Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Giordano]

Think about what 9 or more adjuvants do to an infants immune system.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications.htm

http://vaccine.elehost.com/contents.htm

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/vacingredient.htm
ad·ju·vant (j-vnt)
n.
1. A pharmacological agent added to a drug to increase or aid its effect.
2. An immunological agent that increases the antigenic response.

Although there is no evidence that adjuvants might create a risk, maybe we should be extra safe and test if they are a problem as currently used. Oh wait, the National Academies just did that test. Good news-they are safe just as we thought!

By the way, I know you like the strawman of 9 vaccinations at a time, but that is not the current recommendation nor is it in common use. Therefore it certainly can't be the cause for the increase in autism diagnoses you are concerned about.

 

[abaddon]

Or how about measles complications?

Measles complications can include:

diarrhea - 8% of cases
ear infections - 7% of cases
pneumonia - 6% of cases
encephalitis - 0.1% of cases
seizures - 0.6 to 0.7% of cases
death - 0.2% of cases

Nice. If only you got the MMR.

 

[TheRedWorm]

The diseases were called childhood diseases for a reason. No parent feared them.

Uh, both my mom's parents and my dad's parents feared the **** out of childhood diseases, as they had seen families devastated by the loss of a child or children from diseases we now vaccinate against.

 

[Giordano]

The diseases were called childhood diseases for a reason. No parent feared them.

Infant morality was 167 per 1000 in 1900 versus 7 per 1000 in 1997. Think about it: nearly 2 in 10 died in childhood. A large part of those deaths in 1900 was due to measles, pertussis, and diphtheria. They were called childhood diseases because people caught them in childhood; many never subsequently made it into their teens.

No parent feared them?

We've had this discussion before. Why do you still dismiss these deadly diseases as if they were harmless? Just because you were unaware of the deaths and cripplings doesn't mean they weren't occurring.

 

[Giordano]

http://vaccine.elehost.com/contents.htm

You realize this site warns against, and I quote their formatting, "anti (against)-biotics (life)"? They list thimerosal as a vaccine risk- how many child vaccines still have thimerosal? What evidence is there that thimerosal ever was a risk? It lists glycerin as a danger, but glycerin is an essential component of your cell membranes. It lists sodium hydroxide as a dangerous component- do you understand how stupid this is if you understand pH?

I'll tell you again: anti-vax sites like this one are either ignorant or intentionally lying to you. Don't be fooled by them!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Infant morality was 167 per 1000 in 1900 versus 7 per 1000 in 1997. Think about it: nearly 2 in 10 died in childhood. A large part of those deaths in 1900 was due to measles, pertussis, and diphtheria. They were called childhood diseases because people caught them in childhood; many never subsequently made it into their teens.

No parent feared them?

We've had this discussion before. Why do you still dismiss these deadly diseases as if they were harmless? Just because you were unaware of the deaths and cripplings doesn't mean they weren't occurring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/infant-mortality-2.png

It hasn’t always been like this. In the 1960s, the United States actually had a lower infant mortality rate than the average among its peer countries. The country began to lag in the 1980s.

Not doing too good are we?

 

[dafydd]

Not doing to good are we?

Because of the lies of the anti-vaccers.

 

[pakeha]

^
Good point.

And now, Clayton, isn't it about time you showed us any evidence vaxx causes autism?

 

[000063]

Think about what 9 or more adjuvants do to an infants immune system.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications.htm

http://vaccine.elehost.com/contents.htm

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/vacingredient.htm
ad·ju·vant (j-vnt)
n.
1. A pharmacological agent added to a drug to increase or aid its effect.
2. An immunological agent that increases the antigenic response.

Prove what 9 or more adjuvants do to an infants immune system.

Imaginary studies conducted in your head are no excuse for actual empirical evidence.

Although there is no evidence that adjuvants might create a risk, maybe we should be extra safe and test if they are a problem as currently used. Oh wait, the National Academies just did that test. Good news-they are safe just as we thought!

By the way, I know you like the strawman of 9 vaccinations at a time, but that is not the current recommendation nor is it in common use. Therefore it certainly can't be the cause for the increase in autism diagnoses you are concerned about.

Stop oppressing him with reality.

 

[jdc324]

The diseases were called childhood diseases for a reason. No parent feared them.

