19 ms·

Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

211 points by RockyMcNuts 13y ago

yuhong 13y ago
Personally I recommend keeping vaccine exemptions but not encourage people to use them.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  There is no reason to have a vaccine exemption unless there is a legitimate health reason (allergic reaction, etc.).
  - hitchhiker999 13y ago
    You have spoken, all interactions within biological sciences are decided. Thanks for that.
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      If you have valid, replicatable evidence where vaccines cause harm, I'm all ears. But if you're going to rely on anecdotal evidence, GTFO. I'm tired of hearing people not vaccinating their children and causing public health issues because they believe they're more informed than the CDC.
      - Patrick_Devine 13y ago
        Here's an example where vaccines cause harm: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/10/flu-shot-pandemic.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09... By and large though, vaccines are amazing. Just the fact that we have a vaccine which can protect against influenza is pretty fantastic. Life unfortunately always throws you spanners, so even though I think the people who live in the vaccine autism universe are bat shit crazy, it's still good to have people taking both sides of the issue. This is despite how freaking frustrating it can be when one side is arguing with opinion and the other is arguing with facts.
        jasonlotito 13y ago
        Both sides of the issue with evidence. Yours is the first I've read here. Most people, most discussions involving vaccinations don't come close to sensibility.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Well it's still possible to be pro-vaccine in general but against a specific vaccine that does not hold up its end of the risk/reward bargain. There aren't simply two sides where 1 is always pro-vaccine and the other is always quoting Wakefield.
        Patrick_Devine 13y ago
        Absolutely. I wasn't trying to paint it as a black and white argument at all, and in fact, quite the contrary. The people who are against vaccinations are mostly idiots, however, scientists are not infallible. Sometimes they lapse into politics too.
      - dalke 13y ago
        By "allergic reaction", I assume the g'parent poster did not mean only an allergy to the virus particles or fragments in the vaccine, but also included an allergy to the other components of the given formulation. Some people have an egg allergy. Some vaccines are made using chicken embryos, the vaccine includes some of the egg protein, and some people are allergic even to this slight amount. For an overview you can start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_allergy#Vaccine_hazard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_allergy#Vaccine_hazard The journal citations are easily accessible. First, these allergies are quite rare. "Estimates of true allergic, or immediate hypersensitivity, reactions to routine vaccines range from 1 per 50000 doses for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis to approximately 1 per 500000 to 1000000 doses for most other vaccines." says http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20349363 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20349363 . There are protocols for those with egg allergies, so most (95%) don't have a severe reaction to at least the flu vaccine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368312 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368312 Another possible source of allergies is gelatin: "[The researchers] suggested that previous receipt by these patients of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccines with trace amounts of gelatin was responsible for the sensitization," leading to an analysis which suggests that "Almost one fourth of patients with reported anaphylaxis after MMR seem to have hypersensitivity to gelatin in the vaccine." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12456938 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12456938
        toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Those were the allergies I was referring to in my original post. Thank you for providing not only the relevant info, but also the corresponding Wikipedia and Pubmed links.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  Just as long as the people who remain unvaccinated stay away from me, out of schools, the workplace, and other contact I agree with you. Everyone has the right to be vaccine free, but they don't have the right to be a disease vector and harm others. In much the same way it's considered (very) rude to sneeze or cough in someone's face, it's also socially inappropriate to not be vaccinated. In the first world, we don't actually understand how horrible it was prior to vaccines, (horrible doesn't begin to describe it) - so we think that being vaccinated is optional.
- philwelch 13y ago
  I recommend quarantining these people in their own communities and refusing public assistance when they inevitably get outbreaks of preventable disease.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    It is not a bad idea by a long shot, but the ethical dilemma comes up when you consider the children that will be unwillingly involved. Denying the adults treatment is one thing, but denying the children treatment because of the decisions their parents made is no more acceptable than allowing that parent to deny lifesaving treatment for a child.
    - scotty79 13y ago
      And allowing parents to deny their children vaccine that may save their health and life and health and life of other children is all fine? If we allow for that we might also refuse treatment alltogether and lift ban on female genital mutilation when we are at that.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > And allowing parents to deny their children vaccine that may save their health and life and health and life of other children is all fine? Well I would say no. I am in favor of giving all children vaccines, with or without the approval of the parents. As I said, the ethical problems are around the children. If adults want to opt themselves out, then I am perfectly cool with quarantining them in colonies and refusing them medical treatment. However they should not be permitted to drag their children along in such madness.
jared314 13y ago
> Most people have not lived in a time of plagues or remember their effects. Most people do not read history or look at the morbidity and mortality of vaccine-preventable illnesses in the third world. This is another great example of why people need to be taught actual history, not the version censored "for their young minds". The people who change curricula and edit textbooks to remove the unpleasant memories, or forward an agenda, do a disservice to everyone[1]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/14/backstory-how-the-texas-t_n_496831.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/14/backstory-how-the-t...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I think people's own minds provide some of that effect. Firstly, secretly wondering if the numbers aren't being exaggerated for effect and that sort of thinking. Secondly, it's difficult to really wrap your head around a disease that killed a third of the population. It's so ridiculous it's hard to fathom.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Polio existed in the US within the memories of many people still alive.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Sure, but polio was virtually eliminated in America by 1980, and how old were today's non-vaccinating parents in 1980? Or 1953, for that matter- the year of the last polio outbreak?
      - maxerickson 13y ago
