There isn't enough science in the world to debunk anti-vaccine quackery for some people

[cleanhippie]

Editorials

There isn't enough science in the world to debunk anti-vaccine quackery for some people

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/01/17/2011-01-17_put_the_fraud_to_rest.html#ixzz1BK0EMwgS


No matter how conclusively science proves them wrong, there are those who persist in propagating the dangerous quackery of a link between childhood vaccinations and autism.

Celebrity mom Jenny McCarthy is among the die-hards. She has a young autistic son, has long believed vaccinations triggered his condition and last week dismissed the latest scientific debunking as merely "one journalist's accusations."

All sympathy to her, McCarthy is wrong. Worse, she and like-minded advocates are harmful. They compound damage that was done to public health by the fraudulent, half-baked study that fomented vaccination hysteria.

--snip--

Here is one: The claim that vaccinations cause autism has been completely, totally debunked. (emphasis mine)

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/01/17/2011-01-17_put_the_fraud_to_rest.html#ixzz1BK0hXVhd

[pnwmom]

1. The National Institutes of Health disagrees with you. Are they quacks?

They're continuing to fund research into possible links between autism and vaccines. Here, the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Development explains why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x98612

Bottom line:

"We know that genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents. It is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines. No clear evidence yet exists to implicate a specific relationship, but questions persist about whether there may be subpopulations unable to remove mercury from the body as fast as others, some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component, a mitochondrial disorder increasing the adverse response to vaccine-associated fever, or other as-yet-unknown responses."

[GaYellowDawg]

3. No, they don't.

And it's right there in your quote.

No clear evidence yet exists to implicate a specific relationship

[pnwmom]

4. Way to go, taking a few words out of context to completely change the meaning:

" No clear evidence yet exists to implicate a specific relationship, but questions persist about whether there may be subpopulations unable to remove mercury from the body as fast as others, some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component, a mitochondrial disorder increasing the adverse response to vaccine-associated fever, or other as-yet-unknown responses."

[cleanhippie]

9. I don't think it was taken out of context, I think you are trying to apply a different meaning.

The statement is quite clear that there is, in fact, "no clear evidence...", but that there are still unresolved questions about a small sub-set of the population that may have mitochondrial disorders.

Should research continue on that line? For sure. But for the rest of the general population, meaning nearly everyone, there is no evidence of a link between autism and vaccines. None.

I guess the question I have for you is, do you still think that there IS, in fact, a link between autism and vaccines in the general, say above 98%, of the population? If so, why?

[pnwmom]

12. You're still taking it out of context. According to the Director,

there are still unresolved questions not just about mitochondrial disorders, but "about whether there may be subpopulations unable to remove mercury from the body as fast as others," "some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component" "or other as-yet-unknown responses."

I have never thought there was a link between autism and vaccines IN GENERAL, or my three children wouldn't be fully vaccinated (except for pertussis part of the DTP vaccine, which gave my son seizures and doctors believe killed my sister). But I think there may be a small percent of children -- I don't know the numbers and nobody else does either -- who are susceptible to developing autism symptoms from vaccines, just as my sister was one of the rare cases to develop encephalitis from the old DTP vaccine. And we have an obligation as a society to make all vaccines as safe as possible, and to identify those children who are at greater risk with a vaccine or vaccines than without them.

[cleanhippie]

15. Perhaps.

And maybe there needs to be additional research for those specific areas you discuss, but I think we are in agreement that for the vast majority of the general population (I hate to try an tie a number to that, but I am comfortable saying that includes about 99% of the population) there is no risk of getting autism from a vaccine.

Everything else is another topic altogether.

[pnwmom]

20. Yes, I agree, for the vast majority vaccines don't contribute to autism.

But I hope you agree that we have an obligation as a society, when we are pushing all parents to vaccinate their children, to conduct continuing research to make sure the vaccines are as safe as possible, and to determine if there are any subgroups of children who would be better off not receiving certain vaccine(s).

[cleanhippie]

22. I cannot disagree with that.

[pnwmom]

27. Thank you for continuing the conversation long enough

for us both to realize that we weren't so far apart after all.

:)

[Lucian]

2. Anyone who listens to Jenny McCarthy over science is an idiot.

She's a no-talent, B-list "celebrity" everyone forgot about after the year 2000. She has no scientific background and is one of the biggest idiots there is.

