It would be difficult to do an entirely unbiased study because of the reasons that people choose not to vaccinate and the type of lifestyle than a majority of non-vaccinating parents live. At least any large meaningful study.

10/25/2011 1:46:24 PM

Quote :

"I've been researching this stuff fairly consistently over a couple years, and I've been utterly dissatisfied with any of the studies on vaccine safety."

I hear the guys with letters after their names do a good bit of research on the matter, too. Maybe you should ask one of them instead of asking Jeeves.

10/25/2011 1:47:10 PM

Quote :

"It would be difficult to do an entirely unbiased study because of the reasons that people choose not to vaccinate and the type of lifestyle than a majority of non-vaccinating parents live. At least any large meaningful study."

It would be easy to find thousands of unvaccinated children who live a plain, suburban, white, middle-class lifestyle just in the Triangle and Triad. It would also be easy to find their demographic counterparts who had all the vaccines.

10/25/2011 1:48:50 PM

Won't it be funny one day if we find out that this obsession with everyone getting the flu shot yearly turns out to be speeding up the progression of a super-bug version of the flu, similar to how antibiotics are creating their own super bugs?

There is certainly a whole lot of legitimate debate in this area about minor-vaccines and the desire to limit the medical chemicals we pump into our and our infant children's bodies. I just hate it that the moon-bat anti-everything vaccine people have such strong opinions that result in the other side taking just as strong an opinion of anyone that has any sort of reservation about vaccines. Just so you know, you sound as stupid as the moon-bats on the other side.

10/25/2011 1:50:15 PM

Quote :

"It would be easy to find thousands of unvaccinated children who live a plain, suburban, white, middle-class lifestyle just in the Triangle and Triad. It would also be easy to find their demographic counterparts who had all the vaccines."

You know what would be easier? Asking a doctor if they have already heard the research. Trust me, they've done a lot more research than you have. I promise.

10/25/2011 1:52:52 PM

Quote :

"Won't it be funny one day if we find out that this obsession with everyone getting the flu shot yearly turns out to be speeding up the progression of a super-bug version of the flu, similar to how antibiotics are creating their own super bugs?"

Quote :

"legitimate debate"

Quote :

"moon-bats"

Quote :

"moon-bats"

10/25/2011 1:54:57 PM

Quote :

"It would be easy to find thousands of unvaccinated children who live a plain, suburban, white, middle-class lifestyle just in the Triangle and Triad."

I seriously doubt that if only because most daycare centers and if I recall correctly, public schools and most private schools won't let your kid be admitted without the vaccines. Hell, you can't even be enrolled in college without them. I guess you could look at the homeschooled populations but even then, I doubt you'd find thousands that haven't been vaccinated.

10/25/2011 1:55:57 PM

Quote :

"You know what would be easier? Asking a doctor if they have already heard the research. Trust me, they've done a lot more research than you have. I promise."

I have asked doctors, and their only responses have been pointing to papers that I had already read.

10/25/2011 1:57:36 PM

Quote :

"Hell, you can't even be enrolled in college without them."

that's not entirely true, I haven't had the rest of the MMR vaccine due to going into anaphylaxis after the first dose, I just needed to show a doctor's note to give to my schools later on in life.

10/25/2011 1:58:30 PM

^ This. I'm pretty sure you have several thousand homeschooled children in the Triad/Triangle areas, but
non-vaccinated homeschooled kids? I doubt even the more fringe parents on the left and right are going to go
against medical science on this, especially because their children tend to do just as many extracurricular activities as the general public school population and will probably be entering a higher form of education at some point that requires it.

10/25/2011 2:00:19 PM

Quote :

"Hell, you can't even be enrolled in college without them. I guess you could look at the homeschooled populations but even then, I doubt you'd find thousands that haven't been vaccinated."

I'm sure you can find some populations of children somewhere who all have a common disbelief in conventional medical science.

