally, or avoid autistic catatonia.  Additionally, in fact, she's pointed out in the past that she's been labelled as more high functioning at those times when she is coping least well, simply because she's been superficially acting more NT.

 

Or, how about another one. Temple Grandin (who can be kinda annoying) is on record as saying that we need to value high functioning autistics (and put up with low functioning ones for that end game) because they do things NTs can't. Putting aside all the ways we can - and probably should - pick apart that attitude, the fact is that, having carefully read her memoirs, I'm fairly convinced that most people upon encountering a child like she was would automatically lump her into "low functioning" and let it go at that. They probably would've done it back then, except she had some privileges a lot of children simply don't have.

 

If you google "the problem with functioning labels" you will find a large number of essays on this very subject. Many of them are written by people who, if you met them on the street, you would probably arbitrarily consider "low functioning". Many are written by people who genuinely have trouble functioning in the world. Quite a few are written by parents of children who have varying abilities to function. But by the mere fact that they're posted on the internet, people tend to have a knee-jerk response which runs "this person can communicate, and doesn't feel miserable every day for being autistic, obviously they're very high functioning".

 

That's not a very helpful attitude, not for people who "are obviously high functioning" and not for people who aren't, and not for people whose functioning level reflects much more on the observer than on themselves.

 

Finally: I saw nothing in that essay that stated "autism is really not a big deal". She states that autism is not an "unparalleled tragedy" and it's not worse than death by measles. Fair enough. There's a long line - a spectrum, if you will - between "unparalleled tragedy" and "not a big deal". She also says that Autism Speaks is evil, and gives examples. If you want more examples of how Autism Speaks is awful, just go to google. Set aside a few hours first.

[JumpyTheFrog]

That paper Jasper posted said that tattoo ink has mercury. Anyone who avoids vaccines with mercury should investigate that if they want to be consistent.

[flyingiguana]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/

 

"Your Brain Is Primed To Reach False Conclusions

By Christie Aschwanden

Paul Offit likes to tell a story about how his wife, pediatrician Bonnie Offit, was about to give a child a vaccination when the kid was struck by a seizure. Had she given the injection a minute sooner, Paul Offit says, it would surely have appeared as though the vaccine had caused the seizure and probably no study in the world would have convinced the parent otherwise. (The Offits have such studies at the ready — Paul is the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of “Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All.â€) Indeed, famous anti-vaxxer Jenny McCarthy has said her son’s autism and seizures are linked to “so many shots†because vaccinations preceded his symptoms.

But, as Offit’s story suggests, the fact that a child became sick after a vaccine is not strong evidence that the immunization was to blame. Psychologists have a name for the cognitive bias that makes us prone to assigning a causal relationship to two events simply because they happened one after the other: the “illusion of causality.†A study recently published in the British Journal of Psychology investigates how this illusion influences the way we process new information. Its finding: Causal illusions don’t just cement erroneous ideas in the mind; they can also prevent new information from correcting them."

[flyingiguana]

Remember that autism is a spectrum disorder. The author of this article is obviously very high functioning. There are some children with autism who are non-verbal and who have very serious disabilities. To use this blog post to say that autism isn't a big deal isn't very honest either.

 

I'd like to be able to post someone's perception of the debate without being accused of being dishonest.

 

Perhaps it was just poor wording?

 

[Tanaqui]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/

 

"Your Brain Is Primed To Reach False Conclusions

By Christie Aschwanden

Paul Offit likes to tell a story about how his wife, pediatrician Bonnie Offit, was about to give a child a vaccination when the kid was struck by a seizure. Had she given the injection a minute sooner, Paul Offit says, it would surely have appeared as though the vaccine had caused the seizure and probably no study in the world would have convinced the parent otherwise. (The Offits have such studies at the ready — Paul is the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of “Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All.â€) Indeed, famous anti-vaxxer Jenny McCarthy has said her son’s autism and seizures are linked to “so many shots†because vaccinations preceded his symptoms.

But, as Offit’s story suggests, the fact that a child became sick after a vaccine is not strong evidence that the immunization was to blame. Psychologists have a name for the cognitive bias that makes us prone to assigning a causal relationship to two events simply because they happened one after the other: the “illusion of causality.†A study recently published in the British Journal of Psychology investigates how this illusion influences the way we process new information. Its finding: Causal illusions don’t just cement erroneous ideas in the mind; they can also prevent new information from correcting them."

