DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Can the MMR vaccine cause/trigger autism?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 72 of 72, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/12/2009 01:41:40 PM · #51
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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.
02/12/2009 02:02:42 PM · #52
UK. 1998 there were 56 cases of measles, as a result of close to 100% take-up of MMR, 2008 there were 1,348 cases of measles in the UK, largely as a result of Andrew Wakefield's report 10 years earlier. Apart from the obvious danger to the un-vaccinated children of brain damage, blindness and death - and there have been deaths in the UK in the last few years - there is also the danger to unborn children. Not every child can be immunised against measles - if that individual catches the disease in the first trimester there is a very real danger of damage to the developing baby. My daughter is partially deaf as a result of my catching one of the measles variants in early pregnancy - and measles itself has the potential to cause far more damage.
 02/12/2009 02:41:25 PM · #53
And the answer appears to be ... nope, no link.
 02/12/2009 03:29:36 PM · #54
It reads as though you missed it, so just in case I'll reiterate that I think the word "selfish" fits as well, I just don't have a problem with it. I do realize that viral infections are nasty things and that vaccines are about the only way we have to combat them. I'm certainly not completely anti-vaccine, I'm just not convinced that we've done everything we're capable of doing to minimize the risk of side effects. For example, if my daughter were to get any of the normal vaccines I have absolutely no idea whatsoever whether she would experience any side effects (regardless of severity), and I think I should have some idea. Don't we have the ability to determine what attributes in a child might make that child more or less susceptible? I mean, I don't even know if sex makes a difference. I would think we ought to know whether more side effects occur in males vs. females, at least. Of course, part of my lack of knowledge on that front may be that I just haven't found it yet. But, again, if that kind of information exists, shouldn't my pediatrician be able to compare my daughter's attributes to those known to correlate with a higher incidence of side effects and give me a personalized risk factor?

I just saw Sara's post as well. It's obvious to me that actually contracting a disease like measles can be a very bad thing. I would advocate for all vaccines in a heartbeat if severe side effects (including death) weren't present. For me it's all about the numbers. Is the likelihood of suffering a severe side effect from a vaccine higher or lower than contracting the disease and having as bad a case? So far, it's been extremely challenging to gather enough information to make an accurate determination.
 02/12/2009 03:42:33 PM · #55
there are quite a few annual cases of campylobacter attributed to eating chicken. do you eat chicken ?


02/12/2009 03:50:35 PM · #56
Originally posted by soup:
there are quite a few annual cases of campylobacter attributed to eating chicken. do you eat chicken ?


If this is directed at me, I'm not sure what your point is. Can you elaborate? To answer the question anyway, no. I've never eaten chicken, actually.
 02/12/2009 03:57:48 PM · #57
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
For me it's all about the numbers. Is the likelihood of suffering a severe side effect from a vaccine higher or lower than contracting the disease and having as bad a case? So far, it's been extremely challenging to gather enough information to make an accurate determination.

This previously cited page contains most of those numbers.

In order to determine relative risk, you'd need to perform controlled testing for each factor in isolation -- I assume you're willing to volunteer your kid for such a testing program to serve the future good ... ;-)

IF there were distinct variations in susceptability to adverse reactions based on identifiable factors (gender, ethnicity, etc.) in statistically-significant numbers, then I'm pretty sure that would be mentioned.

The bottom line is that the risk of a serious adverse outcome is about 1:1 million, which is less than the risk of being clobbered by a car, and according to this table of relative risks, only one-fourth the risk of having an airplane fall on your house (list compiled before Capt. Sully's heroics).
 02/12/2009 04:29:34 PM · #58
It's an interesting moral dilemma. The most advantageous thing would be to not get vaccinated while everybody around you did. You avoid all risk of side effects (as low as they are) and you gain all the benefit of the society being vaccinated. The problem comes when too many people choose this route. When you hit some critical mass of unvaccinated individuals, outbreaks occur because an infected person statistically becomes more likely to find an unprotected individual and pass the disease on. This is being seen in real life in the UK with measles, mumps and rubella for exactly the reasons being mentioned. Cases are way up because the vaccination rate has dropped to 83% when statiticians feel 95% is needed to protect a society. Here the vaccinated individuals remain protected, but the "cheaters" now face a much higher risk of the real disease.