10/25/2011 2:00:25 PM

^x8 I see what you are trying to point out.

However, gaining immunity to viruses through vaccine is very different than bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ;]

10/25/2011 2:00:34 PM

Quote :

"I seriously doubt that if only because most daycare centers and if I recall correctly, public schools and most private schools won't let your kid be admitted without the vaccines. Hell, you can't even be enrolled in college without them. I guess you could look at the homeschooled populations but even then, I doubt you'd find thousands that haven't been vaccinated."

Vaccination is not required to attend any public school in North Carolina.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-157 (2006)

Quote :

"§ 130A-157. Religious exemption If the bona fide religious beliefs of an adult or the parent, guardian or person in loco parentis of a child are contrary to the immunization requirements contained in this Chapter, the adult or the child shall be exempt from the requirements. Upon submission of a written statement of the bona fide religious beliefs and opposition to the immunization requirements, the person may attend the college, university, school or facility without presenting a certificate of immunization."

There are thousands, just in the Triad and Triangle. You can find hundreds of them just by looking online for local anti-vax support groups and forums. If hundreds of them are online communicating with one another, there are thousands who are not.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM. Reason : a]

10/25/2011 2:01:21 PM

Quote :

"that's not entirely true, I haven't had the rest of the MMR vaccine due to going into anaphylaxis after the first dose, I just needed to show a doctor's note to give to my schools later on in life."

But that is an extenuating circumstance. I doubt most unvaccinated people could claim such a thing.

Hell, we went through this big drama at my work because one of our students had a crappy photocopy of his vaccination record and student health wouldn't accept it, so he couldn't be allowed in classes until his wife in India mailed him the original documents.

What I think is interesting is that a lot of the people up in arms about vaccines don't bat an eyelash to the amount of ultrasound screenings done during pregnancy which has shown more of a risk (still small) of causing issues than vaccines have. Why is it that vaccines get the bad rap and ultrasounds don't?

10/25/2011 2:03:46 PM

You know, eating food that is grilled over charcoal contains carcinogens. So do burning candles that you get from Yankee Candle. Plastics used in discount water bottles also contain traces of chemicals that can result in forms of cancer down the road if the bottle is reused.

The number of "can cause..." is large, but trying to prove that just because something exists that it is a statistically significant risk is a completely different matter. People don't seem to grasp that everything is a statistical game (if you're an engineering student on here, I hope you already understand that). What a lot of people forget is that just because a test shows something could happen, it doesn't mean it is worth-while to actually act on those findings.

BTW, TULIP, you just stated an NC law as if it supported what you were saying, then made a wild claim. I'm not sure that flies in a lot of people's book. How do you figure that an NC law suggests that there are thousands in the triangle area that withhold vaccinations from their children? On what basis are you stating that just because you found a website with a hundred users that it proves there are thousands who agree?

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2011 2:21:13 PM

Quote :

"BTW, TULIP, you just stated an NC law as if it supported what you were saying, then made a wild claim. I'm not sure that flies in a lot of people's book. How do you figure that an NC law suggests that there are thousands in the triangle area that withhold vaccinations from their children? On what basis are you stating that just because you found a website with a hundred users that it proves there are thousands who agree?"

I was responding to the notion that vaccination is required to attend schools in NC. It's not.

Then, on a separate point, I was addressing bottombaby's assertion that it would be hard to find unvaccinated children who can be compared, by demographic and lifestyle variables, to the vaccinated population.

It's easy to find such children. And, it's straightforward reasoning - if there are hundreds in local online support groups and forums, then there are a few times that many who do not participate in such online groups. Besides, that particular point isn't such a big deal. The study I propose is feasible, and is easier than most of what passes for vaccine research.

Find thousands of unvaccinated kids who otherwise lead normal lifestyles. Find thousands who were vaccinated. Correct for any remaining differences between the groups, and compare rates of various childhood ailments and disorders. Very simple. Very easy. And it's actually science. That's how we would study just about anything else - why don't we subject vaccines to the same analysis?