 

Here's another example that's more common than seizures:

 

You go out to eat dinner. Unbeknownst to you, you have contracted a gastrointestinal illness. After dinner, you feel queasy and throw up. You assume the dinner caused it, or maybe, if you're the only one vomiting, you realize you were already sick.

 

Regardless, next time you smell that particular sort of food, you feel queasy again.

 

We evolved like this because creatures that make a connection between "this happened, and then a bad thing occurred" live a heck of a lot longer than those that don't. This doesn't make those connections valid, it makes us pattern-seeking monsters.

 

 

[Laura Corin]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/

 

"Your Brain Is Primed To Reach False Conclusions

By Christie Aschwanden

Paul Offit likes to tell a story about how his wife, pediatrician Bonnie Offit, was about to give a child a vaccination when the kid was struck by a seizure. Had she given the injection a minute sooner, Paul Offit says, it would surely have appeared as though the vaccine had caused the seizure and probably no study in the world would have convinced the parent otherwise. 

 

This death was initially thought by some to be connected to an HPV jab.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[mamajag]

You all can and should do your own research.  I got my information from the vaccine info sheet that the ped gave me before attempting to force multiple vaxes on my kids at their first US checkup (ages 13mos and 16mos).  It was backed up by web research I did around that time and since then.

 

I think usually the question on parents' minds (if they give it any thought) is not "should I vaccinate" but "which vaccines and when for my individual child?"  I don't understand why so many people have difficulty accepting this as a rational consideration.

 

If you read the inserts on any given medications chances are you'd be afraid of it. Virtually all of them have clauses about the potential for serious harm. Having been one of the patients responsible for the "possible psychotic episode" warning in the Topamax literature, it means just what it said...very rare and it's unknown whether the drug in question is the cause.

[flyingiguana]

Here's another example that's more common than seizures:

 

You go out to eat dinner. Unbeknownst to you, you have contracted a gastrointestinal illness. After dinner, you feel queasy and throw up. You assume the dinner caused it, or maybe, if you're the only one vomiting, you realize you were already sick.

 

Regardless, next time you smell that particular sort of food, you feel queasy again.

 

We evolved like this because creatures that make a connection between "this happened, and then a bad thing occurred" live a heck of a lot longer than those that don't. This doesn't make those connections valid, it makes us pattern-seeking monsters.

 

 

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/readers-wildlife-photos-and-a-biology-lesson/blue-jay-eating-monarch/

http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/04/18/2013/the-case-of-the-barfing-blue-jay.html

 

The blue jay eating a monarch for the first time is a classic.

 

 

[SKL]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/

 

"Your Brain Is Primed To Reach False Conclusions

By Christie Aschwanden

Paul Offit likes to tell a story about how his wife, pediatrician Bonnie Offit, was about to give a child a vaccination when the kid was struck by a seizure. Had she given the injection a minute sooner, Paul Offit says, it would surely have appeared as though the vaccine had caused the seizure and probably no study in the world would have convinced the parent otherwise. (The Offits have such studies at the ready — Paul is the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of “Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All.â€) Indeed, famous anti-vaxxer Jenny McCarthy has said her son’s autism and seizures are linked to “so many shots†because vaccinations preceded his symptoms.

But, as Offit’s story suggests, the fact that a child became sick after a vaccine is not strong evidence that the immunization was to blame. Psychologists have a name for the cognitive bias that makes us prone to assigning a causal relationship to two events simply because they happened one after the other: the “illusion of causality.†A study recently published in the British Journal of Psychology investigates how this illusion influences the way we process new information. Its finding: Causal illusions don’t just cement erroneous ideas in the mind; they can also prevent new information from correcting them."

 

OK but the number of kids who had problems after certain vaxes is not small enough to make "coincidence" plausible in my view.

[JeanM]

This is a great website for showing the dangers of assuming that correlation means causation.

 

http://www.tylervigen.com/

 

[EmseB]

OK but the number of kids who had problems after certain vaxes is not small enough to make "coincidence" plausible in my view.

 

Why not?  Assuming that in the United States and elsewhere over 90% of the population is getting vaccinated that's an awful lot of kids who get colds, have seizures, get fevers, etc, etc.  Compounding that fact is that the childhood vaccine schedule coincides with about the time developmentally that kids start showing signs of different spectrum disorders and delays, correlation seems much more highly plausible than causation, especially if causation has been studied extensively without finding a link.