This fund that is mentioned in the news articles was set up because rarely bad things do happen from vaccines. It would absolutely, utterly suck to have your child lose that lottery. The fund is designed to at least help pay for care and in some way reimburse you for the cost exacted upon you in order to benefit society. Obviously money doesn't replace a healthy child, but it is also better than no help at all. The important thing to realize is that for society, there is no policy that lets everybody win. Someone always loses. If everybody is vaccinated, a few kids lose because of bad side effects. If nobody is vaccinated, 10,000 die a year from the preventable disease. It is fairly evident, however, backed by statistics and scientific evidence, that the route of maximal benefit and minimal harm is to vaccinate everybody with few exceptions.

An example would be polio vaccine. There are two forms of the vaccine. The Salk vaccine which is an injection is an inactivated (killed) virus. The pros of this vaccine are it has no potential to cause polio. The con is it does not produce a "herd" immunity (I'll get to this). The Sabin vaccine which is an oral solution is a live virus that is attenuated to not cause polio. The pros of this vaccine are it causes a herd immunity. Kids who would take it would shed live, attenuated virus in their stool and pass it around to other kids who had not gotten the vaccine. They in turn would become protected. The con was that rarely the virus would mutate back into the real polio virus and someone would contract real polio from the vaccine. When polio was widespread the risk of getting it in the community was much higher than the risk of getting it from the oral vaccine (the risk, if I recall, was 1 in 3 million). The oral vaccine made sense at that point. However, we were so successful with eradicating polio that there came a point where more kids got polio from the vaccine than got it from the environment. At that point the oral vaccine was stopped and only the injected vaccine was given. This is just an example of the thinking that goes into decisions like this.

Message edited by author 2009-02-12 16:34:49.
 02/12/2009 05:16:12 PM · #59
my point was/is there are risks with everything, and weighing the risks -vs the benefits is important. at the same time overly worrying about a minimal/questionable risk scenerio isn't healthy IMO either.

my point with chicken is the documented rate of campylobacter infections is real, yet rare.

with anything there is a risk. choose to take it or don't. simple as that.

i could use peanut butter and salmonella as a secondary example. have you eaten peanut butter ?
did you quit eating it recently because a handful of people got sick ?

and i didn't mean to direct it at you - but sometimes i think people take things too far, and worry about things too much. and i don't think that's healthy.

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
If this is directed at me, I'm not sure what your point is. Can you elaborate? To answer the question anyway, no. I've never eaten chicken, actually.



 02/12/2009 06:00:50 PM · #60
Let's see, a microscopically small risk of having an adverse reaction to a vaccine vs. the much greater (relatively) risk of contracting a painful and potentially lethal disease.

I'll take door #1.
 02/12/2009 06:20:59 PM · #61
so what gets blamed when a child without vaccinations is diagnosed with autism?
 02/12/2009 06:43:55 PM · #62
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
so what gets blamed when a child without vaccinations is diagnosed with autism?


Cell phones or microwaves.
 02/12/2009 06:48:09 PM · #63
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
so what gets blamed when a child without vaccinations is diagnosed with autism?


Cell phones or microwaves.


Don't forget the power company's transmission lines.
 02/12/2009 06:53:37 PM · #64
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Let's see, a microscopically small risk of having an adverse reaction to a vaccine vs. the much greater (relatively) risk of contracting a painful and potentially lethal disease.

I'll take door #1.


Problem is the vaccines have been so effective people have forgotten why they started in the first place, IMO the benefits far out weigh the risks.
 02/12/2009 07:31:08 PM · #65
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
so what gets blamed when a child without vaccinations is diagnosed with autism?


Cell phones or microwaves.


Don't forget the power company's transmission lines.

'chemicals' ala love canal,ny
hormones for livestock
hereditary

02/12/2009 08:16:57 PM · #66
I acted a few years ago for the defence of one of the drug companies manufacturing MMR vaccines against the group of claimants bringing a group tort claim as a result of Dr Wakefield's claims.

