| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2008 02:23:58 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JMart:
The most ironic part of the double blind claim is that "alternative healers" tend not to pass double blind tests themselves when it comes to the efficacy of their methods. That's why they are "alternative", when a method or medicine is shown to be effective through things like double blind trials they become "mainstream" medicine. So, "alternative medicine" has always meant "can't actually demonstrate medical effectiveness" in my book. |
To be fair, some "alternative" modalities are difficult to test in this fashion; it took some time to invent a way to administer "placebo" acupunture, though the fact that states license and (some) insurance companies pay practitioners of this form of therapy says that what is once "alternative" can indeed become "mainstream" given time and actual open-minded research.
When I was preparing some training materials on pharmacology about thirty years ago, I found that at least 25% of the pharmaceticals listed in the Physician's Desk Reference originally derived from plants or other natural sources, including aspirin, atropine, cocaine, digitalis, the opioid analgesics, and penicillin (and all of the other antibiotics) which so changed the course of human history and evolution. The number of lives saved/prolonged as a consequence of Alexander Fleming's realizing the implications of a culture plate "spoiled" by some mold, rather than just discarding it as usual, is nearly incalculable.
And, of course, it was Edward Jenner's willingness to investigate the "old wives' tale" of the seeming immunity of lovely milkmaids to disfiguring (or deadly) smallpox which led to the entire concept of vaccination (vaca is the Latin root for "cow") -- protecting against a serious disease by stimulating the body's defenses with a weaker form of the disease (the young women had previously contracted cowpox -- a related but milder virus). |
Yes, I agree these are important experiments that lead to medical breakthroughs and there were also people who correctly identified the medicinal value of many natural substances before scientific inquiry was in use. Experiments are still going on across the world today as people create the medicines and techniques of the future, but modern medicine now has the benefit of scientific protocols that give us the best tool humans have yet conceived for separating the snake oil from the medicine and that has given us access to more effective medicines and done it in a far safer way than the age old methods that lead to do things like bleed people to heal them.
It's not the case that being 'alternative' stops anyone from experimenting with all sorts of crazy (and some not as crazy) new methods or keeping ancient ones. It is case, however, that being alternative means that method has not been adequately proven by sound research. Some of them have been so thoroughly debunked that it seems like it should be criminal that practitioners are allowed to make their claims. Others have a significant enough success rate (even if it is a placebo effect) that they seem worth while. In any case, Going from "alternative" to "mainstream" can certainly happen, but there are way too many "alternative" practitioners whose methods fail to demonstrate effectiveness when analyzed in a controlled fashion.
Speaking of placebo, certainly the placebo effect can make even a sugar tablet seem like a miracle of medicine. Even doctors will fool themselves into believing that the cure must be solely what they did or what they prescribed rather than the placebo effect. This is one very good reason for not trusting medical claims that are not supported by sound science and tools like double blind trials to take the bias out of the claims.
I'm not sure what you mean by "open-minded" research. Researchers should be willing to accept whatever the evidence supports which is neither open nor closed, it just is. I think many alternative medicine practitioners have their eyes closed to evidence because they are unwilling to accept that their area of practice may indeed be based solely on the placebo effect (if anything at all). Such credulity is often praised as "open-minded", but it is quite the opposite, and it's even reckless when it prevents people from seeking attention from real doctors when they need it.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2008 02:36:21 AM · #27 |
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate......I didn't vaccinate my two girls who are now 22 and 15 and to be frank it was a very difficult decision. Believe me it is a lot easier to go along with the majority and say yes...far harder to say no and have people try and make you change your mind. Sure the percentages point to the benefits...I don't deny that, but the fact that there is an even half a percent chance of things going wrong (and I'm not talking about any particular vaccine) was too much for me.
The Government can't rule that we vaccinate because there is that small chance.
Having decided not to do it I didn't send the girls to kindergarten or pre-school. As a result when my youngest was about 6, my eldest 14 and myself 36 we all ended up with chicken pox, but we got through it. We have been blessed with good health otherwise and God willing will continue to do so.
It's a personal choice...a very difficult one and a different journey for everyone.
I say "A good and brave choice " for those who do vaccinate and the same for those that don't.
(It's my opinion and I don't expect a lot of people to agree and I respect that and I hope others will respect my opinion.)
Thanks! |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 04:04:04 AM · #28 |
My advice to you is not to take, or base, your decision on any evidence from the Internet.
