Stupidity Literally Kills Babies - Epidemic in California

Zillah

Not strictly A&A but we all share incredulity at the ability of humankind to get carried away by mass hysteria.

So California has officially declared that they are now in the grip of an epidemic. 910 cases have been seen already this year and five infants have died. What terrible disease is this, you ask? Why, Whooping Cough of course. Wait, you cleverly interject, don't we have a vaccine for that? Yes. Yes we do. But unfortunately there are so many drooling morons in the world that they refuse to give their children these cheap and safe protections. The big issue is that newborn infants cannot be given the vaccine so the only thing protecting them is herd immunity. Thousands of people refuse to get vaccinated and herd immunity goes out the window. We've seen a similar trend before in Australia where vaccine-hysteria took hold (supported by lies, exaggerations and outright idiocy) and we saw a similar explosion of Whooping Cough cases.

I really can't see any difference between these type of people, alien abductees, morgellons 'disease', faith healers, homeopaths, exorcisms and the other innumerable nonesensical trends people get carried away with to the detriment of themselves or society at large. Whatever arguments are to be made about stuff do to with aliens and magic, we know for a fact that vaccines work and the claims about links to autism were false, we can prove it, any simple googling will prove it, and yet there are millions of people endangering their families. Do these people want vaccines to be false?

Zombrex

Thinks like this just make me so angry. :mad:

You are correct that it isn't directly relevant with religion but I think it is a symptom of a wider societal acceptance of nonsense, which religious belief in the face of reason certainly facilitates.

Truley

In fairness there's nothing wrong with having a degree of skepticism for vaccinations or any other types of treatments, especially when it involves giving it to your children. Yes alot of the claims made about vaccinations are untrue and unfounded, however alot of the risks and negative side effects are very very real. Vaccinations are big money makers, and are taken off the market all the time because studys prove them to be harmful. I don't think it's fair to assume parents who choose not to get them are morons, it's a big risk to take with your own children.

Ddad

No, exposing yoir child to measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough etc is a big risk. Immunising ones child has implied risk but risk far less substantial than that of not immunising them.

Smallpox and polio are both virtually eradicated as diseases because of vacination. Millions died from them annually. How many people die from vaccines. It's flawed thinking, often by the educated.

5uspect

The difference in frequency in what you define as "all the time" and the mortality rates in un-vaccinated children is probably enormous.

Piriz

I simply don't understand why this was posted in Atheism & Agnosticism! ?

Truley

Truley wrote: »

In fairness there's nothing wrong with having a degree of skepticism for vaccinations or any other types of treatments, especially when it involves giving it to your children.

There's a difference between skepticism and blindly swallowing conspiracy theories.

Truley wrote: »

Yes alot of the claims made about vaccinations are untrue and unfounded,

But guess which makes better headlines? "Vaccines harm children" or "Crank's claims shown to be nonsense. Again."

Truley wrote: »

however alot of the risks and negative side effects are very very real.

Which doctors warn parents about before giving the injections.
And even then all of the side effects are much much safer than getting and spreading the disease.

Truley wrote: »

Vaccinations are big money makers, and are taken off the market all the time

As are pretty much all "alternative medicines".

Can you actually name some of these vaccines that where taken off the market?

Truley wrote: »

because studys prove them to be harmful.

Which ones?
What about the dozens and dozens of studies showing the safety of vaccines?

Truley wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to assume parents who choose not to get them are morons,

Nope, those who blindly accept the nonsense from Jenny McCarthy et. al. are though.

Truley wrote: »

it's a big risk to take with your own children.

As is putting children at risk of easily preventable illnesses.
As is spreading poorly researched and supported medical claims.

MrPudding

Truley wrote: »

Vaccinations are big money makers, and are taken off the market all the time because studys prove them to be harmful.

Can you provide some links? I am genuinely interested, my 3 year old daughter is taking part in a Men B trial at the moment.

MrP

Zombrex

Truley wrote: »

In fairness there's nothing wrong with having a degree of skepticism for vaccinations or any other types of treatments, especially when it involves giving it to your children. Yes alot of the claims made about vaccinations are untrue and unfounded, however alot of the risks and negative side effects are very very real.

Everything has side effects, everything has risks, including vaccines.

The point is the risks of the vaccine are minuscule to the risks of the diseases they prevent.

If world wide 6 children a year choked on seat belts would you not strap your child into his/her car seat? Of course not, because the risk of not having the seat belt at all are far far far greater than having the seat belt.

Also while vaccines can cause harm the link between the vaccine and autism is non-existent.

Truley wrote: »

Vaccinations are big money makers

So is suing drug companies for damages. Wakefield, the doctor who first tried to really link MMR with autism has been paid more than 400,000 dollars for "expert" testimony in cases brought against drug companies.

What is also big money is "alternative" medicine to prevent or cure diseases the MMR vaccine targets.

If you look at the Anti-vaccine movement you don't have to look very far to find someone trying to make money from it. They are either suing drug companies or trying to sell you something.

Truley wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to assume parents who choose not to get them are morons, it's a big risk to take with your own children.

Nonsense, it is a tiny tiny risk to take. What is a huge risk is allowing vaccination levels to drop any further.