When reviewed in detail, the MMR-autism claims were incredibly weak and relied on very poor evidence. I was genuinely convinced by our expert evidence at the time that the claims were rubbish and remain so convinced. I felt incredibly sorry for the poor families affected - partly because they had the misfortune to have children with autism and aspergers, but mostly because the children were being subjected to a very painful testing regime (to collect evidence for the law suit) and the families were being filled with misdirected hatred and false hope.

I was quite furious at the Daily Mail which was the UK paper that promoted the purported link and crusaded against the vaccine for years (now recanted). By coincidence, I ended up at a dinner around the same time seated next to the Daily Mail's science editor and had to choose my words very carefully to avoid causing a scene!

Message edited by author 2009-02-12 20:17:18.
 02/12/2009 08:42:20 PM · #67
Originally posted by Matthew:
By coincidence, I ended up at a dinner around the same time seated next to the Daily Mail's science editor and had to choose my words very carefully to avoid causing a scene!

I've found that "See you in court, Buddy" reliably causes indigestion ... ;-)
 02/13/2009 10:35:32 AM · #68
Thanks for all the input so far, everyone. I've got some more stuff bubblin' in the ol' brain that I'll get to, but today's gonna be fairly busy. Just wanted to let you know that I'll get back in here sometime soon.
 02/13/2009 10:42:34 AM · #69
Without reading pages of posts, it is my opinion that they give too many vaccines at once. Both of my boys (and autism affects boys more than girls) were given the MMR but when they had them 1988 and 1995, the CVC did not require as many vaccines as they do now. I opted not to give my boys the pertussis (DPT) part of that vaccine, because I knew of a child who after receiving it, had a seizure and was a vegetable the rest of her life. But, there is a new pertussis vaccine now, which removes those risks, so it is much safer now than then.

When you look at the schedule of vaccines for young children these days, I think it is too much too soon. Why can't they spread them out? It is hard for those little bodies to accept that much at once. There are more and more pediatricians that are willing to pace the vaccines out and if you have one who is not, then I'd find another doctor.

My sister has chosen not to vaccinate her child with the 2nd MMR because of her reaction to the first one. I think it is a tough decision to make for both parents and health professionals but to say that everyone is the same and do this and this only, is totally wrong. Treat each case individually.
 02/13/2009 11:29:25 AM · #70
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Why can't they spread them out?


There is no reason not to. Probably the thinking is the more visits the fewer people will go to all of them and get completely immunized. I know some of those visits like 1 year old and 4 years old are brutal with 4-6 shots at once. Thank goodness they have combined vaccines like MMR and DTaP, eh?
 02/13/2009 12:06:30 PM · #71
Our second child had a mild reaction to the first round of MMR. The second round rather than risk another reaction, we went with a one at a time plan, and had no issues.

I personally feel that loading up a bunch of immunizations at once, is more stressful to the system. My gut feeling is that it is more of a time, money, and office visit saver than improvement in disease protection. I know I sure preferred the idea of one shot, one crying and upset episode.

But from then on, we asked to do things a little more spaced out, and our third child had zero issues. Likely would have has zero issues, just like the oldest, but we did have a little better piece of mind.

As for not immunizing, that was never an option in our minds. We travel too much to take that kind of risk. I remember as a small child, when kids cautioned not to step in muddy puddles in the summer, "You'll get polio!". I don't even know if polio came from muddy puddles, but it came from somewhere and it was horrible, and now it's gone. As a child I went through all the "childhood" diseases. I'm thankful that my kids didn't have to.
 02/16/2009 04:49:37 AM · #72
Originally posted by ambaker:
I personally feel that loading up a bunch of immunizations at once, is more stressful to the system. My gut feeling is that it is more of a time, money, and office visit saver than improvement in disease protection. I know I sure preferred the idea of one shot, one crying and upset episode.


We carry out scientific experiments to find out if our gut feelings (based on only our personal experience) are accurate or not.

In this case, experiments have demonstrated that multiple immunisations are not more stressful - see about halfway down this report which summarises the experiments conducted and concludes:

Originally posted by PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001, p. e84:


The simultaneous administration of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines in the MMR combination vaccine is not associated with an increased rate of adverse events, compared with the rate for administering the vaccines separately

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 12:04:05 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 12:04:05 AM EDT.