[Tanaqui]

OK but the number of kids who had problems after certain vaxes is not small enough to make "coincidence" plausible in my view.

 

What number are we talking about? You can give a raw number (this many in that many years) or a percentage, but please cite it.

 

Also: XKCD on correlation and causation.

 

[JeanM]

OK but the number of kids who had problems after certain vaxes is not small enough to make "coincidence" plausible in my view.

 

Maybe you need to clarify what you mean by "problems." There are known "problems" after certain vaxes, like some kids will have a fever and a small percentage will have an allergic reaction. That is a different discussion from the relation between autism and vaccinations.

[Tanaqui]

This is a great website for showing the dangers of assuming that correlation means causation.

 

http://www.tylervigen.com/

 

I had no idea so many people died every year by becoming tangled in their bedsheets. Is that a real statistic?

 

[SKL]

Why not?  Assuming that in the United States and elsewhere over 90% of the population is getting vaccinated that's an awful lot of kids who get colds, have seizures, get fevers, etc, etc.  Compounding that fact is that the childhood vaccine schedule coincides with about the time developmentally that kids start showing signs of different spectrum disorders and delays, correlation seems much more highly plausible than causation, especially if causation has been studied extensively without finding a link.

 

See, to me, the bolded is why I think they ought to postpone vaxes that aren't urgent until later.  Some doctors believe that would make them safer.  We err to the ridiculously safe extreme for everything else.

 

[Tanaqui]

See, to me, the bolded is why I think they ought to postpone vaxes that aren't urgent until later.  Some doctors believe that would make them safer.  We err to the ridiculously safe extreme for everything else.

 

Which doctors? Based on what evidence?

 

[SKL]

Like I said before, everyone here is capable of doing their own research and coming to their own conclusions on this topic.  I did mine years ago and I have no intention of revisiting it, as my kids have had their vaxes.  I'm not trying to tell other parents what to do.  I just think parents should be given full information and free choice.

 

But I will say it again:  nobody has been able to explain to me why 12-15mos is the age at which babies must be bombarded with certain vaccines (especially all at the same time).  The only explanation I've ever seen is that parents are more likely to show up for the well visit at that age than at a later age.  That's not good enough for me.

[albeto.]

 

 

Like I said before, everyone here is capable of doing their own research and coming to their own conclusions on this topic.  I did mine years ago and I have no intention of revisiting it, as my kids have had their vaxes.  I'm not trying to tell other parents what to do.  I just think parents should be given full information and free choice.
 
But I will say it again:  nobody has been able to explain to me why 12-15mos is the age at which babies must be bombarded with certain vaccines (especially all at the same time).  The only explanation I've ever seen is that parents are more likely to show up for the well visit at that age than at a later age.  That's not good enough for me.

When you make statements of fact, it's generally expected that you can provide support for these facts. It appears as if you're just throwing out comments without regard to any accuracy when you do ignore questions like this. I wonder if you're aware of that.

The explanation about the scheduling has been offered, in this thread even. By me at least, so you've not been ignored. Perhaps you just don't understand them? I don't recall any follow-up, but if you asked and people missed it, you might consider asking again.

[EmseB]

See, to me, the bolded is why I think they ought to postpone vaxes that aren't urgent until later.  Some doctors believe that would make them safer.  We err to the ridiculously safe extreme for everything else.

 

 

This makes no sense.  Which vaccines aren't urgent?  Why do you think the current schedule isn't erring to the "ridiculously safe extreme" already based on the prevalence of disease, the rate of death for infants and toddlers, and the risk of the vaccine?  And if there's no causation for vaccine to ASD, then why should they be postponed because the diagnoses happen to come at the same age that kids are getting some of their shots?

 

It would be helpful if you could cite some kind of evidence or reasoning for your assertions.

[EmseB]

Like I said before, everyone here is capable of doing their own research and coming to their own conclusions on this topic.  I did mine years ago and I have no intention of revisiting it, as my kids have had their vaxes.  I'm not trying to tell other parents what to do.  I just think parents should be given full information and free choice.

 

But I will say it again:  nobody has been able to explain to me why 12-15mos is the age at which babies must be bombarded with certain vaccines (especially all at the same time).  The only explanation I've ever seen is that parents are more likely to show up for the well visit at that age than at a later age.  That's not good enough for me.