10/25/2011 2:29:00 PM

Should probably compare to see how many of them get infected with measles and whooping cough outbreaks as well while we're at it.

10/25/2011 2:31:47 PM

^That rate is already known, because the diseases we vaccinate against are tracked whenever they appear, and we know how many people who got the disease were not vaccinated. We study that well.

We know the probability and severity of contracting the disease without vaccination. That side of the cost-benefit analysis is done. But you can't make an informed decision with only one side of the CBA filled in. The probability and severity of adverse outcomes from vaccination is entirely unknown.

10/25/2011 2:34:36 PM

Alright, TULIP, you're over-thinking this way too much. The idea that you can "assume" that there are dozens or hundreds of people out there who agree with every one person online is just plain stupid. Ever seen an online-only poll and realized that the results didn't correlate with what comes out in polls taken through in-person interviews and telephone surveys? You can't say that the internet represents a balanced ratio to the outside world anymore than you can claim the population at Wal-Mart or Target is an appropriate cross-section of a community.

Regardless, all you have is this "assumption" that there are thousands of people in the triangle that are withholding medical preventative treatments from their children. Pretty bold assertion, but that's your option to make it. Now prove it.

BTW, as I stated twice, you could always try "researching" your local doctors and asking them instead of Googling. They probably know a lot more about the subject than you do. Claiming you are doing research without asking "subject matter experts" is just retarded.

10/25/2011 2:35:20 PM

I'm sure you could find someone at ECU, Duke, or UNC that would gladly talk with you about the research that has been done (or not done) on vaccinations as well. They're quite approachable when it comes to this sort of thing I've found.

And again, why all the hubbub on things like vaccines and not on things like ultrasounds? I just don't get it.

10/25/2011 2:37:34 PM

Another thing that just dawned upon me: we have a biomedical engineering department that, at least when I was attending, did a lot of research on medical materials including hypodermic needles. Have you even thought to ask one of the people that your taxes and tuition money pays/paid for?

10/25/2011 2:43:10 PM

Quote :

"One proper study would be invaluable, but the medical establishment refuses to do it. 1) Find thousands, or tens of thousands, of completely unvaccinated children. Don't withhold vaccines from anyone - just find those who have already made that decision. 2) Find thousands, or tens of thousands, of children who had the CDC-recommended vaccine regimen. 3) Adjust for demographic and lifestyle variables, and compare rates of asthma, autism, neurological disorders, intestinal maladies, etc. between the groups. Then we would know something about the risks of the regimen as a whole, if not individual vaccines. It would be a start. That's science. And they refuse to do it. Nobody in the world has done that study. Until then, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned. The studies out there on vaccine safety are, in short, astonishingly stupid. "

You're suggesting to do an epidemiological study by survey and call that science? The reason you haven't seen such a study is because it would never get published in the first place. Step 3 is impossible if you're talking about just polling people from all walks of life (which you'd have to in the first place to get a reasonable amount of people).

Then there'd be no way to control the reliability of the reporting. It would be laughed at by editors of any peer-reviewed journal.

You need control and to do that you'd need to purposely deny people vaccines which EVEN IF THEY VOLUNTEER is unethical.

Quote :

"And again, why all the hubbub on things like vaccines and not on things like ultrasounds? I just don't get it. "

It's not difficult to understand. How difficult is it to sell "those scary needles BigPharma wants your kids to get poked with are dangerous" vs "those cute pictures that tell you whether it's a boy or a girl are dangerous?" It always has been about making money off the insecurity of parents.



[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2011 2:44:48 PM

just got my flu shot.

I might still get the flu this year, but my chances just improved on not getting it.

If you don't get a flu shot, I hope you get lucky and avoid the flu-- I have no problem with your choice. I get them annually if I get around to it. Some years I don't. It's really not a big deal.

