Abaco

Immunizations

29 posts in this topic

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161608272...rdp_product_img

A colleague of mine contributed to this book. This thread isn't about whether or not immunizations cause any problems. But this book really got me thinking about my own political beliefs in regards to this. I have my own premises regarding the current immunization schedule, per CDC, and safety. Actually, they are conclusions that have resulted in more information than I thought I'd ever see on the subject. But, my question is one of ethics and politics. This book is really about the freedom to choose to not be immunized. That freedom is under attack. Currently, there are more and more efforts by government officials to make immunizations manditory by law. Recently in California a new standard was set making whooping cough immunization manditory. Your chance of dying from whooping cough in California is 2.1x10**-5%

What do my fellow Objectivists think about this? If you are coming from the premise that immunizations have always been a safe product of western medicine, are you willing to let the government decide your immunizations for you? Would Objectivists find manditory immunization to be excessive use of power by our government? I have to ask because I've seen many conservative pundits in the media arguing that the public should trust government when it comes to the immunization schedule. When I hear conservatives argue in favor of trusting government it catches my attention. Should government mandate immunizations in the name of "herd immunity"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161608272...rdp_product_img

A colleague of mine contributed to this book. This thread isn't about whether or not immunizations cause any problems. But this book really got me thinking about my own political beliefs in regards to this. I have my own premises regarding the current immunization schedule, per CDC, and safety. Actually, they are conclusions that have resulted in more information than I thought I'd ever see on the subject. But, my question is one of ethics and politics. This book is really about the freedom to choose to not be immunized. That freedom is under attack. Currently, there are more and more efforts by government officials to make immunizations manditory by law. Recently in California a new standard was set making whooping cough immunization manditory. Your chance of dying from whooping cough in California is 2.1x10**-5%

What do my fellow Objectivists think about this? If you are coming from the premise that immunizations have always been a safe product of western medicine, are you willing to let the government decide your immunizations for you? Would Objectivists find manditory immunization to be excessive use of power by our government? I have to ask because I've seen many conservative pundits in the media arguing that the public should trust government when it comes to the immunization schedule. When I hear conservatives argue in favor of trusting government it catches my attention. Should government mandate immunizations in the name of "herd immunity"?

If Objectivism upholds reason as an absolute and the inititation of force as immoral, why would you think mandatory immunizations would be exempt from those principles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think immunizations should be mandantory - and I don't think the government should assist those whose children then proceed to get paralyzed from polio due to lack of vaccinations, etc.

Quasi-civilized men take a lot for granted. I suggest looking at history, including American history, to see the impact of various viral illnesses prior to the availability of vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161608272...rdp_product_img

A colleague of mine contributed to this book. This thread isn't about whether or not immunizations cause any problems. But this book really got me thinking about my own political beliefs in regards to this. I have my own premises regarding the current immunization schedule, per CDC, and safety. Actually, they are conclusions that have resulted in more information than I thought I'd ever see on the subject. But, my question is one of ethics and politics. This book is really about the freedom to choose to not be immunized. That freedom is under attack. Currently, there are more and more efforts by government officials to make immunizations manditory by law. Recently in California a new standard was set making whooping cough immunization manditory. Your chance of dying from whooping cough in California is 2.1x10**-5%

What do my fellow Objectivists think about this? If you are coming from the premise that immunizations have always been a safe product of western medicine, are you willing to let the government decide your immunizations for you? Would Objectivists find manditory immunization to be excessive use of power by our government? I have to ask because I've seen many conservative pundits in the media arguing that the public should trust government when it comes to the immunization schedule. When I hear conservatives argue in favor of trusting government it catches my attention. Should government mandate immunizations in the name of "herd immunity"?

If Objectivism upholds reason as an absolute and the inititation of force as immoral, why would you think mandatory immunizations would be exempt from those principles?

Me personally? I don't. I'm curious what others think.

