Highly Educated Morons
In the New York Observer, Bill Wasik reviews Seth Mnookin's book The Panic Virus, opening on a story Mnookin told of a Park Slope dinner party:
Mr. Mnookin was discussing pediatric health with a new parent in his early 40s who explained that he and his wife had decided to delay their child's vaccines. On what sources had he based this weighty decision? Questions along these lines were met with murk. "I don't know what to say," the man replied. "It just feels like a lot for a developing immune system to deal with."It was this F-word--feels--that left Mr. Mnookin justifiably gobsmacked, and it serves as the departure point for The Panic Virus, an attempt to explain how thousands of otherwise sophisticated Americans could make a fatuous decision to opt out of what is arguably modernity's greatest medical achievement. Most children "exempted" from vaccines (a fittingly ridiculous term, as if the kids place out via AP exam) are not low-information progeny. They are being raised in college towns, in wealthy suburbs and in tony urban enclaves like Park Slope, by the sorts of parents who are otherwise given to grave tut-tutting about the anti-science stances of others--the climate-change know-nothings, say, or the ovine devotees of the garish Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.
This thinking came out of sleazy Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent study, which never should have been published in the Lancet:
Due to the speculative nature of the paper, based as it was on merely 12 cases (many of whom, it would be reported just months after publication, came to Dr. Wakefield by way of a law firm looking to sue vaccine makers), The Lancet emblazoned the unusual designation "Early Report" on every page. The journal also solicited a response from two vaccine specialists at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and their utter demolition of Dr. Wakefield's methods appeared soon thereafter. That medical consensus stood strongly against Dr. Wakefield was made glaringly obvious within weeks of the study's publication, and one cannot reasonably defend a non-vaccinating parent in 1999 (to say nothing of 2007, or 2010) for relying on his claims.The more complicated answer is that Dr. Wakefield's paper took on a public life of its own. For a decade, even as the medical establishment was disproving its claims over and over again, a network of autism advocates was using it to advance a PR battle against the safety of vaccines. Mr. Mnookin introduces us to these advocates--many of whom, like the former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy, are themselves parents of autistic children--as well as to their chief enablers, alternative doctors like Bob Sears, the best-selling pediatrician whose book on vaccines touts children's "natural immunity" and outlines its own idiosyncratic vaccine schedule.
Tragic moronism.
Like so, from this Oprah Winfrey interview of Jenny McCarthy:
McCarthy: First thing I did--Google. I put in autism. And I started my research.Winfrey: Thank God for Google.
McCarthy: I'm telling you.
Winfrey: Thank God for Google.
McCarthy: The University of Google is where I got my degree from.
Bad science is exceptionally easy to put out.
A girl from a college newspaper just e-mailed me to ask if she could interview me about anorexia -- something like my take on it vis a vis the media. (She read my Psych Today piece on beauty and found my take a change of pace from the vast PC echo chamber.)
I told her that I am not informed about anorexia, and it would take me a month of reading studies to get informed about it, and I don't speak on subjects I'm not informed on.
The girl told me she has two weeks to write this piece, and I don't believe she has a science background (formal or informal). I told her, if that's the case, she can't possibly judge what is and isn't good science.
I told her, when I'm assigned a piece that can't be done in the time period, I let the editor know. She might be able to write a piece that looks passable to an editor, but that doesn't mean it will be a piece that tells the evidence-based truth.
Luckily, I found a section on anorexia in a book (The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption) by Gad Saad, a researcher I trust and respect, and gave her the reference. I hope she uses it, instead of going off to talk to just anyone who calls him or herself an anorexia expert via Uncle Google.
Back to sleazy Wakefield, of course the anti-vax crowd leapt to the conclusion that his motives were pure -- that it was all about doing good science and helping the children. Of course it was. Just go to physorg.com, and follow the money:
Drawing on investigations and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the report shows how Wakefield's institution, the Royal Free Medical School in London, supported him as he sought to exploit the MMR scare for financial gain.It reveals how Wakefield met with medical school managers to discuss a joint business even while the first child to be fully investigated in his research was still in the hospital, and how just days after publication of that research, which triggered the health crisis in 1998, he brought business associates to the Royal Free to continue negotiations.
One business, named after Wakefield's wife, intended to develop Wakefield's own "replacement" vaccines, diagnostic testing kits and other products which only stood any real chance of success if public confidence in MMR was damaged.Documents reveal the planned shareholdings of Wakefield and his collaborators, and how much Wakefield expected to receive personally. Financial forecasts made available for the first time today show Wakefield and his associates predicting they could make up to £28 million ($43,367,082; €33,290,350) a year from the diagnostic kits alone.
Hideous.
The twelve children in the study were supposedly not exhibiting any problems before receiving the MMR vaccine, but it seems that Wakefield fudged the data and that many of the kids were showing signs of autism before the vaccine. I don't have time to look up the piece just now, but I read something last year that said the substance that supposedly causes autism isn't even in the MMR vaccine. Yet Wakefield is still pressing on with his bogus claims--he's apparently writing a new book. And I've seen some of the responses to the revelation of Wakefield's creative data: many people are still convinced the vaccine is to blame, but now it's a lot of "Well, we just don't know exactly how yet" backpedaling.
I hate when people do this to their kids. It's one thing if I want to reject a vaccine for myself or try homeopathy instead of chemo, but there should be more actual thought put into what you do for your children. It's become trendy to reject "accepted" medicine and flout the authority of actual experts. And I can understand not wanting to give your kid something that could potentially harm him, but even if autism did come from the MMR vaccine, it was still statistically unlikely he would get it. I remember that, according to the piece I can't find that I mentioned above, it is much more likely he would get very ill from measles because of not being vaccinated than it is he would develop autism from the vaccine (that is, if the data were real, which it wasn't). As has happened in several countries.
NumberSix at January 12, 2011 12:58 AM
Talking from Russia, where a useless concoctions are promoted as a medicine only because the Health Minister owns the production and where our Chief Sanitary Doctor promices to push thru the Duma his legislation proposal that parents' decision to postpone vaccination is ground enough for the State to take the kid away from parents - I would not pass judgement.
A Russian Reader at January 12, 2011 1:15 AM
... yet The Goddess constantly publishes columns and posts about "dating tips for chimps" based on the dubious "science" of Behavioral Genetics - a field whose "scholarship" brims with unprovable theories of socio-historical development that are little more than wishful thinking in pseudo-scientific drag.
- and that's before they get misreported by agenda-driven journalist enablers...
(Yes Crid, I know you're hoping I'll mention homosexuality - which is another example of how "progressives" swallow bad science that serves their agenda...)
So it's very nice that you're subjecting received PC wisdom to more scrutiny - kindly apply it to some of your own pet "progressive" beliefs...
Ben David at January 12, 2011 2:08 AM
personally i wish wakefield would be prosecuted somehow for that "study". the damage it has caused and will continue to cause is enormous and has the potential to cause a pandemic - even in the vaccinated population. i actually work with people - nurses - who believe the crap about vaccines and autism. and there's no talking them out of it, either. once something gets in people's heads as "the cause" or "something to blame" - there's no getting it out.....one unvaccinated kid with autism ought to disprove this idea completely.....but no....sorry i'm rambling now. i'll stop.
miki at January 12, 2011 2:43 AM
Don't miss Immunize For Good.
And, Ben-David: I see you still haven't a) looked up "androgen insensitivity", and b) described just what grounds there are for denying an American citizen something.
Doesn't Westboro miss you when they have a rally?
Radwaste at January 12, 2011 3:05 AM
Funny this should come up, I've just been back from the doctor's. We're at the point when we need to decide which vaccines to give the baby, and when to give them. I'm going to be reading up on the subject this week.
No vaccines are required in Switzerland.
NicoleK at January 12, 2011 4:11 AM
I'm surprised that Amy is on the side of the Nanny State this time.
I think the autism claim is a straw man set up by advocates of involuntary vaccination. The real questions we should be asking is "Who are these Public Health agencies that set vaccination schedules?" and "What is their relationship to pharmaceutical companies?" Nothing is more profitable to a drug company than a vaccine. Think about it -- what could be better than a product that every citizen is forced by the government to buy?
My biggest concern is with the quantity and timing of vaccinations. In my state, children are required to have 25 shots in their first 18 months. I've never been able to find any explanation for why these injections have to be given to such young children besides "That's when we can get them!" -- meaning that parents will bring newborns to see their doctor, but we can't trust parents to bring their children in for checkups. Really? Are all of us that stupid? Or are we sacrificing good health to cater to the lowest common denominator?
I think we tend to think all vaccines are perfectly safe and absolutely necessary, but they are neither. We're convinced of this by the public health bureaucracies trying to protect their jobs and the drug companies trying to protect their profits. Exactly why does a newborn baby need to be vaccinated against Hepatitis B? Is my infant going to be sharing needles with the other kids at daycare? Or maybe having anal sex at recess? It makes no sense.
I think there are lots of questions we need to ask of public health agencies and vaccine manufacturers, but these silly autism arguments are creating a smokescreen that lets the bureaucrats avoid accountability. And we have to stop letting them get away with the "You're anti-science and want everyone to get polio!" defense they trot out whenever anyone questions their godhood.
TestyTommy at January 12, 2011 4:46 AM
I live in a college town whose highly educated, far left population is crazy for alternative medicine. You wouldn't believe the quackery that these folks take for gospel. And they have the nerve to call conservatives stupid.
AllenS at January 12, 2011 5:23 AM
TestyTommy, I'm not sure how you conclude Miss Alkon is on the side of the nanny state in this post. I don't see where she is advocating compulsory vaccinations. I do see where she criticizes those who are anti-vaccination based on weak reasoning. That criticism by itself isn't an argument for compulsory vaccination, though.
