This is not The Haters Club You're Looking For discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
I hate that the government is forcing vaccines on us!
message 1:
by
Emma
(last edited May 24, 2008 04:22PM)
(new)
May 24, 2008 04:21PM
What the hell is up with Gardasil!!!!???? Why does the government act like if you get the flu shot you're immune to it!!!!??????
reply
|
flag
Is Gardisil the one they are recommending for girls?No one is saying if you get the flu shot you'll be immune to it. There are hundreds of strains out there. Scientists try to predict the ones that are going to be the most prevalent, and vaccine you against those. But the flu is like the cold.
If Gardisil is the one for girls, I am so glad I have a boy! That's a tough one. However, interestingly enough, the cover article of the new issue of TIME is about childhood vaccinations. They are saying there is no link between autism and the MMR or other shots. And now that many are opting out of the vaccines for the kids, many diseases like polio which was eradicated are spreading again.
I thought Gardasil was for HPV, not the flu. Immunity shots are not for the benefit of the individual, but for the protection of the public. That's why they should be mandatory.
It is for HPV. But the company that created it has had 27,000 lawsuits for Vioxx!
And Whyville, a popular chat site for tweens and teens, now has flu shots for the avatars! WTF?
I hate it when something is recommended, and people confuse that with being forced. No one's coercing you.The government isn't forcing anything on anyone. No one is forced to get the HPV vaccination, the flu shot, you can even opt your kid out of DTaP and MMR and polio and whatever other vaccination you don't want your kid to have by signing a 'religious exemption' form. The only way kids are "forced" to get vaccinations is because they're required for public school unless you sign the form. Having filled this form out with parents when I used to work in a program with a preschool in it, all you have to do is sign your name. You don't have to indicate what religious preference you're citing, you don't need a clergyperson's approval. You just have to sign something saying it violates your personal beliefs, whatever those may be.
That said, vaccinations are safe and a good idea. They've essentially wiped out smallpox and polio. They're safe, and protect others as well as yourself. They should be more or less mandatory for children, who can't do it for themselves (it's medical neglect if you don't treat your child's illness, and you can be prosecuted, whereas if you don't treat yourself when you're ill that's your own prerogative...I think vaccines should be similar).
It's been very clear for a long time that vaccines are unrelated to autism, based on population studies in Scandinavian countries where there is a centralized database of health records. Immunized children have a slightly lower rate of autism than those who are not immunized. Thimerosal isn't even in vaccines anymore. Vaccination and the first obvious symptoms of autism often occur around the same time (two years of age), which is how the association between them first got dreamt up by parents that had to find a cause, but that's as logical as saying that vaccines cause tantrums, or the ability to speak in full sentences. And the "cure" for autism supposedly "caused" by "mercury poisoning" from vaccines--chelation--is utterly bogus, unscientific, and has killed children. (Sorry, I know this wasn't really the issue, but it's something that makes me see red.)
What about autism ... The chances of me having a child with autism are something like tenfold from twenty five years ago, am I wrong? I'm terrified of it's great unknown. I don't know how to put this, I've not done any research, and it sounds like you have, Lisa. So can you enlighten me? Anybody? What is the reason for it?
Yes, Lisa obviously knows more about this than I do, but I remember reading somewhere that the number of autism diagnoses is going up, not the actual number of cases. What used to be diagnosed as mental retardation is now more and more being diagnosed as autism.
There are a number of reasons autism diagnoses are on the rise.The most obvious is better knowledge to diagnose. My grandmother had a brother with autism, but I was the first to figure that out, when he was in his sixties, shortly before he died. It literally didn't exist when he was a child, Dr. Kanner didn't first describe and define it until...the late '50s? There still isn't a stellar, perfect definition of autism (or any of the pervasive developmental disorders) and it can be hard to distinguish from mental retardation (on the low-functioning end) or learning disabilities, ADHD, etc. on the high-functioning end. Lots of people who in the past would have been called Schizoid Personality Disorder as adults are now getting diagnosed with autism at age 2 instead. This particularly explains the exponential increase in the past ten years.
Another big reason for more diagnoses of autism is that more children are surviving being born prematurely or any of the other things that can go awry during pregnancy. We're keeping pregnant women, fetuses, and newborns alive more often than we have in the past, and ironically, it's leading to more disorders.