Remember. There are no stupid questions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the diseases in question present an objective threat? Should they be "prohibited" via immunization on the same sort of grounds as drunk driving is prohibited?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am personally in favour of mass immunization, despite the initiation of force aspect. We have eradicated several deadly diseases such as smallpox as a result. In practical terms, I would like very much to be insulated from the dangers arising from the actions of a few nutcases who think homeopathy is the only way and who refuse to look at hard science.

The way I rationalize it (is it a rationalization?) is that epidemic diseases are an enemy and rules of war (i.e. temporary override of individual rights necessary to fight the enemy) apply. This does not mean forcefully changing the behaviour of individuals (by banning supersize, etc.) so they eat less and get less heart disease, but means immunizing the 94% or more of the population that is required for herd immunity to be achieved and therefore for the disease to disappear from the surface of the earth (thus, like smallpox, not requiring any further immunization).

This is doubly the case in today's society where I, the productive taxpayer, will bear the cost of that who chooses not to immunize their children who subsequently develop an expensive disease and send me the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An non-immunised person is like a Typhoid Mary, a threat to others. If he chooses not to be immunised, he is obligated to be isolated in respect for the rights of others to their health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although I do prefer Piz's approach.

I just want to point out that I haven't yet stated what my approach (or opinion) is. I just asked some questions. When answering them, no one should read any specific "side" of the debate into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is difficult in the semi-free society in which we now live. I would say, no, immunization should not be mandatory. If one is concerned about contracting a given disease, e.g. those for which proven vaccines are available, that person can inoculate themselves and their entire family for a reasonable price, considering the alternative. That is the motivation that spurs others to do the same. A free rider, in this case, is the one taking the risk of infection. Forcing others to be inoculated to protect yourself, when you have the means at your disposal to protect yourself is questionable. If they are immigrants, with a disease for which we have no easy treatment, keeping them out or quarantined is a just decision.

So many of the implications of the question are a result of a welfare state. For example, 'public spaces', if privatized and if the law allowed an owner to stipulate that those presenting symptoms of the plague may not visit their mall. Without the gov't controlling the dispensation of vacccines, they would be far more available and cheaper and diverse. Years of stifling FDA regulation squeezed them virtually out of production. Many of the research facilities which worked with vaccines found it uneconomic to do so. It is a product with a long development time and small payoff. The only significant producer now is Wyeth and it is stockpiled by the CDC. In that sense, this is somewhat of a trick question, as we are answering it in a context in which choice to be vaccinated and innovation that might make it easier, cheaper, and more effective has been undermined and virtually destroyed by government intervention.

I still say "no" to the question. It should not be mandatory. Herd immunity does not require every member of the community to be immunized for benefit to be obtained, just many. And many would and do protect themselves without gov't commanding them to. Note the number of people who get flu shots each year. Less intervention would likely allow more creativity and development of vaccines, so that, say, late-breaking vaccines might be made available as virus strains are monitored throughout the flu season. And, btw, vitamin D is strongly correlated with flu resistance. There is also that question, is vaccination the only, or even the best preventative? When the gov't mandates, such questions are often no longer asked.

In a case in which one individual endangers other individuals in a manner which can't reasonably be defended against, whether by having unprotected sex with HIV, or shooting a gun, the gov't has the right and the job of taking that person out of circulation. That is its proper role. Prophylactic inoculation by decree is Collectivistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate all the responses here. Alann - I appreciate how you think. Funny you mention vitamin D. Last summer I started taking 2000iu's of D every day and 2 grams of C. Not a sniffle since - even as cold and flu pass through my office and my son's school.