[Javaman]

18. When all she's got is stupid, well, that's all she's got to run with.

perhaps she and orly tates should go on a "promote the stupid" tour.

LOL

[laundry_queen]

5. *sigh*

I'm going to say this once, because I'm a bit fed up with these type of posts that pop up from time to time, looking for a fight.
Yes there are people who go overboard with the whole vaccines=autism thing. I think Jenny McCarthy has done more to hurt her own cause than any study ever could, tbh.
HOWEVER, there are those of us who are legitimately concerned about the long term effects of vaccines on our children. It is known that certain vaccines can cause illness (the flu vaccine and guillan-barre syndrome for one, and yes I know that GBS is linked to the flu virus itself). Much is still unknown. There are very few controlled, DOUBLE BLIND studies done on vaccines, because it has been deemed as unethical to conduct such a trial. As such, we often have to rely on comparative studies (one vaccine vs another) and reviews of the many flawed studies that have already been done.
FWIW, for disclosure purposes, I vaccinate my kids, but on a different schedule than most people. I delay them and I try to do individual vaccines where possible as well. We have never had any adverse reactions among my 4 kids.

I personally do no believe that one shot of any vaccine is going to cause autism. I think what the questions are, are as follows:
Is Autism caused by environmental contaminants in susceptible individuals? and...
Can a series of vaccines be classified as an environmental contaminant in susceptible individuals?

That is all I want to know. I get suspicious of the vitriol towards people like me, who just want more studies and more answers. Why freak out, calling us quacks and crazies, for simply wanting more studies? I don't get it. Perhaps you could explain why it is okay to call me an anti-science quack for simply wanting more studies? The bottom line is there ISN'T enough science at the moment.

[Swede]

7. "The low participation rate could cost lives," That's the cause of the vitriol.

How did you get this connection? From the faked study.


"The low participation rate could cost lives," Kellermann and Harris wrote. "People - often motivated by fears and myths - may need some facts to help persuade them to get some shots."

[pnwmom]

10. We don't have a low participation rate. The rates over the last

several years have been over 90% -- significantly higher than they were in the 1980's, BEFORE the fraudulent Wakefield research. Since that time, vaccination rates rose from the 60's and have remained consistently in the 90's.

[K8-EEE]

17. +1

My children got their shots, one had a horrible reaction to them, screamed for 3 days after each round -- and was later diagnosed as autistic.

Coincidence? Maybe.

One of the problems I have if that so many of the studies are funded by the companies who make a profit from them, and that big pharma has way too much influence over the government over which/what kind of studies are done.

I would never tell people "don't get any shots." I myself just got a tetanus booster and my college aged daughter got the meningitis vaccine before starting school; she did decline the Guardasil after discussing it with her doctor. And no, she doesn't "want to die of cancer." There are other ways to avoid HPV and she will keep up her screenings.

Every vaccine is a question of educating yourself about it, looking at your own personal risks of getting it and not getting it, and making an informed decision.

This idea that if you don't have every vaccine that comes down the pike NO QUESTIONS ASKED, then you are an ignorant "anti-vax extremist," I have a problem with that.

[Capitalocracy]

21. But the ONLY study that found a connection

was fraudulent, and conducted by a doctor who was receiving funding from attorneys who were planning to sue vaccine manufacturers. And who made money himself on the anti-vaccine movement.

[K8-EEE]

23. Yeah and there ain't gonna be any more studies

At least from anybody who wants to find anything out.

Look at how long it took for the research about cigarette smoking to reach the public, and the corporate and political giants who did everything possible to keep that obvious conclusion from getting out. I think now the influence of big pharma and just corporations in general is WAY bigger than it was even back then.

I never was a follower of Dr. Wakefield. In fact I attended a lecture given by him in the 90's and told my husband, "he's a quack!"

But I'm not convinced that there aren't a lot of very powerful entities that would do everything possible to avoid such a huge liability? If you are, then well we disagree.

[cleanhippie]

24. So you are implying a consipracy on a massive scale then?

[K8-EEE]

25. It has happened before hasn't it?

Would you consider the tobacco industry to have been involved in a conspiracy?

Are you implying that there's no possibility that people who fabricated vaccines with mercury preservatives would not be manipulating studies with their own interests in mind? I do think that's a possibility. Does that make me an "anti-vax" nut and follower of Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy even though I do get some vaccines and don't follow Wakefield or McCarthy? You seem to go into automatic "you're a nut!" mode if anybody has the slightest reservations about any vaccine!