I'm not sure I get the rest of your comment, though. Do pharmaceutical companies make money with vaccinations? I should certainly hope so. Are vaccinations risk free? It would be illogical to think so, but one has to measure the potential ill effects of the vaccine against the likely harm caused by the disease the vaccination is supposed to prevent. And that's a measurable risk. As to whether the autism argument is a smokescreen designed to make anti-vaccine advocates look silly: Oh, come on! That sounds like a conspiracy theory! You'll have to come up with some support for it, if you can.
Old RPM Daddy at January 12, 2011 5:25 AM
"The real questions we should be asking is "Who are these Public Health agencies that set vaccination schedules?" and "What is their relationship to pharmaceutical companies?"
Yes, TestyTommy! This started because the scheduling of vaccines has become insane. While taking their infants and toddlers in for rounds of shots, parents understandably became suspicious that there was an agenda here, and it wasn't the best interests of their children.
Add to that the growing epidemic of children with autism, and stories from parents whose children did not previously seem impaired by autism (even if they may have had a genetic susceptability) before their vaccines and a suspicion of the link formed.
It's like the missing link in evolution. We can't find it, but we know it's there.
Unfortunately, this has resulted in many parents choosing not to vaccinate at all until more is known. But the blame should be placed squarely on the greed of the drug companies. As TestyTommy says, why should a baby be vaccinated for Hep B? You've got a fragile, developing immune system there, and they're giving 3 or 4 shots at once. Whether it causes autism or not, this practice doesn't seem healthy to most parents, and they understandably have little trust in a government which seems to protect the pharmaceutical industry at all costs.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 5:57 AM
"Whether it causes autism or not, this practice doesn't seem healthy to most parents..."
Does it or doesn't it? You've got to come up with something better than that.
Old RPM Daddy at January 12, 2011 6:06 AM
The Hep B shot begame required legally in 1992 in NY. I remember only because my wonderful soon to be ex husband contracted Hep B while I was 8 months pregnant and I was terrified that I or my baby had contracted it. Luckily we didn't but it was a scare. Now I plan on getting my daughter the Gardisil shot. She's 13 and people keep asking me why I'm rushing her into sex. I'm not. I just know that she needs 3 shots spaced out and HPV is prevalent among young people. She doesn't have to sleep around. It takes one carrier to infect her. Why not let her be protected?
I know plenty of people who are against vaccines incuding my old bio professor. He refused on religious grounds though I'm not sure what they were. Really, he was a chiropractor who believed only in alternative medicine. I hope that his kids never get the measles, mumps, or whooping cough. Whooping cough, by the way, seems to be making a come back. Its studies like the autism one that scared so many people from vaccinating their kids. Its a shame, but when did people stop being reasonable and look at all the facts and sometimes where their facts are coming from.
Kristen at January 12, 2011 6:11 AM
Like everything else in life, there are risks and benefits.
I would bet the parents of the kids who died from pertussis would make a different decision if they had a do-over. I'm old, so my parents knew people who had polio. We got our vaccinations. My kids got theirs.
Yes, there are risks, but the risks to others from unvaccinated kids in schools is real, and significant. Your rights end where others' begin. For communicable diseases there should be no exceptions. No vaccines means your little disease vector is not admitted. No exceptions.
MarkD at January 12, 2011 6:16 AM
>> Nothing is more profitable to a drug company than a vaccine.
Almost everything is more profitable than a vaccine, and especially common vaccines. This is a known issue affecting vaccine availability. The pharmas are basically subsidizing vaccine production in the US. They've been trying to get the federal government to take it over, because it's not commercially viable for them.
So please spare us your paranoid claims about a vaccine conspiracy by the pharmas. It doesn't hold any water.
nora at January 12, 2011 6:23 AM
I can't tell you how many moms I know through my MOMs group that delay or don't vac. One even said-during a heated thread about vacs-she didn't think the polio vac had anything to do with eradicating it. She thought it was "healthy living and better hygiene" How do you argue with such stupidity? I mean really, what IS there left to say to someone who thinks millions could have been saved suffering and death had they merely washed their hands more and eaten broccoli?
Lovely and testy: Vacs are given so young because your childs chance if dying from THOSE DISEASES is when they are so young. Your immune system can handle it-it cures cancer in your body nearly every day and handles literally millions of assaults an hour. It's DESIGNED to. WHen it's not challenged, it attacks you instead. I'd love to see a study correlating allergies, crohn's disease, and asthma to nonvac'd kids.
ALl 4 of my (vac'd) kids got whooping cough last fall (thank you very much nonvaccers who allowed it to get started). The older 2merely needed some neb-ing a few days. The younger 2 had hospital trips. And NONE of them got it as severe as they otherwise would have, and as other kids I saw in the PICU had it. ANd my older 2 got their 2 month vacs the day they were due to be born, weighing less than 5 lbs. No problems, they are very bright and healthy kids now. You'd think, if all those shots were bad for little babies, then NICU's the country over would not be giving them to micropreemies on schedule, no? I assure you the NICU has no agenda but saving your preemie. They spend millions and months doing it, for every baby.
My kids will be getting guardasil. It takes one boy to infect you. Even if you're married to him before you have sex. And having high-risk HPV as I do, and having parts of my cervix burnt out as a result of the precancer it caused, I will NEVER risk that for my kids. I'll vac my boy too, for it.
momof4 at January 12, 2011 6:27 AM
"Most children "exempted" from vaccines (a fittingly ridiculous term, as if the kids place out via AP exam) are not low-information progeny"
Depends what you mean by "information." How many of these parents have ever had a serious science course, or a statistics course, or a formal logic course, or for that matter anything resembling a real liberal arts education?
It is possible to get impressive-looking credentials while learning very little other than trendy catch-phrases.
david foster at January 12, 2011 6:28 AM
My son had a reaction to the DPT vax as a child. It was eye-opening. My dog had a really bad reaction to a vax, too. I am not anti vax but I am anti sheep. Just because someone says I should does not mean I will.
Do the research and make informed decisions. My son is fully vaccinated but I did insist that he get single doses instead of multis and they got spaced out.
I don't blindly follow the government's recommendations on anything. Hello, food pyramid?
LauraGr at January 12, 2011 6:34 AM
"Does it or doesn't it? You've got to come up with something better than that."
We don't know. But I can tell you the practice of pumping multiple chemicals into very young children doesn't sit well with most parents, and they have absolutely no trust in a government with strong ties to the pharma companies making big bucks on the ever-increasing number of vaccines.
I vaccinated my kids according to this mandatory schedule. I remember thinking that 3 months was way too young to have so many shots, but I was the dutiful sheep parent doing exactly what the nanny state told me to do. I didn't question it.
My son does have autism - the high functioning kind. I tend to believe - or maybe I want to believe - that he had a genetic susceptability, and that his autism had nothing to do with the shots.
But I don't know that either. Hard to judge the personality of an infant, and by the time he was 18 months old, he'd had many rounds of shots.
Nobody can prove to me his autism DIDN'T come from those shots either, and the number of kids with autism has grown at an alarming rate. I don't blame parents for looking at this suspiciously and not trusting the government studies supposedly "proving" the vaccines aren't harmful.
I'm not having my daughter vaccinated for HPV. She's not sexually active, and if you read the stats critcially, her odds of contracting HPV at her age is extremely low. The stats are mixed in with 13 yr old inner city girls who've had multiple sexual partners by that age.
So, this time, I decided to wait and see if there are any side effects to the shots. They always tell you after it's much too late..."whoops, sorry, causes infertility....our bad". There's plenty of time for her to have the shot in her 20s if she decides to be promiscuous.
This is what I think many parents have done, but they've taken caution too far. Some of the most beneficial shots have been around for decades. We all took them. I'd say those are safe, and kids should be vaccinated with them. Parents just need to advocate for their children and say, "Hell, no, 25 shots in 18 months is crazy!"... because it is.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 6:36 AM
"Do the research and make informed decisions. My son is fully vaccinated but I did insist that he get single doses instead of multis and they got spaced out.
I don't blindly follow the government's recommendations on anything. Hello, food pyramid?"
Exactly, LauraGr.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 6:40 AM
Nora's right. Childhood vaccines aren't worth much to the pharmaceutical industry. If your conspiracy theory is based on the idea that pharmaceutical companies are deliberately maiming children to make a quick buck on vaccines, then you need to do some actual research. A bigger concern is that they're going to stop producing these vaccines, because they're not worth the cost and effort.
Steve at January 12, 2011 6:51 AM
"There's plenty of time for her to have the shot in her 20s if she decides to be promiscuous."
What part of "they don't have to be promiscuous" do you not get? Not to mention, no matter how good a relationship you have with your daughter, almost no kids talk to their parents about their sex life, nor SHOULD they. WHile I did sleep around after my divorce, it was never without a condom applied correctly every time. Guess how I got HPV? Yep-cheating hubby!!
25 shots in 18 months is not crazy. Allowing your baby to be vulnerable to things that will kill them, while only sicken someone older, is crazy. Idiotic, in fact.
You are aware the water you give your kid to drink, the breastmilk they drank, ALL are chemicals, right? Why do speak of chemicals as being bad? Lack of knowledge, perhaps? you just "feel" it? A little truthiness in vacs, courtesy of Colbert.
momof4 at January 12, 2011 6:52 AM
There's plenty of time for her to have the shot in her 20s if she decides to be promiscuous.