I think I caught swine flu about 10 years ago. I caught it on a business trip in Los Angeles doing some work in a building used by a lot of Mexicans. It was bad. Some people in LA died from a flu at that time. It was bad enough to prompt me to start getting a flu shot every year. Then, I got another terrible flu about 5 years later and that prompted me to stop getting the flu shot. :)

I have firsthand experiences, including extensive lab work, that I think you guys might like to hear - regarding immunizations. I don't have time to get the words down today. But, I will try to do it next week. I want to share it with you because you are thinkers. I'm sure you'll find value in it. The acquisition of good information is so valuable in allowing us to establish our premises. That's why I want to share this here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question Abaco,

This is somewhat similar to the issue of forced government quarantines (which both Ayn Rand and Leonard Piekoff support; you should see both their thoughts on Typhoid Mary.)

While this might seem like a minor issue, I think this case is important in understanding some of the more subtle applications of human rights in Ayn Rand's ideas. When looking at this issue, two implications become clear: first, that a person can violate another persons rights without intentionally meaning to, even while the violator is completely innocent; and second, that it is within the governments power to use force against people who are completely innocent of any intentional violation of others.

I think a great deal can be said about these implications, but I tend to be long-winded, so lets stick to the matter at hand.

I don't know if Ayn Rand would have supported large scale quarantines, but I think they are consistent with her views (there is also the fact that, should a large-scale quarantine become necessary, only the government can provide it.) Extending from this: does the government also have the power to force vaccinations on people, should a situation become dire enough, such as a full-scale outbreak (or in this case, when the situation is relatively controlled, as it normally is?)

As Piz said above, this situation can best be compared to drunk driving. A person can be arrested, tried, and convicted of drunk diving, all without hurting a single person. This is because endangering another person (even if the "person" in question is not specific) is considered a violation of rights.

In the same regard, does a person who does not get a vaccination endanger others?

(Oh, and before anybody raises a fuss, I know full well that the act of purposely getting drunk and then deciding to drive is far different then the non-action of not getting a vaccination. I also realize that everybody that is "endangered" by a un-vaccinated person can simply vaccinate themselves.)

Another issue a person can raise concerns child abuse. In the US, the courts have ruled (quite rationally, I think) that a refusal to provide basic medical attention for your child is negligence and child abuse. A person can argue, that by exposing a child to the risk of infections by not getting them vaccinated, you are being a negligent parent.

Considering all this, I think a person can make a intelligent and well-thought-out case for forced vaccinations.

As for me, I see little justification for forced vaccinations in relatively controlled times; the risk seems too small to justify it. Though I am willing to entertain ideas that concern children, or the event of a full-scale outbreak.

Thanks for bringing this up Abaco. you mentioned that you did some lab work in the past. I am somewhat ignorant of the medical realities beyond what I here about vaccinations, and would be interested to here your thoughts on this.

- Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Piz said above...

Again, I want to note that I haven't expressed an opinion at all, just posed the questions.

Honestly, this is a question I've never considered before, so to this point I don't even have an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Piz said above...

Again, I want to note that I haven't expressed an opinion at all, just posed the questions.

Honestly, this is a question I've never considered before, so to this point I don't even have an opinion.

Didn’t mean to imply that you did; just stating that you brought up the parallel with drunk driving laws, which I think is relevant to this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161608272...rdp_product_img

A colleague of mine contributed to this book. This thread isn't about whether or not immunizations cause any problems. But this book really got me thinking about my own political beliefs in regards to this. I have my own premises regarding the current immunization schedule, per CDC, and safety. Actually, they are conclusions that have resulted in more information than I thought I'd ever see on the subject. But, my question is one of ethics and politics. This book is really about the freedom to choose to not be immunized. That freedom is under attack. Currently, there are more and more efforts by government officials to make immunizations manditory by law. Recently in California a new standard was set making whooping cough immunization manditory. Your chance of dying from whooping cough in California is 2.1x10**-5%

What do my fellow Objectivists think about this? If you are coming from the premise that immunizations have always been a safe product of western medicine, are you willing to let the government decide your immunizations for you? Would Objectivists find manditory immunization to be excessive use of power by our government? I have to ask because I've seen many conservative pundits in the media arguing that the public should trust government when it comes to the immunization schedule. When I hear conservatives argue in favor of trusting government it catches my attention. Should government mandate immunizations in the name of "herd immunity"?

