Sad and perplexed

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“http://autism.com/ari/editorials/ed_explosion.htm[/url]”>http://autism.com/ari/editorials/ed_explosion.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I don’t understand why it is so imperative to give MMR all at once instead of spread out into individual illness vaccines over the course of a few doctor visits. </p>

<p>I don’t understand why people are being villified for trying to figure this monster out. E.g.,</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderw_Wakefield[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderw_Wakefield&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I am sad and perplexed.</p>

2

<p>One rationale for combining individual vaccines into something like MMR is to avoid giving multiple painful intramuscular injections to young children.
One injections protects against three illnesses</p>

<p>In addition, by using combined vaccines you enhance compliance with immunization programs—imagine going back to the doctor’s office for individual injections–one for measles, one for mumps, one for rubella, one for varicella, one for hepatitis B , one fo H flu, one for diptheria, one for tetnus, one for pertussis –</p>

3

<p>The wikipedia article link is misspelled and it’s too late to edit. It’s Andrew, not Anderw Wakefield.</p>

<p>Never heard of Dawson Disease until yesterday, when following the advice of prior (deleted) thread about checking the side effects of the illness you are vaccinating against before deciding not to vaccinate. </p>

<p>After 10 years as an Aide to autistic kids - watching them choke down food, bend over double with stomache pain while walking to class, struggle to speak, work through temper tantrums, experience strange vision problems, turn progressively inward - I did that for the first time last night. I looked up side effects of measles. I was shocked to read the description of Dawson disease. Try yourself - google it. If that don’t sound like autism I don’t know what does.</p>

4

<p>Firsttimemom, I applaud your diligence in questioning medical treatment for your child. It is essential that parents advocate for their children and use the best available knowledge to do so. The article you site was published in 1999, which makes it quite dated as medical research goes. I do not mean to invalidate it on this basis, but it can hardly be considered the last word. I recommend you spend some time on PubMed looking for peer reviewed journal articles on the subject and make an informed decision. Best of luck to you and your bundle.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez[/url]”>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

5

<p><a href=“http://autism.com/triggers/califepidemic.htm[/url]”>http://autism.com/triggers/califepidemic.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>2003.</p>

<p>Anyone have a link to 2007 data? (Incidence of autism.)</p>

6

<p>firsttimemom: There was a study, linked to in the previous thread about vaccination, that contained a link to a Danish study in which MMR was trialled as a vaccine delivered in several spread out doses. Nothing changed in the incidence of autism.</p>

<p>It has also been shown by other studies that there is no correlation between autism in vaccinated vs. un-vaccinated populations.</p>

<p>You should also note that 10 of the 13 authors of the study have retracted their authorship, and that 2 of the last 3 are under ethical investigation for how the study was carried out, and also for possible data falsification and so forth. Wakefield is further accused of conflict of interest, having recruited patients fo the study from a lawyer preparing an MMR lawsuit.</p>

<p>Is this looking fishy enough to you yet?</p>

<p><a href=“http://hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1154[/url]”>http://hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1154&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-mmr.htm[/url]”>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-mmr.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Just a couple of sources of information that aren’t absurdly biased editorials or discredited studies.</p>

<p>So to answer your questions:</p>

<p>MMR is not spread out over a few visits because there is no credible evidence of an increase in autism incidence in vaccinated populations.</p>

<p>People are being vilified for continuing to ask the question because it’s a waste of time, much the same way that people who continue to deny the link between tobacco and lung cancer are vilified.</p>

7

<p>Firsttimemom, the following looks like a straight-forward overview that does address epidemiology:</p>

<p><a href=“Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health”>Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health;

8

<p>

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t put this issue in the same category as the tobacco issue. It’s easier to get a consensus on smoking because people either smoke or they don’t, and they either get lung cancer or they don’t. It’s easier to quantify.</p>