I only take issue with those people who fall for, and perpetuate misinformation.

10/25/2011 2:46:18 PM

Quote :

"Alright, TULIP, you're over-thinking this way too much. The idea that you can "assume" that there are dozens or hundreds of people out there who agree with every one person online is just plain stupid. Ever seen an online-only poll and realized that the results didn't correlate with what comes out in polls taken through in-person interviews and telephone surveys? You can't say that the internet represents a balanced ratio to the outside world anymore than you can claim the population at Wal-Mart or Target is an appropriate cross-section of a community."

I never said the online footprint between pro-vax and anti-vax people is proportional to the real world. It's not. The online presence of anti-vax people is outsized compared to their real numbers. But that's irrelevant. I'm not claiming they have any kind of majority, or even a significant minority. I'm saying there are anti-vax people who are not in those forums. Disputing this makes you look silly.

Do you dispute this point: there are thousands of unvaccinated children in NC, and in the US, who lead otherwise normal lives and that we can find them?

Quote :

"Regardless, all you have is this "assumption" that there are thousands of people in the triangle that are withholding medical preventative treatments from their children. Pretty bold assertion, but that's your option to make it. Now prove it."

I didn't say Triangle. I said Triangle and Triad. There are well over 500,000 students just in public schools in those areas, plus private schools and home schools. With an unvaccinated rate under half a percent, you still reach thousands.

Quote :

"BTW, as I stated twice, you could always try "researching" your local doctors and asking them instead of Googling. They probably know a lot more about the subject than you do. Claiming you are doing research without asking "subject matter experts" is just retarded."

Perhaps you missed my earlier response:

Quote :

"I have asked doctors, and their only responses have been pointing to papers that I had already read."

So.....can you answer why vaccinations are not subject to the same analysis, using experimental and control groups, that just about everything else goes through?

10/25/2011 2:46:26 PM

Quote :

"So.....can you answer why vaccinations are not subject to the same analysis, using experimental and control groups, that just about everything else goes through?"

Because it wouldn't be ethical, even if they volunteer.

And actually, there have been epidemiological studies.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-study/

Quote :

"In fact, I rather suspect that the smarter among the anti-vaccinationists know all the problems inherent in doing a study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Certainly the government does, hence its reluctance to spend all sorts of money chasing a highly improbable hypothesis. (If only it would apply that reasoning to NCCAM!) In reality, the “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” gambit is just that–a gambit. The leaders of the anti-vaccine movement probably know that doing a study with sufficient power and numbers to exclude even a modest risk of autism due to the current vaccine schedule is so expensive and impractical that it would probably never be done and that smaller studies that are feasible will have too little power to reassure those who believe that vaccines cause autism that vaccines are in fact safe. Why do it then? It keeps the troops fired up thinking that there is some huge conspiracy to prevent such a study because of the fear of its results or that the government just doesn’t care enough about autistic children to do such a study. On the other hand, antivaccinationists should be very careful what they ask for. They may just make enough of a pain of themselves to get it. True, getting the resources necessary to do a study the like of what Prometheus described intially would monopolize autism research funding for years, but the anti-vaccine movement doesn’t really care about that, because it’s always been all about the vaccines more than helping autistic children. Worse, if the government ever did spend the money on such an enormous study and it was resoundingly negative, it’s easy to predict that it would make no difference. As they have done before for other large studies, anti-vaccinationists would discount the results and cry bias. Still, if the government caves and decides to do such a study, it is up to us in the scientific community to make sure that it’s done by no one but the best epidemiologists, in other words, that it’s a proper study that correctly controls for confounders and can answer the question being asked, not the dubious study custom designed to have the maximal chance of a false positive result, which is of course what the anti-vaccine movement really wants. "

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2011 2:48:08 PM

Quote :

"You're suggesting to do an epidemiological study by survey and call that science? The reason you haven't seen such a study is because it would never get published in the first place. Step 3 is impossible if you're talking about just polling people from all walks of life (which you'd have to in the first place to get a reasonable amount of people). Then there'd be no way to control the reliability of the reporting. It would be laughed at by editors of any peer-reviewed journal. You need control and to do that you'd need to purposely deny people vaccines which EVEN IF THEY VOLUNTEER is unethical."