If the diseases for which the immunizations are intended aren't communicable, and hence only endanger the individual refusing immunization, the government should not have an involvement, and it is merely an ethical issue of each individual involved.

To the extent that the disease is communicable and deadly on the scale of pandemics it becomes a scientific issue of determining the risk and whether a mandatory eradication project should be carried out through forced immunizations by the government. It would be senseless to expect 99% of the population of a country to repeatedly vaccinate itself against smallpox, for example, with every new generation of children simply because 1% of the population is too stupid to get vaccinated. In the limiting case that a great number of non-eradicated highly communicable and deadly diseases reside in a country, is it possibly rational to have 99% of the population taking a large number of vaccinations because some pocket of crazy people refuse immunization, and thus present a danger to others on an enormous scale? Most people

Just to make sure we are clear here, we are talking about things like smallpox, which killed literally hundreds of millions of people within 20th century alone. That single disease has probably killed more people than all of human warfare summed together. One doesn't allow for the prospect of an entire town (of some religious sect who refuse medicine, for example) being viable hosts and sustaining pathogens capable of wiping out human life on the scale of nuclear weapons. A rational government can and should take steps to eradicate diseases that can destroy life on such terrific scales, especially considering the slight chance that the pathogens could mutate or change such that prior methods of containment or neutralization fail.

Consider also that diseases such as smallpox can be used for purposes of research in biological warfare, and the governments of free countries should have a vested interest in eradication such that no rogue terrorist nation could exploit the pathogen's existence. These pathogens can destroy life on the scale of a "weapon of mass destruction", and can be exploited for similar purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing vaccination is wrong. I'll just say it. If you make any population do it, that is force, and would not be Objectivist. However, if you put it in the light of disease being an enemy against which the government should protect us (much like an invading army), then the government should do something.

That said, disease doesn't always follow a vector of infecting those who come in contact with the infected. Some diseases that transferred via water or animal. Say we lock a group of people away because they have decided to be a danger to us all, but upon their demise, they poison the ground around where they are, and eventually cause an outbreak or some sort of other health issues to the people or the environment. It seems careless. I'm not a doctor, and maybe I have some ideas wrong there, but I think immunization is something that should be mandated, even if it means I have to pay for one or two other people to get vaccinated.

Imagine that, if you could opt to pay for someone's vaccination, just to protect yourself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I took the time to jot down facts I know as real that indicate that immunizations are not without risk. They indicate that there may be a limit to how much is safe, and that the limit varies from one individual to the next. So far, it's 4 pages long, so I deleted my post. Honestly - I have had an inside track to this information and it is not something I am eager to share in public. Frankly, it worries me.

I don't want to seem too self-indulgent either (4 pages!?). But, I want you to know that if your conclusion is that we can all follow the CDC immunization schedule with no fear regarding the safety of it, you are mistaken. I know, without any doubt, that there are real dangers lurking in the schedule as it now is. And, as the schedule for infants continues to grow, some current problems will become worse. My involvement has been firsthand, and has included several scientists and doctors - some you've seen in the news.

I mention this because I know that many of my fellow conservatives hold the premise that immunizations are completely safe. They conclude that we should fully trust the government on this one issue. The premise is wrong. So is the conclusion. I asked the question because I'm pretty sure that we'll see forced immunizations sooner than we realize. I have to wonder if conservatives or Objectivists will just roll up their sleeves with smiles on their faces.

I know many people fear epidemics. The more recent epidemics of polio have been cause by the vaccines. But, facts like this aren't openly reported in the media. I have acquired many facts and much knowledge in this over the past few years. My son was injured by immunizations and in just a few years it has cost my family $250K. He's doing very, very well now because we knew how he was injured and acted accordingly. Some friends of ours weren't so lucky. Their son was killed by a flu shot a year ago.