I'd strongly suggest that you speak with accredited physicians, and make sure that you don't take the words of any single health-care practitioner as gospel. Get more than one opinion, and make the decision for yourself.
With that said, I'm confident that the opinion would overwhelmingly be that you should vaccinate your children. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:03:20 AM · #29 |
| Sorry, all. I got this ball rolling and then didn't have time to get back in here. I just have a sec at the moment to check in...I'll get back in to the discussion at some point later today (hopefully). Thanks for everything so far! |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:54:56 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by naomik:
... but the fact that there is an even half a percent chance of things going wrong (and I'm not talking about any particular vaccine) was too much for me. |
It's not a 1/2% (1 in 200) chance of something "going wrong" -- it's more like 1 in 100,000, or about 1/10 the chance of being killed while driving to school, work, or shopping ... |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 12:06:11 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by JMart:
I'm not sure what you mean by "open-minded" research. Researchers should be willing to accept whatever the evidence supports which is neither open nor closed, it just is. I think many alternative medicine practitioners have their eyes closed to evidence because they are unwilling to accept that their area of practice may indeed be based solely on the placebo effect (if anything at all). |
I completely agree with you, but also recognize that some things are not (have not been) properly researched by the "scientific community" because they were discounted as merely "folk medicine" or "old wives' tales."
FWIW, my son (now 11) has received all his scheduled vaccinations. When I started working in medicine, I had to get an MMR myself, as I'd never had mumps. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:17:53 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The last study done (the one linked) is yet another nail in the coffin of the autism-MMR link hypothesis. Let's face a few facts:
1) Nobody can PROVE a negative. In other words, nobody can ever prove that zero cases of autism have been caused by giving an MMR vaccine.
2) HOWEVER, the odds of getting autism from the MMR shot are now becoming statistically so low as to be a non-factor.
3) What we should be MORE concerned about is how incredibly effective vaccination is for our children.
Let's look at some stats on something we CAN prove:
Disease listed and average deaths per year PRE-vaccine:
Diptheria (1822)
Measles (440)
Mumps (39)
Pertussis (4034)
Polio, acute (1393)
Polio, paralytic (1879)
Rubella (17)
Smallpox (337)
Tetanus (472)
Total: 10,433
In other words, over 10,000 people died each year from these diseases pre-vaccines. This does not take into account morbidity which can also be devestating such as encephalitis for measles or sterility for males in mumps or deafness for mumps (I cannot recall if it was meningitis or mumps that caused Bear_music's deafness).
Now, average deaths POST-vaccine:
Diphtheria (0)
Measles (0)
Mumps (0)
Pertussis (27)
Polio, acute (0)
Polio, paralytic (0)
Rubella (0)
Smallpox (0)
Tetanus (4)
Total: 31
The bottom line is 10,000 people do not die each year because we vaccinate our children. Parents these days who do not vaccinate their children are likely to benefit from the herd immunity of other children but are morally riding the coattails of other responsible parents. Simple as that. There are a few legitimate reasons for not vaccinating (immunosuppression, allergy, a very few religious beliefs), the rest is pure BS. Do I sound emphatic on that? You better believe it.
Most people know I'm an allergist, but I will point out I am also a board certified pediatrician. |
...and, furthermore, what about the (actual) resurgence of diseases previously thought to have been brought under control? Mumps achieving near-endemic status in the UK, for instance. The risk of one's kids suffering serious consequences associate with the diseases immunised against thoroughly outweighs the 'evidence' of these immunisations leading to autism.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:27:21 PM · #33 |
This is a good resource for people wanting to know the risks of vaccines:
CDC page on Vaccines and Side Effects
It goes through each vaccine and lists mild, moderate, and severe side effects. Many times there are odds posted with each. As you scroll through you can see that mild side effects (redness, pain at site, swelling at site) are very common (which is likely a product of a strong immune response, something we are trying to do) and that almost all serious side effects are in the 1:1 million range. There are a few moderate side effects with fairly frequent occurence (1:1000) which are not dangerous, but could definitely be very scary for parents (seizures for example or high fever above 105).
Overall, the benefits still far outweigh the risks, but the benefits work most efficiently if the vast majority of a population is immunized. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:03:55 PM · #34 |
There are a lot of questions on the validity of said study. One of the aspects is that autism in usually not noted until 4-5 yrs of age. Which is basically the cut off time of the study. They probably should have continued the study until about 8 yrs of age.
Second, the study completely fails to address "manufacturing issues". I worked for a chemical company that made testing standards. Most of the time our standards were good. But we'd have some bad batches. In fact, one time we thought we had a bad batch but it actually turned out that NISTs reference standard was bad. Likewise, a vaccine when manufactured properly may be completely safe. A study may report zero abnormalities, because the doses at that time are fine. However, a bad production run could provide abnormalities that could indeed cause the suspected effects. But never show up in a given study, unless the study tracked EVERY child over a prolonged period (ie: decade or more).
That said, while I am NOT opposed to vaccines. I do think it's pretty stupid that we give infants and toddlers dozens of vaccines within such a short time span. My wife and I decided that we will have our daughter vaccinated. But we are spacing out the vaccines, one at a time. This let's her body deal with the vaccine. And if there was some sort of toxicology, or failure to actually wipe out the virus. This method allows her immune system to focus on it. This also forces us to learn about a given vaccine and decide when we want to give it to her.
***
And to ANYONE dumb enough to blindly trust studies and the scientific community at large. Might I encourage you to go buy some children's cough medicine from the pharmacy once you get off of work. Thanks...
Oh wait...YOU CAN'T
Recently it was all pulled off the shelves because after numerous studies showing it to be safe. It was discovered that sometimes children can't metabolize all the chemicals and it can build up to toxic levels. Oh...and guess what, we were darn close to not discovering this fact and having hundreds more kids die. The only thing that prevented this from occurring? Parents who REFUSED to accept the diagnosis of SIDS.
***
Be smart, be balanced, do not be paranoid neither be foolish and overtly trusting. Realize there is always a risk. That said, the risk in vaccines is minimal when compared to the potential benefits. But be prudent, and always consider how to minimize the risks to your child.
As for me and my family, we'll go thru the hassle of spacing out our children's vaccines. It may take longer, be less convenient, and cost a bit more to do so. But we think it prudent. :)
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:26:48 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
There are a lot of questions on the validity of said study. One of the aspects is that autism in usually not noted until 4-5 yrs of age. Which is basically the cut off time of the study. They probably should have continued the study until about 8 yrs of age. |
I won't give you too hard a time because you are ultimately pro-vaccine, BUT:
1) The idea that "autism is usually not noted until 4-5 yrs of age" is patently false.
"About half of parents of children with ASD notice their child's unusual behaviors by age 18 months, and about four-fifths notice by age 24 months." (Landa RJ (2008). "Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders in the first 3 years of life". Nat Clin Pract Neurol 4 (3): 138–47)
2) Although every hypothesis must start somewhere, nobody has been able to clearly delineate a proposed mechanism for an autism-MMR link. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 04:23:52 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JMart:
I'm not sure what you mean by "open-minded" research. Researchers should be willing to accept whatever the evidence supports which is neither open nor closed, it just is. I think many alternative medicine practitioners have their eyes closed to evidence because they are unwilling to accept that their area of practice may indeed be based solely on the placebo effect (if anything at all). |
I completely agree with you, but also recognize that some things are not (have not been) properly researched by the "scientific community" because they were discounted as merely "folk medicine" or "old wives' tales."
FWIW, my son (now 11) has received all his scheduled vaccinations. When I started working in medicine, I had to get an MMR myself, as I'd never had mumps. |
I'd agree that not testing/researching the efficacy of "folk medicines" etc. is both closed minded and it's unscientific to avoid such inquiry. After all, if we figure out which of them actually works and why, we could very possibly improve on them.
It's also a two sided coins. The scientific community includes anyone who is willing and able to take their idea, test it, and present the results for peer review. If a part of the alternative community wants to have their methods accepted by the larger medical community then they should really start following the best practices of the scientific method, do some controlled testing, go through peer review, and at the end of the day all sides need to be willing to change their outlook based on the evidence.