Japan let vaccination levels slip below 70% in the 1970s and child deaths from these diseases jumped from 0 to over a thousand in one year. ONE YEAR.

Truley

King Mob wrote: »

There's a difference between skepticism and blindly swallowing conspiracy theories.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole autism/vaccine debate was sparked by a fully qualified doctor and published in a well respected british medical journal. As a result variations of the vaccination were offered to parents, and in some countries is was completely discontinued. I know that the claim was later proven to be a load of tripe, but if it was taken seriously enough by the medical community to take those steps, I wouldn't blame parents at the time for having concerns.

Which doctors warn parents about before giving the injections.
And even then all of the side effects are much much safer than getting and spreading the disease.

Yes doctors do warn parents of the dangers associated with the vaccine. Parents are expected to be informed of the risks of severe adverse reactions, and other (very rare) side effects such as arthritis with the MMR vaccine. These aren't conspiricy theories they are officially recongised risks which parents are expected to acknowlege when having their children immunised. Yes the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the negatives, but it's understandable when parents are worried about the gamble they are taking, even if it's just a small gamble.

As are pretty much all "alternative medicines".

I didn't say otherwise.

Can you actually name some of these vaccines that where taken off the market?

Off the top of my head the only one that comes to mind is the rota virus vaccine in the 90s.

Which ones?
What about the dozens and dozens of studies showing the safety of vaccines?

I didn't say vaccines aren't beneficial, if I had kids I would choose to have them immunised. I was vaccinated myself. I'm just saying the average joe soap isn't a doctor, they often have little choice but to put blind faith in medical studies, and assume they are correct. Then a medical study comes out that contradicts what was initially said, it's hard to know who to believe. Looking back now the thimerosal, mercury scare can look a bit daft, but for regular parents at the time, not to mention many well respected people in the health and medical industry, it was seriously considered as a dangerous risk.

Nope, those who blindly accept the nonsense from Jenny McCarthy et. al. are though.

See my previous reference to the medical community's reaction to the autism scare.

As is putting children at risk of easily preventable illnesses.
As is spreading poorly researched and supported medical claims.

I agree.

Truley

Truley wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole autism/vaccine debate was sparked by a fully qualified doctor and published in a well respected british medical journal. As a result variations of the vaccination were offered to parents, and in some countries is was completely discontinued. I know that the claim was later proven to be a load of tripe, but if it was taken seriously enough by the medical community to take those steps, I wouldn't blame parents at the time for having concerns.

The MMR vaccine wasn't withdrawn.
Noone in the medical community took the paper seriously.
Almost immediately bull**** was called on all quaters.
And it was the only study to try and link vaccines and autism.

But the media had no issue scaremongering.

Truley wrote: »

These aren't conspiricy theories they are officially recongised risks which parents are expected to acknowlege when having their children immunised.

Trust me, there's plenty of conspiracy theories about the MMR vaccine.
And plenty of people swallow them whole.

Truley wrote: »

Yes the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the negatives, but it's understandable when parents are worried about the gamble they are taking, even if it's just a small gamble.

And unfortunately people are scaremongering off this worry. As well as increasing the worry to make even more money.
All on totally baseless claims.

Truley wrote: »

Off the top of my head the only one that comes to mind is the rota virus vaccine in the 90s.

Do you actually remember the details? Or just "vaccine", "Side-effects"and "withdrawn"?

Truley wrote: »

I'm just saying the average joe soap isn't a doctor, they often have little choice but to put blind faith in medical studies, and assume they are correct.

Erm... they could read them? Read the large amount of other studies? Talk to their GP?
Basically do anything other than listen to the tabloid press.

Truley wrote: »

Then a medical study comes out that contradicts what was initially said, it's hard to know who to believe.

Pubmed?
And there were tons of other studies before Wakefield's showing the vaccines

Truley wrote: »

Looking back now the thimerosal, mercury scare can look a bit daft, but for regular parents at the time, not to mention many well respected people in the health and medical industry, it was seriously considered as a dangerous risk.

Nope.
The media scaremongering. The public bought it.
It was always daft.

Truley wrote: »

See my previous reference to the medical community's reaction to the autism scare.

The medical community's reaction was to tell everyone to calm down, listen to the full evidence and not to the one highly suspicious paper.
Pretty much what they always say.

Truley

King Mob wrote: »

The MMR vaccine wasn't withdrawn.
Noone in the medical community took the paper seriously.
Almost immediately bull**** was called on all quaters.
And it was the only study to try and link vaccines and autism.

But the media had no issue scaremongering.

The particular strain of mumps used in the vaccine was withdrawn by the NHS and the Canadian health service. Many different brands of the MMR vaccine where discontinued in Japan also.

Yes the majority of people in the medical community knew the theory was bullsh*t. But at the same time they took it seriously enough to make changes in the immunisation programme, and to conduct studys on the effects of mercury exposure on immunised children. So yeah I think parents at the time had a reasonable cause to be concerned, to wonder whether the medical community where trying to cover their asses.