Just thought I'd say "check your premises". If, as an Objectivist, your tendency is to object to the government forcing you to do something regarding your health you should stick with that. Your health is your responsibility and comes from your own choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys, I took the time to jot down facts I know as real that indicate that immunizations are not without risk. They indicate that there may be a limit to how much is safe, and that the limit varies from one individual to the next. So far, it's 4 pages long, so I deleted my post. Honestly - I have had an inside track to this information and it is not something I am eager to share in public. Frankly, it worries me.

I don't want to seem too self-indulgent either (4 pages!?). But, I want you to know that if your conclusion is that we can all follow the CDC immunization schedule with no fear regarding the safety of it, you are mistaken. I know, without any doubt, that there are real dangers lurking in the schedule as it now is. And, as the schedule for infants continues to grow, some current problems will become worse. My involvement has been firsthand, and has included several scientists and doctors - some you've seen in the news.

I mention this because I know that many of my fellow conservatives hold the premise that immunizations are completely safe. They conclude that we should fully trust the government on this one issue. The premise is wrong. So is the conclusion. I asked the question because I'm pretty sure that we'll see forced immunizations sooner than we realize. I have to wonder if conservatives or Objectivists will just roll up their sleeves with smiles on their faces.

I know many people fear epidemics. The more recent epidemics of polio have been cause by the vaccines. But, facts like this aren't openly reported in the media. I have acquired many facts and much knowledge in this over the past few years. My son was injured by immunizations and in just a few years it has cost my family $250K. He's doing very, very well now because we knew how he was injured and acted accordingly. Some friends of ours weren't so lucky. Their son was killed by a flu shot a year ago.

Just thought I'd say "check your premises". If, as an Objectivist, your tendency is to object to the government forcing you to do something regarding your health you should stick with that. Your health is your responsibility and comes from your own choices.

Your question was about the abstract general ethical issue of immunization as enforced by government, and that is what the members have posted on. No one was asked whether they endorsed the CDC or not, so it's not really fair to interpret their comments as meaning they support whatever bizarre regulations a (probably) corrupt agency like the CDC enacts.

Your comments and insight are interesting, but you are railing against a strawman to think that myself or others advocating forced immunizations for certain extremely dangerous pathogens simultaneously means we turn advocate turning a blind eye to whatever idiocy government agencies like the CDC wish to engage in. Apparently one group is discussing a more abstract, general question, while you had something more immediately concrete in mind for the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though, I have to ask...if you really have 4 pages worth of information about why immunizations are dangerous, even in the current schedule, why is it not published? Why do you have this information if you can't share it? Can you share it? Will you? If you have a legitimate claim, you need to provide a legitimate amount of evidence, or you simply look like a conspiracy kook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though, I have to ask...if you really have 4 pages worth of information about why immunizations are dangerous, even in the current schedule, why is it not published? Why do you have this information if you can't share it? Can you share it? Will you? If you have a legitimate claim, you need to provide a legitimate amount of evidence, or you simply look like a conspiracy kook.
I agree it would be interesting to get some information, but from the sound of it I don't think this will be along the lines of the absurd Jenny McCarthy "vaccines cause autism" spiel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though, I have to ask...if you really have 4 pages worth of information about why immunizations are dangerous, even in the current schedule, why is it not published? Why do you have this information if you can't share it? Can you share it? Will you? If you have a legitimate claim, you need to provide a legitimate amount of evidence, or you simply look like a conspiracy kook.
I agree it would be interesting to get some information, but from the sound of it I don't think this will be along the lines of the absurd Jenny McCarthy "vaccines cause autism" spiel.

Lordy, I hope not! haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your question was about the abstract general ethical issue of immunization as enforced by government, and that is what the members have posted on. No one was asked whether they endorsed the CDC or not, so it's not really fair to interpret their comments as meaning they support whatever bizarre regulations a (probably) corrupt agency like the CDC enacts.