It sounds like we agree for the most part and I'm sounding off about the folks who are profiting from deceiving people and you're pointing out that there are some who may be effective that just have not gotten a fair shake. I'm sure you're right about that. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 12:19:15 AM · #37 |
| Hi. I'm 60yoa, BA Botany, MS Soils, 8yrs university biology/chemistry/math, high gpa, high intensive research in grad school and experience with formal statistical design and probabilities. Going by observations of family members and records from before I was born, I can state with 100% scientific certainty that autism and many other disorders, however classified, are caused by vaccines and/or amalgams, or rather the mercury (and possibly other) toxins they contain. The fact that not everyone is so diagnosed or that negative effects are not immediately noticed or recorded is not an indicator of the same because of the large number of uncontrolled variables. Nevertheless, the correlation is 100% in my own family, and while this isn't a large number, it's more than enough when combined with the very reliable observations of other parents. Correlation is not cause and effect, you say? Well, maybe not, but in this case it is for sure, while and cause and effect without correlation is not cause and effect for sure. Are the vaccines effective? No. This claim is based on correlation studies that are heavily biased. To show that they are effective, it would be necessary to demonstrate a correlation independent of the other variables that have been permitted to bias the results. If you're really good at formal research and statistics, you'll agree on all these points. You may also find the statistical theorem I wrote for improving statistical designs to sharpen your scientific wit. Click on the button, Randomized Block for that at //mercuryxxpoisoned.com. I'm proud of the theorem, a good job! Thanks for your time. alan foos |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 12:37:38 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by cusanus:
I can state with 100% scientific certainty that autism and many other disorders, however classified, are caused by vaccines and/or amalgams...The fact that not everyone is so diagnosed or that negative effects are not immediately noticed or recorded is not an indicator of the same because of the large number of uncontrolled variables. |
Can everybody see these two statements are mutually exclusive? |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 12:45:46 AM · #39 |
| He lost me (or rather I chose to be lost) at 100% scientific certainty. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:20:39 AM · #40 |
Leaving behind all the internet, doctors, friend, school district, etc., my husband and I decided NOT to vaccinate our two children. With this decision I have accepted that we have to be responsible for knowing what is "going around" in our community - or any place we travel. Yes, it is a pain in the a_s, every time the school district wants proof of immunization, but I made our choice based upon EXTENSIVE reading, family history and outbreak reporting with our county health department (don't let people tell you that "it's the law" - you have a choice).
It is easierto "go along" with what you are being told (sold), but if you are willing to make a choice (clearly you have some reason to question what you are being told)then you have to accept responsibility for that choice.
My kids are now 13 and 10 - no regrets. Their immune systems are now more developed and able to handle the vaccinations if we were to have an outbreak or were traveling to an area that they may have an exposure - we would openly consider having them take the vaccination.
With all the information that is available, weigh your choice against the risk, and know that you have made an informed choice. Best wishes! |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:46:54 AM · #41 |
Did you weigh in at all that your action is morally selfish? I'm just curious. You are avoiding a small, but real risk of side effects from vaccinations and reaping the benefits of the vast majority of your neighbors being willing to take that risk. If everybody acted the same, we'd have tens of thousands of deaths a year due to preventable diseases.
Apparently I'm a bit opinionated on this. No hard feelings though. This isn't a personal attack on you. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 07:40:03 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by karmat:
He lost me (or rather I chose to be lost) at 100% scientific certainty. |
'100%scientific certainty' fascinating reading which has alot akin to gibberish..
lies, damn lies & statistics .. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 07:57:24 AM · #43 |
Some more facts: The idea that vaccines could trigger autism comes from one specific substance: thiomersal. It's a mercury compound, which the body gets more easily rid off than elementar mercury. But as everybody knows that mercury is toxic for our nerves, it's an easy conclusion for unserious people to make a causal link with autism. More serious people will look at the dose involved, which is 25-50 ug/vaccine shot. The WHO defined an upper limit for a similar substance known as a pollutant (dimethyl mercury) at 200 ug/week, for long term oral exposition.
Thiomersal is used in some vaccines as a conservation agent, in order to avoid contamination by bacterias and fungi. For that purpose it's very effective and manufacturers are reluctant to change a substance that worked well for 50 years and proved harmless in studies. Vaccines that do contain thimoersal disclose it of course, so if you have any doubts about this substance, ask your doctor. As far as I know, live vaccines like MMR do not contain thiomersal, so for answering the concerns of the OP, there are none! |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 08:39:21 AM · #44 |
it could also be a large scale entry to the Darwin_Awards
|
|
|
|
02/12/2009 09:18:26 AM · #45 |
Seems some of the 'facts' aren't as factual as claimed
and cusanus, if you can prove the MMR/autism link and prove vaccines are ineffective, write it up and submit it for publication because current peer reviewed literature have not been able replicate Wakefield's results and conclusively prove the link. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 09:20:59 AM · #46 |
I am late for this thread but I wanted to chime in. I was listening to a talkshow on public radio lastnight and they were talking about this very topic and how the researcher who linked autism to the vaccinations lied. They said that 8 of the 10 people who wrote the paper about it submitted requests to have article retracted. Now they are saying that the whole paper should be ignored based on the facts not actually being factual. Basically boils down to poor research.