 

It's because babies at that age are particularly vulnerable to the diseases in question.  Babies die from respiratory diseases that are simply annoying to adults or 5 year olds.  Babies can get the MMR as young as 9 months, but they don't give it then because passive immunity may still be in play.  So they wait until 12 and 15 months.  Pertussis, Hib, MM&R, etc...all of those things will put someone under 2 into the hospital much more readily than a healthy kid or adult.

 

There are other reasons that have already been talked about in this thread, but the fact you think there's no explanation for when kids get vaccinated makes me think that you didn't actually research very thoroughly and just sort of have some kind of feeling that babies getting shots is bad.

[SKL]

It would be helpful if you could cite some kind of evidence or reasoning for your assertions.

 

Why bother, when it isn't going to be heard objectively and isn't going to change a single mind?  It's all out there.  I've read and read and seen so much over the years, going all the way back to the time when my kid sister was vaccine injured in 1984.  Nobody here really wants to hear it, and I'm supposed to be working.

 

[TranquilMind]

From 2nd linked site-

 

However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury.

 

As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000).

 

So their science got it wrong the first time around. And they had to adjust what they were doing???

 

Hmmm... just too bad if it was your own precious baby that, that (overload) happened to. I wonder how understanding you all would be then?

Well, then, you are supposed to understand that sacrificing your kid on bad information and against your gut reaction is magically and automatically good for the "herd", and that you should not be trusted to independently make health decisions for your own kids.  (Except if your kid wants to have an abortion, in which case it is suddenly, "her body-her choice".) 

[EmseB]

Why bother, when it isn't going to be heard objectively and isn't going to change a single mind?  It's all out there.  I've read and read and seen so much over the years, going all the way back to the time when my kid sister was vaccine injured in 1984.  Nobody here really wants to hear it, and I'm supposed to be working.

 

 

I guess, then, I don't understand coming into a discussion on vaccines if you don't actually want to put any information out about vaccines but would rather just throw baseless assertions into the ether and then claim you don't want to engage when people respond to them.  This is a discussion board, right?

[SKL]

I guess, then, I don't understand coming into a discussion on vaccines if you don't actually want to put any information out about vaccines but would rather just throw baseless assertions into the ether and then claim you don't want to engage when people respond to them.  This is a discussion board, right?

 

I think it is my free choice what I decide to share and not share, and how much time I choose to spend finding links and citations for the information and thoughts I do share.

 

My main purpose here is to stand up for people who want to be respected as their child's parent and an important member of their child's health care team.  And not treated as a lunatic for having an opinion or an honest question about vaccinations.

[DesertBlossom]

I'd like to be able to post someone's perception of the debate without being accused of being dishonest.

 

Perhaps it was just poor wording?

 

I am sorry. I was referring to the author of the blog. I understand where the author is coming from. But I also don't think she's being very fair either. When I think of autism I think of the kid in my junior high class who was non-verbal and required a full-time aide.

 

I suppose I see her blog post somewhat similar as saying that measles isn't a big deal at all because most people (esp here with our medical care) will recover from it just fine with no long term complications. That statement is true, but it doesn't tell the whole story either.

[albeto.]

I think it is my free choice what I decide to share and not share, and how much time I choose to spend finding links and citations for the information and thoughts I do share.

No doubt, but your free choice gives the appearance of one who wants to repeat interesting rumors, or talk just to hear herself talk. You might as well state aliens brought the measles from the other side of the moon, Illuminati is trying to ferret out who is loyal to Obama, or that you have the cure but just don't want to be bothered stirring big vats of medicine over a hot stove. You could say anything, and then claim the freedom to not say anything more, but why? What's the point of doing that on an education board?

 

My main purpose here is to stand up for people who want to be respected as their child's parent and an important member of their child's health care team.  And not treated as a lunatic for having an opinion or an honest question about vaccinations.

In what way has anyone here treated anyone "as a lunatic for having an opinion or an honest question about vaccinations"? What does it look like to treat someone as a lunatic? Which opinions were targeted for such treatment? Which questions? Can you share examples, or is this more vague accusations that should simply be believed by others because you believe them?

 

I ask because otherwise I get the impression you're simply sharing the rumors and beliefs you've picked up along the way, and when someone asks for clarification, you quickly retreat. There's no rule against that, no law certainly, but this is a forum dedicated to education. We share information here, we learn from each other, we expose new ideas and mull them over, pick them apart and see if they have merit. It shouldn't be surprising to see rumors, pseudo-science, and false beliefs regarding information to met with skepticism and requests for accuracy.

[TranquilMind]

I think it is my free choice what I decide to share and not share, and how much time I choose to spend finding links and citations for the information and thoughts I do share.

 

My main purpose here is to stand up for people who want to be respected as their child's parent and an important member of their child's health care team.  And not treated as a lunatic for having an opinion or an honest question about vaccinations.

Good for you.  Too few people will.

 

Recently, I got treated badly (on an entirely  different issue, not vaccines) by the unheathiest looking doctor I ever saw at one of those Health Clinics, available on a weekend.  She was wrong, and she was unimpressive in many respects, including in which questions she was unable to answer.   Double-whammy.  Totally not impressed.  No wonder there were so few patients when every other place was slammed.  But hey, they were happy to take my money for nothing  (and the chicks were free.... sorry, 70's flashback).   

 

I ended up heading elsewhere to get my problem resolved.  Stupid and expensive waste of my time.  I know what the hell I am talking about, when I discuss issues of which I am very familiar. 

 

One of my kids and I had a debate/discussion all the way home (this one was with me) on the vast difference between the "We decide what decisions you get to make" types and the "We trust you as competent adults to make your own decisions and give you good information to do so" types.    This has huge political and societal implications, and I got another taste of the former in this setting. 

[albeto.]

Good for you.  Too few people will.

 

In what way does throwing out vague, patently unsupportable statements defend people from being treated like lunatics?

[TranquilMind]

In what way does throwing out vague, patently unsupportable statements defend people from being treated like lunatics?

SKL stated:  My main purpose here is to stand up for people who want to be respected as their child's parent and an important member of their child's health care team. And not treated as a lunatic for having an opinion or an honest question about vaccinations.

 

If you are unaware of the hysterically unhinged people out there calling for the removal of children by CPS and arrests of parents whose kids get measles or some other random childhood disease, then you have not been following the news.   If you are unaware of the rhetoric of people like Paul Offit and his minions, well, good for you.    I'm not bothering to quote it all here.  Too much.   

 

 

 

[kiana]

ftr, I've seen the quotes from people, including the pediatrician who said he would report people to CPS for medical neglect for not having vaccines up to date, and I consider that ridiculous. CPS doesn't have enough resources to handle the caseload they already have, and when kids are sent back to their parents who do things like not treat UTIs because they don't want to spend the time to go get an antibiotic, I can't see it going anywhere other than to harass the parents.

 

But I haven't seen it in this thread, although it's possible I missed a post somewhere, and it's rather unjust of you to act like everyone who's pro-vaccine agrees with those people.

[SKL]

Again, Albeto and others, this site does not require a link to scientific research in order for a poster to state an opinion, memory, observation, or question.  The intense attacks are bordering on bullying IMO.  Even though you think I am 100% wrong as well as stupid, you can let other readers judge for themselves.

[albeto.]

SKL stated:  My main purpose here is to stand up for people who want to be respected as their child's parent and an important member of their child's health care team. And not treated as a lunatic for having an opinion or an honest question about vaccinations.

 

If you are unaware of the hysterically unhinged people out there calling for the removal of children by CPS and arrests of parents whose kids get measles or some other random childhood disease, then you have not been following the news.   If you are unaware of the rhetoric of people like Paul Offit and his minions, well, good for you.    I'm not bothering to quote it all here.  Too much.   

 

I'm asking how throwing out vague, patently unsupportable statements defends people from being treated like lunatics. In what way?

 

If the goal is to help innocent parents from being hounded by CPS, wouldn't sharing actual information and objective facts be better suited to this goal than vague, untrue claims?

 

If the goal is to stop placing pressure on parents to vaccinate, wouldn't sharing actual information and objective facts be better suited to this goal than vague, untrue claims?

 

Actual information and objective facts can be discussed. The merits of ideas and proposals can be explored when there's there's something tangible to discuss. What's the point in interjecting random beliefs into the conversation? That's what I don't understand. How does that help anyone get better treatment?

[albeto.]