<p>The vaccination debate remains a debate, however, for a number of reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Side effects don’t always show up immediately after the injection (though sometimes they do)</p></li>
<li><p>The chemicals in the vaccines get changed</p></li>
<li><p>It is questionable as to whether the side effects that do occur get recognized as such. In other words, studies based on reported side effects won’t be accurate if not all the side effects were reported as being related to the vaccine or within a certain window of time.</p></li>
<li><p>It is a much more volatile and highly charged issue, with more lives (and $$) in the equation.</p></li>
<li><p>It is far from conclusively resolved. There is no question that autism rates have dramatically increased. Until it is conclusively proven what the cause for this increase is, vaccines remain a suspect. Analogy: Until the true murderer is found and convicted, don’t rule out the other suspects.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>And, most importantly, it is NEVER a waste of time to investigate something that could potentially have such a devastating effect on your child’s health. Parents have the right to research both sides of the issue.</p>

<p>Here is a link that has links to lots of info, all with references:</p>

<p><a href=“Mercola.com - #1 Natural Health Website”>Mercola.com - #1 Natural Health Website;

9

<p>leal: I’m sorry, but is that site not more or less a personal health site/blog of a doctor (prominent doctor?)? I’d love for you to provide us with some peer-reviewed, statistically significant studies that show any epidemiological link between MMR and autism, but so far all of the studies I’ve seen (that have not been discredited or outright retracted) don’t show any statistical link.</p>

<p>I’d be happy to read a study - I’m finding the continued posting of blogs and opinion articles to be a waste of time.</p>

10

<p>They are vilified because they are going against what is socially encouraged, and generally politically correct, which is to “follow doctor’s orders”, not question the medical establishment, be a good obediant parent to the patient (in this case a baby/small child), put blinders on, and do what one is told to do. This has been what was expected by society in the past for the greater good (esp. since polio was irradicated). </p>

<p>Honestly, no one knows the cause of the autism epidemic. I just learned that a school in our state was shut down bc 24% (I believe that is the %) of pregnant employees in one area of that school had a child who developed autism. There is some study currently being conducted to investigate. To date, no environmental cause was found. Coincidence, perhaps, but perhaps not. Apparently, there are enough questions to shut down this small school, and investigate further.</p>

11

<p>northeastmom: It’s not like the medical establishment ignored this issue because patients are supposed to be “obedient”. They investigated it diligently - did studies of MMR and autism, and found no links. Some level of research is still ongoing as to whether certain people may be vulnerable to developing autism from vaccination in spite of the lack of aggregate links. The reason people are being vilified is not about political correctness or doctors being irritated about being questioned.</p>

<p>People are being vilified because the issue has been impartially investigated, and a conclusion has been come to as a result of that impartial investigation. Yet people continue to bring up non-scientifically-based, emotional and often inaccurate anecdotal evidence and try to pass those things off as evidence, all while ignoring the studies which have disproved their assertions. I don’t know about you, but it would probably irritate me too if I carried out a comprehensive study of an issue and had it dismissed or ignored because it did not fit somebody’s preconceptions.</p>

12

<p>I believe that there has been a past of a generally smug medical community. Sorry, to insult some wonderful doctors, but that is how I feel. It is less so today, but it still exists amoung individual doctors. I do think that there are doctors who would like it if patients did not ask questions. I do think that they are vilified for asking the important questions, and it has been for society’s greater good that infants/children receive these vaccines. Now there are more questions from some, but if we don’t vaccinate, these diseases will be more likely to occur. There is a segment of society that will vilify for this reason.</p>

13

<p>It’s from a doctor, and, although there are some links to some blogs as well, there are also a lot of links with references from medical journals.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>They’re not trying to pass it off as evidence. They’re trying to compile info that can be used as the basis for justifying new (impartial) investigations, improve the reporting of possible side effects, and alert the public that there is still a controversy.</p>

<p>As I posted on the deleted thread, there is reason to believe that there has been bias in these studies. Studies are only as good as the data they use. If doctors are quick to disregard a child’s condition as being related to the vaccine, those symptoms won’t even be reported as being related and therefore won’t make it into the study at all.</p>

<p>It’s like when a study says something like ‘no connection was found between such and such’ but if they did not expressly look for it, then of course no cause could have been found. It’s a clever play on words. </p>

<p>I think the doctors are generally well-meaning. But the entire vaccination issue is just so highly charged. It’s a ‘sacred cow’ and so people, even doctors, often don’t look at it objectively.</p>

<p>I disagree that personal blogs are of no value. I’ve read lots of stories from parents who said their children developed intense symptoms the very day of the injection, and told their doctor, and the doctor disregarded it, saying there could not possibly be a connection to the vaccine. Well, if the doc believed that, is s/he going to report that case to the study?</p>

