Vaccinations and autism?

[digitaldeath]

mikey b is anti vaxxer yo

known E sex harasser too

[MontuckyFried]

No, you really don't need to treat the proven science with skepticism or an 'open mind.'

Umm, actually you do. Looks like somebody forgot about the scientific method. Test, test, and test again. "Proven science" is rarely absolute, especially with something with SO many variables like we see with the field of medicine. If everybody subscribed to your logic, then medicine would never advance. "All right boys, looks like we can pack it up now. Our work here is done" said no scientist ever. Science should always be met with some level of skepticism, no matter how much you believe in it. Any good scientist tries damn hard to DISPROVE their own theories. Based on new information, it's then time to scrap or revise the original theory.

Yes, based on known data we can safely say that the benefits of immunizations as a society outweigh the associated risks. That said, we should ALWAYS be pursuing further research and honest examination of vaccines, adverse reactions, so on and so forth. Let's compare groups of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated kids in the same environments. Let's see if there's any association with XYZ, who, what, where, when, why, how. Why is that notion so controversial? I'm certainly not "anti-vaccine." I have just heard enough compelling ideas to make me think we should never stop questioning things. I don't quite buy the direct autism relation, but there may be something to the massive increases we've seen in allergies, shit health in kids these days, etc. May have nothing to do with vaccines, and everything to do with processed foods or other environmental factors, but still worth pursuing answers either way.

Take a look at ANY industry. Construction, medicine, technology, whatever. Aren't we ALL constantly pursuing improvements? Sometimes even when something's worked fine for a long time, there may be a better way out there.

[ate'em]

you honestly believe some money grubbing executive at some corp goes "OK scientists let's create a vaccine for X so we can bilk everyone!

Yes, I do.

Corporations exist to make profit. They'll sell us cans of air if we're buying. I don't think corporations are evil or anything, I think they are simple. They exist simply to make money.

Yes, vaccinations are a great way to get public money into shareholder pockets. Corporations enjoy a government mandated supply of customers, and are paid in large part through government subsidies. Match made in heaven.

Doctors are good people, I am not disputing that in the slightest. The issue of vaccinations has become public policy, not medical practice. We are in a place where we get the shots the government says, and we have to rely on our government agencies to place the public interests first. They sure don't always do that.

[skaredshtles]

<snip> I don't quite buy the direct autism relation

What do you mean "quite"?

[huckbucket]

Yes, I do.

Corporations exist to make profit. They'll sell us cans of air if we're buying. I don't think corporations are evil or anything, I think they are simple. They exist simply to make money.

Yes, vaccinations are a great way to get public money into shareholder pockets. Corporations enjoy a government mandated supply of customers, and are paid in large part through government subsidies. Match made in heaven.

Doctors are good people, I am not disputing that in the slightest. The issue of vaccinations has become public policy, not medical practice. We are in a place where we get the shots the government says, and we have to rely on our government agencies to place the public interests first. They sure don't always do that.

Here's an idea: Shut the fuck up because you don't have the first clue about the process of getting a drug approved by the FDA. In your head do we pay off ad boards and FDA officials to approve otherwise unsafe medicines? Not everything is as simple as you make it out to be in your head. Dumbass.

[summit]

Umm, actually you do. Looks like somebody forgot about the scientific method. Test, test, and test again. "Proven science" is rarely absolute BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

My first response was pretty patient. Here's the problem:

1. Medicine CONTINUALLY evaluates the recommendations for vaccinations, what is the best to give, should they be given blanket, to select populations, not at all... for example, OPV was stopped in the US, and smallpox too.
2. You don't understand that #1 is occurring
3. You are calling for good information but it already exists you just don't understand how to find it or tell it apart from BS
4. You are questioning the rotavirus vaccine while fundamentally misunderstanding how it is supposed to work
5. You are responding to a tiny piece of Dexter's post but not my much more informative post

And you actually wonder why people are going "FUCK YOU YA DUMB ANTIVAXXER" well look at that list I just made. You are indeed acting a fool in the face of people willing to spoonfeed you. That moves you from "innocently ignorant" to "willfully ignorant and seeking to confirm your bias."

[skaredshtles]

Yes, I do.

<backs slowly away smiling from the nutjob>

[summit]

Yes, I do.