There may be links between autism and environmental teratogens as well (teratogens are things that can damage a fetus, like alcohol; I generally don't believe it's caused by anything that happens to a child after birth, though brain damage from things such as very high fevers in the first year or two are a possibility), but it's utterly unclear. Because the brain develops throughout pregnancy (unlike some parts of the developing fetus which have a sensitive period, like the spine), any drug/medication/exposure to a chemical/exposure to an illness/lots of other things I'm not thinking of can have an impact on it, and the way I've come to see it, anything that can affect the developing brain prenatally probably ups the chance of autism. What is very, very clear is that not only is there no single cause of autism, but there isn't even a really good, useful list of specific risk factors that might increase the chance of it.
WARNING: Talking out of my ass here: I'm pretty sure I've never come across anything citing genetic influences on autism. I pretty much believe that, at least genetically, it doesn't run in families.
We're keeping pregnant women, fetuses, and newborns alive more often than we have in the past, and ironically, it's leading to more disorders. For reasons like this if and when I decide to have a child I want to have midwives take control. I think nature knows more than we can realize.
This is a sticky subject.
On a just barely related note, it turns out that morning sickness may be a way to keep pregnant women from ingesting anything odd or unfamiliar during the first few critical months. Evolution fascinates me.
I think I read recently (I may be misremembering) that more morning sickness is related to lower risk of miscarriage. So maybe it works!
hmmm. I love stuff like this. I think that the female biological process is the epitome of nature's beauty.
And, yes, I realize that morning sickness does not exactly equate to beauty, but ... sigh. It all makes sense in my head.
You're right Lisa it's not forced. And vaccines are a good idea, for some things. But when are scentists going to realize you can't eliminate every single illness in this world? This thread was more my frusterations then anything else, it pisses me off that the media portrays anyone that doesn't take vaccines as uneducated.
I don't understand medicine at all. WHy are we trying to prevent death? DOesn't anybody realize that if we cure everything (or even 50% of everything) we'll run out of resources and people will then have to resort to murdering each other for the few that are left?I'm sick and tired of hearing about our overpopulation problem and then hearing about the latest medical advance to keep people from dying. It's so frustrating.
Except when you're the one dying. Or a loved one.
I only care if my child dies atually. Everyone who's had a life, family or not, myself included can croak to make room for the babies a comin' as far as I'm concerned. ANd if you really care about your loved ones, you wouldn't want them to live in a world where they would have to fight tooth and nail for limited resources.
The best reason to vaccinate is for "herd immunity." We are at the point that we can tolerate a certain level of unvaccinated people in our population without creating an outbreak of any diseases. Someone had mentioned that the media are portraying parents who don't vaccinate as uneducated. I've actually found the opposite to be true. When I was researching this to make a decision about my son, and ultimately we did decide to vaccinate him, I read a lot of things like "people who don't vaccinate are just too stupid to do their research." The thought process among non-vaccinating parents truly is that with proper research, there is no way anyone could come to a different conclusion than they have! Then Jenny McCarthy went on Oprah and said that vaccines caused her son's autism, which could potentially be really bad for our herd immunity. (Hey, the woman has created best-sellers, so it's a possibility!).
Most parents can opt out of vaccinating their children for public schools. Some states require a religious reasoning, some states require only a personal objection. Only two states (I believe, but am not certain that they are West Virginia and Mississippi) require vaccinations in all of their public school children. They do not offer religious or personal exemptions.
Here was my husband's point. Let's say that there is an incredibly small link between vaccines and autism. Would you rather have an autistic child or a child dead from polio. Yeah, I'd rather have my son alive but autistic given that choice.
Actually, with polio, there's a higher chance of being disabled. SO you should say low percentage autistic child vs. high percentage physically disabled child.
Very true Carlie. I should know that too, my Nana suffers post-polio syndrome. Another reason I went for vaccinations.
But that's the thing. There IS NO relationship between vaccines and autism. Just a bunch of message boards where parents have jumped on the bandwagon because they want someone to blame. If we're all pretty much in agreement that Wikipedia is poor research, then the "research" used by parents to decide against vaccination is even worse. For example, citing Jenny McCarthy on Oprah. (If it's on Oprah, it must be true!)
Most parents will take their research seriously. Not just swear off of them because Oprah said they cause autism.
You'd be surprised.Did Oprah agree with Jenny?
I agree tho, it's the more educated and upperly mobile parents that are saying no to vaccines.
That doesn't make the reasoning any better. It's often the more educated and upwardly mobile parents who are most susceptible to fads. GapKids, whatever the current hot educational gimmick is, and vaccines = autism. In other words, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.I don't know about the great unwashed masses, but the very poor and/or very uneducated (families on TANF, whom I work with) are usually more concerned about how they're going to pay rent or whether the electric is going to get shut off because there's no utility assistance available from any of the agencies, and they don't care what a Playboy model/MTV tart best known for putting things in her mouth has to say to Oprah about vaccines. That's more of a middle-class luxury.
If parents were researching vaccines, they would see if information backed up what Oprah said. People want to be educated are GOING to be educated.
Well, you don't have to take a doctor's word for it when it comes to vaccines. You just have to look at the number of smallpox or polio cases out there.
You were saying doctors have a credibility problem. I was saying you don't have to take a doctor's word for it that vaccines work. Polio and smallpox has almost disappeared since vaccines for them were developed.
I guess what I'm saying is that maybe these doctors with all their fancy test tubes and whatnot sometimes know what they're talking about, what with the lack of polio and smallpox these days. I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's just that their credibility problems pale in comparison--at least in my book--with what they've gotten right.
This may have already been said but just to back up what others said about vaccines not causing autism-research has shown that there is a temporal relationship between the vaccine and the onset of autism but not necessarily a causal one. Kids start to exhibit symptoms around the time they're due for an MMR vaccine but that doesn't mean that one caused the other. If a kid was going to develop autism they are going to do it regardless of whether or not they got vaccinated. I agree that the increase in the instance of autism has more to do with better diagnosis. That said there are kids that have really bad reactions to vaccines but fortunately that is very very rare.
My brother had a near-fatal reaction to his DTP vaccine as a baby. So he never got any of the DTP shots beyond that first one. My mom said she'd be furious if some kid with hippie parents who refuse to vaccinate their child gave her son some disease that he can't help but have no immunity to, she'd be rightly pissed. I would too. I read a pretty interesting article a while ago, where a study noted that there seemed to be a link between autism and the age of the father at conception. Children who were born to fathers over the age of 40 or 50 (I can't remember which) seem to be more likely to have a diagnosis of autism. Once again, not necessarily a causal relationship but one of many links to be studied to determine the cause of autism.
Okay, you're welcome to polio. I'll take the vaccine.And I'll challenge you to a medline research-off on the vaccine effectiveness objective-studies thing. Name the day and time. First one with ten references (choose your citation style, I'll even kneecap myself by going with the rather unwieldy APA).
Wait...there are no objective studies, or we shouldn't let proven science dictate our actions? Now you've lost me.
For the record, "natural" medicine has no *real* understanding of what the consequences may be today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now, either. Chelation therapy to "reverse" the "mercury poisoning" that "causes" autism would be my first example. It's toxic, and it's caused deaths from hypocalcemia. I wouldn't take any natural remedy before running it through medline for some double-blind studies about effectiveness AND side-effects, because anything that isn't regulated as a drug can be tossed out there on your supermarket shelf with no information on what it might do or what it might interact with.
Or are you recommending we become Christian Scientists? God will heal us or we were meant to die?
(Though the research-off gauntlet is still down, if you've got the guts to take it up.)
Nikki - my son had a bad reaction to the DTP, but now they put a non-live diptheria (or is it pertusis that was causing the problems) in it, so my son is all caught up. Your brother may want to ask his Dr.I often wonder how many of us would be alive if not for our chemicals. Strep throat could kill. I'm very pissed at the people who misuse antibiotics tho, or doctors who over prescribe because now we have the killer germs.
What's your standard for "real" science, then? You've trashed mine, and suggested there's an alternative, but you haven't mentioned what it is.(Yes, I realize there was no actual science in my post, there wasn't intended to be. I did make an offer to find some of what I consider to be real science, but you disagreed. There isn't actually any science in your post, either, just opinion and strawmen.)
Mmm... cat fight! Hold on whail I go grab the jello!
I have no idea what Lynne is even talking about! Except science is baaaaaad.
Science is paramount! Now quit trying to distract me with your banter and go jump in the jello and wait for Lynne. I want to see jello squished cartwheels, bumps bruises, and paper cuts! You know what to do. And… GO!
You want to watch me sit in jello and debate the nature of science? *shrug* If that's what you're into...;)
For science, I think cherry would do.
Shouldn't scientific questions be settled in mud or maybe baby oil? Jello seems more appropriate for theological debates.
What kind of debates get settled in industrial lubricant?
what is the stuff that they put in petri dishes? Can't they wrestle in a big vat of that?
agarbut that'd be too solid.....unless you have it in cubes like jello.
Ugh. Agar cubes in the ball pit at Chuck E Cheese. Just think of what could breed in there...
Oh lordy, that could be dire. Whatever bacteria grew from there, off the spittle of children from homes sprayed hourly with anti-bacterial clorox, would spawn a bacteria so vile the government would then force vaccines on us.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