[cleanhippie]

26. ANYTHING is possible....

but is it probable?

[K8-EEE]

29. Like I say, it's happened before and frankly

I do think there is a lot of corruption in this whole process of what drugs doctors recommend, in general, even aside from the vax. Our system is basically they get wined and dined by pharma reps and they give the doctors swag. It's totally ridiculous.

My mom was told in no uncertain terms that all menopausal women need hormone replacement therapy. Later it was discovered this caused an uptick in breast cancer so they took her off of it but she did develop breast cancer. Her neighbor with the arthritis died at age 57 after having taken VIOXX (is that the name of it?) for arthritis later they pulled that off the market.

And they shot one of my newborns up with a significant amount of mercury, since pulled off the market, later developed autism and you are 100% sure that it didn't do her any harm, and you also imply that we should take every recommended vaccination with no research or reservations about it. I don't see it so black and white. I wish I would have known then that there was a controversy about the mercury rather than blindly done what the doctor said. I could have at least tried to find someone to give her the single doses without the mercury preservative. If you want to call me insane or a conspiracy theorist for feeling that way, great.

[cleanhippie]

31. I will limit my response only to the current issue: vaccines and autism.

You make good points, but I have seen nothing, other than the near eradication of most childhood diseases due to a comprehensive immunization program, that would tell me that vaccinating is a bad thing. Are there risks? Yes. Will some children suffer ill effects? Yes. Do the benefits significantly outweigh the risks when looking at vaccinating/not vaccinating? Yes, 100%

[kickysnana]

28. +1

[Th1onein]

34. Thank you for this post and others along the same lines.

I agree with you completely. The people who are saying "case is closed" simply because one study was faulty are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. add it to the list

There isn't enough science in the world to convince some people of any number of things.

[RKP5637]

8. +1, n/t

[CanSocDem]

11. There isn't enough science in the world.....

....to convince me that I need a vaccination. Really!!

.

[hobbit709]

13. There is a cure for that.

[Lucian]

14. What an idiotic post.

[Javaman]

19. Fine, get sick. spread the disease, infect others.

because all that matters is what you think, now how it effects others.

[CanSocDem]

32. I don't get sick.

Even when you and the massive corporate science complex tell me I should be....

It really comes down to who you believe, doesn't it? I no more believe in 'epidemics' than I do in the 'wonder drugs' sold to immunize.

But go ahead...the myth of modern medicine is serving you well isn't it. It's particularly effective in the western worlds only free market health system. Since I'm out of that system, I think I'll manage my own health care, if you don't mind.


.

[cleanhippie]

36. It must be nice to be so perfect AND sickness free.

Glad to hear you are immune to that which harms the rest of us mere mortals.

[Capitalocracy]

37. So you're convinced

that if modern medicine hadn't eliminated smallpox and polio, you'd just happen to be the one who didn't catch them? And if it wasn't vaccines that got rid of those, what miracle was it?

[Odin2005]

40. Wow, what a load of crap.

You think you can't get sick and so fact-and-science-based medicine is all wrong? :crazy:

[CanSocDem]

46. Yeh but, it's working.

Once you understand the power of belief, keeping yourself healthy is easy.

Of course, if you believe in science, medicine, religion or voodoo, those will work too. How many stories about the power of placebos have to be published before you see the connection.

.

[cleanhippie]

54. Hahahahahaha!

Yes, belief will trump science everytime. Power of Belief, indeed!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Odin2005]

56. The Secret is a scam for delusional fools.

[superduperfarleft]

30. Google herd immunity.

You can thank the rest of us later.

[Nye Bevan]

38. "Unvaccinated child dies from diptheria"

A child has died from suspected diphtheria – the first fatality from the rare infection in Britain for 14 years, health chiefs disclosed yesterday.

....

The child had not been vaccinated.

Family members and others who have been in close contact with the child, who has not been named, have been traced and are receiving precautionary treatment and booster vaccinations where necessary.

It is the first death caused by the bacterium Corynebacterium diphtheriae in Britain since 1994 when a 14-year-old boy, who became infected in Pakistan, died here. The last non-fatal case of the respiratory infection was in 1997.