Hey, I'm all for healthy paranoia, but you are far into unhealthy paranoia. If you understood how the process actually worked, you wouldn't entertain the farcical scenario that I presented as a fucking joke.

[Danno]

Umm, actually you do. Looks like somebody forgot about the scientific method. Test, test, and test again. "Proven science" is rarely absolute, especially with something with SO many variables like we see with the field of medicine. If everybody subscribed to your logic, then medicine would never advance. "All right boys, looks like we can pack it up now. Our work here is done" said no scientist ever. Science should always be met with some level of skepticism, no matter how much you believe in it. Any good scientist tries damn hard to DISPROVE their own theories. Based on new information, it's then time to scrap or revise the original theory.

Yes, based on known data we can safely say that the benefits of immunizations as a society outweigh the associated risks. That said, we should ALWAYS be pursuing further research and honest examination of vaccines, adverse reactions, so on and so forth. Let's compare groups of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated kids in the same environments. Let's see if there's any association with XYZ, who, what, where, when, why, how. Why is that notion so controversial? I'm certainly not "anti-vaccine." I have just heard enough compelling ideas to make me think we should never stop questioning things. I don't quite buy the direct autism relation, but there may be something to the massive increases we've seen in allergies, shit health in kids these days, etc. May have nothing to do with vaccines, and everything to do with processed foods or other environmental factors, but still worth pursuing answers either way.

I don't think any scientist would say that we should just say "vaccines are good, let's toss out the scientific method." But you haven't responded to my post:

That sounds good in theory. But how do you suppose a simple dentist look into things further, read and understand all the scientific evidence, and come to a reasoned and well-supported conclusion that is somehow different that the widespread consensus among the medical professionals who actually study this stuff as their life's work?

What is your profession? What expertise do you have to evaluate existing data and studies, qualitatively decide which ones deserve credence and which ones are faulty, and determine whether a certain vaccine or vaccine schedule is or isn't appropriate? I mean, you post the following: "I don't quite buy the direct autism relation, but there may be something to the massive increases we've seen in allergies, shit health in kids these days, etc. May have nothing to do with vaccines, and everything to do with processed foods or other environmental factors, but still worth pursuing answers either way." You don't quite buy the direct autism relation? That implies that part of you wonders. Even though there is no relation and no evidence of any relation, except that a long time ago a now-discredited scientist asserted a connection, and many non-scientists continue to repeat it, enough so that you don't quite buy it all, but you're willing to consider it. Which gets back to my point: what qualifications do you have to accurately evaluate this info? I mean, lives are at stake here, including those of your own children, so are you confident in your expertise? To evaluate the safety of vaccines and vaccine schedules?

I am not an engineer, so I don't presume to know, for example, how to build dams or make a car that safely stops. I know so little about these pursuits that I would not dream of interjecting myself, of studying a document on dam design or car brakes and voicing my opinion on the best ways to make a safe dam and brakes that stop a 5000 pound car going 60mph, that the authors of the controlling literature don't know as much as I do or should pay heed to my opinion. And I think most people get that. Yet somehow, remarkably, when it comes to vaccines and medical science, people think that they can look at the "evidence" and make an "informed decision". Why is that?

[dunfree]

I don't quite buy the direct autism relation

No sane person should give fraudulent discredited science and scaremongering the benefit of doubt. Assigning merit to quackery and nutjobs doesn't make you level-headed and reasonable. It means you can't differentiate at all, so you'd be probably better off leaving the decision making to experts. Alas, they will have bias because they are human.

[iceman]

I've been vaccinated, my kids and wife have been vaccinated, I say let evolution deal with the nutjobs*

*not really, but only because some people who want to be vaccinated can't be because of allergies or other reasons, thus the nuts put these people at risk.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Umm, actually you do. Looks like somebody forgot about the scientific method. Test, test, and test again.

No, you're wrong in the way you're responding to this. I was referring specifically to YOU treating established vaccines skeptically, in terms of their efficacy. I was in no way saying further study shouldn't be done--but no one (credible) is doing study to see if they're worthwhile or not.

"Proven science" is rarely absolute, especially with something with SO many variables like we see with the field of medicine. If everybody subscribed to your logic, then medicine would never advance.