Firstly, the term "childhood diseases" refers to the stage of life at which those diseases are (or were) commonly contracted, it says nothing about the seriousness of those diseases. You have made up your own special interpretation of the term by reading into it something that isn't there. I'm reminded of Humpty Dumpty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

Secondly, when you say "No parent feared them", are you including those bereaved parents who lost children to the diseases that you pretend are not serious? ("No parent" looks pretty absolute to me. Perhaps you meant to type something else?) In the 1950s in England and Wales, there were 1400 deaths from measles. Do you not think the parents of those children feared measles? Really?

 

[Stamuel]

The diseases were called childhood diseases for a reason. No parent feared them.

Claims about levels of fear are almost entirely beside the point. When considering a policy for preventing something, we should not focus solely on how much an average person is consumed by fear of that thing. We should primarily focus on the risks and benefits of proposals to prevent that thing.

To illustrate what I mean, almost no one is afraid of driving or riding in a car. Most people do it almost every day with no fear of it. Yet tens of thousands of people die in traffic accidents each year in USA alone. If giving twenty injections to drivers could reduce that to tens of deaths or no deaths, with maybe a few dozen cases of serious side effects, that would be a good program. Just because most people are not paralyzed by fear of something does not mean it is not a problem.

Vaccine-preventable illnesses did and still do kill people. They cause severe complications. Even when they don't, they are not good. Vaccination programs are good programs.

 

[Estellea]

The diseases were called childhood diseases for a reason. No parent feared them.

Oh really? My mother told me of how her parents wouldn't take the children on summer holiday to the beach because of polio outbreaks. Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/infant-mortality-2.png


Not doing too good are we?

No, your anti-vaxx wanker isn't doing so good with intentionally manipulating statistics to create a narrative.

Este

 

[Clayton Moore]

Oh really? My mother told me of how her parents wouldn't take the children on summer holiday to the beach because of polio outbreaks. Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.


No, your anti-vaxx wanker isn't doing so good with intentionally manipulating statistics to create a narrative.

Este

Let's see. Polio was never considered one of the childhood diseases.

And Measles was so innocuous that Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.

 

[LSSBB]

Let's see. Polio was never considered one of the childhood diseases.

And Measles was so innocuous that Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.

So tell me, what's your proof then that vaccines cause autism?

 

[dafydd]

Let's see. Polio was never considered one of the childhood diseases.

Yes it was.

 

[abaddon]

Let's see. Polio was never considered one of the childhood diseases.

Yes, it was.

And Measles was so innocuous that Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.

Measles and Rubella are two different diseases. Which were you thinking of before you mangled Estellea's post?

 

[Estellea]

Let's see. Polio was never considered one of the childhood diseases.

And Measles was so innocuous that Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.

Wow Clay, that's what you managed to respond with? Let's see, polio infected primarily children (and still does) but it's not a childhood disease and the scourge of congenital rubella syndrome was so vast and feared that a public health measure to encourage the public to have "rubella parties" intentionally infecting children indicates that measles was innocuous? I think I heard something snap when you wrote that (and in a bad way).

Este

 

[Matthew Cline]

The diseases were called childhood diseases for a reason. No parent feared them.

Wait, what? The "childhood" in "childhood diseases" means something other than "diseases which are mainly caught by people when they are children"? Or do you mean that if the diseases were serious, a term which was intentionally ominous sounding would have been coined?

 

[Giordano]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/infant-mortality-2.png


Not doing too good are we?

Actually the article from the graph you cited notes that infant mortality in the US has continued to decline almost every year and is currently the lowest ever. So we are doing better than ever before, even though other wealthy countries have managed to do even better than us. Likely reasons: universal health insurance in the other countries, different demographics, different economic distributions, etc.

But of course this doesn't relate to my original post, or those of others, that documented just how lethal measles, diphtheria, and pertussis were to children before vaccinations against these diseases became available.

Still certain these childhood diseases were nothing to be feared?

 

[Giordano]

Let's see. Polio was never considered one of the childhood diseases.

And Measles was so innocuous that Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.

Others here have already corrected your misunderstandings about polio not being a childhood disease and rubella being the same as measles.

I just wanted to focus on your own higlighted text. You are absolutely correct: some parents attempted to vaccinate their children against rubella before an injectable vaccine was available by exposing them to rubella itself. This had some logic because the greatest danger of rubella is to the fetus during pregnancy. The goal was a mild infection in childhood that would immunize against a later, dangerous infection during pregnancy (you allude to this in your own post).

This is not at all like measles, which would represent a direct threat to the children themselves.

Unfortunately, children exposed to rubella can remain infectious for weeks and they themselves represent threats to pregnant women. That's why the rubella vaccine was a better way to vaccinate against rubella.

See, the more you know the better you can appreciate the value of vaccines!