Your kid, your call. But if she were mine, I wouldn't trust her to think, "I'm going to be promiscuous. I should get my shots." I'd protect her when I had more control over the situation. And, as other people have said, she doesn't need to be promiscuous. It can be one encounter.
Nobody can prove to me his autism DIDN'T come from those shots either, and the number of kids with autism has grown at an alarming rate.
This seems to be a lot like the God threads that pop up frequently. Nobody can prove that Sesame Street doesn't give kids autism, either, but there's no evidence that it does. Lots of things have changed in our society that could be increasing autism rates, including changes in the reporting itself.
All this said, I support your right to vaccinate as you see fit.
MonicaP at January 12, 2011 6:53 AM
Yeah, it COULD be, but I never had the shot and I've had several partners throughout my life, and I never got HPV. I think I will let that be HER call. It's her body, and she's intelligent enough know whether or not she's sexually active and make that decision for herself now.
I personally think the HPV vaccine campaign is a scare tactic, and I definitely believe the drug company is making money off it.
When my son was a baby, they recommended putting flouride in his drinks because, OMG, you've got to protect against cavities! Well, the government just came out and admitted that this was wrong and that excessive flouride has actually caused a whole generation of kids to have splotchy teeth...as my son does....and a high percentage of teens now do.
I'm with LauraGR, you can't believe every government recommendation. They'd have us eating low fat/high carb if it was up to them.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 7:03 AM
A big part of the reason that there's been such an apparent increase in the incidents of autism is that the diagnosis of autism has expanded dramatically. So it's being applied in cases where it wouldn't have under the old definition.
LILU at January 12, 2011 7:06 AM
"There's plenty of time for her to have the shot in her 20s if she decides to be promiscuous."
Lovelysoul, I know too many young girls who have contracted HPV that are not promiscuous. My ex-husband looked like the All American perfect husband, so much so that when he contracted Hep B I believed him that he didn't cheat. Now you can call that naivete or just being plain stupid, but I was lucky enough that I didn't contract that or anything else. I don't want it to be up to luck when my daughter becomes sexually active. And I also don't think that any woman who is promiscuous deserves a Cancer causing virus either, so to me it doesn't matter. Promiscuous or not, my daughter will be getting that vaccine before I can even answer that question.
Kristen at January 12, 2011 7:08 AM
The HPV vaccine isn't what concerns me most. It's disturbing that parents trying to ease their feelings about vague potential threats are putting everyone else at risk for very real illnesses.
Parents who are refusing to vaccinate for contagious illnesses should be homeschooling to protect everyone else.
MonicaP at January 12, 2011 7:13 AM
"A big part of the reason that there's been such an apparent increase in the incidents of autism is that the diagnosis of autism has expanded dramatically. So it's being applied in cases where it wouldn't have under the old definition."
That's not proven either. That's a supposition. The number of kids that are highly impaired with autism is pretty obvious in almost every school and community, and those kinds of autistic symptoms were rarely seen decades ago.
It could be environmental, or (as one theory goes) more geeks breeding with geeks, like in silicon valley, where the incidence is even higher. But until we have a government we can trust not to lie to us about these things, suspecting vaccines - or the insane scheduling of vaccines, or the combination of multiple doses - isn't unreasonable.
Yes, babies are vulnerable, and that's why we shouldn't be pumping them full of chemicals so early, especially in mutiple dozes and combinations. Space them out, and give them one at a time, as LauraGr insisted for her son. Like with the HPV, what is the freaking rush?
25 shots by 18 months? Every 12 or 13 yr old girl? That just isn't necessary. Yeah, if you live where your toddler could share a needle, or your preteen could already have 20 sex partners, then maybe, but let parents assess that risk logically.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 7:21 AM
... yet The Goddess constantly publishes columns and posts about "dating tips for chimps" based on the dubious "science" of Behavioral Genetics - a field whose "scholarship" brims with unprovable theories of socio-historical development that are little more than wishful thinking in pseudo-scientific drag.
Ben, sorry your evidence-free belief in god, leading to your fear and hatred of homosexuals, causes you to need to attack me this way constantly. I put a great deal into what looks like a funny advice column but is much more. ALL fields have shitty studies. Either a study is good enough -- has a large enough sample size, adequate methodology, and is not so flawed/doesn't have so many limitations (or it does). I don't write based in "unprovable theories" but based on evidence. If there's adequate evidence behind a study, I might mention it in my column. I'm extremely careful about what I do put in, and I resent your attacks on me, as if they're based on some concern for whether I'm good on the science, when they're really about your need to defend your negative feelings about gay people.
Amy Alkon at January 12, 2011 7:22 AM
"I've had several partners throughout my life, and I never got HPV."
I never used a car seat as a kid, so why should I protect my kids like that? I grew up in a time when HPV was rare and my daughter is growing up when it's so common some drs are arguing it should be considered part of the genital flora, but why should I protect my daughter? I was never raped or robbed, so why should I lock my doors?
You do realize someone sneezing in your kids area exposes them to more immune response than a vac, right? Sometimes your sheer blindedness amazes me beyond all comprehension. You are that mom who says "Not MY kid" while sticking her head in the sand. Scary.
momof4 at January 12, 2011 7:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/01/12/highly_educated.html#comment-1820192">comment from momof4Good thinking, momof4.
And for those of you who are against vaccinating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Amy Alkon at January 12, 2011 7:50 AM
Momof4 had the right idea. Use Bastiat's 'Broken Window' fallacy and focus on what we DON'T see due to childhood vaccines:
Deaths due to preventable childhood diseases.
Worry as a child's temperature climbs due to the side effects of the diseases.
The countless hours of sickness and suffering.
I'm sure any Pediatrician can add lots of other risks of childhood diseases.
Fact: These diseases have almost been eradicated.
Why?
EarlW at January 12, 2011 7:53 AM
Momof4, I'm not blind at all. My daughter talks to me. I'm that practical mom that lets her know I'll put her on the pill if/when she wants to start having sex.
However, she doesn't want to...not yet, anyway. She's almost 17, so it's not like she's a baby I have to make all the decisions for. Until she chooses to be sexually active, there's no rush...no need for hysteria...no need to force her down to the doctor to have a needle in her arm.
I'm not saying she should never get the shot, just that, in our case, it seemed prudent to wait and see if there were any terrible side effects that might be revealed in the ensuing years. I saw no reason to rush her down for the shot at age 13 just because the nanny state says I should.
If you don't trust your kids, or don't have an open and frank dialogue with them, then maybe you have to do that, but it wasn't necessary in our case.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 7:59 AM
You can tell your kids that-and them STILL not come to you. A lot feel-as I seem to remember from high school in the sort of place you would never "expect" girls to have lots of partners young-that it was none of their parent's business. My kids already know about sex, and will know about BC. And they will also get that shot, because it's something I can do for them to mitigate any thoughtless actions they take that can affect their health the rest of their life. Just like I'd get them an HIV vac if there were one.
My mom was open and approachable about sex, I was on the pill by 14, and you better bet I never told her when I started to need that birth control. In fact, I quite calmly had a conversation with her, post sex, when I said I wasn't having any. And no, I'm not rare. DO you discuss your sex life with your parents? Would the typical teen be any different?
momof4 at January 12, 2011 8:04 AM
Again, I'm not anti-vaccine. I think it's dangerous for parents not to vaccinate. But if they hadn't started recommending such insane early schedules of multi-doses, parents would not have become concerned or suspicious.
If we were all vaccinating, the odds of very young children being exposed to some of these diseases would have remained very low. As long as they got them before school age, it should've been fine.
I think it's absurd to rush these shots. Let the central nervous system do some more developing before sticking them with chemicals. Three month old babies do not need 4 or 5 shots! We simply don't know what it's doing to start this early with this many shots.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 8:07 AM
I love it when parents say their teenagers aren't sexually active. That's what my parents would have said about me, too, when I was fifteen. Guess what? They were wrong. Just because your kid is a good kid with straight As and nice friends who comes home at curfew -- and just because they tell you they're not having sex -- doesn't mean they're not having sex. And even if they don't start having sex when they're in high school (or junior high -- it is NOT just the ghetto kids having sex in junior high! And it's not just the troubled kids, not by a long shot), odds are good by the time they're in college they'll have sex. Why not protect them from something preventable?
On vaccinations -- this anti-vaccination idiocy is frighteningly prevalent among my acquaintances, even super-educated ones. They think that all of those childhood diseases don't kill anyone, so why risk autism. They were unaware that polio, the flu, measles, mumps, etc. could kill or cripple. Amazing.
Me, I get the flu shot every year. And before going to Africa, Asia, and South America, I got rounds of shots for the various forms of hepatitis, typhoid, yellow fever, etc. My odds of contracting them are low, but I can't see why I'd take the chance.
Gail at January 12, 2011 8:16 AM
When I was a child, I remember going to visit my uncle's farm every once in a while. One of my first stops was to the grave site on the sheep pasture.
Three kids who died in 1892 from diptheria. An entire household's children wiped out in under a week.
It is my understanding that the graves where moved in the many years since then, but every now and again when I think about them, I say quick prayer for the Spooner kids.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 12, 2011 8:16 AM
M4, I guess it depends on whether you trust your kid or not. There is certainly the form of parenting which says, "never trust them to tell you the truth!". I'm not saying that's wrong either. I don't think my daughter tells the truth about everything, but I do believe her on this particular issue.
She'll be in college in a little over a year, and I imagine she will begin having sex then. No, I don't want the play-by-play, but I do trust that she will tell me when she's ready for the pill.
