Vaccines and autism

In the end we're discussing terms to call horribly, dangerously, willfully ignorant people, so which choices we pick is largely immaterial, assuming you're getting your kids vaccinated.

I wonder how many people reading this don't vaccinate and refuse to let their choices be criticized.

I image it's hard for parents, so much crap is piled onto them about the dangers (both real and imagined) of the world, most of which one can do nothing about. Maybe at the end of the day it just comes down to feeling like not vaccinating is something they can control and the charlatans have played into that?

Not getting your kids vaccinated is a passive thing.

The belief that vaccines cause autism is a passive thing. Refusing vaccinations for your children and promoting anti-vax behavior is very much active.

It's possible to endanger a community, or threaten it, or even cause it to fear out of proportion to the actual threat, without being a terrorist. We use that label far too much since 2001. A person who exposes others to a disease through negligence or a misunderstanding of the science is not a terrorist; they are just a garden variety idiot or even scofflaw.

Intent matters. Negligence and stupidity are bad, but not terrorist bad. When we wedge every annoying or scary thing into the bin of terrorism, the terrorists win.

Yonder wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think if I were a parent in a 100% vaccinated school and the district wanted to bus a plaguebearer in, I would be setting some buses on fire.

You don't need 100% for herd immunity to kick in and eliminate the disease, that's why medical exemptions aren't threats to the species (and why we were able to successfully eradicate smallpox and almost eradicate a bunch of other things even with medical and belief exemptions). The issue in this case is both that the belief exemptions are spiking in larger amounts, and especially because they are happening in geographic clusters.

I honestly couldn't care less what their erroneous beliefs tell them. If they are going to be so irresponsible as to not participate in a public health program that eradicates preventable and horrible disease, they can rot in quarantine. The idea of busing them around because they can't be bothered to confront their stupid, irrational superstitions is not one that would go well with me or, frankly, any parent I know.

Terrorist is the modern communist.

On Sawbones this week Justin Mclroy and his doctor wife Sydnee did an impassioned episode about measles.

mudbunny wrote:

It's not that we are getting better at diagnosing it. I believe that the definition of what is considered autism has expanded over the past several iterations of the DSM. (I thin that is the name of the book in question)

It's both. The definition has expanded to a broad class of Austistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and clinicians have become better educated about these disorders and diagnosing them. The impact of changes in DSM categories, especially in important classes like Autism is fairly well studied.

The CDC has an ongoing project on this very issue:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/fea...

DanB wrote:

People should be allowed not to vaccinate but then they should also be required to wear some kind of prominent biohazrd marker so I can stay away from them; I am also open to making them wear some kind of bell.

Perhaps scarlet letters "A" and "V"?

Tattoo it on their foreheads and keep them away from motorcycles with tac nukes wired in...

People should be allowed not to vaccinate but then they should also be required to wear some kind of prominent biohazard marker so I can stay away from them; I am also open to making them wear some kind of bell.

LarryC wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

As a parent with a young kid I don't see this as a freedom of speech issue. It's a basic health and public order issue. Maybe there's a compromise by allowing anti vaxxers to homeschool their children, but I'd support federal and state laws that demand all daycares and schools (private included) bar non-vaccinated kids from attending. Also, I'd change civil law so that if your kid gave another kid Measles, you're fiscally responsible.

Only if we can also ban them from parks, grocery stores, malls, and any other public place ever. So no, there is no compromise here.

That is not necessary. As I pointed out, vaccines work outstandingly well individually. The risk from getting a lethal or any sort of disease from an unvaccinated person by a vaccinated person is minimal. The real risk is for kids who cannot be vaccinated for various reasons - and those kids should probably not visit all those public places anyway, because they're generally immunocompromised.

For that matter, kids who are unvaccinated should probably avoid those public places as well, precisely because they're the ones most at risk.

I get your point but when the option is A) Public places are safe for everyone because everyone who can get vaccinated does or B) Public places aren't safe for an unfortunate group because of selfish assholes, I'll choose A every time.

Right. That is a clear way of putting it. It is a public health issue, not a freedom issue. Vaccines work as personal defenses regardless of herd immunity, but herd immunity is the public health aspect of vaccination. Regardless, public spaces are not safe for the immunocompromised. Removing measles and other such diseases makes the space incrementally safer, but I still wouldn't call it safe. Measles is a significant issue here because of the speed and breadth of transmission. Once herd immunity is breached, it's like a postapocalptic nightmare outside for the vulnerable.

You can do mandatory vaccination, or you can do reverse isolation - both are public health measures. I am not conversant with how Americans at large will view either measure.

Fundamentally:

I get your point but when the option is A) Public places are safe for everyone because everyone who can get vaccinated does or B) Public places aren't safe for an unfortunate group because of selfish assholes, I'll choose A every time.

The "unfortunate group" for whom public spaces become unsafe in a measles outbreak includes the unvaccinated children and adults! I cannot stress that enough. If current parents no longer remember what it was like before vaccinations, then more fundamental to the public health issue is the lack of transmission of information. They were not properly educated. To be blunt, they are dangerously ignorant and should not be heeded for the formulation of public health policies.

We had quarantine and isolation for certain communicable diseases as a commonplace when I was a kid. The AV types are going to get a deeply unpleasant awakening when that shows up again. They think it's bad when their freedom to choose not to vaccinate is questioned? Picture their reaction to a 21 day household isolation for sickness, with groceries left for them on their doorstep and no direct contact with other people. Can't go to your job? Tough. How many job contracts cover quarantines, today? Maybe you can burn your vacation, or of course, take short-term disability (if that's a thing in your state). Kids are gonna miss school, too.

People forget what actually *happened* in the past and can easily happen again. Just watch for it...

I feel like not many of the anti-vac people had an issue with the Ebola quarantines, but maybe I'm just lumping all people I disagree with together..

Great PSA from Kimmel

Farscry wrote:

Those parents should be charged with child endangerment and their children removed from the home for their own protection.

Anti-Vaxer parents should be charged with child endangerment.

Yes, I am sincere in that statement.

Flintheart Glomgold wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Those parents should be charged with child endangerment and their children removed from the home for their own protection.

Anti-Vaxer parents should be charged with mayhem.

Yes, I am sincere in that statement.

ftfy.

Considering that their actions not only affect their own children but the public at large, I think it is fair to say that they have little to no regard for the welfare of others.

Flintheart Glomgold wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Those parents should be charged with child endangerment and their children removed from the home for their own protection.

Anti-Vaxer parents should be charged with child endangerment.

Yes, I am sincere in that statement.

Edit: full correction, since I misread.

I have come around to agreeing with Flintheart regarding parents who deny their children access to vaccines; they too should be charged with child endangerment.

The medical record is too solid to make a case against vaccinations. It is no less ridiculous and dangerous than denying your child access to, say, calcium and sunlight, because you believe some quack bullsh*t that calcium and sunlight will poison your children.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Reposting from the other thread:

I'm just quoting this so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. The entire argument Oddity presented is 100% false. It's "a pretty big secret" because it's a lie.

Edit: Also babies get and die from diseases preventable by vaccines. Delayed vaccination is barely better, if at all. There is no "well both sides are extreme, the best option is probably in the middle" argument here.

I didn't present any argument. I presented links. I established that my children were vaccinated. I stated that if a person(other than me) decided to delay vaccination, I'm kind of OK with it.

The linked article stated that the clinic in the article that had dealt with 30k kids, 0% of those not vaccinated presented with autism-related behaviors.

While I still would recommend that anyone having a baby vaccinatie their kids, I'm not willing to demonize those who put off vaccinations for a reasonable amount of time. I see that reasonable amount of time to be maybe 6mos or a year. For the Hepatitis vac... sh*t, there's no real reason to get that before 12... unless you're a sicko pimping your infant.

Paleocon wrote:
Flintheart Glomgold wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Those parents should be charged with child endangerment and their children removed from the home for their own protection.

Anti-Vaxer parents should be charged with mayhem.

Yes, I am sincere in that statement.

ftfy.

Considering that their actions not only affect their own children but the public at large, I think it is fair to say that they have little to no regard for the welfare of others.

Reckless endangerment is possibly the only crime that comes close to being valid. Mayhem is a very special type of crime and relies on actual damage to the physical person of another that deprives them of the ability to defend themselves. IE: arm, leg, eye, spine etc.

oddity wrote:

For the Hepatitis vac... sh*t, there's no real reason to get that before 12... unless you're a sicko pimping your infant.

Actually some children aren't as lucky as you to hang out with Kryptons all day. Many of the people a normal person comes in to contact with have skin that is vulnerable to cuts and abrasions that may cause blood infected with Hepatitus to come out!

But yeah, a desire to sexually molest infants is another explanation, that doesn't seem like a repulsive strawman argument at all!

Hepatitis transmission is a major concern in dental offices; all our takes is one set of improperly sterilized instruments and you've got a transmission vector literally stuck in your mouth.

Treating hepatitis as something only transmissible view sexual contact is patently silly.

oddity wrote:

While I still would recommend that anyone having a baby vaccinatie their kids, I'm not willing to demonize those who put off vaccinations for a reasonable amount of time. I see that reasonable amount of time to be maybe 6mos or a year. For the Hepatitis vac... sh*t, there's no real reason to get that before 12... unless you're a sicko pimping your infant.

But you have to ask what's the underlying logic behind parents' decisions to delay vaccinations.

The only reasons I've seen is the dubious idea that getting inoculated for half a dozen or more diseases at the same time somehow over taxes a child's immune system and could possible harm them. Of course they never present any actual evidence that the human immune system--even a child's--can't handle exposures to multiple pathogens at the same time.

Parents' decisions to delay vaccination only makes sense you accept that it's based on the idea that getting vaccinated carries with it a reasonable chance of causing harm and that, somehow (again, never explained), that risk of harm stacks if their child gets more than a completely arbitrary number of vaccinations at a time.

Is it worth demonization? Possibly. If only because it legitimizes completely irrational fears that are based on no actual data and society is better served by not letting well-intentioned--but ignorant--people begin walking down that path.

It's weird how so many in P&C demonizes Big Pharma day and Day out, but as soon as it's regarding Vaccinations, suddenly everyone appears to trust them implicity, as though they are above reproach.

I've been pointed to articles that mention that some vaccines are responsible for some damage, disability and deaths. I don't have the links on hand, as I looked them up at home. The only one I can think of is http://medalerts.org/ - you need a MS Access-like program to read the dbs.

"For the Hepatitis vac... sh*t, there's no real reason to get that before 12... unless you're a sicko pimping your infant." is hyperbole. Not a strawman. MMDs response was pretty excellent for dispelling it.

The only reasons I've seen is the dubious idea that getting inoculated for half a dozen or more diseases at the same time somehow over taxes a child's immune system and could possible harm them. Of course they never present any actual evidence that the human immune system--even a child's--can't handle exposures to multiple pathogens at the same time.

To which I would say - you're right... but with a caveat. If there's a death, they are going to list the actual cause of death. Maybe somewhere along the way in their report it might mention that the infant's immune system appeared to be stressed or strained, but the actual cause of death. Possibly a recently vacc'd kid is exposed to something else... or suddenly needs an operation. Blah, blah. etc. etc. The kids system ends up overtaxed. I don't know. But I'm not anti-vacc, so I haven't dug that deeply into it. I'm just willing to accept that kids are supposedly many people's number one "possession"(can't think of a better word right now). So they want certainty. Nothing is certain. This tactic seems to me that they are trying to do what's best. They get that vaccines are important. And they are going to do them, but there's enough doubt in them about possible risks and the credibility in the actors that it makes sense to them to delay.

As an example this site has a vaccination schedule http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/... . That's alotta sh*t, really fast. the great majority of infants seem to handle it fine, so whatever. But what if your family is one that hasn't typically been very robust. Low birthweights. History of failure to thrive. Whatever.

If I have an argument at all, it isn't anti-vacc, it's just why does everyone's Big Pharma scepticism disappear when they talk about this stuff. Vaccines are big money. It's in their interests to make sure 100% of people get vaccinated. While I'm not anti-vacc, I'm anti flu vaccine - as it looks like a blatant money grab to me. The last one was supposedly 20% effective. I'm sure they didn't charge 80% less for it.

oddity wrote:

It's weird how so many in P&C demonizes Big Pharma day and Day out, but as soon as it's regarding Vaccinations, suddenly everyone appears to trust them implicity, as though they are above reproach.

...

If I have an argument at all, it isn't anti-vacc, it's just why does everyone's Big Pharma scepticism disappear when they talk about this stuff. Vaccines are big money. It's in their interests to make sure 100% of people get vaccinated. While I'm not anti-vacc, I'm anti flu vaccine - as it looks like a blatant money grab to me. The last one was supposedly 20% effective. I'm sure they didn't charge 80% less for it.

I think these paragraphs point to a common and severe human failing: the idea that something is either always right or never right. For someone who has this common tribal mentality a person that agrees with Big Pharma on some things, while disagreeing or being unsure about other things, is very strange. "But, but, do you like Big Pharma or hate Big Pharma? PICK A SIDE YOU FLIP-FLOPPING CRAZY PERSON!"

On the case of nearly all vaccines (even the flu-vaccine, which has a low success rate in comparison to other vaccines, but also has a minimal risks) the evidence is so far in favor of vaccines that people that are more evidence-based decide that those findings are enough to overwhelm and other skepticism they may have about the activities of "Big Pharma".

And to head off the claim that it's not really evidence-based because we're ignoring evidence, digging through thousands and thousands of findings on how good vaccines are to find a half dozen studies that show inconclusive benefits or negative affects isn't evidence-based, it's conclusion-based.

Last year's flu vaccine sucked; I got the vaccine, and got the flu anyways. That being said, it undoubtedly reduced the impact of the flu. There are lots of various strains of flu, and there is a process of trying to determine which particular strains will be coming that year and vaccinate against those. Last year, they predicted wrong, which is the first year in any number of years I can recall where that happened. It's a bit like predicting the weather in that, and the prediction was wrong last year. They're usually very good about it.

The flu vaccine is something everyone should get, because the flu is a very big deal. We're less than 100 years removed from a flu pandemic that killed on the low end 50 million and the probable high end 100 million people. Influenza is quite likely the second-biggest killer in history after smallpox, and not getting the flu vaccine because it was less effective last year would be like going jogging when there's a tornado warning outside, because the weather guys said it was going to be 90 last Tuesday and it was only 85.

Yes, there's a lot of immunizations at a young age. That's because (A) it's safe and effective and (B) diseases will obviously be a threat to those with weaker immune systems, which includes the elderly, people with immune problems, and, of course, the very young. The reason you get lots of immunizations when you're young is basic science has repeatedly proven it's safe to do so. If it doesn't "make sense" to you, do you honestly believe science always makes sense? I read a lot. I have a reasonable understanding of how gravity works, but it doesn't make absolute sense to me. That doesn't mean I start floating away. Reality works as reality does, regardless of whether my brain understands it.

Germ theory didn't make sense to people, so they discounted it. Disease comes from bad air, not germs (hence mal-aria, from bad air). Radiation is invisible, so nothing to worry about. Makes sense.

In simple terms, if your common sense and the kinds of science that have shown repeated results millions of times conflict, your common sense is wrong.

I don't get my children glasses because scientists say that light is both a particle and a wave, which obviously doesn't make sense.

I'm not anti-glasses, I wear glasses and I think they work for me, and I don't have any problem at all with other people that wear glasses, but I'm just not sure that they are right for my children. If they decide that they want to get glasses when they are 18 that will be their decision and I'll totally support it.

Is there any evidence that it's possible to develop autism at all? Isn't it a genetic thing? So far all I've seen is vaccines->magic->autism.

If only our public school education included biology classes that went into depth on topics such as the immune system. The vast majority of people I've spoken with only have the most cursory understanding of immunology, which is a significant element in skepticism of vaccination. Even people I know who support vaccination usually don't understand how it really works.

Of course, having an explanation of how the immune system and vaccinations work still isn't enough to convince those who are paranoid about injecting [sinister voice]chemicals[/sinister voice] into their bodies, or conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the lizard master species is using vaccinations as a trojan horse for their mind control nanobots to placate us into slavery as they take over the world.

Heh. My brother in law is a vaccine research scientist. This vaccine->autism thing gives him fits.