Trust me, there's plenty of conspiracy theories about the MMR vaccine.
And plenty of people swallow them whole.
And unfortunately people are scaremongering off this worry. As well as increasing the worry to make even more money.
All on totally baseless claims.

Yes scaremongering comes from all sides, it's hard for the average person to know who to trust. It's difficult to know when you are falling victim to scaremongering when it's actually happening, like I said it was published in a medical journal. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

Do you actually remember the details? Or just "vaccine", "Side-effects"and "withdrawn"?

It carried risks of bowel obstruction in infants, and the risks where deemed too high for that particualar brand of vaccination.

Erm... they could read them? Read the large amount of other studies? Talk to their GP?
Basically do anything other than listen to the tabloid press.

It wasn't just the tabloid press though, papers such as the Times and the Guardian followed the story. Many politicians and qualified medical practicioners publically expressed concern. Yes I know the media/political sphere isn't a trustworthy source, but it's not just 'stupid people' that get caught up in it.

Pubmed?
And there were tons of other studies before Wakefield's showing the vaccines

There were a fair few studys critical of vaccinations too. Cases of contaminated vaccines, of vaccines being used beyond their best before date etc etc I don't know if there were any previous studies that had specifically disproved a link between vaccines and autism. Where there any?

Think of it this way, you're a regular young mother to an infant. A study is carried out by a qualified doctor, published in a reputable medical journal that makes a link between autism and mmr jabs. All sides of the media vigorously push the idea (of course) The medical community vigoursly denies it (of course) For a while things are a bit ambigious with trials being carried out, vaccinations discontinued, vaccinations being changed. Since it's the nineties the majority of people didn't have easy internet access, and even still a person of relatively high-intellegence who is not trained in medicine would have found it hard to do their own conductive research on something like this. What would you have done if you were the parent? Discounting the information we have since gotten on the subject. Keeping in mind that autism is a far more serious condition for most people than Measles or Mumps, which at the time where extremely rare diseases. Do you think someone would have been stupid for taking the risk of not getting the vaccine?

Truley

Truley wrote: »

The particular strain of mumps used in the vaccine was withdrawn by the NHS and the Canadian health service. Many different brands of the MMR vaccine where discontinued in Japan also.

Care to back this up in any form?
How do you know exactly it was due to Wakefield's bull****?

Truley wrote: »

Yes the majority of people in the medical community knew the theory was bullsh*t. But at the same time they took it seriously enough to make changes in the immunisation programme, and to conduct studys on the effects of mercury exposure on immunised children. So yeah I think parents at the time had a reasonable cause to be concerned, to wonder whether the medical community where trying to cover their asses.

Hold up.
You said previously that they where "concerned".
Now you're saying they knew it was bull****...?

The altered the program due to the low rates caused by the scare, not because of medical concern.

And there where already a good few studies on the safety of vaccines before the scare.

Truley wrote: »

Yes scaremongering comes from all sides, it's hard for the average person to know who to trust. It's difficult to know when you are falling victim to scaremongering when it's actually happening, like I said it was published in a medical journal. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

I'd love the see how you consider saying that less vaccines mean more preventable diseases is scaremongering.
It's a fact.

Saying that vaccines (may) cause autism based on one highly suspicious paper, is scaremongering.

Truley wrote: »

It carried risks of bowel obstruction in infants, and the risks where deemed too high for that particualar brand of vaccination.

Any more details? Or just the scary sounding ones?

Truley wrote: »

It wasn't just the tabloid press though, papers such as the Times and the Guardian followed the story.

Same difference when it comes
to science reporting.

Truley wrote: »

Many politicians

Again, no different from tabloids really.
But which politicians exactly? What did they say?

Truley wrote: »

and qualified medical practicioners publically expressed concern.

No they didn't.
Only quacks like Wakefield and uninformed windbags.

As you said, most of the medical community knew the scare was bull****.

Truley wrote: »

Yes I know the media/political sphere isn't a trustworthy source, but it's not just 'stupid people' that get caught up in it.

Truley wrote: »

There were a fair few studys critical of vaccinations too.

Like?

Truley wrote: »

Cases of contaminated vaccines, of vaccines being used beyond their best before date etc etc

How is this relevant exactly?
Anything is bad for you if it's contaminated of out of date.

Truley wrote: »

Think of it this way, you're a regular young mother to an infant. A study is carried out by a qualified doctor, published in a reputable medical journal that makes a link between autism and mmr jabs. All sides of the media vigorously push the idea (of course) The medical community vigoursly denies it (of course) For a while things are a bit ambigious with trials being carried out, vaccinations discontinued, vaccinations being changed. Since it's the nineties the majority of people didn't have easy internet access, and even still a person of relatively high-intellegence who is not trained in medicine would have found it hard to do their own conductive research on something like this. What would you have done if you were the parent? Discounting the information we have since gotten on the subject.

So basically you're asking if I would make an uninformed decision?
No. I wouldn't.

Truley wrote: »

Keeping in mind that autism is a far more serious condition for most people than Measles or Mumps, which at the time where extremely rare diseases. Do you think someone would have been stupid for taking the risk of not getting the vaccine?

Yes.
Because they are taking a definite risk (as well as putting others who cannot receive the vaccines as risk) for a possible risk.
And this is just not getting the vaccines. This doesn't include the bad information they'd pass on to other parents...