Or maybe I'll march her down to the doc before she goes, and not leave it to chance. I don't know. Probably we'll discuss the HPV vaccine then too, but I don't feel stupid for waiting a little bit. Your kids are young, so by the time your daughter is ready, we should know for sure if the vaccine is entirely safe.
I just don't think parents should blindly follow government recommendations, especially when their particular circumstances don't warrant the fear and paranoia.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 8:17 AM
And lovelysoul -- my mom made the offer to get me the pill too. But I still told her I was a virgin. When I started having sex with my boyfriend, it was personal and I simply didn't want to discuss it with her.
Gail at January 12, 2011 8:19 AM
That's not proven either. That's a supposition.
No that's the CDC. They've been explicit in instructing researchers to recognize that analysis of autism reporting should factor changes to the diagnosis of autism. With the introduction of the autism spectrum ( ASD ), several other disorders were grouped with classic autism, such as Retts, Aspergers, Hellers and the broad classification of 'pervasive' developmental disorders. This necessarily added to the number of people classified as autistic - simply because you are incorporating the populations of these other disorders. But ASD is just a descriptive classification. These syndromes do not seem to share a common etiology. That's what causes much of the confusion surrounding the pervasiveness of autism.
LILU at January 12, 2011 8:19 AM
... 'cause the thing is, lovelysoul, your daughter doesn't NEED you to get birth control. She can get it on her own. Why on earth have a weird conversation with mom when you can march on down to planned parenthood or the local drugstore and get protection?
And even smart kids can be idiots once in a while and have unprotected sex. I was a straight-A student whose parents talked to me about drugs and sex, and, well, I did a dumb thing or two. When you're 16, you might be intellectually fully aware of all the potential consequences, but it doesn't really feel like anything bad can actually ever happen to you.
I think talking to your kids absolutely does reduce the chances they'll do something really, truly stupid. But it doesn't eliminate it. And it doesn't mean they'll tell you about their (rather private, thank you) decision to have sex. Not to mention that decision could be made in half a minute while they're making out in their boyfriend's car.
Gail at January 12, 2011 8:45 AM
From WebMD:
"The chance of getting HPV rises with certain risk factors:
Number of lifetime sexual partners (risk increases with more partners)
Young age: Women aged 20 to 24 are most likely to be infected, but they usually clear the HPV infection with no problems.
Women who are sexually active with men who have other partners at the same time."
Even if my daughter is lying, her risk of contracting HPV at age 16 is still very low, and even if she does get it, she'll likely clear it on her own. The government wants us to believe that every 9-13 year old is at grave risk for HPV and ultimately developing cervical cancer, but that's not true. They do this to sell vaccines. And we often don't know until later how dangerous the vaccines and/or drugs the government recommends to us are. Sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 8:52 AM
Also from WebMD:
"Infection with the HPV virus is common and infects at least 50% of all people who have sex at some time in their lives." http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/hpv-genital-warts/hpv-virus-information-about-human-papillomavirus
And this
"HPV vaccine is routinely recommended for girls 11 and 12 years of age. Doctors may give it to girls as young as 9 years.
Why is HPV vaccine given to girls at this age?
It is important for girls to get HPV vaccine before their first sexual contact – because they have not been exposed to HPV. For these girls, the vaccine can prevent almost 100 percent of disease caused by the 4 types of HPV targeted by the vaccine.
However, if a girl or woman is already infected with a type of HPV, the vaccine will not prevent disease from that type."
http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/hpv-vaccine-what-you-need-know
Gail at January 12, 2011 9:02 AM
LS, you're putting an awful lot of faith in the hope that your children will live their lives in exactly the way you expect them to. I hope you're right.
MonicaP at January 12, 2011 9:04 AM
Gail, every parent has to guage their own child's personality. For sure, there are some girls I wouldn't let out of the house without a chastity belt.
My daughter is very confident in herself, and unflinchingly open about things that most daughters probably wouldn't tell their moms. She also isn't the type to be manipulated by a boy. If she was, I think I'd spot it (because I was that type! lol).
She's been pretty adamant about her choice of abstinance...which has NOTHING to do with impressing me, or anything. We aren't religious. It is her own conviction to wait until she's in a serious, committed relationship, and she's pretty brutal with her friends who casually sleep with boys. She's always telling them how foolish it is, unless they know he really cares about them, because the boy invariably breaks it off right after, then talks about it at school.
I could be wrong, but, as I said, if she IS having sex, I trust enough in her good sense that she wouldn't be screwing a bunch of different guys. There may be one sweet, 16 yr old boy she is possibly having sex with. He is here almost every night, so if they're having sex, it would likely only be with each other....but I really doubt it, actually. I'm always unexpectedly (on purpose) coming into her room, and I've never so much even seen them being physically affectionate. They seem like really good friends. That's what she says they are, and I am going to trust that...for now. :)
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 9:11 AM
Monica, I don't trust my kids to live perfect lives, but I do think I can reasonably assess what areas should worry me and what shouldn't.
For instance, my daughter is not the best driver. I don't trust her not to take a cellphone call or text while driving. This worries me because I know her....because we're close. She has no reason to hide her true self on this subject, and she's been outspoken and consistent about it to the point that I have developed trust for her in that particular regard.
I think it's sad that it's assumed that parents can't know their children and must never trust them about anything.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 9:19 AM
I think it's sad that it's assumed that parents can't know their children and must never trust them about anything.
You've taken this to an extreme, illogical conclusion. Nobody here said anything about not trusting your children about anything.
MonicaP at January 12, 2011 9:31 AM
To add: I hope you are absolutely right about this. I hope your kid never changes her mind about things. I hope she never has a moment where her heart overrules her head. I hope she never acts out of character even for a second. I hope she never chooses a man who cheats on her and put her at risk.
But I think the insurance policy of an HPV vaccine is worth every bit of the self-created worry people have about its safety.
MonicaP at January 12, 2011 9:38 AM
I was the freaking poster child for a good kid, lovelysoul! Confident, an excellent student, etc. But the fact remains I had sex at 15. It's not just insecure, messed-up girls having sex.
Yeah, she may well talk about sex with you -- I talked to my mom about sex and drugs as a general thing. But don't you see that talking about that stuff in general (with mom or anyone else) is different -- very different -- than talking about your own personal sex acts? Even now, I talk about all kinds of raunchy stuff with my friends, but I still don't talk to them about my sex life with my boyfriend -- that's between us. Why would a teenager be different? And there's often a special taboo about discussing your sex acts with your family. To me, it still feels weird.
FYI, I never so much as held hands with my high school boyfriend around my mom. He hung out with the family for hours. They really liked him. And they should have liked him. He was a nice boy.
Why the heck are you assuming she'll be "manipulated" into having sex by a boy? I wasn't manipulated. I was just a horny, curious teenager, and crazy about my boyfriend. The good news is that the experience was consensual and loving. The other good news is that it didn't do me any harm. The bad news is I was 15.
And I didn't sleep around with a lot of boys at once -- never did, still don't. But, you know, high school relationships don't last forever. Once you start having sex with one boyfriend, odds are you'll have sex with the next. And they can all be very nice. And it just takes one very nice boy having HPV to infect you.
It is a mistake to assume only sluts or girls with poor self esteem have teenage sex. It is a mistake to think that nice kids can't transmit diseases. It is a mistake to think that your kid, however frank and open she is in general, will necessarily discuss every personal detail of her life with you. It is a mistake to think that just because your kid and her boyfriend don't fondle each other in front of you, they don't do so in private. You're telling me they're never alone anywhere with you out of calling distance? Not even for twenty minutes?
Ha -- that brings back a memory. My high school boyfriend and I knew a couple who didn't have a car at their disposal and whose parents were apparently home all the time. They went on a couple of double dates with us. But we stopped doing it because they were always having sex in the back seat and we found it embarrassing to listen! The point is, teenagers will find a way if they want to have sex.
I knew a couple who were both 13 when they started dating. Guess how old they were when they started having sex? And I'd bet money their mom thought they just went ice-skating together. They were good students, she was a cheerleader, he was into sports -- wholesome all-American suburban kids. By sixteen, I'd say MOST of the kids I knew had had sex. MOST. And I hung out with the "good" kids. And that was two decades ago.
But all of that said -- I personally don't think teenage sex is necessarily disastrous. To me, the important thing is that the initiation into sex is loving, consensual, and safe. Some of my friends' first times were with drunken frat boys who didn't give a crap around them. They may have been five years older than I was when they started, but I'd say my own first experience was healthier emotionally.
Gail at January 12, 2011 9:47 AM
Amidst all the discussion about how certain anyone parent can or can't be about their child's sex life, or lack thereof, what if it turns out not to be her choice? What if your daughter is raped or molested by some twisted, infected fuck and contracts HPV through no fault of her own? Yes, that might be an extreme fear, but it's a real one. I would much MUCH rather get a daughter of mine the shot long before she thinks she needs it than risk her getting HPV and possibly dying because I didn't know she was having sex (or because she was raped/date raped/what have you).
And as far as the autism thing goes, it's as simple as this: autistic child > dead child.
mse at January 12, 2011 9:51 AM
Well, it's been suggested that a parent can almost never trust their child to be honest about sex. And I agree that's true in many cases, where a child may feel really embarrassed or awkward, or they know they'll be severely judged. Parents have to objectively evaluate whether their child would likely feel comfortable talking to them about such things, and I feel confident that my daughter does because she has consistently discussed sex with me. I'm pretty certain of her values on that topic...partly because I've never tried to influence her to believe as strongly as she does.
If we'd been bible-thumping abstinance preachers, I'd suspect she was just telling me what I wanted to hear, but that's not how she was raised, so her prudishness actually seems more genuine.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 9:53 AM
mse has a great point.
lovelysoul, this is simply not about "trust" and "honesty." My family and friends still can't "trust" me to be "honest" about sex if what that means is telling them when and how I have it. Sex is between me and my boyfriend. Birth control is something I handle on my own. And that's exactly how I felt about it as a teenager. It's not a negative "you're being dishonest" thing -- it's a "sex is private" thing.
You should be able to "trust" your kid not to smash up your car because they were driving drunk. You should be able to "trust" your kid not to destroy your house or steal from you. But I don't think you should "trust" your kid to tell you about their sex life. I wouldn't tell my mom about my sex life now. She certainly didn't tell me about hers (and lord knows I wouldn't have wanted her to). Some things are private.
Educate them about consequences, yes, by all means. Make the offer to get them birth control -- yes. But don't expect they'll tell you about their sex lives. And that doesn't make them "bad," "untrustworthy" kids.
Gail at January 12, 2011 10:04 AM
Bottom line, I distrust the government more than I distrust my daughter. She can have the vaccine when she's older and more at risk. I saw no reason to have it at age 9 or 13, and I'm not rushing out to get it now.
I'm not going to get all paranoid and needlessly worried. That's what the government and drug companies want you to do every time they want to sell you something. And, like sheep, we stand in line while they experiment with our bodies.
Gardasil has only been out for what, a few years? If there'd been a terrible side effect, we'd just be hearing about it now. So, I feel I did the prudent thing to wait. You all can run out and inject your kid with whatever the government tells you to, the moment they tell you to, but I'm no longer that kind of parent.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 10:05 AM
I have to defend Lovelysoul here. She didn't say she's hiding her head in the sand or that her daughter would never do things. She's talking about having an open line of communication with her daughter which is never a bad thing. I don't think we always agree on everything here and I don't agree with LS on this topic, but it doesn't mean I think her daughter is out shooting up and having sex with random guys and then sitting quietly and telling her mom that she's still a virgin. The smartest girls I knew growing up were the ones who had open lines of communication with their parents. I will get my daughter the Gardisil shot not because I don't trust her but because I don't trust all of her future sex partners. Sometimes people lie and that's where it scares me. My daughter could make a very mature decision and someone she chooses to sleep with may have a disease. And realistically, let's not forget that there are people who don't show signs and may not even know they are carrying a virus. That's where I want to leave out the trust part of my relationship and just protect my daughter.
Kristen at January 12, 2011 10:06 AM
And if she was raped, I'm sure I'd worry about other things before HPV, which most healthy young women can clear from their bodies. It's not like HIV.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 10:09 AM
lovelysoul, I sincerely hope you never have to have the following conversation:
"Bad news, mom, I've got cervical cancer. I'm going to die."
"I guess I should have had you get the HPV vaccine after all..."
clinky at January 12, 2011 10:10 AM
Thanks, Kristen. As I said, I'm not against her ultimately having the shot. I just didn't think she needed it as early as was suggested. If she'd been 22 and living with a boyfriend - or dating several guys - when the shot first came out, I would've viewed it differently, but, at 12 or 13, she wasn't at risk, and I don't believe she's really at risk now, though it's probably the appropriate time to consider it.
We just don't have to rush out and do whatever the government tells us. They are not always right or acting in our best interests.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 10:17 AM
"Bad news, mom, I've got cervical cancer. I'm going to die."
"I guess I should have had you get the HPV vaccine after all..."
We parents do the best we can with what we know at the time. We're usually damned if we do and damned if we don't.
I didn't want to have this conversation:
"Mom, I have infertility...or brain lesions...or MS...why did you give me that shot when I was only 13? I wasn't even sexually active yet!"
I already have to apologize to my son for his splotchy teeth. "Sorry, son, the government said those flouride drops were crucial. Wish I hadn't listened..."
"And, well, as for your Aspergers, I'm pretty sure those 25 vaccines you had before 18 months had nothing to do with it. The government says all its studies prove the vaccines are safe."
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 10:34 AM
"Parents have to objectively evaluate whether their child would likely feel comfortable talking to them about such things, and I feel confident that my daughter does because she has consistently discussed sex with me. I'm pretty certain of her values on that topic...partly because I've never tried to influence her to believe as strongly as she does."
YOU just don't get it. I talked to my mom about sex. Just not MINE. It was not her business whether she had made herself available and open or not-and she had. Nor would I have run out and got the shot once I started have sex with my fiance-because why? We were engaged, getting married, doing it "right". And yep-I got it. And yes, my last 2 years of PAPS have been clear and my body seems to have cleared it. Except, of course, first there were the precancerous lesions that were found at my 6 week pap after having my first kids. What if I hadn't gotten pregnant? What if I'd gotten a job right out of college with no insurance, and skipped my pap that year? They would not have been found, or removed with chunks of my cervix (and honey that hurts) and cervical cancer is very hard to treat once it's cancer. In fact, I don't think they CAN treat it and preserve your ability to carry children.
But by all means, feel free to "feel" and "believe sans evidence" that there is some vast conspiracy to use our kids as lab rats for the profit of the drug companies, who charge at most a few bucks a pop. It's much better to do that, and "trust" your daughter to go get that shot before her and her boyfriend get a little too turned on one night, than protect her. Smart.
momof4 at January 12, 2011 10:46 AM
In the end, I'd rather explain: "I'm sorry this happened to you, but I made my decisions based on the best evidence available at the time" rather than "I'm sorry this happened to you, but I made my decisions based on a bad feeling I had."
MonicaP at January 12, 2011 10:46 AM
"The government says all its studies prove the vaccines are safe."
Nope. MANY studies by MANY different researchers working for MANY different employers or on their own, have found this, independantly. While not one-not ONE-legitimate study has found they aren't.
Aspergers and high IQ's are linked. Your kids have high IQ's. But no, it's the vacs, right? Even though unvac'd kids (outside of "closed" non-modern environments like Quakers) have the same autism rates.
momof4 at January 12, 2011 10:50 AM
Yeah, the goverment may have overdone the fluoride thing -- a bit. But that said, splotchy teeth are certainly better than rotting teeth, and putting fluoride in water reduced tooth decay dramatically.
As far as I know, fluoride drops are generally only recommended when the water system doesn't contain fluoride. If it's in the water, odds are you don't need to be adding more fluoride. Now we have more and more products that have added fluoride, sometimes in huge concentrations, and if you're using those and getting it in water too, it's too much. (But that said -- not everyone is using or can afford to buy those products. Putting fluoride in the water is a cheap and easy way to protect those people).
But it's just like the vaccinations. People say "see! see! we're getting too much fluoride and now a few people have splotchy teeth!" And they forget that the incidence of tooth decay decreased dramatically when they started putting fluoride in the water. I've read that tooth decay is on the rise for people who drink exclusively bottled water. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113806628922854233.html
Exactly what did the evil government gain by putting fluoride in the water?
Gail at January 12, 2011 11:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/01/12/highly_educated.html#comment-1820309">comment from Gailhttp://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/obesity-in-ancient-egypt/
It's carbohydrate consumption that causes tooth decay. Per Dr. Eades:
Amy Alkon at January 12, 2011 11:11 AM
No doubt diet is the big factor -- I'm sure the enormous increase in sugar consumption over the last century accounts for most of the tooth decay. Soda alone has got to account for a lot of cavities. (I do eat lots of carbs, but that said, I eat very little sweet stuff or refined carbs, and I never drink soda or sweet drinks. I have only one cavity -- and I don't think that's a coincidence).
But that said, I don't see the diet thing changing any time soon for most people. Big Gulp sodas aren't going anywhere. And the evidence seems to show that low doses of fluoride provides protection without undue risk (even of splotchy teeth).
Gail at January 12, 2011 11:28 AM
M4, I'm sorry that happened to you, but there's nothing I can say here. You're convinced my daughter is lying to me, as you were to your mom, and I certainly can't prove that she's not.
If she is, she's gone way out of her way to appear to be into abstinance - for no real purpose, since I'm not opposed to her having sex before marriage. I'm not Sarah Palin. Plus, she lectures all her friends about not having sex unless they're in a solid relationship. Is she just doing that for show...to throw me off?
There's a big difference between giving a blow-by-blow description of your sex life, and feeling comfortable enough coming to your mom for birth control. I don't want to hear details about her sex life. That is her private business. But I do believe she will tell me when she has reached that point in a relationship. I absolutely do not believe she will act impulsively when it comes to sex.
I'm sure she'll change her mind and eventually have sex, but she just isn't ready right now. She's my daughter, and I know her well enough to believe her when she says this.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 11:32 AM
One question, lovelysoul -- if you are really so certain your daughter is not going to have sex without discussing it with you first, and is "absolutely" not going to "act impulsively when it comes to sex," why are you "always unexpectedly (on purpose) coming into her room" when she's with that sweet sixteen-year-old boy?
Gail at January 12, 2011 11:51 AM
Because it's good parenting, Gail. Trust, but verify. :)
Actually, I like him, and it's curiosity more than anything. I wouldn't be disappointed to see something develop there, but she says she doesn't feel "that way" about him. They've actually been friends since 5th grade, so I think he's firmly in the friend category.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 11:56 AM
Diptheria actually had decreased by 90% before the vaccine even came out, due to other reasons.
I think I'm going to do Polio and Tetanus... but probably not Chicken Pox.
NicoleK at January 12, 2011 12:24 PM
What doest the govt have to gain by hyping vaccines? I dunno, the same thing it gains from confiscating liquids at airports I suppose...
NicoleK at January 12, 2011 12:25 PM
"...the same thing it gains from confiscating liquids at airports..."
lots of expensive perfume and shampoo?
Gail at January 12, 2011 12:37 PM
Nothing is more profitable to a drug company than a vaccine.
Not true
Think about it -- what could be better than a product that every citizen is forced by the government to buy?
A vaccine cost far less then hospital stays and dozens of medications to combat the effects of the disease the vaccine protect against
I'm old, so my parents knew people who had polio. We got our vaccinations. My kids got theirs.
I'm 31, my 8th grade shop teacher was one of the last people to contact polio. His left leg and arm muscules are HALF THE SIZE of his right size. He looks like half a zombie horror flick
extra.
A big part of the reason that there's been such an apparent increase in the incidents of autism is that the diagnosis of autism has expanded dramatically. So it's being applied in cases where it wouldn't have under the old definition
Probably true, but how many of these 'high fuctioning autistucs' arent really autitic but rather litte nurotic, emotional retatrds beacuse mommy and daddy helicopter never let them get their feeling hurt, or told them no, or let them make a freind without an extinsive 12 step interview process?
I love it when parents say their teenagers aren't sexually active
I went to high school in Tooele, UT. Hightest teen pregnacy rate in the state. Toolel county polled out as the highest concentrations of mormons per capita in the state as well.
I was a parties where kids were having sex while their parents were in the house.
It's not like HIV
If they ever doo develop an HIV vaccine many people will refuse to use it, cause that would be 'promoting sex'
lujlp at January 12, 2011 1:00 PM
but probably not Chicken Pox
Talk to someone whos had a bout with shingles before you decide that. For some bizzre reason everyone from my mothers side of the familly gets a case before 30, in my case it was a couple of weeks before my birthday.
I swear to god that two square inch rash patch was more painful then the three weeks it took to recover from having half of my lung cut out
lujlp at January 12, 2011 1:03 PM
You know, I expect this sort of thing from my 17 year old. I have this very discussion with her on pretty much a daily basis:
Squeaker "I believe the world would be a better place if we all lived like the Amish."
Me "Oh? And what information are you basing that opinion on, Baby? Can you give me links so that I can evaluate it for my self and we can discuss it?"
Squeaker "No, but it's my opinion, and I have a right to my opinion."
Me "Well, Baby, that same right gives me the right to tell you that a) You are full of shit and b) You cannot form a valid opinion unless you seek out as much information and educate yourself on the subject. Therefore, you may either come back to me with said information, or do extra chores to show me that you truly believe your opinion and are willing to back it up."
It's fun to watch her stomp around the kitchen and mutter to herself while the Monty Python "Help! I'm being oppressed!" runs thru my head.
Kat at January 12, 2011 1:06 PM
Talking science with The Goddess is like pulling teeth:
Or living past 30... which most paleolithic men didn't do.
See how easy it is to create junk science? Just connect the dots.
So when you say:
Most of the "dating tips for chimps" junk is, by definition, unprovable.
It's conjecture about who survived in prehistoric communities - based on even dicier conjecture about behavior in those communities.
No testable hypothesis.
No control groups.
"Men are bred to be promiscuous" and "Women were attracted to murderers, who could protect them" are fairy-tale science.
- but they found a tribe in the Amazon where murderers have many sexual partners!
Really? And that proves... what, exactly, about The Rest of Us - living in the successful modern world - who probably owe our success to being "selected" for cooperation? Maybe there's a reason these folks are part of a primitive, dwindling group.
If you spout these theories - and you do - you cannot have done any research beyond swallowing popular media writeups.
I don't doubt you're conscientious in some areas. But my point was that we all have our blind spots, where the story is too convenient to dig for facts. Dating for Chimps and the gay rights agenda dovetail with your personal agenda of attacking traditional morality, and so the pseudo-scientific claims are not examined...
So - after posting about epigenetics and neuroplasticity, do you still believe that homosexuality is genetically predetermined - as the gay-rights propanganda puts it, "just like having blue eyes"?
How does it mysteriously leapfrog what we know about genetic expression, and the human mind?
Ben David at January 12, 2011 1:34 PM
Another mom in my group (there are over 500, so yes we have lots of examples of lots of things in our group), who used to teach first grade, sent a kid home with a fever on a thurs, and the next time she saw him was his funeral. Chicken pox. Yes, it's an anecdote, but it does kill sometimes. Why risk it? Plus, I have an Aunt with periodic shingles, and it's unpleasant. Very unpleasant. WHen I was growing up, kids got them, and my older brother's case was so bad he had them on his eyeballs. Can you imagine? Seriously- intentionally risking your kid to that? My mom said she would have cut her own throat to save him that. He was 4.
momof4 at January 12, 2011 1:38 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/01/12/highly_educated.html#comment-1820387">comment from Ben DavidTalking science with The Goddess is like pulling teeth:
That "logic" is typical of your "reasoning."
There's nothing "unprovable" about the science I use in my column. When men, across cultures, have a preference -- including men in cultures where there's no TV, let alone shoes -- it's safe to assume it's an evolved adaptation, not something cause by reading Playboy.
Take your homo paranoia elsewhere.
I don't know what causes homosexuality, but I don't have a problem with it -- for starters, because I don't believe, sans evidence, in a big man in the sky, or that that big man in the sky said gay sex was very, very naughty.
In order to justify your childish beliefs, you need to make me out to be a purveyor of crap. Let's be very, very clear on that.
I have no interest in how other people get pleasure or who they want to have sex with, as long as the two people having sex are consenting adults (or consenting 16-year-olds, etc., which I have no problem with, despite ridiculous laws). Your interest, once again, your real interest, is in looking like less of a gullible ass in respect to your primitive religious beliefs.
Amy Alkon at January 12, 2011 1:50 PM
shingles on your eyeballs? Argh! I'll be cringing all night just thinking about it!
I haven't had shingles yet, but a couple friends have and it's awful. What I did have was an unusually severe case of chicken pox. It was horrible. My brother had a mild case and was jumping all over the house, but I was bedridden, covered from top to bottom with pustules, and feverish for days. My mom put cotton socks on my hands to try to keep me from scratching, but of course I did, and I have a couple of scars (one on the side of my nose, which really isn't all that noticeable, but still pisses me off).
If I had a kid, I'd make sure they got the chicken pox vaccine just to keep them from getting a case like I did.
Gail at January 12, 2011 1:53 PM
You might as well get the chicken pox vaccine, because almost no kid gets chicken pox anymore, and it's connected to shingles, and can be terrible as an adult. That vaccine has been around for awhile, so it's probably safe.
In fact, they may, in individual doses and given later, all be safe, but the combination can be too much for an infant or toddler, and this *might* trigger a gene or suceptability for autism. We just don't know. Why give so many at once and so soon when it's not really necessary?
A friend of mine's baby died immediately after having her first vaccines. She swelled up at the injection site and cried for hours, went to sleep and never woke up. Official cause of death was listed as SIDs, but that's bogus. So, there's a lot of statistics, like hers, missing from the full picture.
My friend is an anti-vaccine activist in Canada, and she's much more versed on the subject than I am. She's never vaccinated her other children, and she has 5, which I agree is not healthy for the rest of us, but, as I said, it's very likely that the drug companies...or the doctors or medical agencies...caused this panic by creating situations such as hers. Pushing for too many vaccines too soon was unnecessary, and it's caused parents to react by going to the other extreme.
We never had that many vaccines so early, and we were generally healthy, even getting chicken pox and measles. I just don't understand why they can't go back to a reasonable series of vaccinations like we had.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 2:11 PM
I just don't understand why they can't go back to a reasonable series of vaccinations like we had.
This is why not.
http://tinyurl.com/64c5bsu
I'm still looking for a link that breaks things out by cause, illness vs trauma.
gimme a few, I'll find it.
Kat at January 12, 2011 2:25 PM
A friend of mine's baby died immediately after having her first vaccines. She swelled up at the injection site and cried for hours, went to sleep and never woke up.
Could she have had a previously unknown allergy to eggs? Many, many vaccines (including the MMR vaccine) are incubated in chicken eggs and embryos. Very sad, but something that could have been prevented if she was tested for such an allergy earlier on.
We never had that many vaccines so early, and we were generally healthy, even getting chicken pox and measles.
Problem with this statement is that those who weren't "generally healthy" are unable to comment on the current debate about vaccination: they died in their childhood from what are now preventable diseases.
Lauren at January 12, 2011 2:33 PM
no, on second thought, do your own damned searching, or keep your own damned uninformed craptastic opinion. I don't care.
Bottom line, as parents it is our job to the very best we can to protect our kids and raise them healthy. If you think that exposing them to the unadulterated virus is healthier than a vaccine, go for it.
My mother deliberately sent me to play with the neighbors when they had chickenpox. Ok fine, that was before we had vaccines for it.
She was also the one planning my funeral and shopping for a black dress when I was in the hospital with scarlet fever when I was 1, instead of sitting by my bed, but that's a different story.
Kat at January 12, 2011 2:35 PM
Also, lovelysoul, you keep talking about spacing out vaccines, but studies have shown that doing so does not decrease the chances of a person have a negative reaction. Specifically, studies in which each component of the MMR vaccine is administered separately find not benefit over giving all three together.
Check out this link: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/107/5/e84
Jump down to the "Conclusions" section for the above information in plain English.
Lauren at January 12, 2011 2:41 PM
Not shingles on his eyes-chicken pox. That wasn't very clear. Still god-awful.
LS-all vacs pretty mcu use the exact same mechanism. So, if you fell chicken pox is safe, and say Guardisil uses the exact same form of vaccing, how could it NOT be safe?