<p>You have to remember that studies are not perfect. They are only as good as the data they have, and if they aren’t getting all the data, whether for political reasons or whatever, you cannot take the study as absolute.</p>

<p>I was a software engineer for 18 years. It always amazed me when I’d hear things like ‘they fed the data into a powerful computer and this is what the computer determined’ and take the output as truth. I laugh at this, because, as a programmer, I know full well that the computer output will only be as good as the data and the programming (which translates to the skill and objectivity of the programmer).</p>

14

<p>leal: Again, though, you’re simply making unfounded statements. </p>

<p>Think there’s bias in the studies? Fine, I’m open to that idea, but you have to prove it.</p>

<p>Think that doctors are disregarding conditions? Well, their methodology is there, so look through it and prove it.</p>

<p>Think that the studies were badly designed? Point out exactly how, and suggest a better design.</p>

<p>I’m on board with all of the general statements you made. Nobody is perfect, bias can creep in, etc. etc. etc. The difference is, because you disagree with the conclusions reached by the studies, you’re assuming that they are biased. I don’t. I assume, since they have been peer-reviewed by a number of people, in a rigorous process, that they are not biased. But I’m open to allegations that they are, provided the person making those allegations can provide evidence.</p>

<p>But you haven’t provided evidence. You’ve come from an initial position of believing that vaccines have harms (or at least unforeseen risks) associated with them, and you have systematically either discounted or ignored highly examined pieces of evidence that contradict you. Meanwhile, you post anecdotes and blogs as alternatives.</p>

<p>I’m happy to take your claims seriously, leal, once you provide serious evidence. Unfortunately, that is so far the one thing you have failed to do.</p>

15

<p>My nephew is 2 months old, and he just got his first series of 6 shots this week…and after seeing the trouble he’s having with it, I am much happier that they do it in one or two large stints than in a bunch of smaller doses. My sister-in-law said he screamed for 4 hours the other night…imagine that if they had to get each shot separately.</p>

16

<p>1of42, I am participating in this thread out of casual interest. The vaccine controversy was once a crucially important issue to me, when my son was a baby. At that time, I thought anyone who didn’t vaccinate was guilty of child abuse. I don’t even remember how I came across info about the vaccine controversy - might have been thru Mothering Magazine, but whatever I read convinced me to research the issue. Since there was no internet at the time, I scoured whatever resources that were available: books, magazines, etc. It was the most harrowing process and agonizingly difficult decision in my entire parenting career.</p>

<p>I did not have the benefit of access to peer-reviewed studies. But I did my best to look at both, no, all sides of the issue. I spoke to my son’s pediatrician as well as to mothers of autistic children. Certain books that showed graphs of the decline of infectious diseases coupled with a trust in alternative healing modalities, along with statistics on the use of homeopathy from European doctors during the polio and other outbreaks, all contributed to my final conclusion: In every case except for tetanus, I was more terrified of the vaccines than I was of the disease.</p>

<p>That was MY personal conclusion. I do not regret my decision. That is not to say that certain vaccines might not have their place. (I am a firm believer in rabies vaccinations for dogs and cats, btw.) But I made what I considered to be the best decision for my son. I didn’t just ‘not vaccinate,’ though. I made sure I researched the alternative remedies and knew how to handle certain illnesses. Undoubtedly many on this forum will scoff at the idea of treating some of these illnesses with herbs and homeopathy, but it has been done successfully and not at all an unusual concept for those who adhere to a different paradigm of health. However, that path is not for everyone. I would not recommend that someone just ‘not vaccinate.’ They need to know what the risks are and what the alternatives are. However, the knife cuts both ways. I think parents ought not just blindly accept what they’ve been told. Ultimately, the parents are responsible for their children, and they want what’s best for them. They have a right to question the almighty medical establishment and hold them accountable.</p>