Again, Albeto and others, this site does not require a link to scientific research in order for a poster to state an opinion, memory, observation, or question.  The intense attacks are bordering on bullying IMO.  Even though you think I am 100% wrong as well as stupid, you can let other readers judge for themselves.

 

Are you really alluding to us "bullying" you for asking for support to your claims? Are you suggesting that requesting information is "intense attacks"? Is this a serious accusation?

 

If so, I'll take it seriously, as it's not my intent to bully you, intensely or otherwise, and I don't mean to cause any distress. I'm sharing my opinion as to why I'm confused. Apparently my opinion is not welcomed, however. In any case, I'd like to know how you interpret my comments as bullying so I can adjust my posting style as necessary. Like I say, I don't want to cause any distress.

 

For the record, my replies to your posts are no more or less "intense" than to any other poster with whom I talk.

[SKL]

Albeto, look back at your recent comments toward me and if that doesn't clearly answer your questions, I can't do more.  Now I gotta go take my kids to swim team.

[EmseB]

Again, Albeto and others, this site does not require a link to scientific research in order for a poster to state an opinion, memory, observation, or question. The intense attacks are bordering on bullying IMO. Even though you think I am 100% wrong as well as stupid, you can let other readers judge for themselves.

No, it doesn't. I don't think you're stupid, and for all I know, you could be correct about some of the things you're saying. That's why I ask questions and bother to respond. For an exchange. If I wanted to talk to myself on the internet I could blog.

 

Maybe it would be helpful for all of us if you put some kind of disclaimer on your posts that let people like me know you don't want to answer questions or discuss what you're posting about, nor are you going to attempt to back up your claims. Just for me, personally, as someone who loves these types of discussions and information exchanges that would be helpful.

 

I admit feeling a bit stupid myself about how engaging with someone's direct statements on this board is considered bullying.

 

But now I'm wondering if this all isn't an attempt to get the thread shut down.

[Tanaqui]

SKL, you are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. You are most definitely not entitled to say "I'm entitled to my opinion!" when what you mean is "I'm allowed to post things that are false and pretend they're facts until called upon it, whereupon I will say that it is an opinion". I mean, you can do that, but nobody else is required to take you seriously.

 

As for "why so many vaccines at once", the goal is to get babies vaccinated as quickly as possible to reduce the likelihood of them contracting whatever-disease. It's either combo vaccines or you're in the office every week, thus exposing your kid to lots and lots of colds, and also putting them at risk of contracting whatever-disease while you delay vaccination against it.

 

Since there's no evidence that combination vaccines are dangerous or present a greater risk of side effects than non-combination vaccines (indeed, by having fewer injections, you are reducing your risk of side effects during your entire lifetime), "I don't get why they do this" is a red herring. There's no tradeoff here, because they're just as safe as other vaccinations.

 

When I think of autism I think of the kid in my junior high class who was non-verbal and required a full-time aide.

 

If we want to keep talking about this, it probably ought to go in a separate thread, so this is the last I'll say about it here. That kid in your class was clearly capable of learning junior high material, even if they required an aide in class.

 

You have no idea what they're capable of doing now that they are an adult. You have no idea what the writer of that piece was capable of doing back in middle school. It is possible that the writer was non-verbal in middle school (either all the time or just in school) and/or needed an aide. It is entirely  that the kid in your class was a prolific writer at home and now blogs on the internet.

 

This comment perfectly illustrates the problems inherent in using functioning labels to categories autistics. Autistics, like all individuals, grow and change - and our ability to function varies depending on situation. Terms like "high functioning" and "low functioning" are context dependent, and that context is the observer. There's no clear and set definition of those terms, it's just how the observer thinks of the person in question, which makes those terms extremely problematic, and frequently useless.

[Tohru]

nm :)

 

shiny, happy people holding hands.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

 

With that in mind, when you quote Franklin as pro-vaccine, do realize how different vaccination was back then?  I'm pretty sure they marked the skin by cutting a small wound, then applied the virus from an original source...that is not the same as using a needle to extract from a vial of compound ingredients grown in a lab and then injecting into a baby's arm...

 

You are correct. It's not the same. For one thing, with modern vaccinations there is a much lower chance (a 0% chance with most vaccines) of getting the original disease, much less of passing it to others.