I mean, I'm not sure if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote, or if you believe that that was my message.

"All right boys, looks like we can pack it up now. Our work here is done" said no scientist ever. Science should always be met with some level of skepticism, no matter how much you believe in it. Any good scientist tries damn hard to DISPROVE their own theories. Based on new information, it's then time to scrap or revise the original theory.

Yes and no. I don't think anyone is currently trying to disprove gravity--we know it exists and how it works, and we have laws that describe the forces. Do we need to treat those skeptically, or would that just be an idiotic waste of time (except maybe for educational purposes)? Same with vaccines.

Yes, based on known data we can safely say that the benefits of immunizations as a society outweigh the associated risks. That said, we should ALWAYS be pursuing further research and honest examination of vaccines, adverse reactions, so on and so forth. Let's compare groups of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated kids in the same environments. Let's see if there's any association with XYZ, who, what, where, when, why, how. Why is that notion so controversial? I'm certainly not "anti-vaccine." I have just heard enough compelling ideas

Where have you heard these ideas?

to make me think we should never stop questioning things. I don't quite buy the direct autism relation,

And we're back to the rub, which is what makes you an idiot. You 'don't quite buy' the completely discredited notion put forward by a fraudulent, withdrawn study? Why would you even mention that? It's bullshit, but you want it to have some credence for some reason.

but there may be something to the massive increases we've seen in allergies, shit health in kids these days, etc.

Really? So your version of being skeptical of established science includes embracing contrived theories with absolutely no substance behind them? Maybe we should study if the allergy things are caused by the use of Facebook?

May have nothing to do with vaccines, and everything to do with processed foods or other environmental factors, but still worth pursuing answers either way.

I don't see how it's worthwhile to devote resources to studying random ideas that aren't supported (AFAIK) by any evidence to start with. Vaccines are rigorously studied for safety, including allergic reactions, so I don't have any clue where you're coming from.

Take a look at ANY industry. Construction, medicine, technology, whatever. Aren't we ALL constantly pursuing improvements? Sometimes even when something's worked fine for a long time, there may be a better way out there.

That part may be true but really has almost nothing to do with what I posted or your idea that we need to treat (established) vaccinations skeptically. We know they work, we know the risks, there are people always looking at improvements, but the last thing we should do is feed conspiracy theories about them that potentially put people at risk. That is just dumb.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I've been vaccinated, my kids and wife have been vaccinated, I say let evolution deal with the nutjobs*

*not really, but only because some people who want to be vaccinated can't be because of allergies or other reasons, thus the nuts put these people at risk.

I haven't had the flu vaccine for a while but it's not because I question it's efficacy it's because 12 years ago I had a pretty severe allergic reaction to the vaccine. My work(hospital) won't give me the vaccine. This year they offered to pay for allergy testing for the vaccine so I could get it again. I'm going to do that this summer/fall.

Posters like Austinform SA and ate'em are the reason this anti vax thing grows. People are ignorant and don't know what they don't know and the lack of critical thinking in our society is getting worse.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Yes, I do.

Corporations exist to make profit. They'll sell us cans of air if we're buying. I don't think corporations are evil or anything, I think they are simple. They exist simply to make money.

Yes, vaccinations are a great way to get public money into shareholder pockets. Corporations enjoy a government mandated supply of customers, and are paid in large part through government subsidies. Match made in heaven.

Doctors are good people, I am not disputing that in the slightest. The issue of vaccinations has become public policy, not medical practice. We are in a place where we get the shots the government says, and we have to rely on our government agencies to place the public interests first. They sure don't always do that.

So your weird anti-government(?) paranoia means we should be skeptical of what the medical establishment uniformly tells us is true? Is that supposed to make sense? And I think someone who knows better than almost any of us already explained that vaccines are not the money-maker for big pharma that you probably imagine they are.

[mall walker]

The issue of vaccinations has become public policy, not medical practice.

This same vacuous nonsense is said about - and is equally wrong about - climate change. The unfortunate fact that an unfortunate number of ill-informed folks have managed to develop the ability to vocalize some half-formed nonsensical opinion about an issue in no way moves that issue from the purview of natural science to that of public policy.