<p>Do I think the studies are flawed? Absolutely. Can I prove it? No. That’s not my task. I already paid my dues when my son was little. Quite frankly, I don’t have the time to invest in finding data that would be sufficient to satisfy you. If you are even the least bit interested, you can use the internet as well as I can. I don’t know if it is possible to PROVE the studies are flawed, at least not by laypeople. My assertion that the data used in the studies was not accurate was based on reading countless stories of parents who told their doctors of their children’s symptoms and the doctors disregarded even the possibility that they could be related to the vaccinations. These stories are quite prolific on the internet. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that not all the data was gathered in their studies. If you were to investigate this issue, you would surely find that there is certainly enough anecdotal evidence to cast grave doubt on the findings of the studies. The dramatic increase in autism alone, which has not yet been explained by anything else, would be reason enough for me, if I had a young child, to be very cautious before I allowed anyone to inject a potent cocktails of toxic substances into his precious little body.</p>

17

<p>Mmmhmmm… “I know the studies are wrong, but don’t have the inclination to prove it.”</p>

<p>Sorry, but the plural of anecdote is not statistic, and while you are correct that the increase in autism has not been explained, it has also been definitely proven not to be linked to vaccination.</p>

<p>The fight here is asymmetric. On one side, you’re using anecdotes, discredited books and studies, outdated statistics and emotional appeals to try to counter peer-reviewed, statistically significant studies designed to remove as much bias as possible. It just doesn’t work.</p>

<p>You think that studies are flawed? Why? Simply because some histrionic parents disagreed with their doctors’ diagnoses? I don’t blindly trust in doctors, but I’m also not going to give any airtime to Sally who thinks, in spite of all medical advice, that her child’s flu was related to a vaccine, or whatever.</p>

18

<p>I didn’t say that I KNOW the studies are wrong. I said I do not trust the studies.</p>

<p>There is a difference.</p>

<p>And no, I don’t have the inclination to dig into it right now, just because someone I don’t know on a discussion forum challenges me to.</p>

<p>Contrary to what some might think, I am NOT trying to ‘prove’ vaccines are harmful or that the studies are flawed.</p>

<p>My only objective is to legitimize parents’ rights to make their own decisions on this matter without being scorned.</p>

<p>And, I disagree that it has ‘definitely proven not to be linked.’ That is not even possible! As long as the possibility exists for error in data gathering and interpretation, you cannot assume that any study purporting to prove the negation of something is 100% certain.</p>

<p>And THAT is my main point. It is entirely reasonable for parents, if they feel so inclined, to continue to probe and question.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We’re not talking about mere flu symptoms. We’re talking about bizarre, serious symptoms and a halt in cognitive development, withdrawal, incessant screaming, and other serious symptoms.</p>

19

<p>Well, you’re not getting very far towards your objective, because so far I’m still thinking any parent who refuses vaccination on these grounds is making a potentially harmful (and not just to their kid) decision based on a lack of evidence.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s an inane argument. The “possibility exists” that everything we know is wrong, but you don’t see us acting on that possibility. It has definitely proven not to be linked by statistical analysis showing no increase in autism in vaccinated vs. un-vaccinated children. What kind of errors in data gathering could there be? Doctors weren’t even aware whether a kid had been vaccinated, so it’s not like they saw autism, saw the kid had been vaccinated and disregarded it. Data was gathered, and when analyzed showed no higher rate of autism in children that were vaccinated. There’s no way to doubt this stuff, unless you have a preconception that autism MUST be caused by vaccination, in which case you will take even the most definitive study to be “open to question” so long as it doesn’t agree with you. Which is what you’re doing.</p>

20

<p>No, that’s not what I’m doing. Why would I have a preconceived idea that vaccinations cause autism? That’s ridiculous. I stated that I used to think parents who didn’t vaccinate were essentially abusive. I stand by my statement that proving the negation of something is not the same as proving the effects of something. </p>

<p>All I will say for now is that the data regarding reported symptoms is dependent upon humans reporting it, and there is naturally a bias there. More details on this can be found if you are willing to search for them. </p>

<p>There is more I could say, but I’m in an awkward position here. Many of my opinions on various topics tend to be other than mainstream, so inevitably what happens when I express them on cc is that someone challenges me to back them up. Then, when I do so, I am accused of ‘having an agenda’ to push on cc, and the threads I was participating in get deleted. For this reason, I probably won’t be participating in this discussion any more.</p>

<p>I have no ‘agenda’ to convince you of anything. You are free to think whatever you want of my parenting decisions.</p>