 

[Jasperstone]

Again, Albeto and others, this site does not require a link to scientific research in order for a poster to state an opinion, memory, observation, or question. The intense attacks are bordering on bullying IMO. Even though you think I am 100% wrong as well as stupid, you can let other readers judge for themselves.

Yep, here, you can't go by personal experience. They are treated as though you are delusional.

 

I'm just glad I'm stupid enough to workout what has harmed my family. If having a high IQ means missing that, then I'll stay 'stupid' anyday of the week....

[Tanaqui]

Yep, here, you can't go by personal experience. They are treated as though you are delusional.

 

Jasperstone, we've explained the problem with extrapolating from personal experience. We've used links, we've used examples, we've used analogies. All that's left is interpretive dance, and I've misplaced all my ribbon wands!

 

 

[Jasperstone]

Jasperstone, we've explained the problem with extrapolating from personal experience. We've used links, we've used examples, we've used analogies. All that's left is interpretive dance, and I've misplaced all my ribbon wands!

 

Oh, of course, silly of me....yes, it's totally undeniable evidence you presented there. I'll just round up eveyone now, and zip to the docs for their jabs......

 

Hey, but wait....... if they have a bad reaction, and are damaged like dh was, will you personally help out financially? Are you that confident in your science? Or will it be a- 'not my problem' comment???

[Tanaqui]

If my kid can't be vaccinated due to an immune issue, and dies from measles caught from your kid who could've been vaccinated but wasn't, are you paying me?

 

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

Nobody ever has said that any medical treatment of any sort is 100% risk free. Okay, maybe some really ignorant people have said it, but as none of those people are a. here or b. responsible for the vaccination schedule, we can safely ignore them. The risks of universal vaccination (except where medically contraindicated) are much less than the risks of some people going around unvaccinated. We can run the numbers by you again. We can explain, again, why personal anecdote is not a substitute for hard data. But you've got to be willing to read these things and not just close your mind and run off to google and post whatever unverifiable and generally irrelevant scare sites you find. We can't do your thinking for you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh, of course, silly of me....yes, it's totally undeniable evidence you presented there. I'll just round up eveyone now, and zip to the docs for their jabs......

 

Hey, but wait....... if they have a bad reaction, and are damaged like dh was, will you personally help out financially? Are you that confident in your science? Or will it be a- 'not my problem' comment???

 

I find it amusing that someone can tell you he cured himself of cancer with juice and you just accept it as true, but actual research on these topics is dismissed by you.

[albeto.]

Yep, here, you can't go by personal experience. They are treated as though you are delusional.

Why not? Unless you mean that around here personal experience will be accepted as just that - personal experience - and not indicative of a factual statement. If that's the case, I agree. There's a difference between fact and opinion, and while both have value, they cannot be used interchangeably with any reliability when it comes to discerning the truth about the efficacy of vaccinations.

 

I'm just glad I'm stupid enough to workout what has harmed my family. If having a high IQ means missing that, then I'll stay 'stupid' anyday of the week....

It sounds to me like you're glorifying ignorance and gullibility here. I find that odd and a bit unsettling coming from one who is responsible for the education of children.

[albeto.]

Albeto, look back at your recent comments toward me and if that doesn't clearly answer your questions, I can't do more.  Now I gotta go take my kids to swim team.

 

Once again, you're offering a statement as a matter of fact, but refuse to elaborate when asked. If your purpose is to persuade people to change their tunes, how do you propose to do that when your comments are vague and elusive? How do you desire me to respond in this situation? 

 

 

[Jasperstone]

I find it amusing that someone can tell you he cured himself of cancer with juice and you just accept it as true, but actual research on these topics is dismissed by you.

He didnt just tell, we saw him through it.... again, personal experience... so it's moot to you.

[Jasperstone]

Why not? Unless you mean that around here personal experience will be accepted as just that - personal experience - and not indicative of a factual statement. If that's the case, I agree. There's a difference between fact and opinion, and while both have value, they cannot be used interchangeably with any reliability when it comes to discerning the truth about the efficacy of vaccinations.

 

 

It sounds to me like you're glorifying ignorance and gullibility here. I find that odd and a bit unsettling coming from one who is responsible for the education of children.

No, it means that I'm clever enough to learn from mistakes, and not repeat it no matter how much so- called science is thrown at me.

 

If having a high IQ renders logic, than I wouldn't want it- is what I'm saying.