        The age gaps are large, but I remember my grandmother being debilitated by polio. She wore leg braces most of her life and had trouble moving around the few years I knew her (she passed in the 1980s). There is no need to have witnessed polio directly to have a sense of the awful potential it carries. The whole idea of people living attached to ventilators should be enough for any quasi rational individual.
tomjen3 13y ago
Way to miss the point. This is so much bigger than just vaccines, encompassing distrust of authorities, misunderstandings about the existence of god, etc. But sure lets focus on vaccines.
- derleth 13y ago
  > This is so much bigger than just vaccines, encompassing distrust of authorities, misunderstandings about the existence of god, etc. If you get a horrible strain of the flu, very little of that will matter. Living to see tomorrow will matter.
- merraksh 13y ago
  I'd rather think his point is precisely that: distrust of authority, misunderstanding about the existence of god are just distractions from reality, and the wrong tools to face it. When disease=reality hits, he says, vaccines are the right weapon.
- scotty79 13y ago
  That's the whole point of the article. Distrust, misunderstandings, God are not bigger, because they are virtual, they are not part of physical reality, and reality doesn't care about why you ignore it. It will kill you all the same for whatever reasons. That's why we need to focus on vaccines. Way to miss the point of the article.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >...misunderstandings about the existence of god... What does that mean, exactly? Do you know something the rest of us don't?
rbourke 13y ago
The effectiveness of vaccines rely on 'herd immunity', that is: you need more than 90% of a population immunised to stop a disease spreading (as vaccines are never 100% effective)(also varies according to vaccine types/adjuvants and disease contagiousness) So by not vaccinating your self/dependents you are actually extremely selfish as you are benefiting from herd immunity whilst at the same time avoiding the (small) side reactions each vaccine may have. This is one of the most selfish things you could ever do.
- ChrisAntaki 13y ago
  From my research, people who avoid vaccines are usually afraid of (big) side reactions, like infertility or autism.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Oh, those are "big" (as in, serious, though rare; or serious, but doesn't fucking happen...) but do you know what is bigger? Somebody who could not get immunized dying because you refused to get immunized. That is why it is selfish. Incredibly selfish.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - rentAchop 13y ago
      If one was forced to immunize their child, that child then dies from a reaction to that vaccine. Is that the "unselfish" act? You might of well have said it's against your "morals". Your full of it, might as well say we should cull the autistic kids from the herd, you know to protect the herd.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Vaccines save millions of live. If, in your personal system of morality, the veeery slight chance that your child will die takes priority over the benefit vaccines present to society, then while you are entitled to that viewpoint, I have the right to call you a selfish monster who embodies much that is wrong with modern society. Furthermore, neither autistic kids nor eugenics have fuck all to do with vaccinations. Quit peddling this bullshit.
sitharus 13y ago
I've had the fun experience of debating with anti-vaccine people. Outside of the religious 'god will protect us' line, which I can't really argue with as it's a matter of faith, the vaccines cause autism line keeps coming up. Unfortunately for us a condition that we don't really understand is far more prevalent than the side-effects of preventable diseases. I've never met anyone who's experienced post-polio syndrome or given birth to a child with congenital rubella. Alas I had measles myself, but I was too young to have been vaccinated. This coupled with our odd perception of risk leads to people abandoning something that demonstrably saves lives because of the minor risk of side-effects. Having done some minor work with autistic children it's certainly not as bad or as certain as the documented outcomes of disease. I don't think much will change people's minds until the diseases return, but I will be keeping up on the pro-vaccination side.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  The folks who skip out on vaccination are (consciously or not) doing one or both of the following: 1) Counting on the herd immunity provided by everyone else to keep them safe 2) Pretending that the diseases which are being vaccinated against "really weren't all that bad" or maybe "didn't happen often"
  - laughfactory 13y ago
    Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test. Not all vaccines are created equal--including some that are intended to solve for the same thing. And all too many who blab their opinion on pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine do so with a minimum of research and evidence to support their opinion. Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks. As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.
    - btilly 13y ago
raphinou 13y ago
I am not against vaccines, it saves lives, but sometimes i have the feeling we may not get sick anymore, with all proposals for inefficient vaccines against benign affections. Sadly both camps (pro and anti vaccines) have too extreme positions to have a constructive debate.
- raphinou 13y ago
  I do not understand the downvotes here,especially with no argumentation. It only illustrates my opinion: people have too extreme opinion on the subject. I maintain that being unconditionally pro or anti vaccines is a bad approach.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Vaccines save lives. Millions of lives. Pro-vaccine is not an extreme position, it is the sane position. I downvoted you because I think you are presenting a false compromise. An "argument to moderation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
    - raphinou 13y ago
      A lack of moderated opinions is hurting a lot these days. Read my answer to dalke, because I would like ask you the same question: Would you be for mandating vaccines against rota-viruses in high-income countries?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        I don't have the expertise to make that call, and neither I suspect do you. I am comfortable with the CDC making that call. Moderated positions should not be your priority. Rather factually correct and defensible positions should be.
        raphinou 13y ago
        Looking at the facts lead me to a moderate position. I let you feel confortable following the cdc, i prefer to keep a critical mind, though i agree it is hard for non experts like us to get good and objective information.
altero 13y ago
There is also other side of vaccination when pharma industry pushes untested and ineffective serum. Mostly it is for viruses (hint: virus mutates too fast and vaccination is practically useless). Great example is bird/pig flu, serum was untested and used only thanks to massive hype. More people died from vaccination than actual flu. And best part are doctors which refused to have themselves vaccinated :-) disclaimer: I am well educated and my children got full vaccination.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  Knowing some of the details on vaccination, I can't agree. There is profit to be made in vaccines, sure. But it's hardly the same as in patented drugs. Competition is usually harder. I wouldn't call the bird/pig flu story hype. There was a wide consensus that these viruses were a threat and might have the potential for a pandemic. It killed a lot of people, and as far as I remember it had a higher mortality rate than most flus. So the threat was real. Now we know the virus probably didn't have the potential. In hindsight. I hope the next time there is a preventable pandemic threat people don't trump up the anti-pharma rhetoric and say "last time it wasn't so bad, was it?"