The condition is very rare in Britain as most children are immunised against it by a routine, three-dose immunisation given at age two, three and four months. Booster injections are then given before school starting age and then again between the ages of 16 and 18.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1939527/Unvaccinated-child-dies-from-diphtheria.html

[apocalypsehow]

16. Kick, Rec. Excellent OP.

:thumbsup:

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. I'll be really glad when this dog whistle eventually wears out.

DU needs more vaccine threads.

[cleanhippie]

35. Then you would not have anything to reply to!

Last time I checked, no one was forcing you to respond, right?

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. A great function would be keyword ignore.

Every single one of these 10x daily "Jenny McCarthy is teh devil!" posts make no sense at all unless the intent is to bait the parents of children with autism into a gang beating.

The simple fact is that autism is caused by a combination of genes and environment. We still have only slight clues as to what that environmental trigger is, although vaccines are clearly not responsible in the way and to the degree that Wakefield described.

[cleanhippie]

47. Thank you for refuting your own point.

"although vaccines are clearly not responsible..."


Thats right, and until people here in DU stop insisting that they ARE responsible, these threads will be relevant.



Again, no one forces you to read, much less even post, these threads.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Logic failure.

The strawman you're constructing doesn't make the topic relevant. "Wakefield was right" isn't a widely held belief, if at all.

It's chumming the sharks. I'm surprised that the sharks keep showing up after repeatedly being unable to find any actual fish.

But hey, power to you. If you can get 20 recommends by saying the same thing that has been said 150 times in the last two months, why change?

[cleanhippie]

49. After the intital compliant about this thread and its uselessness, you have posted three times.

What is your argument again?

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. Ignoring repetitive, duplicative, redundant, copycat uselessness doesn't make it go away. n/t

[cleanhippie]

51. Four posts responding to a thread you wish did not even exist.

I really do not know what to make of this, my Psy101 class didn't cover things like this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Mine did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

Push the button, get the cheese recommends.

[cleanhippie]

53. Number five. So you are saying that you are having a Pavlovian response to this thread?

That certainly would make sense.

[Odin2005]

41. The anti-vax mass psychosis needs to wear out.

[X_Digger]

42. +1!! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Please provide us a link to a "psychotic anti-vax" OP from the last 6 months. TIA.

There is no greater strawman on DU than on the topic of vaccinations. That strawman is generally used to obscure the posters hostility toward the parents of children with autism.

[Odin2005]

45. What about us Autistics sick of quacks calling us "poisoned".

Fuck the quacks.

[LeftishBrit]

55. How on earth does it show 'hostility toward the parents of children with autism'?

Yes, some theories of autism have indeed been hostile to parents, especially mothers, of children with autism ('refrigerator parents', etc.) But blaming vaccines is not the only alternative to such theories.

Or are you implying that rejecting the vaccine theory means implying that autism doesn't exist or isn't that important? Not true! In fact, one problem with insisting that vaccines cause autism is that it interferes with research into the real causes. In fact, one reason why I dislike Wakefield and similar people so much is that I have a different disorder (childhood-onset Crohns) which they have also attempted to link to vaccines, and I feel that this has diverted research resources away from discovering the real causes of that disorder as well.

As regards psychotic anti-vax posts: it would be against the rules to link, but there have certainly been posts that have:

implied that vaccines are a tool supported by Bill Gates and others to kill people and reduce the world's population;

implied that anyone who rejects the vaccine/autism link must have corrupt motives, or be an uncritical supporter of Big Pharma or of profit-driven medicine;

implied (and that is probably the worst for me) that people who use vaccines, or other forms of modern medicine, are evading responsibility for looking after our own health and relying on our own immune systems

linked to right-libertarian sites that oppose vaccines as part of a general opposition to government-sponsored medicine. Examples include whale.to (which is also racist and antisemitic); healthtruthrevealed; the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons; etc.

I am not implying that *all* posts that oppose vaccines in general, or the MMR in particular, do any or all of these things; but you were asking if there were *any* such posts.

[Odin2005]

57. Don't you know? If you question mass hysteria by parents you must hate them!

:sarcasm:

Most people it seems will ALWAYS prefer anecdote over data, and if you try to reason with them they take it as a personal attack, like a certain poster that constantly goes on about how evil doctors ignore mothers or some such crap.

[cleanhippie]

39. Kick