Your comments and insight are interesting, but you are railing against a strawman to think that myself or others advocating forced immunizations for certain extremely dangerous pathogens simultaneously means we turn advocate turning a blind eye to whatever idiocy government agencies like the CDC wish to engage in. Apparently one group is discussing a more abstract, general question, while you had something more immediately concrete in mind for the discussion.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. What kind of "extremely dangerous pathogens" have we seen lately in the US? Swine flu? Tetanus? Chicken pox? I think my question should have been - Given the current state of dangerous pathogens in the United States, would you favor any forced immunizations at this time? Thanks Carlos. I ask because we have a new law in California forcing immunizations for whooping cough when your chances of being killed by it are 2.1x10**-5%, close to your chances of winning the Lotto. Am I the only one who sees this as a farce? But, I'm coming from an unusual premise, I admit. I don't think immunizations are risk-free. I know many do. I used to. But, I was wrong, and it really cost my family.

I have been involved with a world-renowned research group on this subject. I am not comfortable divulging information that they have decided to withold from public. But, when you hear Fox News say that mercury has been removed from immunizations, that mercury is good for the brain (I've heard that on Fox News), or that multiple studies been done that verify the safety of immunizations as they are now given...don't assume that you are getting the truth. If I heard those stories, not knowing what I now know, I'd probably use my own gun to force my neighbors to get all the shots (bad joke, sorry). Some facts regarding the risks are starting to come out in some print. A colleague of mine walked up to me at a meeting 2 nights ago and quietly handed me a copy of the new book "Vaccine Epidemic". I have thumbed through it and recommend it if you are interested in this.

It has been an eye-opening experience for me, a person with Objectivist tendencies at least, to observe conservative friends of mine make an about-face when it comes to this subject. I think I first noticed this phenomenon a couple years ago. I was on a long drive through the desert north of Reno (love that area) on a business trip and had Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I like Rush. He's good entertainment. I heard him, in the middle of one of his excellent tirades, take a breath to announce that immunizations were totally safe and that those who don't believe the government are "kooks". That statement really grabbed my attention. I saw it as a terrific contradiction in philosophy, not to mention that the comment was totally out of context of his tirade. That's all this thread is about, really - what I see as a contradiction.

One last note. I hear Jenny McCarthy's name brought up often when it comes to immunizations and autism. I really don't know why this is. She's an attractive, passionate mom. I know many of those. There is one other personality that you have heard of in the news - Dr. Wakefield. I thought I should say that what you hear in the news media about him is false. He never did a study linking autism with the MMR. He never said he did such study. He's not even anti-vaccine. He is currently on a team of doctors and scientists conducting a study that takes macaw monkeys and vaccinates them per the CDC schedule. I know that the early results in that study are earthshaking. I think this is probably why he's a lightening rod for the media. I've spoken with him. He's a good man, and he's a thinker.

Thanks again for the responses. My intent is not to aggitate, just to pick your brains. Here's hoping we all have good health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last note. I hear Jenny McCarthy's name brought up often when it comes to immunizations and autism. I really don't know why this is. She's an attractive, passionate mom. I know many of those. There is one other personality that you have heard of in the news - Dr. Wakefield. I thought I should say that what you hear in the news media about him is false. He never did a study linking autism with the MMR. He never said he did such study. He's not even anti-vaccine. He is currently on a team of doctors and scientists conducting a study that takes macaw monkeys and vaccinates them per the CDC schedule. I know that the early results in that study are earthshaking. I think this is probably why he's a lightening rod for the media. I've spoken with him. He's a good man, and he's a thinker.
What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452/F1.large.jpg

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last note. I hear Jenny McCarthy's name brought up often when it comes to immunizations and autism. I really don't know why this is. She's an attractive, passionate mom. I know many of those. There is one other personality that you have heard of in the news - Dr. Wakefield. I thought I should say that what you hear in the news media about him is false. He never did a study linking autism with the MMR. He never said he did such study. He's not even anti-vaccine. He is currently on a team of doctors and scientists conducting a study that takes macaw monkeys and vaccinates them per the CDC schedule. I know that the early results in that study are earthshaking. I think this is probably why he's a lightening rod for the media. I've spoken with him. He's a good man, and he's a thinker.
What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452/F1.large.jpg