[Jong Lafitte]

There's a "standard" vaccination schedule? Well, let me tell you, mister FANCY DOCTOR, there's nothing "standard" about my snowflake. Do something different. Anything! Really, it just has to be different. I'll come up with a reason to harp on to all the other harpies at the brunch joint about how it means my snowflake is the snowflakiest.

[Adolf Allerbush]

There's a "standard" vaccination schedule? Well, let me tell you, mister FANCY DOCTOR, there's nothing "standard" about my snowflake. Do something different. Anything! Really, it just has to be different. I'll come up with a reason to harp on to all the other harpies at the brunch joint about how it means my snowflake is the snowflakiest.

My wife decided to space out the vaccines a little more for our oldest...which various doctors tried to explain to her wouldn't matter. With our second kid we just did the standard vaccination schedule. As a parent, I simply don't understand why you would unnecessarily want to expose your kid to diseases that are completely avoidable via vaccines. Then again, people do things that are not in their interests all the time, so I guess it shouldn't be surprising.

[iceman]

If only I could think a recent major example of that phenomenon....hmmm.

[stfu&gbtw]

Umm, actually you do. Looks like somebody forgot about the scientific method. Test, test, and test again. .

What you are proposing does not constitute a "test" as defined within the Scientific Method. Neither does randomly asking questions derived of your paranoid imagination constitute a "hypothesis". If you were open minded about vaccines, you would immediately appreciate the rigor involved in modern medicine, and how little effort is required to ask inane questions because the science incomplete. Consider this - our understanding is incomplete, essentially by definition... But if you don't know and understand the science that exists, how would you know what might be missing? Until you can formulate an actual question as described in the scientific method, your claims about a science's incompleteness are meaningless. You have no actual experience of it. You just know that it doesn't make sense to you, and you're still childish enough to think that it should.

[reckless toboggan]

What will the anti-vaxers do when medical science creates a vaccine to prevent autism?

[irul&ublo]

They tried to create a vaccine against stupidity. This last November showed it didn't work

[bodywhomper]

The anti-vax people that I know are concerned about the side effects. Some slip into the autism silliness but most look at the CDC-reported side effects and say, "nope", not my child. Too much risk. They disregard the other risks.

Two years ago, a child went to school while actively infected with measles. Once it was determined that they had measles at the school, all the potentially exposed unvaxed kids had to go home and be under quarantine at home for a few weeks - it was like a third of the student body. No other child contracted measles. This instance has now been used to support the anti-vaxers.

[stfu&gbtw]

^ Germ theory is like, just a theory, man...

[bodywhomper]

Just my observations. I live in one of the hot beds of the antivax in the US, as discussed in the other related thread on this forum. The measles thing is weird, though.

[boarddad]

^ I'm guessing you also live in an area that has fewer, shall we say, international visitors. No disrespect meant; Disneyland was one location where measles reared it's ugly head.

You can argue all you like about the flu vaccine. They say every year that they don't expect it to be more than about 60% effective. If you are healthy enough to fight a bout with a strain that it may have well been effective against, well, be sure an quarantine yourself, but I can see staying away from that shot (my family and I get the shot religiously but that's our choice). Everything else though, sorry, you're a moron who is putting good people at risk if you don't get those vaccines. Chicken Pox - dear God. Have you had it? I remember being down for weeks and so delirious from fever I bit through a thermometer. My wife got it while we were traveling on our anniversary and we couldn't fly home until she got better. Thankfully it was a mild case because Chicken Pox is nothing to mess with as an adult. My parents were of the generation that they would quarantine all the kids together if someone got it so they could all have it together under more controlled conditions. Seems barbaric these days. Thanks, but I am ecstatic that my kids do have the vaccine and will never go through what any of the previous generations did.

And as for autism, yes, there seems to be be more instances of autism these days, but then a lot more is considered to be autism than was in the past. Same with ADHD and ADD. It doesn't mean we all have to suffer through highly contagious diseases again, and besides, what good would that do? Hey Mom &a Dad, sorry to say little Johnny has high-functioning autism (that was likely just genetics and would have just been considered anxiety in past generations), but lucky you, he's likely to get measles too because we stopped vaccinating kids ?!? That's just stupid, and guess what? Most kids with what we consider autism today get through life just fine, same as they always have.