I was waiting for this response, because that is the standard line. Finally, at least someone who knows enough to parrot the establishment line.

It is not unethical. We follow smokers, and don't make them smoke. We follow alcoholics, and don't make them drink. We follow drug users, and don't make them abuse drugs. We follow people who eat nothing but grease, but don't force a bad diet on them.

Studies on alcoholics, druggies, smokers, and fatties are not laughed out of journals.

Was this study unethical and laughed out of the New England Journal of Medicine? http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

All I want is more studies exactly like that.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : a]

10/25/2011 2:49:32 PM

Quote :

"So.....can you answer why vaccinations are not subject to the same analysis, using experimental and control groups, that just about everything else goes through?"

For the same reason people think the Tuskegee Project was unethical.

10/25/2011 2:51:05 PM

Quote :

"Do you dispute this point: there are thousands of unvaccinated children in NC, and in the US, who lead otherwise normal lives and that we can find them?"

Most people get vaccinated. There are places that require vaccination laws. The government and doctors recommend all people receive vaccinations. How is the burden-of-proof on me to prove that something doesn't exist? As someone who acts very scientifically-orientated, I'm sure you realize that the burden of proof is almost always on someone who makes a claim that some effect or phenomenon exists... not on the rest of the community to disprove a theory. When the psycho physicists in the mountains of NC claimed that they created cold-water fusion, the burden of proof was on them to prove their crack-pot theories, not on the rest of the scientific community to prove their processes DIDN'T work.

...anyway...

I saw where you said you asked doctors and read papers, but disputing science isn't gathering data. You don't hire college graduates to summarize research papers. Science is a dialog between people who have new ideas and those who believe the old ones. So you spoke with "multiple doctors" who pointed you to the same papers. Did you try... let's say... suggesting that something was flawed with the papers and see what they said? Have you tried calling our materials researchers at NC State?

Quote :

"With an unvaccinated rate under half a percent, you still reach thousands."

Alright, that makes sense............ now you have to PROVE that there are thousands who aren't getting vaccinated. You have to show me where you think there is any evidence that half of those people are still un-vaccinated.

Just a hypothetical question: are you arguing at this point because you really believe all of this or are you just trying to win an argument? When you start pushing the burden of proof off yourself after this much back-and-forth it really starts seeming like it's just "trying to win an argument".

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM. Reason : Yet another problem with TULIP's post I wanted to point out...]

10/25/2011 2:54:07 PM

it's really pretty simple.

What's the risk to your kid of something bad happening due to a vaccine?

Compare that with what would happen if your kid contract the disease that they weren't vaccinated for.

Hib meningitis is a horrible, nasty way to die. and preventable.

10/25/2011 2:56:02 PM

Quote :

"it's really pretty simple. What's the risk to your kid of something bad happening due to a vaccine? Compare that with what would happen if your kid contract the disease that they weren't vaccinated for."

I've already said exactly this. It is that simple. The only problem is we have no idea what the risks are for something bad happening due to a vaccine, because we refuse to compare populations.

10/25/2011 2:57:20 PM

Quote :

"I was waiting for this response, because that is the standard line. Finally, at least someone who knows enough to parrot the establishment line. It is not unethical. We follow smokers, and don't make them smoke. We follow alcoholics, and don't make them drink. We follow drug users, and don't make them abuse drugs. We follow people who eat nothing but grease, but don't force a bad diet on them. Studies on alcoholics, druggies, smokers, and fatties are not laughed out of journals. Was this study unethical and laughed out of the New England Journal of Medicine? http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134 All I want is more studies exactly like that. "

How many studies do you need? That's really my point. You cannot do one large enough to be persuasive and still be accurate. No matter what you did, either side of the "controversy" would pick it apart, like the antivaxxers no doubetdly do with the one you referenced.