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

"The onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child..." I put the key words in italics. Thousands of parents who had never heard of Dr. Wakefield have made the same observation. I'm one of them. The implication in how this is reported is that when a parent makes an observation about what happened before their child became sick there is no relevence. If you brought a child showing signs of poisoning to a doctor the first question would be, "What did they consume?" Not here, though. Oh no. The second link you list just another statement saying that Wakefield did a study that concluded that the MMR causes autism.

What do you think of this?

http://fedgeno.com/documents/delayed-neona...-thimerosal.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last note. I hear Jenny McCarthy's name brought up often when it comes to immunizations and autism. I really don't know why this is. She's an attractive, passionate mom. I know many of those. There is one other personality that you have heard of in the news - Dr. Wakefield. I thought I should say that what you hear in the news media about him is false. He never did a study linking autism with the MMR. He never said he did such study. He's not even anti-vaccine. He is currently on a team of doctors and scientists conducting a study that takes macaw monkeys and vaccinates them per the CDC schedule. I know that the early results in that study are earthshaking. I think this is probably why he's a lightening rod for the media. I've spoken with him. He's a good man, and he's a thinker.
What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452/F1.large.jpg

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

"The onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child..." I put the key words in italics. Thousands of parents who had never heard of Dr. Wakefield have made the same observation. I'm one of them. The implication in how this is reported is that when a parent makes an observation about what happened before their child became sick there is no relevence. If you brought a child showing signs of poisoning to a doctor the first question would be, "What did they consume?" Not here, though. Oh no. The second link you list just another statement saying that Wakefield did a study that concluded that the MMR causes autism.

What do you think of this?

http://fedgeno.com/documents/delayed-neona...-thimerosal.pdf

This is fascinating. I have an autistic sister and some literature research in the past as a result, as well as reading both Neil Z Miller's unscientific anti-vaccine propaganda and Robert Sears attempt at a more balanced consideration of vaccine risk.

Brian Deer's review of Wakefield's published paper and his methods is damning, in my opinion. No one is more aware of a child's alertness and behavior than a concerned parent -- all of these parents appear to match that characterization. The fact of the majority of the cases show symptoms before MMR administration means that these children had something wrong with them independent of the vaccine. It is possible, and not addressed, that the vaccine exacerbated, such symptoms, or had some other contributory effect, but that is not what Wakefield alleges and purports to prove. He is trying for a clean causal link and he fails when the source material is reviewed, although he pretends in the article to have demonstrated that link. That is despicable. It is hard enough to determine a mechanism for such a tragic disability without frauds like Wakefield wading into the field with falsified and slanted data that sends research money and effort off into a dead end. Even if MMR was found to contribute to a pre-existing condition, that would be the more appropriate question to ask and would result in a quite different study design. In fact, it would strongly suggest that the cause of the symptoms being exacerbated be determined first. Wakefield did a huge disservice to all those who want an answer by providing a false one.

As for the Thimerosol study, the study design is flawed: It uses a Thimerosol-free MMR vaccine with Thimerosol added "back" (my quotes) -- reconstituted to be like the original vaccine. The control is saline. Where, then, is the 3rd cohort of Thimerosol-only administrations, or a possible 4th of MMR-only? When was such a comparative study done on this particular animal model? We really don't have a control that shows that any cognitive impact was the result of Thimerosol. As the study stands, it's one more waste of money. Well, to be charitable, it's suggestive, but the suggested study remains to be done and should have been done in the first place to avoid the questions of identical model and conditions.

As a former scientist and current analyst, I am discouraged seeing how much mediocrity now passes for science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites