Measles is back, and it's because your kids aren't vaccinated

The hard thing about this issue is the fact that we as parents need to make a deciscion about our kids in which they have no say about it. Of course we don't want to harm our beloved ones. But it is a heavy pill to swollow. "Do I risk my child being exposed to the measels or risk it to become autistic" Either descicion will put a lot of blame on the one who made the decicion. But sometimes you have no choice. That's life. You can't controll every aspect that your offsprings will turn 100 one day. This shows the courage of everybody wanting children. I for myself am very happy that my 2 adult sons made it as far as they are now. One was vaccinated the other one wasn't. One had the measels, in fact almost the whole kindergarden had it. And the other got hit by a car once. No vaccine against being hit by a car, is there?

So all I am saying is, there is no wrong or right here. No medicine in the world guarantee you a chance for survival past a certain age.

We are deciding to have one more child. I never was so scared about making a deciscion, knowing what can go wrong. But with a little bit of faith and luck, you can go a long way.

Good luck to you all

reply to post by RogerT


And frankly, I don't think you get it. I am not interested in defending the pharmaceutics companies, the FDA, or how drugs are marketed here or elsewhere. I'm pretty sure I've said that before, but maybe it bears repeating.

I am interested in

a) whether vaccines work
b) whether they are necessary (though I prefer "useful" since I think very little in life is "necessary")
c) whether they are safe.

I say that the Rotarix vaccine works because it does what it says it's supposed to. There was simply not enough information in that study to make any conclusion about whether or not it was responsible for the increase in pneumonia cases, but that wouldn't affect whether it works, but whether it is safe. Please bear in mind that the breakdown into three statements was yours, not mine.

It looks to me like the other rotavirus vaccines have been associated with less than 110 cases of intussusception - 74 in the case of the vaccine withdrawn in 1999 and 28 in the case of RotaTeq, which as far as I can tell is still on the market. 28, incidentally, is no more than would be expected in the same population without vaccination. This is not "thousands of deaths" -- no deaths have occurred due to intussusception after vaccination with RotaTeq.

Anecdotal evidence certainly points to the measles vaccine decreasing the chances of getting measles during an outbreak -- which backs up my common sense, if not yours. The question of whether measles exposure is better in the long run is certainly a good one. There, though, you get into that tricky "well, that's cold comfort for the parents of the child who dies" territory.

You're right, I do believe in science and in the scientific method. Because my earlier training was as an anthropologist and historian, I also believe in anecdote and human wisdom.

For now, I'm on the fence about the safety of vaccines. I'm in luck, since I don't have kids I need to make the decision for immediately -- if I did, you'd better believe I'd be doing the reading. From sources that provide the raw data, not just the spin.

OT for this debate, but interesting to me: I ran across this blog. It's by an autism-spectrum parent of an autistic child, and in this post he evaluates data produced by a study run by an anti-vaccine group. They did a phone survey trying to establish the link between vaccination and ASD (autism-spectrum-disorders). Unfortunately, the results showed that unvaccinated children were slightly more likely than vaccinated children to have been diagnosed with ASD. So they added in ADHD as a "ASD-like neurological diagnosis" in order to report a link. He points out clearly that the study had no scientific validity to begin with, but the fact that they were willing to skew the results to report the result they were looking for puts them on the same side of truth as the Big Pharma companies in my book.

It's been interesting, RogerT. I suspect we'll be seeing each other around

And frankly, I don't think you get it. I am not interested in defending the pharmaceutics companies, the FDA, or how drugs are marketed here or elsewhere. I'm pretty sure I've said that before, but maybe it bears repeating.

Yes you have, sorry, I wasn't giving you credit for that.

I am interested in

a) whether vaccines work
b) whether they are necessary (though I prefer "useful" since I think very little in life is "necessary")
c) whether they are safe.

OK. And you would have to prove all 3 for each and every vaccine if you were promoting mass, 'enforced' vaccination.

Remember, my 3 tenets are for mass vaccination as currently practiced. I'm not debating the theory of vaccination, or even the science around it, although I think both are lacking in integrity.

You cannot argue in favor of mass vaccination as currently practiced and neglect the corruption, greed, lies, manipulation (add as many 'bad' words as you like here) of pharma and the surrounding politics.

If we are talking an ideal world, where health issues, medicine and the science around it are solely in the perview of warm hearted, generous, open minded and caring altruistic types, then vaccination MAY warrant a closer look - however, in such a world, health education and promotion would be so integral to our societies that diseases would not be an issue, and for those rare individuals who did 'get sick', totally safe and natural alternatives would be freely and abundantly available. So even if vaccines could be demonstrated safe and effective, there would be no need for them.

So as you so rightly said, we are looking at this in its current context, which is pretty f'd up.

If and when you do have kids, you will indeed revisit this conversation, but this time it will be more from the heart than the head. If you are still swayed to inject, then you will have first hand anecdotal evidence. As an intelligent and seemingly aware person, no doubt your own observations will then become your yard stick, and you will consign the studies to the waste bin where they belong.

OT for this debate, but interesting to me: I ran across this blog. It's by an autism-spectrum parent of an autistic child, and in this post he evaluates data produced by a study run by an anti-vaccine group. They did a phone survey trying to establish the link between vaccination and ASD (autism-spectrum-disorders). Unfortunately, the results showed that unvaccinated children were slightly more likely than vaccinated children to have been diagnosed with ASD. So they added in ADHD as a "ASD-like neurological diagnosis" in order to report a link. He points out clearly that the study had no scientific validity to begin with, but the fact that they were willing to skew the results to report the result they were looking for puts them on the same side of truth as the Big Pharma companies in my book.

Yes, everyone has their own agenda, that's why it's best to trust your own innate judgement/wisdom when it comes to assessing information. When the bell goes off you better listen. Being of a scientific mindset, it's much more difficult to hear the bell, but it's still there, even if a little faint.

'Ding ding. Something smells and it aint just the monkey puss. Ding ding.'



[edit on 20/9/08 by RogerT]