Quote :

"I've already said exactly this. It is that simple. The only problem is we have no idea what the risks are for something bad happening due to a vaccine, because we refuse to compare populations."

My pediatrician gives me a sheet with each vaccine and the chance for side effects. What the hell else do you want?

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2011 2:58:55 PM

You do realize that studies on side-effects versus primary effects are performed by the parma companies and those results must be provided to the FDA, right? I mean, we can all b*tch about the government, but you can't just bring a medical product to market without understanding the side effects.

I mean, if I didn't know better, I would think you were claiming that we might be causing more people to go autistic than would be afflicted of MMR or hepatitis if we simply didn't vaccinate.

10/25/2011 3:00:42 PM

Quote :

"How many studies do you need? That's really my point. You cannot do one large enough to be persuasive and still be accurate."

So do I take it that this is an admission that my proposal is neither unethical, nor would be laughed out of a journal? Is this an acknowledgement that the NEJM published exactly what I want to see?

I already said I accept the results of this study, and consider it sufficient to show that the MMR vaccine does not pose additional risk of autism over and above the normal vaccine load.

Honestly, I'd take one study. That would show at least a good-faith effort to investigate things. If the findings weren't massively against vaccines, I'd be mostly satisfied. I'm not hard to please.

And, as I mentioned, I'm going to vaccinate my child who is due in a few months, on a slightly delayed schedule.

Quote :

"My pediatrician gives me a sheet with each vaccine and the chance for side effects. What the hell else do you want?"

Have you looked at the studies that give that data? They're methodologically moronic, and rely largely on doctor-reported adverse affects through VAERS, which is rife with problems.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 3:04 PM. Reason : a]

10/25/2011 3:01:55 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that studies on side-effects versus primary effects are performed by the parma companies and those results must be provided to the FDA, right? "

Honestly, I think these days the FDA doesn't do the greatest job at acting as a safety check against the pharmaceutical companies, but these vaccines are also used in Europe, Australia, and Japan, which are known to have more stringent standards.

10/25/2011 3:04:50 PM

"I don't believe the studies out there, but I do believe that MMR doesn't pose a greater risk than any other vaccine. I think that there are thousands out there who don't get vaccinated and there's a good chance they are just as protected as any of us.......


........but I'm going to get my child vaccinated. Don't worry, to prevent against autism and these other side-effects, I'm going to delay the schedule, but still pump my kid full of these autism-causing vaccinations."

Alright, just want to make sure I understood the Cliffs Notes of your position.

10/25/2011 3:06:18 PM

Quote :

""I don't believe the studies out there, but I do believe that MMR doesn't pose a greater risk than any other vaccine. I think that there are thousands out there who don't get vaccinated and there's a good chance they are just as protected as any of us....... ........but I'm going to get my child vaccinated. Don't worry, to prevent against autism and these other side-effects, I'm going to delay the schedule, but still pump my kid full of these autism-causing vaccinations.""

I'll be glad to continue talking with the other folks here, but this is my last with you. You don't read, and.....well, you're just stupid.

I don't believe unvaccinated kids are "just as protected as any of us." I never questioned vaccine efficacy. They are effective. They work. They stop the disease they are intended to stop, the vast majority of the time.

I never said vaccines cause autism. I don't believe vaccines cause autism, though they might play a role. I don't know. Nobody else does, either, because it hasn't been studied properly.

10/25/2011 3:10:27 PM

Quote :

"you can't just bring a medical product to market without understanding the side effects"

this is laughable

10/25/2011 3:19:07 PM

I was referring to a study where you actually control the groups, experimentally deny vaccines to the same type of people. That is unethical. Polling large groups isn't unethical; it's pointless.