Zillah

Piriz wrote: »

I simply don't understand why this was posted in Atheism & Agnosticism! ?

The posters here tend to share a dislike for the mad trends that people follow, be it trying to exorcise demons, homeopathy or fear of vaccines.

What I don't understand is why someone who never posts here would feel the need to criticise the topic! ?

MrPudding

Truley wrote: »

Stuff...

Just read this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277672681&sr=8-1

MrP

AtomicHorror

Truley wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to assume parents who choose not to get them are morons, it's a big risk to take with your own children.

Utter garbage. It's a tiny, tiny, tiny risk that is vanishingly smaller than the risks associated with exposure to the diseases vaccines protect against.

Truley wrote: »

The particular strain of mumps used in the vaccine was withdrawn by the NHS and the Canadian health service. Many different brands of the MMR vaccine where discontinued in Japan also.

Yep, and do you know what happened to the rate of regressive autism diagnosis in Japan after MMR was withdrawn? It continued to rise at the same rate as it had been when the vaccine was still in use. This is your cue to shift the goalposts.

robindch

Truley wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole autism/vaccine debate was sparked by a fully qualified doctor and published in a well respected british medical journal.

At the time of his study, Andrew Wakefield was a fully-qualified doctor and his study was published in the UK's leading medical journal, The Lancet.

It has since turned out that he was paid to produce his findings by lawyers acting for the parents of autistic children who believed their autism had been caused by the MMR vaccine. As soon as this news became known, most of the other professionals involved in the paper asked for their names to be removed from it. He also cooked some of his results in order to make more convincing the case for the lawyers who paid him. He also carried out a range of unnecessary medical procedures, and most weirdly of all, took blood samples for some unfathomable reason from the kids who showed up at his son's birthday party.

The Lancet subsequently retracted Wakefield's fraudulent paper, and last month, Wakefield himself was struck off the UK's medical register for misconduct.

However, the effects of his dishonesty live on and vaccination rates have dropped in many countries and a number of children are now dead because their parents made the inconsolably stupid mistake of believing the fraudulent Wakefield.

Dades

Piriz wrote: »

I simply don't understand why this was posted in Atheism & Agnosticism! ?

We like to branch out to other irrational beliefs on occasion.

mehfesto

robindch wrote: »

At the time of his study, Andrew Wakefield was a fully-qualified doctor and his study was published in the UK's leading medical journal, The Lancet.

It has since turned out that he was paid to produce his findings by lawyers acting for the parents of autistic children who believed their autism had been caused by the MMR vaccine. As soon as this news became known, most of the other professionals involved in the paper asked for their names to be removed from it. He also cooked some of his results in order to make more convincing the case for the lawyers who paid him. He also carried out a range of unnecessary medical procedures, and most weirdly of all, took blood samples for some unfathomable reason from the kids who showed up at his son's birthday party.

The Lancet subsequently retracted Wakefield's fraudulent paper, and last month, Wakefield himself was struck off the UK's medical register for misconduct.

However, the effects of his dishonesty live on and vaccination rates have dropped in many countries and a number of children are now dead because their parents made the inconsolably stupid mistake of believing the fraudulent Wakefield.

Exactly.
Famous enough case, in itself.

The timing of vaccines coincides with when the symptoms of autism first appear. It's like saying listening to Nirvana causes zits.

Truley

King Mob wrote: »

Care to back this up in any form?
How do you know exactly it was due to Wakefield's bull****?

I learned of the different strains of mumps used in vaccination from here and here here and here. I'm not saying it was a direct result of the Wakefield study, I was more pointing out that on an official level there had been issues about the safety of vaccinations, the wakefield study wasn't the only concern people had with vaccinations.

Hold up.
You said previously that they where "concerned".
Now you're saying they knew it was bull****...?

I can't find anywhere in this thread where I said that. I said they made changes and carried out studies which to the public could have been interpreted as concern.

The altered the program due to the low rates caused by the scare, not because of medical concern.

And there where already a good few studies on the safety of vaccines before the scare.

No there had been concerns about the Urabe strain of mumps before the autism scare. I know there are studies on the saftey of vaccines, I already told you I don't have an issue with vaccines. I'm addressing the idea that people who chose not to get them at the time are stupid. All I'm saying is that I can see it from their point of view, and it's not just the parents who are to blame for what happened.

I'd love the see how you consider saying that less vaccines mean more preventable diseases is scaremongering.
It's a fact.

I don't consider it scaremongering, I am however saying that the health industry isn't immune from scaremongering either. That's just my opinion. My personal experience with the mumps vaccine hasn't been good. I suffered terrible reaction to the jab. As well as that myself and my sister both got mumps as children despite being vaccinated. I have the medical documents to prove it.

Saying that vaccines (may) cause autism based on one highly suspicious paper, is scaremongering.

I agree. But as I said already it's hard to tell when you are on the receiving end of it at the time.

Any more details? Or just the scary sounding ones?

Google 'rotavirus vaccine' and you will find all the details of what was discontinued you want.

Same difference when it comes
to science reporting.

I know

No they didn't.
Only quacks like Wakefield and uninformed windbags.

As I said already at the time of it happening it was hard for the general public to distinguish the genuine people from the quacks and windbags.

Like?

The subject of the Urabe strain and mumps and the discontinuation of the roto virus vaccine. As I mentioned before.

How is this relevant exactly?
Anything is bad for you if it's contaminated of out of date.

It's relevant because it was they were mistakes that were reported to have happened and proved to be true. That not all reports on the dangers of vaccines/ or how vaccines are regulated are scaremongering.

Yes.
Because they are taking a definite risk (as well as putting others who cannot receive the vaccines as risk) for a possible risk.
And this is just not getting the vaccines. This doesn't include the bad information they'd pass on to other parents...

As I said already they made a mistake and are paying dearly for it now. I don't think the parents are the only ones to blame in all of this. I know if I was a parent and alot of people were telling me there is a risk of my child being harmed from a vaccine I would definatly be weary of getting it. Especially in my own case where I contracted mumps despite getting the vaccine, so it wasn't really worth the risk in my case.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Utter garbage. It's a tiny, tiny, tiny risk that is vanishingly smaller than the risks associated with exposure to the diseases vaccines protect against.

I know that and never said otherwise. I got all the vaccinations offered to me, the only one I turned down was swine flu.

Yep, and do you know what happened to the rate of regressive autism diagnosis in Japan after MMR was withdrawn? It continued to rise at the same rate as it had been when the vaccine was still in use. This is your cue to shift the goalposts.

Surely that's the Government's fault then for withdrawing the vaccine?

robindch wrote: »

At the time of his study, Andrew Wakefield was a fully-qualified doctor and his study was published in the UK's leading medical journal, The Lancet.

It has since turned out that he was paid to produce his findings by lawyers acting for the parents of autistic children who believed their autism had been caused by the MMR vaccine. As soon as this news became known, most of the other professionals involved in the paper asked for their names to be removed from it. He also cooked some of his results in order to make more convincing the case for the lawyers who paid him. He also carried out a range of unnecessary medical procedures, and most weirdly of all, took blood samples for some unfathomable reason from the kids who showed up at his son's birthday party.

The Lancet subsequently retracted Wakefield's fraudulent paper, and last month, Wakefield himself was struck off the UK's medical register for misconduct.

However, the effects of his dishonesty live on and vaccination rates have dropped in many countries and a number of children are now dead because their parents made the inconsolably stupid mistake of believing the fraudulent Wakefield.

I know that, but the general public did not know this at the time

eoin5

I've come to think that court cases are useful for things, if someone thinks a vaccine is some kind of conspiracy they should get a chance to prove it. If they cant then what argument can they have? The law system is unfair, society is unfair, people are unfair bla bla infinite regress probably proceeding to atoms and string theory etc.

Truley

Truley wrote: »

I learned of the different strains of mumps used in vaccination from (links sniped) I'm not saying it was a direct result of the Wakefield study, I was more pointing out that on an official level there had been issues about the safety of vaccinations, the wakefield study wasn't the only concern people had with vaccinations.

First link is from 2005. So not a response to the Wakefield (or any) scare.
Also it concludes:

Conclusions:

Very few patients may develop some autoimmune diseases following viral vaccination (in particular — arthropathy, vasculitis, neurological dysfunction and thrombocytopenia). For the overwhelming majority of people, vaccines are safe and no evidence linking viral vaccines with type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS) or inflammatory bowel disease can be found.

Second one is from 1992, so again, not a response to a scare.
Also the data shows either, none or a theoretical only link between vaccines and the illnesses listed.

Third is from 1993, fourth from 1994.
Neither are responses to a scare.

Not arsed to read them I suspect you weren't either.

Truley wrote: »

I can't find anywhere in this thread where I said that.

Truley wrote: »

I know that the claim was later proven to be a load of tripe, but if it was taken seriously enough by the medical community to take those steps, I wouldn't blame parents at the time for having concerns.

Truley wrote: »

I said they made changes and carried out studies which to the public could have been interpreted as concern.

They changed the program because the rate of immunization had dropped.
Not because of any medical concerns.

Truley wrote: »

No there had been concerns about the Urabe strain of mumps before the autism scare.

Source?

Truley wrote: »

I don't consider it scaremongering, I am however saying that the health industry isn't immune from scaremongering either.

Then what scaremongering did they do?

Truley wrote: »

I agree. But as I said already it's hard to tell when you are on the receiving end of it at the time.

No it's not.
The ones crying conspiracy are generally the bull****ters.

Truley wrote: »

Google 'rotavirus vaccine' and you will find all the details of what was discontinued you want.

I know I can. But I'm asking you what details you repeat and how accurate they are.

Truley wrote: »

As I said already at the time of it happening it was hard for the general public to distinguish the genuine people from the quacks and windbags.

Again that's not an excuse for making an informed decision.

Truley wrote: »

The subject of the Urabe strain and mumps and the discontinuation of the roto virus vaccine. As I mentioned before.

So which studies exactly?

Truley wrote: »

It's relevant because it was they were mistakes that were reported to have happened and proved to be true. That not all reports on the dangers of vaccines/ or how vaccines are regulated are scaremongering.

And remember that tainted pork thing a while back? Do you have similar concerns about giving your kid pork?
Is out of date pork representative of the safety of good pork?

No, your point is totally irrelevant.

Truley wrote: »

As I said already they made a mistake and are paying dearly for it now. I don't think the parents are the only ones to blame in all of this.

They were the ones making the uninformed decisions.
The evidence wasn't that hard to get.

Truley wrote: »

I know if I was a parent and alot of people were telling me there is a risk of my child being harmed from a vaccine I would definatly be weary of getting it.

Alot of people are currently, right now, this very second telling this.
But that's irrelevant.
They have the same evidence that they have now. None.

Truley wrote: »

Especially in my own case where I contracted mumps despite getting the vaccine, so it wasn't really worth the risk in my case.

And this is an anecdote. This is exactly the crap parents spread that caused the lower vaccination rates.

For example.
"Well my kid got autism just after her vaccinations! And what's worse I got mumps even though I had the vaccination! They gave my child autism for no reason."

Truley wrote: »

Surely that's the Government's fault then for withdrawing the vaccine?

No, it's clear evidence that thirmeosal had no effect on autism rates.

Seriously dude, it's the informed factoids like you're spouting that caused lower vaccination rates.

Whispered

I didn't read the whole thread (sorry) but I wanted to tell you my story.

I'm a lot older than my youngest sister, a few years ago my mother was sent a letter asking her to attend her doctor to check that my sister was not accidently administered a vaccine from a batch of CJD infected polio vaccinations. The results were back quickly but the few days we were waiting, Horrific to say the least.

Since then I have not had a vax. The meningitis vax was being given for free while I was in FAS, I refused it. I assume it will be different if I have kids and I will have to trust the masses and what is usually done, but I can understand why some people don't want their kids vaccinated to an extent.

AtomicHorror

Whispered wrote: »

I didn't read the whole thread (sorry) but I wanted to tell you my story.

I'm a lot older than my youngest sister, a few years ago my mother was sent a letter asking her to attend her doctor to check that my sister was not accidently administered a vaccine from a batch of CJD infected polio vaccinations. The results were back quickly but the few days we were waiting, Horrific to say the least.

In fairness, "contamination" is hardly a phenomenon unique to vaccines. Why single them out over IV prescription drugs, any other drugs, food and dairy products? As an aside, when was a batch of polio vaccine contaminated with CJD and how? Source would be nice.

Whispered wrote: »

Since then I have not had a vax. The meningitis vax was being given for free while I was in FAS, I refused it. I assume it will be different if I have kids and I will have to trust the masses and what is usually done, but I can understand why some people don't want their kids vaccinated to an extent.

We all understand it- it's not like we just don't get it. We also understand that the fear is irrational and the rejection irresponsible. So we put the irrational aside and do the rational thing.

sink

Whispered wrote: »

I didn't read the whole thread (sorry) but I wanted to tell you my story.

I'm a lot older than my youngest sister, a few years ago my mother was sent a letter asking her to attend her doctor to check that my sister was not accidently administered a vaccine from a batch of CJD infected polio vaccinations. The results were back quickly but the few days we were waiting, Horrific to say the least.

Since then I have not had a vax. The meningitis vax was being given for free while I was in FAS, I refused it. I assume it will be different if I have kids and I will have to trust the masses and what is usually done, but I can understand why some people don't want their kids vaccinated to an extent.

You are still more likely to get CJD from beef and cross contaminated food than from a vaccine. Are you going to stop eating too? Virtually everything one can do carries some risk, but you measure the risk and in the case of vaccinations the risk is extremely small.

Delicate_Dlite

I'm liking this thread, but I notice no one's mentioned that it's not only your own child's health you're impacting.(Although this is of course your priority). I always view vaccination as a population decision.

For example, one may be willing to risk your child's health by refusing to vaccinate, but what about other members of the community. What if due to this your child was fine, yet then passed the disease on to another child who then died? (let's assume the deceased child hadn't reached the age of vaccination).

And when people don't vaccinate, do you think they're obliged to tell creches/parents of child's playmates, etc.

Just curious about ppl's opinions.

Joe1919

I think its the 'free rider problem' i.e. If everyone else get vaccinated, I wont need to.
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/06/vaccine_refuseniks_are_free-ri.php

Its interesting from an A & A point of view, because the 'free rider' is rational and hence even rationality has its limits.

strobe

Joe1919 wrote: »

I think its the 'free rider problem' i.e. If everyone else get vaccinated, I wont need to.
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/06/vaccine_refuseniks_are_free-ri.php

Its interesting from an A & A point of view, because the 'free rider' is rational and hence even rationality has its limits.

Is it rational to make the presumption that every other human being you are likely to interact with is going to come to one decision when you have come to the exact opposite one? Sounds pretty far removed from a rational train of thought to me.

Zombrex

Whispered wrote: »

I didn't read the whole thread (sorry) but I wanted to tell you my story.

I'm a lot older than my youngest sister, a few years ago my mother was sent a letter asking her to attend her doctor to check that my sister was not accidently administered a vaccine from a batch of CJD infected polio vaccinations. The results were back quickly but the few days we were waiting, Horrific to say the least.

Since then I have not had a vax. The meningitis vax was being given for free while I was in FAS, I refused it. I assume it will be different if I have kids and I will have to trust the masses and what is usually done, but I can understand why some people don't want their kids vaccinated to an extent.

The Polio/CJD scare in the 90s was a result of 2 boys in England developing CJD after they had vaccinations from a batch of vaccines which had been developed with meat products.

All vaccinations from that batch were pulled and everyone who had had a vaccination from that batch tested (all six million of them), despite scientists saying the risks were ridiculously low and it was far more important that children get vaccinated against polio.

It later turned out that the 2 boys had developed CJD independently of the vaccinations.

It is certainly not worth not vaccinating yourself or your kids because of this, particularly when vaccinations are not made from meat products any more.

What are the odds that you will be injected with a vaccine that contains CJD (which was theoretically possible but has never actually happened)

And what are the odds that you will catch the disease the vaccine is preventing, which you then pass on, if you don't get the vaccine (in 1952, 4 years before the start of vaccination programs, there were 58,000 cases of polio that year alone)

This is the point people seem to be missing. It is very irresponsible to not get vaccinated. It is scary to think that your sister might have contracted CJD? Is it not equally scaring to think that you might give a child a serious, perhaps fatal, disease?

Joe1919

strobe wrote: »

Is it rational to make the presumption that every other human being you are likely to interact with is going to come to one decision when you have come to the exact opposite one? Sounds pretty far removed from a rational train of thought to me.

In economic and behavioural theory, the free rider is considered (in theory) to be acting rational. e.g. Prisoners dilemma, game theory etc.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/

'Failure to contribute (or to reveal true valuation) is rational for self-
interested individuals, and it is, therefore, expected that people will, as a rule,
behave in this way.'
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst%3Fa%3Do%26se%3Dgglsc%26d%3D95847911

Some may argue that the free rider problem shows the flaw in modern thinking by not nurturing a 'community spirit' etc and that many people indeed do have this 'animal spirit.'

Dades

Joe1919 wrote: »

Its interesting from an A & A point of view, because the 'free rider' is rational and hence even rationality has its limits.

The free-rider must first make the assumption that there aren't hoards of other free-riders out there, with potentially infected kids.

The rational person shuts that door too with a jab.

Turtwig

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a study of 12 children. The study detailed the possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Wakefield suggested that further large scale studies should be carried out. Leaving aside the whole debacle regarding Wakefield's improper ethics, conflict of interest and cherry picking of subjects for his study. Several more detailed and focus driven studies were carried out. These have all found no statistical significance regarding a link between MMR vaccinations and autism. Alas, some people would rather pin all their trust on the study of 12 children. I hardly need to explain how foolish that is.

Nail meet head : Zillah got the thread title perfectly correct.

Joe1919

Dades wrote: »

The free-rider must first make the assumption that there aren't hoards of other free-riders out there, with potentially infected kids.

The rational person shuts that door too with a jab.

The 'free rider' is a well discussed problem and shows the limitation of egoism and rationality and the necessity of 'social instinct'.
e.g.
Charles Darwin discusses this problem (free rider) in the 'Decent of man' Ch V ( in terms of why a savage would risk his life) and he concludes that there is a morality based on sympathy and 'social instinct'.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

'The more efficient
causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth
whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence,
inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs
and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It
should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public
opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and
disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our
sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed
through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the
social instincts.*'

robindch

Truley wrote: »

the general public did not know this at the time

In 1998, it was not known, but Wakefield's malpractice was discovered in 2004 and since then (and especially since the follow-up studies) people have had no excuse for believing there's anything to it.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

In 1998, it was not known, but Wakefield's malpractice was discovered in 2004 and since then (and especially since the follow-up studies) people have had no excuse for believing there's anything to it.

It was not known? This is true if you only listened to the reports of Wakefields "work." We had a child due the MMR jab not long after this story broke. We spent a very conservative amount of time, maybe a couple fo hours, researching the issue and it was fairly clear, fairly quickly that the vast majority of scientific opinion was in favour of the jab.

MrP

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

It was not known? This is true if you only listened to the reports of Wakefields "work."

I think Robindch was referring to the extent of Wakefield's malpractice and quackery that wasn't known at the time.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

It was not known? This is true if you only listened to the reports of Wakefields "work."

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The Daily Telegraph and a lot of the other media in the UK were on the anti-vaxxer side, even long after Wakefield's malpractice became known.

Meanwhile, here's Jesus and Mo on vaccine denialists:

amacachi

The "debate" on MMR/autism suffered from what everything does in the media, even if it's a 1% minority of loons or con-artists putting something forward they will usually get the same attention as the sensible people.

What I find more annoying is that a vaccine's effectiveness can fall when the take-up falls, so sensible people who do get vaccinated and/or get their kids vaccinated can still be affected by others' stupidity.

cleanup_aisle6

Zillah wrote: »

Not strictly A&A but we all share incredulity at the ability of humankind to get carried away by mass hysteria.

So California has officially declared that they are now in the grip of an epidemic. 910 cases have been seen already this year and five infants have died. What terrible disease is this, you ask? Why, Whooping Cough of course. Wait, you cleverly interject, don't we have a vaccine for that? Yes. Yes we do. But unfortunately there are so many drooling morons in the world that they refuse to give their children these cheap and safe protections. The big issue is that newborn infants cannot be given the vaccine so the only thing protecting them is herd immunity. Thousands of people refuse to get vaccinated and herd immunity goes out the window. We've seen a similar trend before in Australia where vaccine-hysteria took hold (supported by lies, exaggerations and outright idiocy) and we saw a similar explosion of Whooping Cough cases.

I really can't see any difference between these type of people, alien abductees, morgellons 'disease', faith healers, homeopaths, exorcisms and the other innumerable nonesensical trends people get carried away with to the detriment of themselves or society at large. Whatever arguments are to be made about stuff do to with aliens and magic, we know for a fact that vaccines work and the claims about links to autism were false, we can prove it, any simple googling will prove it, and yet there are millions of people endangering their families. Do these people want vaccines to be false?

I'd say more children have been destroyed by abortion than whooping cough. What was it, millions last year?

Pygmalion

cleanup_aisle6 wrote: »

I'd say more children have been destroyed by abortion than whooping cough. What was it, millions last year?

I'd say more people die of cancer than whooping cough.
I'd say more people are killed by car accidents than whooping cough.
I'd say more people die of heart diseases than whooping cough.

Your turn, or you could explain what relevance your point has to this thread, I'm very interested in hearing how it's in any way related.

Galvasean

Pygmalion wrote: »

I'd say more people die of cancer than whooping cough.
I'd say more people are killed by car accidents than whooping cough.
I'd say more people die of heart diseases than whooping cough.

Your turn, or you could explain what relevance your point has to this thread, I'm very interested in hearing how it's in any way related.

It's just a bad style of argument. "It's not as bad as *insert something unrelated here*, ergo it must be okay."

Pygmalion

Galvasean wrote: »

It's just a bad style of argument. "It's not as bad as *insert something unrelated here*, ergo it must be okay."

I figured he was making the argument that all Atheists love abortions.
And the above sentence seems awfully worded and out of place now that I read it again, but hopefully you get what I mean.

Zillah

cleanup_aisle6 wrote: »

I'd say more children have been destroyed by abortion than whooping cough. What was it, millions last year?

Define "children".

cleanup_aisle6

Zillah wrote: »

Define "children".

I don't have the authority to define a child. You don't either.

eoin5

cleanup_aisle6 wrote: »

I don't have the authority to define a child. You don't either.

Why bother to use the word then?

cleanup_aisle6

eoin5 wrote: »

Why bother to use the word then?

My point is, I cannot destroy what I didn't create. Nobody has that authority but God alone.

Pygmalion

cleanup_aisle6 wrote: »

My point is, I cannot destroy what I didn't create. Nobody has that authority but God alone.

So... This is related to vaccines... Because...?

eoin5

cleanup_aisle6 wrote: »

My point is, I cannot destroy what I didn't create. Nobody has that authority but God alone.

I'm not asking you to destroy anything

All i'm interested in is why you might say children die from abortion when you cant even define what you mean by child. If you say 'child' is undefinable then its a nonsence word, something similar to 'forungalitesationism'

Gina_

Delicate_Dlite wrote: »

I'm liking this thread, but I notice no one's mentioned that it's not only your own child's health you're impacting.(Although this is of course your priority). I always view vaccination as a population decision.

For example, one may be willing to risk your child's health by refusing to vaccinate, but what about other members of the community. What if due to this your child was fine, yet then passed the disease on to another child who then died? (let's assume the deceased child hadn't reached the age of vaccination).

And when people don't vaccinate, do you think they're obliged to tell creches/parents of child's playmates, etc.

Just curious about ppl's opinions.

Excellent point. There is a the chance that a batch of a particular vaccine was later judged ineffective. I received notices that two of my children had to be re-vaccinated for MMR. One was 18 when the notice came, but had initially been given the booster vaccination when he was 12, leaving him potentially vulnerable for 6 years.

There is also a concern for pregnant women. I found when I applied for my marriage license that women of my age were compelled to be tested for Rubella anti-bodies because the state had statistics showing that we needed boosters. Sure enough, mine came back negative for anti-bodies, so I got to my doctor's office ASAP. Without that knowledge, had I been exposed to a child with measles, I could have lost any of my children.

Zombrex

cleanup_aisle6 wrote: »

I'd say more children have been destroyed by abortion than whooping cough. What was it, millions last year?

Yes but abortion has an upside. Those baby burgers aren't going to make themselves, are they.

Zombrex

cleanup_aisle6 wrote: »

My point is, I cannot destroy what I didn't create. Nobody has that authority but God alone.

Tell that to the millions of bacteria that die every time you eat a carrot.

In reality you destroy things you didn't create all the time. So that as an argument against abortion is, well, stupid.

If you want to argue you cannot destroy a human life you better come up with a much better argument that "I didn't create it". But you might also want to do it on another thread.