  - altero 13y ago
    > There is profit to be made in vaccines, sure. But it's hardly the same as in patented drugs. But there is also good chance to convince government to buy huge quantities. Flu kills and becomes pandemic nearly every year. Bird/pig flu was just a bad year. There are more effective measures to fight flu. For example closing schools for couple of weeks. Also employers should allow tele-commuting during flu seasons.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >just a bad year. 1918 was just a bad year, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic >It infected 500 million people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50 to 100 million of them—3 to 5 percent of the world's population at the time—making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.
venomsnake 13y ago
I saw a kid with polio deformed legs a few months ago. Something that I have never seen while the immunization calendar was state mandated and I was young. I have also never seen a case of autism. In a few years we will have outbreak of something preventable. I just feel poor for all the kids that had real reasons not to get the shots. A friend of mine after very bad Hodgkin was with compromised immune system for 10 years. He was constantly sick and popping antibiotics like tic-tacs. If the herd immunity was not so strong he would have been dead. The stuff we vaccinate against is not harmless. I would also recommend Ben Goldacre's "bad science" where he makes one of the best analysis of the MMR scare insanity and its origins and development. It is mostly the media's fault.
- robbiep 13y ago
  in a few years there will be an outbreak of something preventable There's an outbreak of preventable childhood measles in England at this very moment
  - dtf 13y ago
    I think it's south Wales that copped the worst of it. 1,219 cases of measles, 88 hospitalisations and one death. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23168519 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23168519 National newspapers are very much involved. Journalists like to present two sides of the story as equal rivals for "balance", even when one side is science and the other is paranoid quackery. When it comes to public health, this is a disaster.
    - dhughes 13y ago
      A family from my region went on a trip to Wales and both kids contracted measles and were sick when they returned. When the children were young the parents never had them vaccinated and now they're sick. It was just sheer luck this happened when school was out, the school system here doesn't require kids to be vaccinated as most places in Canada require. It's so easy for a stupid thing to escalate into a world-wide event all because of a few anti-vaccination idiots.
  - 13y ago
auctiontheory 13y ago
Yes, I think we should all be vaccinated, as the powers that be confidently tell us. And as a consumer of medicine, I observe that doctors are equally confident when they really don't know what they're talking about, and when their opinions aren't substantiated by science. (The command to wear padded running shoes, for instance.) And I know that the CIA organized a fake "vaccination drive" to get Osama bin Laden. So I understand why people who might not have a scientific education choose not to believe the vaccination story they're given by their government. Saying it louder and more often won't help.
- Volpe 13y ago
  > The command to wear padded running shoes, for instance. Physio's I've spoken to describe the pros and cons of both (barefoot, and padded) and let me decide. What command are you referring to?
  - eru 13y ago
    Barefoot versus padded is a false dilemma. There are non padded shoes.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  The fake vaccination drive is going to do a lot of harm to the efforts of help organizations. Especially muslims showed in the past and present that they can hold a self-damaging grudge for a long time... In India for example, a lot of Muslims still believe almost any medical treatment by the government, especially contraception, can lead to sterilization. To be fair, there was a time in India when, especially Muslims, were sterilized against their will. This was a crime against humanity in my opinion, but the lack of trust is still damaging them.
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  So as to not provide any more baseless evidence against vaccines under the guise of impartial reasoning, the CIA led vaccination drive actually did provide vaccines in a poorly developed region, but the data collected led to the capture of Bin Laden. In and of itself, the vaccination drive wasn't some sort of hoax, and it had legitimate doctors and results. It had just been co-opted by the CIA for covert intelligence gathering.
pdkl95 13y ago
I've been thinking about "Herd immunity" a lot recently, but not with respect to /biology/. The concept that if we easily become overpowered by a threat if do not maintain an active defence against it is true in most political issues, too[1]. In the current NSA drama, for example, we are fortunate enough to HAVE a "vaccine" against many of the problems: encryption. It's not always something that can be used (just like vaccines), but if those are rare enough most of the abuse-of-power problems wouldn't even be attempted. When a certain critical mass of people start skipping that protection, a tempting target is created and the problems com back, often much faster than expected. If I could just think of a clever epithet similar to "antivaxxers" to use when referring to someone who think they can skip encryption because "they aren't doing anything wrong" ("won't get $DISEASE"). [1]: insert traditional speculation about meme-vs-gene here
contingencies 13y ago
The notion that we can secure ourselves from disease through immunization is clearly valid for the subset of known treatable diseases. With pure untamed conjecture, I suspect, however, that the behavioural and psychological effects of the greater population's immunity to such diseases serve primarily to reinforce the modern 'medical miracle' that may, longer term, in fact leave us in a state of reduced immune performance and an 'immune monoculture', due to unnatural lifestyles and living environments, relaxed psychology, and a lack of exposure within the general population to the range of natural challengers that we once had.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  Vaccines do the precise opposite of what you just wrote - they expose you to huge numbers of viral particles ramping up your immune system so a state of enhanced immunity performance. When you travel to foreign countries, you tend to take a number of vaccines just so that your body is ready to fight off the endemic diseases that are prevalent in the region you are traveling to.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    Vaccines do the precise opposite of what you just wrote... Yes, but only for one specific disease.
    - lovemenot 13y ago
      I believe your parent was arguing that vaccines facilitate travel and that globalisation is anathema to monoculture. So vaccines indirectly attack the monoculture which you both think is a risk to our civilisation.
      - ghshephard 13y ago
        I wasn't - but I really like the point you are making. It had never occurred to me that the globalization of of travel is the antitheses of monoculture disease pools - But it's true - the Flu in China last year, quickly becomes a worldwide phenomenon six-nine months later.
ronaldx 13y ago
Please note first that I am pro-vaccination. Vaccinations are a risk, which are designed to mitigate another (larger) risk. With this in mind, we shouldn't look at vaccines uncritically. The article points out that Japanese vaccinations were withdrawn because they were believed to be causing aseptic meningitis - it's a shame that no numbers are mentioned on that side of the coin. The comparative risk of vaccination ought to be regularly and properly assessed, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8096942 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8096942
- dalke 13y ago
  "it's a shame that no numbers are mentioned on that side of the coin" Here you go: "The rates of virologically confirmed aseptic meningitis per 10,000 recipients were 16.6, 11.6, 3.2 and 0 for the standard MMR, Takeda MMR, Kitasato MMR and Biken MMR vaccines, respectively." There were 38,203 recipients, and the vaccines "were arbitrarily given". Source is "Adverse events associated with MMR vaccines in Japan", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8741307 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8741307 .
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Shouldn't there be a _lot_ of very good data about this in the general case, not just for widely recognized anomalous events? I suspect adverse reactions are under-reported. A recent experience does nothing to dissuade me from that notion. (I know, confirmation bias). But the sheer number of vaccinations that take place would provide some very good data. Of course, that data would also probably show at least some occasional quality control problems with vaccines. No matter how much I may respect the science behind vaccination, I refuse to simply have faith that there are never any QC problems with the mass production of vaccines (or any product for that matter). Our youngest developed a _very_ bad cough in the days/weeks after receiving the DTaP. We called the pediatrician who gave us the standard advice, to monitor the baby and bring her in if it worsened. We later did take the baby in for the cough. The doctor began dissuading us from the idea that it was Pertussis or related to the vaccination, before seeing the baby, and despite local news reports indicating a local increase in Pertussis cases[1]. The doctor had a look at the baby, and told us again it probably wasn't Pertussis, everything was normal (except the cough and low grade fever), ran a blood test for Influenza (tests confirmed that it wasn't Influenza), and told us to use a humidifier. I asked what the procedure (WRT both treatment and reporting) would be if it had been a possible or suspected vaccine adverse reaction. The doctor said they had _never_ had any reportable cases of vaccine adverse reaction and indicated a general lack of knowledge of adverse event reporting requirements. The clinic where this occurred was right across the street from the hospital that baby was born in, in the Medical Center in Houston, Texas, and is part of a large and well respected practice. Considering the number of patients that clinic has (it is a busy practice, with several clinics), even considering the low expected rate of serious adverse vaccination events, it is not possible that this clinic has never had a reportable event, and very unlikely that there were no serious adverse events. Baby might not have had Pertussis and baby is fine now. But, the experience turned my skepticism into a lack of confidence, at least with that particular clinic. [1] http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Whooping-cough-on-the-rise-in-Texas-U-S-3851973.php http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Whooping-cou...
azakai 13y ago
> Combined with a little luck (nothing quite as beneficial as being a white, middle class male in the US) you might have a reasonably healthy health. Hard to take an article seriously that starts out like that. On every axis mentioned there, there is a significantly healthier alternative group (and all but one - the alternative to middle class - are large).
laurent123456 13y ago
I love this argument, "reality doesn't care". I often have semi-arguments with family members when they tell me that they "believe" that X is true or Y is false when it comes to medical or scientific stuff. Then I tediously argue that science is not a matter of beliefs but facts, but that doesn't really hit home because some random guy on a random website wrote something they wanted to hear. I thought about forwarding this cool article but then realized that, just like reality doesn't care about us, there's a category of people who doesn't really care about reality.
- dgallagher 13y ago
  The nice thing about reality is that it continues to exist regardless if you believe in it or not. The thing is, what we perceive as reality might be wrong sometimes. Fortunately the scientific method is a pretty good algorithm whose purpose is to expose it whether we like the answer or not. Our species doesn't know everything yet, and we're limited by the capabilities of our bodies, knowledge, technology, and other things. Many people like to create a worldview in their heads which they become comfortable with. That's fine, but trouble arises when it's challenged and they fail to question or adjust it. Those who stubbornly defend against, dismiss, or demonize contradictory evidence significantly increase their probability of being wrong. A great technique to avoid this trap is to ask yourself, and answer, the following question for any subject, no matter how uncomfortable or taboo: What facts or evidence would it take for you to stop believing in what you currently believe? It's an excellent self-check, and a tool no open minded person should be without.
- pyre 13y ago
  > science is not a matter of beliefs but facts Is it? There is a lot of shoddy science that is done, and a lot of things that were accepted as scientific fact only to be overturned. Just because something is accepted by the medical community (for example) doesn't mean that it's necessarily a fact. </devils_advocate>
flagnog 13y ago
It's interesting (scary) to see all the anti-biotic resistant diseases on the rise. I wonder how long until the diseases vaccinated against evolve enough to bypass the antibodies produced by the vaccine?
newobj 13y ago
Spend some time in the autism community, as a parent of a child with autism, and meet other parents of children with autism, and you might have a different opinion about whether children can be vaccine injured after you hear the same stories over and over again.
- jbellis 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
  - newobj 13y ago
    Thanks for the non sequitur.
- jostmey 13y ago
  Man, I wish I could down-vote this idiotic comment. Changes in the brains of infants who later developed Autism have been observed before those infants ever received their vaccinations.
  - newobj 13y ago
    You're not actually disagreeing with my point, but I'm not going to engage in a conversation that begins with an ad hominem.
  - lotharbot 13y ago
    > "Changes in the brains of infants who later developed Autism have been observed before those infants ever received their vaccinations." I'd love a citation, if you have one. (Disclaimer: I am pro-vaccination, and the father of an autistic child. I'm interested in the "changes in the brain" thing, not the "link with vaccines" thing.)
- lotharbot 13y ago
  From another parent of a child with autism, I have two things to say: 1) it's clear from the science that vaccines do not cause autism. Autism becomes noticeable about the same age as vaccination, but its causes are earlier. 2) refusing to vaccinate simply means that you put your autistic child and mine at risk of other diseases. Get educated and stop doing the wrong thing.
rspeer 13y ago
What happened to sciencebasedmedicine.org? Does anyone else see an auto-generated placeholder spam page linking to "Naturopathic Nutrition", "Faith Healing", and "Homeopathic Treatment" when they go there?

211 points by RockyMcNuts 13y ago

yuhong 13y ago

Personally I recommend keeping vaccine exemptions but not encourage people to use them.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
There is no reason to have a vaccine exemption unless there is a legitimate health reason (allergic reaction, etc.).
- hitchhiker999 13y ago
  You have spoken, all interactions within biological sciences are decided. Thanks for that.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    If you have valid, replicatable evidence where vaccines cause harm, I'm all ears. But if you're going to rely on anecdotal evidence, GTFO. I'm tired of hearing people not vaccinating their children and causing public health issues because they believe they're more informed than the CDC.
    - Patrick_Devine 13y ago
      Here's an example where vaccines cause harm: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/10/flu-shot-pandemic.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09... By and large though, vaccines are amazing. Just the fact that we have a vaccine which can protect against influenza is pretty fantastic. Life unfortunately always throws you spanners, so even though I think the people who live in the vaccine autism universe are bat shit crazy, it's still good to have people taking both sides of the issue. This is despite how freaking frustrating it can be when one side is arguing with opinion and the other is arguing with facts.
      - jasonlotito 13y ago
        Both sides of the issue with evidence. Yours is the first I've read here. Most people, most discussions involving vaccinations don't come close to sensibility.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Well it's still possible to be pro-vaccine in general but against a specific vaccine that does not hold up its end of the risk/reward bargain. There aren't simply two sides where 1 is always pro-vaccine and the other is always quoting Wakefield.
        Patrick_Devine 13y ago
        Absolutely. I wasn't trying to paint it as a black and white argument at all, and in fact, quite the contrary. The people who are against vaccinations are mostly idiots, however, scientists are not infallible. Sometimes they lapse into politics too.
    - dalke 13y ago
      By "allergic reaction", I assume the g'parent poster did not mean only an allergy to the virus particles or fragments in the vaccine, but also included an allergy to the other components of the given formulation. Some people have an egg allergy. Some vaccines are made using chicken embryos, the vaccine includes some of the egg protein, and some people are allergic even to this slight amount. For an overview you can start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_allergy#Vaccine_hazard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_allergy#Vaccine_hazard The journal citations are easily accessible. First, these allergies are quite rare. "Estimates of true allergic, or immediate hypersensitivity, reactions to routine vaccines range from 1 per 50000 doses for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis to approximately 1 per 500000 to 1000000 doses for most other vaccines." says http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20349363 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20349363 . There are protocols for those with egg allergies, so most (95%) don't have a severe reaction to at least the flu vaccine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368312 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368312 Another possible source of allergies is gelatin: "[The researchers] suggested that previous receipt by these patients of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccines with trace amounts of gelatin was responsible for the sensitization," leading to an analysis which suggests that "Almost one fourth of patients with reported anaphylaxis after MMR seem to have hypersensitivity to gelatin in the vaccine." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12456938 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12456938
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Those were the allergies I was referring to in my original post. Thank you for providing not only the relevant info, but also the corresponding Wikipedia and Pubmed links.
ghshephard 13y ago
Just as long as the people who remain unvaccinated stay away from me, out of schools, the workplace, and other contact I agree with you. Everyone has the right to be vaccine free, but they don't have the right to be a disease vector and harm others. In much the same way it's considered (very) rude to sneeze or cough in someone's face, it's also socially inappropriate to not be vaccinated. In the first world, we don't actually understand how horrible it was prior to vaccines, (horrible doesn't begin to describe it) - so we think that being vaccinated is optional.
philwelch 13y ago
I recommend quarantining these people in their own communities and refusing public assistance when they inevitably get outbreaks of preventable disease.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  It is not a bad idea by a long shot, but the ethical dilemma comes up when you consider the children that will be unwillingly involved. Denying the adults treatment is one thing, but denying the children treatment because of the decisions their parents made is no more acceptable than allowing that parent to deny lifesaving treatment for a child.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    And allowing parents to deny their children vaccine that may save their health and life and health and life of other children is all fine? If we allow for that we might also refuse treatment alltogether and lift ban on female genital mutilation when we are at that.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > And allowing parents to deny their children vaccine that may save their health and life and health and life of other children is all fine? Well I would say no. I am in favor of giving all children vaccines, with or without the approval of the parents. As I said, the ethical problems are around the children. If adults want to opt themselves out, then I am perfectly cool with quarantining them in colonies and refusing them medical treatment. However they should not be permitted to drag their children along in such madness.

jared314 13y ago

> Most people have not lived in a time of plagues or remember their effects. Most people do not read history or look at the morbidity and mortality of vaccine-preventable illnesses in the third world. This is another great example of why people need to be taught actual history, not the version censored "for their young minds". The people who change curricula and edit textbooks to remove the unpleasant memories, or forward an agenda, do a disservice to everyone[1]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/14/backstory-how-the-texas-t_n_496831.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/14/backstory-how-the-t...

sliverstorm 13y ago
I think people's own minds provide some of that effect. Firstly, secretly wondering if the numbers aren't being exaggerated for effect and that sort of thinking. Secondly, it's difficult to really wrap your head around a disease that killed a third of the population. It's so ridiculous it's hard to fathom.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Polio existed in the US within the memories of many people still alive.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Sure, but polio was virtually eliminated in America by 1980, and how old were today's non-vaccinating parents in 1980? Or 1953, for that matter- the year of the last polio outbreak?
    - maxerickson 13y ago
      The age gaps are large, but I remember my grandmother being debilitated by polio. She wore leg braces most of her life and had trouble moving around the few years I knew her (she passed in the 1980s). There is no need to have witnessed polio directly to have a sense of the awful potential it carries. The whole idea of people living attached to ventilators should be enough for any quasi rational individual.

tomjen3 13y ago

Way to miss the point. This is so much bigger than just vaccines, encompassing distrust of authorities, misunderstandings about the existence of god, etc. But sure lets focus on vaccines.

derleth 13y ago
> This is so much bigger than just vaccines, encompassing distrust of authorities, misunderstandings about the existence of god, etc. If you get a horrible strain of the flu, very little of that will matter. Living to see tomorrow will matter.
merraksh 13y ago
I'd rather think his point is precisely that: distrust of authority, misunderstanding about the existence of god are just distractions from reality, and the wrong tools to face it. When disease=reality hits, he says, vaccines are the right weapon.
scotty79 13y ago
That's the whole point of the article. Distrust, misunderstandings, God are not bigger, because they are virtual, they are not part of physical reality, and reality doesn't care about why you ignore it. It will kill you all the same for whatever reasons. That's why we need to focus on vaccines. Way to miss the point of the article.
tsotha 13y ago
>...misunderstandings about the existence of god... What does that mean, exactly? Do you know something the rest of us don't?

rbourke 13y ago

The effectiveness of vaccines rely on 'herd immunity', that is: you need more than 90% of a population immunised to stop a disease spreading (as vaccines are never 100% effective)(also varies according to vaccine types/adjuvants and disease contagiousness) So by not vaccinating your self/dependents you are actually extremely selfish as you are benefiting from herd immunity whilst at the same time avoiding the (small) side reactions each vaccine may have. This is one of the most selfish things you could ever do.

ChrisAntaki 13y ago
From my research, people who avoid vaccines are usually afraid of (big) side reactions, like infertility or autism.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Oh, those are "big" (as in, serious, though rare; or serious, but doesn't fucking happen...) but do you know what is bigger? Somebody who could not get immunized dying because you refused to get immunized. That is why it is selfish. Incredibly selfish.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - rentAchop 13y ago
    If one was forced to immunize their child, that child then dies from a reaction to that vaccine. Is that the "unselfish" act? You might of well have said it's against your "morals". Your full of it, might as well say we should cull the autistic kids from the herd, you know to protect the herd.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Vaccines save millions of live. If, in your personal system of morality, the veeery slight chance that your child will die takes priority over the benefit vaccines present to society, then while you are entitled to that viewpoint, I have the right to call you a selfish monster who embodies much that is wrong with modern society. Furthermore, neither autistic kids nor eugenics have fuck all to do with vaccinations. Quit peddling this bullshit.

sitharus 13y ago

I've had the fun experience of debating with anti-vaccine people. Outside of the religious 'god will protect us' line, which I can't really argue with as it's a matter of faith, the vaccines cause autism line keeps coming up. Unfortunately for us a condition that we don't really understand is far more prevalent than the side-effects of preventable diseases. I've never met anyone who's experienced post-polio syndrome or given birth to a child with congenital rubella. Alas I had measles myself, but I was too young to have been vaccinated. This coupled with our odd perception of risk leads to people abandoning something that demonstrably saves lives because of the minor risk of side-effects. Having done some minor work with autistic children it's certainly not as bad or as certain as the documented outcomes of disease. I don't think much will change people's minds until the diseases return, but I will be keeping up on the pro-vaccination side.

sliverstorm 13y ago
The folks who skip out on vaccination are (consciously or not) doing one or both of the following: 1) Counting on the herd immunity provided by everyone else to keep them safe 2) Pretending that the diseases which are being vaccinated against "really weren't all that bad" or maybe "didn't happen often"
- laughfactory 13y ago
  Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test. Not all vaccines are created equal--including some that are intended to solve for the same thing. And all too many who blab their opinion on pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine do so with a minimum of research and evidence to support their opinion. Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks. As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.
  - btilly 13y ago

raphinou 13y ago

I am not against vaccines, it saves lives, but sometimes i have the feeling we may not get sick anymore, with all proposals for inefficient vaccines against benign affections. Sadly both camps (pro and anti vaccines) have too extreme positions to have a constructive debate.

raphinou 13y ago
I do not understand the downvotes here,especially with no argumentation. It only illustrates my opinion: people have too extreme opinion on the subject. I maintain that being unconditionally pro or anti vaccines is a bad approach.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Vaccines save lives. Millions of lives. Pro-vaccine is not an extreme position, it is the sane position. I downvoted you because I think you are presenting a false compromise. An "argument to moderation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
  - raphinou 13y ago
    A lack of moderated opinions is hurting a lot these days. Read my answer to dalke, because I would like ask you the same question: Would you be for mandating vaccines against rota-viruses in high-income countries?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I don't have the expertise to make that call, and neither I suspect do you. I am comfortable with the CDC making that call. Moderated positions should not be your priority. Rather factually correct and defensible positions should be.
      - raphinou 13y ago
        Looking at the facts lead me to a moderate position. I let you feel confortable following the cdc, i prefer to keep a critical mind, though i agree it is hard for non experts like us to get good and objective information.

altero 13y ago

There is also other side of vaccination when pharma industry pushes untested and ineffective serum. Mostly it is for viruses (hint: virus mutates too fast and vaccination is practically useless). Great example is bird/pig flu, serum was untested and used only thanks to massive hype. More people died from vaccination than actual flu. And best part are doctors which refused to have themselves vaccinated :-) disclaimer: I am well educated and my children got full vaccination.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
Knowing some of the details on vaccination, I can't agree. There is profit to be made in vaccines, sure. But it's hardly the same as in patented drugs. Competition is usually harder. I wouldn't call the bird/pig flu story hype. There was a wide consensus that these viruses were a threat and might have the potential for a pandemic. It killed a lot of people, and as far as I remember it had a higher mortality rate than most flus. So the threat was real. Now we know the virus probably didn't have the potential. In hindsight. I hope the next time there is a preventable pandemic threat people don't trump up the anti-pharma rhetoric and say "last time it wasn't so bad, was it?"
- altero 13y ago
  > There is profit to be made in vaccines, sure. But it's hardly the same as in patented drugs. But there is also good chance to convince government to buy huge quantities. Flu kills and becomes pandemic nearly every year. Bird/pig flu was just a bad year. There are more effective measures to fight flu. For example closing schools for couple of weeks. Also employers should allow tele-commuting during flu seasons.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >just a bad year. 1918 was just a bad year, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic >It infected 500 million people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50 to 100 million of them—3 to 5 percent of the world's population at the time—making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.

venomsnake 13y ago

I saw a kid with polio deformed legs a few months ago. Something that I have never seen while the immunization calendar was state mandated and I was young. I have also never seen a case of autism. In a few years we will have outbreak of something preventable. I just feel poor for all the kids that had real reasons not to get the shots. A friend of mine after very bad Hodgkin was with compromised immune system for 10 years. He was constantly sick and popping antibiotics like tic-tacs. If the herd immunity was not so strong he would have been dead. The stuff we vaccinate against is not harmless. I would also recommend Ben Goldacre's "bad science" where he makes one of the best analysis of the MMR scare insanity and its origins and development. It is mostly the media's fault.

robbiep 13y ago
in a few years there will be an outbreak of something preventable There's an outbreak of preventable childhood measles in England at this very moment
- dtf 13y ago
  I think it's south Wales that copped the worst of it. 1,219 cases of measles, 88 hospitalisations and one death. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23168519 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23168519 National newspapers are very much involved. Journalists like to present two sides of the story as equal rivals for "balance", even when one side is science and the other is paranoid quackery. When it comes to public health, this is a disaster.
  - dhughes 13y ago
    A family from my region went on a trip to Wales and both kids contracted measles and were sick when they returned. When the children were young the parents never had them vaccinated and now they're sick. It was just sheer luck this happened when school was out, the school system here doesn't require kids to be vaccinated as most places in Canada require. It's so easy for a stupid thing to escalate into a world-wide event all because of a few anti-vaccination idiots.
- 13y ago

auctiontheory 13y ago

Yes, I think we should all be vaccinated, as the powers that be confidently tell us. And as a consumer of medicine, I observe that doctors are equally confident when they really don't know what they're talking about, and when their opinions aren't substantiated by science. (The command to wear padded running shoes, for instance.) And I know that the CIA organized a fake "vaccination drive" to get Osama bin Laden. So I understand why people who might not have a scientific education choose not to believe the vaccination story they're given by their government. Saying it louder and more often won't help.

Volpe 13y ago
> The command to wear padded running shoes, for instance. Physio's I've spoken to describe the pros and cons of both (barefoot, and padded) and let me decide. What command are you referring to?
- eru 13y ago
  Barefoot versus padded is a false dilemma. There are non padded shoes.
bayesianhorse 13y ago
The fake vaccination drive is going to do a lot of harm to the efforts of help organizations. Especially muslims showed in the past and present that they can hold a self-damaging grudge for a long time... In India for example, a lot of Muslims still believe almost any medical treatment by the government, especially contraception, can lead to sterilization. To be fair, there was a time in India when, especially Muslims, were sterilized against their will. This was a crime against humanity in my opinion, but the lack of trust is still damaging them.
ewoodrich 13y ago
So as to not provide any more baseless evidence against vaccines under the guise of impartial reasoning, the CIA led vaccination drive actually did provide vaccines in a poorly developed region, but the data collected led to the capture of Bin Laden. In and of itself, the vaccination drive wasn't some sort of hoax, and it had legitimate doctors and results. It had just been co-opted by the CIA for covert intelligence gathering.

pdkl95 13y ago

I've been thinking about "Herd immunity" a lot recently, but not with respect to /biology/. The concept that if we easily become overpowered by a threat if do not maintain an active defence against it is true in most political issues, too[1]. In the current NSA drama, for example, we are fortunate enough to HAVE a "vaccine" against many of the problems: encryption. It's not always something that can be used (just like vaccines), but if those are rare enough most of the abuse-of-power problems wouldn't even be attempted. When a certain critical mass of people start skipping that protection, a tempting target is created and the problems com back, often much faster than expected. If I could just think of a clever epithet similar to "antivaxxers" to use when referring to someone who think they can skip encryption because "they aren't doing anything wrong" ("won't get $DISEASE"). [1]: insert traditional speculation about meme-vs-gene here

contingencies 13y ago

The notion that we can secure ourselves from disease through immunization is clearly valid for the subset of known treatable diseases. With pure untamed conjecture, I suspect, however, that the behavioural and psychological effects of the greater population's immunity to such diseases serve primarily to reinforce the modern 'medical miracle' that may, longer term, in fact leave us in a state of reduced immune performance and an 'immune monoculture', due to unnatural lifestyles and living environments, relaxed psychology, and a lack of exposure within the general population to the range of natural challengers that we once had.

ghshephard 13y ago
Vaccines do the precise opposite of what you just wrote - they expose you to huge numbers of viral particles ramping up your immune system so a state of enhanced immunity performance. When you travel to foreign countries, you tend to take a number of vaccines just so that your body is ready to fight off the endemic diseases that are prevalent in the region you are traveling to.
- contingencies 13y ago
  Vaccines do the precise opposite of what you just wrote... Yes, but only for one specific disease.
  - lovemenot 13y ago
    I believe your parent was arguing that vaccines facilitate travel and that globalisation is anathema to monoculture. So vaccines indirectly attack the monoculture which you both think is a risk to our civilisation.
    - ghshephard 13y ago
      I wasn't - but I really like the point you are making. It had never occurred to me that the globalization of of travel is the antitheses of monoculture disease pools - But it's true - the Flu in China last year, quickly becomes a worldwide phenomenon six-nine months later.

ronaldx 13y ago

Please note first that I am pro-vaccination. Vaccinations are a risk, which are designed to mitigate another (larger) risk. With this in mind, we shouldn't look at vaccines uncritically. The article points out that Japanese vaccinations were withdrawn because they were believed to be causing aseptic meningitis - it's a shame that no numbers are mentioned on that side of the coin. The comparative risk of vaccination ought to be regularly and properly assessed, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8096942 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8096942

dalke 13y ago
"it's a shame that no numbers are mentioned on that side of the coin" Here you go: "The rates of virologically confirmed aseptic meningitis per 10,000 recipients were 16.6, 11.6, 3.2 and 0 for the standard MMR, Takeda MMR, Kitasato MMR and Biken MMR vaccines, respectively." There were 38,203 recipients, and the vaccines "were arbitrarily given". Source is "Adverse events associated with MMR vaccines in Japan", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8741307 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8741307 .
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Shouldn't there be a _lot_ of very good data about this in the general case, not just for widely recognized anomalous events? I suspect adverse reactions are under-reported. A recent experience does nothing to dissuade me from that notion. (I know, confirmation bias). But the sheer number of vaccinations that take place would provide some very good data. Of course, that data would also probably show at least some occasional quality control problems with vaccines. No matter how much I may respect the science behind vaccination, I refuse to simply have faith that there are never any QC problems with the mass production of vaccines (or any product for that matter). Our youngest developed a _very_ bad cough in the days/weeks after receiving the DTaP. We called the pediatrician who gave us the standard advice, to monitor the baby and bring her in if it worsened. We later did take the baby in for the cough. The doctor began dissuading us from the idea that it was Pertussis or related to the vaccination, before seeing the baby, and despite local news reports indicating a local increase in Pertussis cases[1]. The doctor had a look at the baby, and told us again it probably wasn't Pertussis, everything was normal (except the cough and low grade fever), ran a blood test for Influenza (tests confirmed that it wasn't Influenza), and told us to use a humidifier. I asked what the procedure (WRT both treatment and reporting) would be if it had been a possible or suspected vaccine adverse reaction. The doctor said they had _never_ had any reportable cases of vaccine adverse reaction and indicated a general lack of knowledge of adverse event reporting requirements. The clinic where this occurred was right across the street from the hospital that baby was born in, in the Medical Center in Houston, Texas, and is part of a large and well respected practice. Considering the number of patients that clinic has (it is a busy practice, with several clinics), even considering the low expected rate of serious adverse vaccination events, it is not possible that this clinic has never had a reportable event, and very unlikely that there were no serious adverse events. Baby might not have had Pertussis and baby is fine now. But, the experience turned my skepticism into a lack of confidence, at least with that particular clinic. [1] http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Whooping-cough-on-the-rise-in-Texas-U-S-3851973.php http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Whooping-cou...

azakai 13y ago

> Combined with a little luck (nothing quite as beneficial as being a white, middle class male in the US) you might have a reasonably healthy health. Hard to take an article seriously that starts out like that. On every axis mentioned there, there is a significantly healthier alternative group (and all but one - the alternative to middle class - are large).

laurent123456 13y ago

I love this argument, "reality doesn't care". I often have semi-arguments with family members when they tell me that they "believe" that X is true or Y is false when it comes to medical or scientific stuff. Then I tediously argue that science is not a matter of beliefs but facts, but that doesn't really hit home because some random guy on a random website wrote something they wanted to hear. I thought about forwarding this cool article but then realized that, just like reality doesn't care about us, there's a category of people who doesn't really care about reality.

dgallagher 13y ago
The nice thing about reality is that it continues to exist regardless if you believe in it or not. The thing is, what we perceive as reality might be wrong sometimes. Fortunately the scientific method is a pretty good algorithm whose purpose is to expose it whether we like the answer or not. Our species doesn't know everything yet, and we're limited by the capabilities of our bodies, knowledge, technology, and other things. Many people like to create a worldview in their heads which they become comfortable with. That's fine, but trouble arises when it's challenged and they fail to question or adjust it. Those who stubbornly defend against, dismiss, or demonize contradictory evidence significantly increase their probability of being wrong. A great technique to avoid this trap is to ask yourself, and answer, the following question for any subject, no matter how uncomfortable or taboo: What facts or evidence would it take for you to stop believing in what you currently believe? It's an excellent self-check, and a tool no open minded person should be without.
pyre 13y ago
> science is not a matter of beliefs but facts Is it? There is a lot of shoddy science that is done, and a lot of things that were accepted as scientific fact only to be overturned. Just because something is accepted by the medical community (for example) doesn't mean that it's necessarily a fact. </devils_advocate>

flagnog 13y ago

It's interesting (scary) to see all the anti-biotic resistant diseases on the rise. I wonder how long until the diseases vaccinated against evolve enough to bypass the antibodies produced by the vaccine?

newobj 13y ago

Spend some time in the autism community, as a parent of a child with autism, and meet other parents of children with autism, and you might have a different opinion about whether children can be vaccine injured after you hear the same stories over and over again.

jbellis 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
- newobj 13y ago
  Thanks for the non sequitur.
jostmey 13y ago
Man, I wish I could down-vote this idiotic comment. Changes in the brains of infants who later developed Autism have been observed before those infants ever received their vaccinations.
- newobj 13y ago
  You're not actually disagreeing with my point, but I'm not going to engage in a conversation that begins with an ad hominem.
- lotharbot 13y ago
  > "Changes in the brains of infants who later developed Autism have been observed before those infants ever received their vaccinations." I'd love a citation, if you have one. (Disclaimer: I am pro-vaccination, and the father of an autistic child. I'm interested in the "changes in the brain" thing, not the "link with vaccines" thing.)
lotharbot 13y ago
From another parent of a child with autism, I have two things to say: 1) it's clear from the science that vaccines do not cause autism. Autism becomes noticeable about the same age as vaccination, but its causes are earlier. 2) refusing to vaccinate simply means that you put your autistic child and mine at risk of other diseases. Get educated and stop doing the wrong thing.

rspeer 13y ago

What happened to sciencebasedmedicine.org? Does anyone else see an auto-generated placeholder spam page linking to "Naturopathic Nutrition", "Faith Healing", and "Homeopathic Treatment" when they go there?