It has already been done, they have already been published. You still are unconvinced, and for good reason.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2011 3:29:56 PM

Quote :

"And actually, there have been epidemiological studies. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-study/"

I also expected this article to come up, and it's one of the better responses to my position. I've already addressed why I think he's wrong on the ethical point.

However, I think he seriously over-estimates the cost, and underestimates the benefit of such a study. Once it's decided to do it, with just a little more money and time on the edges, we would be able to compare rates of not just autism between vax and un-vax, but dozens of disorders. It would be massively helpful in every respect. Studying those other issues, it wouldn't need to come from autism-specific funding.

And, all inclusive, it may run up to....what, $50 million and a few years? More? That's chump change, and chump time, for an exhaustive epidemiological study of up to hundreds of thousands of kids, tracking the effects of something we give to almost all children.

Quote :

"I was referring to a study where you actually control the groups, experimentally deny vaccines to the same type of people. That is unethical. Polling large groups isn't unethical; it's pointless. It has already been done, they have already been published. You still are unconvinced, and for good reason."

So, was the Danish study in the NEJM pointless?

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 3:39 PM. Reason : d]

10/25/2011 3:36:33 PM

Seems to me like you don't want to have any further words because you're not interested actually discovering a "truth"... you are just trying to have an argument and win it. Here is my proof. Your last statement was:

Quote :

"I don't believe unvaccinated kids are "just as protected as any of us." I never questioned vaccine efficacy. They are effective. They work. They stop the disease they are intended to stop, the vast majority of the time. I never said vaccines cause autism. I don't believe vaccines cause autism, though they might play a role. I don't know. Nobody else does, either, because it hasn't been studied properly."

Your entire argument is that "you don't know what vaccines do" but you are still making your children get all of these vaccinations. You make an ambiguous statement that none of us know the science of what is going on because it hasn't been done, but when asked if you've contacted researchers at NC State or if you actually opened a dialog with doctors, your only response is that you got a list of papers from doctors, but didn't really dialog with them.

You're not looking for science, you're looking for an argument. If you were looking for truth, you would probably be much more concerned with the science before you agreed to just go ahead and make your kids get all the shots.

10/25/2011 3:46:31 PM

Unfortunately, unvaccinated children have a great deal of other things that make them a rather homogenous group and sets them apart from their vaccinated counterparts. That's why I believe that you'd have a difficult time doing a proper study. The kinds of people who decide not to vaccinate their children are also the kinds of parents who don't use products containing artificial dyes or preservatives, products with HFC, meats with hormones or antibiotics, produce with pesticides. . .they go organic, they go natural, they tend to seek out alternative education, they use homeopathic drugs and herbal supplements. . .the anti-vax community is just different from the general population. Now I'm not saying that you cannot find vaccinated children who lead the same lifestyle, but I am saying that you'd have a hard time finding a large enough population to do a sound study where you are able to control all of the variables. For all we know, it's not the vaccines but the arsenic in apple juice.

10/25/2011 5:16:53 PM

Actually, there have been studies showing vaccines don't play a role in autism.

After The Lancet published the horrible paper, many people researched the subject.

10/25/2011 6:00:49 PM

re autism:

Quote :

"Scientists find gene link to autism BYLINE: Delthia Ricks, Newsday (published in the Sydney Morning Herald - Australia) SECTION: NEWS AND FEATURES; Pg. 3 A CLUSTER of genes is missing in children with autism, US scientists have found, saying it has moved them a significant step towards unmasking the genetic underpinnings of the condition. Autism-related genes remain controversial in some quarters, as some parent groups still insist factors such as vaccines and toxins are at the core of the developmental disorder. But scientists at New York's Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory have been on the trail of a suspect gene cluster since 2007, when geneticist Michael Wigler first proposed it may play a major role. Dr Wigler suggested the missing cluster is a 27-gene grouping on chromosome 16. Most people have two sets of the cluster - individuals with autism have only one, or just fragments of the second, the researchers say. Now Dr Wigler's colleague, Alea Mills, has found the deleted gene cluster not only plays a role in the condition but also may affect head-size, certain behaviours and the shape of structures within the brain itself. She still has to definitively prove the missing sequence has a hand in causing the condition. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimates one in every 110 children has autism, most of them boys. Dr Mills showed the missing cluster is involved in autism by engineering a so-called "autism mouse". When she clipped the corresponding cluster of genes from the mouse's genome, Dr Mills discovered the animals developed hyperactivity and repetitive behaviours - two traits which are shared with humans who have autism. "Mice with the deletion acted completely different from normal mice," said a researcher in Dr Mills's lab, Guy Horev. They found the deletion caused changes in the architectural shape of the animals' brain structures. Dr Mills theorises the suspect cluster may be related to several features associated with autism in humans. "Head circumference had been linked to autism in the past," Dr Mills said. "Kids with autism tend to have larger heads. So larger head size is not only a predictor of autism, head circumference appears to be associated with the deletion." Dr Mills's research was funded by the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative, started by billionaire James Simons and his wife, Marilyn. Their daughter has Asperger's syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder. It was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

10/25/2011 6:55:25 PM

Quote :

"For all we know, it's not the vaccines but the arsenic in apple juice."

10/25/2011 8:06:06 PM

10/25/2011 8:31:54 PM

Quote :

"^Yes, that is the answer. They don't do science. Control group. Experimental group. Compare. It's never been done. "

And in which field are you qualified to "do science?" I had to stop reading your posts after only the second one because everything you type screams "I'm unqualified to even have an opinion on a scientific topic such as immunology."

Ummm, 1950's US, polio, paralysis (including my Mom.) Enter Jonas Salk and his vaccine. No more polio in US. Doesn't get much more clear than that.

10/25/2011 8:58:34 PM

10/25/2011 11:36:45 PM

I haven't read anything after the first page, because all the posts seemed to be saying the same thing. One thing to consider.

Newborn babies generally aren't that neat. I just had one a year ago. Once you get beyond the "miracle of birth" stuff, then they basically just lay there and sleep. So, when you go to see those babies, you are not really doing it for yourself, you are doing it for the parents of that baby.

You are doing it because they (especially she) just went through an amazing experience. Although you weren't there to share it with them, and although "if you've seen one newborn baby you've seen them all", and although there baby(ies) are just the same as any other newborn(s).... you are there to make those parents (your friends) feel like they are awesome, and they just had the most amazing little babies that ever popped out of a woman. You are there to be a friend, and help out with whatever is needed. Maybe bring a meal, or let their dogs out, or scoop a litterbox, or water plants - but I can promise you, especially if this is their first children, than you will do nothing more than stress them out in this already stressful time if you try to fight them on this.

Even if you are right (which I don't think you are), that mom and dad now have the two most important things in their lives laying in a little plastic box down the hall - any request, no matter how mundane or trivial it might seem to you, is anything but to them. Be a friend to these people. Stop being selfish and let this go - the worst thing that might happen to you is you get the flu. Big deal, we have all had it before and we'll all get it again. These parents now have something really important to worry about, and the last thing they need to do is have extra stuff like this to pile on.

10/26/2011 12:50:15 AM

^^ I always wanted to play in one of those as a kid

10/26/2011 8:20:29 AM

I'm against getting the flu shot personally...BUT if I had a baby with a weak immune system and the dr said I should get one...then I would get one.

My best friend has a 6 month old. I'm going to visit this baby over Thanksgiving. If she told me that she would prefer for me to have the flu shot before I came to visit then I would get the flu shot. I wouldn't lie to her and tell her I got one just because I wanted to see her baby.

10/26/2011 9:00:37 AM