My personal take is, That if alot of doctors believed that there was a link between the vac and autism they would not still be offering the shots.
Message edited by author 2009-02-12 09:58:28. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 09:26:31 AM · #47 |
| We'll find out soon enough... |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:29:14 PM · #48 |
My thread has been resurrected!
First off, let me apologize for starting this mess and not coming back. I got busy shortly after I posted and then honestly forgot about it.
Second, I'll state now for the record that I don't believe there is any evidence that the MMR vaccine or any vaccine for that matter causes autism or any other disease. The only real issue I have with giving vaccines to a young child is the possibility of side effects. More specifically, I have an issue with the possibility that my daughter could experience a serious side effect.
So, that said, there are a few thoughts I want to share. First I think I'll respond to the Doc's comment about moral selfishness. I agree that a parent who doesn't vaccinate his child is being morally selfish, but, I'm sure in contrast to Jason's opinion, I think that's a good thing. I believe my number 1 priority is the health and safety of my daughter, not the health and safety of the human race as a whole (although that would be nice too).
You also state, Jason, that "If everybody acted the same [didn't vaccinate], we'd have tens of thousands of deaths a year due to preventable diseases." I don't think that's true. In the past it might have been, but motivations and technology have changed quite a bit since the inception of vaccinations. I seriously doubt that drug companies, for example, would just give up their vaccine profits without a fight. My hope is that that fight comes in the form of safe vaccines (even if that means lowering effectiveness) as well as something other than a one size fits all vaccination regimen and schedule recommendation from the CDC.
And now, some random thoughts about vaccinations for your reading pleasure.
How do I know if my child might have a severe allergic reaction to a vaccine? Shouldn’t my pediatrician be able to tell me? If not, perhaps more research is necessary.
I read an article recently (that I'll try to find if anyone wants me to) that Merck will no longer produce, at some point in the future, any Measles, Mumps, or Rubella vaccines other than the combined MMR. I want choice, dammit!
Why should I trust my pediatrician when she tells me to vaccinate and the only information she gives me about a vaccine is a 1 sheet , 12 year old outline of the benefits and risks that basically says "you should do it" at the end?
Why can my child get an exemption from being vaccinated (to enter school) for religious reasons but not for scientific reasons? "My god thinks vaccines are bad" or some such is acceptable but "I believe the risk outweighs the benefit" is not?
More education is necessary in almost all cases for parents to make informed decisions. I have a friend who's son has had the chickenpox vaccine, and she believes that he is now immune.
Sorry for the long post, but I had to catch up a bit. I think it's also worthy of note that I consider myself among those that require more education. Also, I have no training in debate so bear with me if I'm all over the place or using logical fallacies or some such. Just let me know where I'm screwing up and I'll try to fix it. :) I'm also willing to change my mind regarding any opinion that I currently hold if shown a compelling enough argument.
I just noticed that I used the phrase "or some such" twice. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:39:46 PM · #49 |
The court ruled there is no link. Of note, the level of proof required was merely "more likely than not" rather than higher standards used for criminal or civil cases. This could not even be met by the plaintiffs.
I appreciate your sentiment Nathan. We all want what is best for our children. The definition of "selfish" is "Concerned chiefly or only with oneself". I'm not saying the feeling is not understandable, I'm just saying the word "selfish" fits. As far as the death toll, our technology and science has not progressed as far as you might think. Most of these illnesses are viral and we have few, if any, effective treatments for viral infections. I'll also note that "safe vaccine" is a relative term. Many people against vaccination are against them period. There is no such thing in their book. The risks of vaccination are very, very low and the benefits are very, very high. Among medical therapies it's almost a "no-brainer". I'm pretty sure I listed some statistics somewhere up above. I'll try to find them and pull them down again. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:40:56 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is a good resource for people wanting to know the risks of vaccines:
CDC page on Vaccines and Side Effects
It goes through each vaccine and lists mild, moderate, and severe side effects. Many times there are odds posted with each. As you scroll through you can see that mild side effects (redness, pain at site, swelling at site) are very common (which is likely a product of a strong immune response, something we are trying to do) and that almost all serious side effects are in the 1:1 million range. There are a few moderate side effects with fairly frequent occurence (1:1000) which are not dangerous, but could definitely be very scary for parents (seizures for example or high fever above 105).
Overall, the benefits still far outweigh the risks, but the benefits work most efficiently if the vast majority of a population is immunized. |
|
|