One has chcken pox deactivated, with solution. One has HPV deactivated, with solution.
momof4 at January 12, 2011 3:24 PM
Also, lovelysoul, you keep talking about spacing out vaccines, but studies have shown that doing so does not decrease the chances of a person have a negative reaction.
Erm. No. But it does let you know which component makes you kid get horribly ill and require a hospital stay.
If you give them a combo shot you have less info. My kid reacted after the DPT shot.
Plus, IMHO people with typical immune systems can handle the combo shots. But if the immune system is glitchy, sub-par or compromised, them the combo shots are much harder on the body. Like putting 12 pounds of crap in a 10 pound bag.
Even if 98% of the population has no issue, what do you do if your child is in the other 2%? Write them off as the cost of keeping other people's children safe? Likely not.
LauraGr at January 12, 2011 3:54 PM
Even if 98% of the population has no issue, what do you do if your child is in the other 2%? Write them off as the cost of keeping other people's children safe? Likely not.
I'm sorry your child had an adverse reaction, but basically what you are saying is that instead of going with what has been proven safe for 98% of the population and getting my child vaccinated in 1 dose, I should instead hold back, because of that 2% possibility. This increases the child's risk of being infected before the vaccine is administered (low, I know, but possible) It's not that your child is being "written off", it's that as a parent, you have to go with what you know. If you know your child's immune system is compromised, of course you hold off, or go in stages, but that is very different than deciding not to vaccinate based on the very debunked junk science of a greedy doctor who has been shown to have ulterior motives.
Kat at January 12, 2011 4:34 PM
I haven't had shingles yet, but a couple friends have and it's awful. What I did have was an unusually severe case of chicken pox. It was horrible. My brother had a mild case and was jumping all over the house, but I was bedridden, covered from top to bottom with pustules, and feverish for days.
Same here. I was 17 at the time. Not only did I have the above (one day had a fever of 103.4 for several hours) but vomiting and this periodic feeling of an electric shock. I'd feel the shock thing coming several seconds before it happened too.
I've always had a very strong immune system. Other then the occasional weak bout with a cold (got that back of the nose/throat cold feeling today in fact) I rarely get sick. However, when I do, it's serious. I've had 3 huge things like that: The previously mentioned chicken pox. When I was 12 I had what was eventually diagnosed as Kawasaki's disease (fever hit 105.4 while they had me in an ice bath)... which they knew zip about back then (I found it somewhat interesting when it was brought up on an episode of House once). Then I missed all the Y2K IT fun when I woke up xmas morning that year and was down with a horrid flu that came close to pneumonia for a week and a half.
I wish they'd had a vaccine option in use for Chicken Pox when I was a kid so I could avoid that one.
Miguelitosd at January 12, 2011 5:06 PM
"It's like the missing link in evolution. We can't find it, but we know it's there."
Actually, this term, "missing link" is a colloquialism and fundamentally wrong. There are legions of transitional species, a few missing dots on those lines, and the missing dots become a big deal - to those who insist that they have the answer. These people then pretend that no one else saw what they did.
-----
So, Ben-David still isn't looking at androgen insensitivity syndrome. No surprise. If he finds out gender isn't binary, he'll have to stop pretending to be straight.
-----
About the thread: your communication skills, parent-child, have nothing to do with vaccines and their effects. Work on the medical data, not on editorials, and not on feel-good stories of love and understanding.
One of the things you might think about is why you think or have assumed a vaccination would have no effect on you, as an adult, at all, but be deadly to a tot. Be very careful about chemical concentrations when you think about this.
-----
Is anybody here condemning vaccines while feeding their progeny Similac? That would be interesting.
Radwaste at January 12, 2011 5:14 PM
"If you know your child's immune system is compromised, of course you hold off, or go in stages"
How is a parent supposed to know that at only 3 months? Or whether their infant has an egg allergy. Infants don't eat eggs, and no doctor tests for that before giving these vaccinations to such tiny individuals (my friend's baby didn't have an egg allergy, as far as anyone knows, but she obviously reacted to the vaccines)
Kat, that mortality rate table is from all over the world. Nothing there justifies why we must start vaccinating our children in the US between 3-15 months, giving 25 or more vaccinations, almost always combined, so as LauraGR notes, a parent can't even tell which vaccine causes a reaction if one does occur.
Is it really acceptable when some tiny babies die, like my friend's, even though the overload itself may have been what caused it?
The question is why are we doing this to fragile immune and central nervous systems when we don't really need to? Why not adopt a more cautious approach in light of so much anecdotal evidence that damage may be done? We not only have an epidemic of autism in this country, but ADHD and other neurological disorders as well. We can try to lay that all on increased diagnosis, but many parents are doubtful that this fully explains the vast number of kids experiencing these types of neurological symptoms..our own and about half the classroom.
The medical community still defends practices like circumcision. They're always quite slow to really listen to parents and accept that there are truly bad outcomes. If "most" kids come out ok, it's considered alright, even if there are better ways.
I'm not against vaccinating. I'd just like to see it handled more responsibly with infants and toddlers. To be prudent, we should not be vaccinating so much so early.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 6:45 PM
in the early 50's my father's cousin lost three of his five children to Polio in one week. I have another cousin on the other side of the family, a year older than I am, who has been in a wheelchair her entire life due to polio an an infant. I think because most parents now do not see this kind of death and damage because they are not old enough to have encountered it on a personal level, they believe, mistakenly, that it can't happen to them.
Isabel1130 at January 12, 2011 6:47 PM
Because its not the vaccinations that did it. Did you see the coroners report, LS? I've seen one, up close and personal. SIDS is only given as the cause of death when Every Single Other Possible Cause Has Been Ruled Out.
Clear?
Just to be perfectly clear. I emailed this information to Amy before you posted about your "anecdotal" evidence, so she can back me up. I wasn't going to share with the class, because, frankly, it's none of your business. But you have pushed my buttons, so here goes.
How is a parent supposed to know that at only 3 months?
There are these wonderful people called Pediatricians, maybe you've heard of them. They work with parents to keep kids healthy, and they know a lot more about immune systems than we do, so ask them.
My son, James Edward, was born on my 21st birthday. He was a perfect, healthy little boy, but somehow he managed to pick up an ear infection in the hospital nursery before we were sent home.
My Pediatrician tried antibiotics, but the infection was resistant, so she decided he needed tubes. She also wanted me to wait on his vaccines until after his surgery. So that's what we did. See, informed decision in the best interest of my child, and he would have had his shots after his surgery.
He was a happy, healthy, wonderful baby other than that damned ear infection. He never got his vaccinations.
He also never woke up on Jan 14. He was 6 months old.
The Coroner said it was SIDS. His name is Joshua Perper. You may have heard of him, he's made a bit of a name for himself. He's very good at what he does, and I have absolutely no doubt he knew what he was talking about when he explained everything to me.
When some anti-vacci loon came up to me at the funeral and tried to tell me that was what caused my son's death, I told her no, he never had his shots. She told me "well, the hospital must have done it when you weren't around."
Right.
Did I mention that my son Never Had A Vaccination.
You know what? I wish it had been the damned shots. I wish it were that easy. I want answers, but I will probably never have them. All i know is what it wasn't.
Kat at January 12, 2011 7:13 PM
That's very tragic, Kat. No one should lose a child. I'm very sorry for what you went through, but just because your son didn't die from getting vaccines doesn't prove others haven't.
My friend's daughter did have her shots the day she died, administered by her pediatrician. I suppose it could all be coincidence, but understandably, that's not what my friend believes, and she was there. I don't think they could ever prove what caused her death, so perhaps it was wrong to list it as SIDs. This was many years ago in Canada. I don't know all the specific details.
lovelysoul at January 12, 2011 7:27 PM
Kat --
I am so sorry about your baby.
The woman who came up to you at the funeral to tell you what caused his death should be shot. What the hell is wrong with her? Even if she'd been right -- and obviously, she wasn't -- how could she possibly think she was being helpful or comforting?
Gail at January 12, 2011 7:43 PM
I don't think they could ever prove what caused her death, so perhaps it was wrong to list it as SIDs.
You really don't pay attention, do you? That is exactly what SIDS is. When every single other thing is ruled out, meaning, they just don't know what killed the child. SIDS is exactly the right thing to list if they cannot prove anything else.
If it had been the vaccinations, that would have been found thru the autopsy. That was one of the things they asked me when we went over the report, because they couldn't understand why his something-count, don't remember the exact word, was so low. They had expected a different result from a certain test because of vaccinations.
but just because your son didn't die from getting vaccines doesn't prove others haven't.
Dumbest thing you've said yet. I never said that people haven't had adverse reactions, Hell, I'm allergic to frelling penicillin, should we never give kids anti-biotics either? How about we just scrap medical science all together, and go back to when we just watched our loved ones die.
What I'm saying is that to not take full advantage of vaccinations is to not only put yourself at risk, but those around you because you then can become a carrier. You want to "pace yourself" well, ok, what makes you think that's gonna work better than just getting it over with? what if you forget, then what? You throw the story of what happened to your friend around like it's gospel, then discount what actually happened to me.
Screw you, I'm done.
Kat at January 12, 2011 7:47 PM
But I was there!!
There were thousands of people present when JFK was shot. Nobody can agree, apparently, on how many shots were fired, where they came from, how many shooters there were; there's even debate about whether the shooter was in front or in back of JFK.
Emotional need does not a witness, much less a credible witness, make. We have adult examples of death from ingesting a peanut vs. being shot five times with your own .357 and winning the encounter.
Unless you talk about medicine, you are not talking about vaccinations. You are using the fallacies "appeal to consequences" and "special pleading", and no amount of nobility, real or otherwise, corrects that.
Radwaste at January 12, 2011 7:48 PM
Gail,
Thank you for your kind words. That woman was my Aunt. She also told me "My dear poodle died. At least you can have more children, I'll never be able to replace Foofoo."
Yeah, good thing I was on heavy tranqs, I think I may have done her serious bodily harm.
Kat at January 12, 2011 7:49 PM
Kat,
Your aunt sounds horrible! Sure, you could have more kids, but you could never replace that child! :( I'm so sorry for your loss and for what your aunt put you through.
Kat, that mortality rate table is from all over the world
The table is capable of displaying the mortality rate from all over the world, but if you use the link Kat provided, only the checkbox for the United States is selected, so only the data for the United States is included.
The US mortality rate for children under five to be was about 7.8 per 1,000 in 2009, as opposed to 30 per 1,000 in 1960. Hygiene hasn't changed too much during those 50 years, so I'm guessing the huge decrease is due to a combination of increased safety features (car seats, for example) and vaccines.
Places where vaccines don't exist still have very high death figures. The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, had 239.7 deaths per 1,000 in 1970 and 198.6 in 2009. Although safety and hygiene may have improved somewhat, disease prevention remains a huge problem.
As for why we don't wait until kids are older to vaccinate, this is why. Babies cannot get the vaccines and need the herd immunity, otherwise they are the ones to die. Also, just because a child is not yet is school doesn't mean they won't be around other people with diseases that they could avoid if vaccinated. Parents take their kids out shopping, to the movies, to playgroup, out to eat, to the doctor's for checkups, etc. Also, they are likely to play with other children in the neighborhood, some of who are bound to have older siblings in school already.
Picture this: Little Jimmy's mom decides not to get him the DPT vaccine until he starts kindergarten. Jimmy is two and he and his mommy run to the store to do some errands. The child in line in front of Jimmy, also two, has a bad cough. Jimmy goes home and develops what his mommy thinks is a bad cough the next day. After about a week Jimmy seems to be over his cold and his mommy believes is not longer contagious. Jimmy and his mommy go to visit Jimmy's aunt and two-month-old cousin, who is too young for the DPT vaccine. A few days later, Jimmy develops a terrible cough. He eventually recovers. Jimmy's cousin, however, develops the same terrible cough. Her much smaller lungs and weaker immune system are unable to combat the pertussis infection raging through her body. Her parents rush her to the ER,but despite the doctors best efforts, the baby dies from whooping cough.
Lauren at January 12, 2011 8:21 PM
Does anyone remember how flouride tooth protection was discovered? It was by investigating why certain populations with dicolored teeth had extremely low levels of tooth
decay. Dicoloration is a cosmetic not a medical problem.
Northcountry at January 12, 2011 9:22 PM
Discolored!
Northcountry at January 12, 2011 9:25 PM
The thing is, each vaccine should be evaluated on an individual basis. "Just get them all" or "Don't get any of them" are extreme statements.
Some factors to consider:
1) How severe is the disease? If its generally pretty mild, a vaccine isn't as necessary.
2) What are the side effects of the vaccine? How do they compare to the effects of the disease?
3) How common is the disease?
4) How much has the vaccine been tested?
5) How easily is the disease treated if you catch it?
Obviously, a disease with no vaccine side effects, common in your country, with detrimental effects and no good treatment should be vaccinated, assuming a proven vaccine exists.
NicoleK at January 13, 2011 12:54 AM
To be honest, the pro-vaccine crowd on this board also seems to be going from gut feelings about fears of diseases. No one on either side of the debate on this board has listed actual scientific data about vaccines, their effectiveness, and their side effects.
We're all going with our guts.
If I have time later today I'll try and look up some studies.
NicoleK at January 13, 2011 12:59 AM
You want studies, I got studies. Since comments are restricted to one link per, here is the first. In case you missed my post earlier, I linked to a chart showing the steep decline in child mortality. So no, we are not all "going with our guts".
From the World Health Organization.
In 2002, WHO estimated that 1.4 million of deaths among children under 5 years were due to diseases that could have been prevented by routine vaccination.
http://tinyurl.com/6rqm25
Kat at January 13, 2011 1:18 AM
Have you ever stopped to think about *why* these diseases are not common today? In my grandmother's day they were killers, everyone knew someone that had been affected, but now everyone thinks they are no longer a threat. Why is that? Think about it, I'll wait. Or you can go to this website and read first hand acounts of people who have lived it.
Unprotected People reports are an online collection of more than 100 personal accounts and case reports about vaccine-preventable diseases.
This web section offers visitors an opportunity to read articles about the diseases that are prevented by vaccines. Because immunization has been so successful, vaccine-preventable diseases such as diphtheria and polio are fading from our consciousness.
These reports remind us why vaccines are essential to protecting and preserving our public health. They serve as a counterbalance to anti-vaccine news stories.
http://www.immunize.org/reports/
Kat at January 13, 2011 1:23 AM
From the Centers for Disease Control.
http://tinyurl.com/4vmu83u
Kat at January 13, 2011 1:25 AM
From the Dept of Health and Human Services:
http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/tips.htm
Kat at January 13, 2011 1:26 AM
A long list of creditable scientific organizations to get more info.
http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/resources/organizations.cfm
Kat at January 13, 2011 1:39 AM
wow. lovelysoul, normally i agree with you on many things. but on this topic - you are not very bright.
1) it is far more lucrative for pharmaceutical companies to let you get sick with mumps/measles/whatever and treat you for that than to give you one cheap, mass produced vaccine.
2) teenagers - unlike adults - are MORE likely to get HPV from ONE encounter because their cervical cells are not fully developed until they are in their early 20s. also, your daughter will not even be able to receive the vaccine past 26 because she will probably already be infected.
3)my mom gave me the same birth control speech you gave your daughter. i can count on one hand the number of things i have never told my mother - actually, only 2 things, ever - and i would have cut out my tongue with a rusty spoon before i would have told her i was sexually active.
4) and no, it is not insane to give an infant multiple vaccines. it is insane not to. as mom4 said - they are in more danger from a sneeze. however, by not having the vaccines as early as possible, they are in more danger of contracting the disease, and then spreading it around to the rest of us.
miki at January 13, 2011 2:06 AM
Infants, as young as 2 or 3 months, are only in danger of contracting a deadly disease if they are exposed, which means the disease must be prevalent and they are frequently in a situation to be exposed. Neither is the case for most infants and toddlers in THIS country, precisely because we have had vaccines.
I agree with Nicole. The pro-vaccine crowd is overreacting out of unnecessary and irrational fear of these diseases.
Again, I'm not anti-vaccine. I just don't believe it would drastically increase the mortality rate of children under 5 if we waited until, say, age 3 or 4, and gave single, rather than multi doses.
Parents could still choose to vaccinate their tiny infants with a cocktail of vaccines at 2 or 3 months if they were as afraid as you people are, but I don't think this should be the recommendation. To me, it's just as much of an overraction as those who choose not to vaccinate.
In my ideal scenario, the pediatrician would advise parents to wait - let the brain continue developing a bit. No rush. Unless you're traveling to Uganda or putting your infant in perpetual daycare, the risk of exposure, in most cases - assuming we all continue to vaccinate - is extremely low, while the risks of starting so early with so many vaccines may indeed be higher, at least for children with certain susceptabilities and genetic triggers.
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 5:32 AM
Also, splotchy teeth are different from discolored teeth. Splotches are internal and cannot be bleached out. Dentists have been seeing this for awhile, and finally, the government recommendations changed (after about 15 years!). That's why I say they're slow to respond.
Of course, they won't really admit they were wrong either, just that it was "discovered" that kids were getting an excessive amount of flouride due to toothpaste, mouthwash, etc.
Kids can also get splotchy teeth from taking certain antibiotics when they're very young. They appear on the permanent teeth once the baby teeth fall out.
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 5:38 AM
"The medical community still defends practices like circumcision. They're always quite slow to really listen to parents and accept that there are truly bad outcomes. If "most" kids come out ok, it's considered alright, even if there are better ways."
I know you spent about a week and dozens of posts defending circumcision a while ago, and seemed to have changed your mind, so I have hope on this thread. My son woke up with a 103 fever in the night, afetr having had his 12 month shots that day. I assumed it was the shots. Guess what? He was coming down with hanf foot and mouth. An AWFUl case of it where his thoat was such an open sore I could see it as he screamed in pain. That lasted almost 2 weeks-first the throat, then sore on the hands, then feet. Coincidence happens, and even correlation is not causation.
Babies ARE exposed to these diseases. See the grocery store analogy above and multiply that by every person you come in contact with while out of the house, and every person that enters your house-and dno't try telling me to keep the kids isolated until 2 or 3-talk about endangering your kids!. There are plenty of people out there who don't vac their kids, their kids are menaces to my infants. I'm not scared of the diseases, I majored in science in college, I KNOW how people get sick and how diseases spread. I also know the percentages of risk on vaccines (yes they have them) and on diseases. I go with the lesser risk. I also agree with my aspergers friend who has 3 kids (twins and one older but close in age) on the spectrum-2 mild and one severe. "Better autistic than dead" She is highly educated and fully vaccinates, period (in her own words). Her husband is also highly intelligence and probably would be called asbergers. Hmmmm.
How many people have drank public flouridated water and DON'T have splotchy teeth-just on this board?
momof4 at January 13, 2011 6:26 AM
Kat, words fail me. I am so sorry you lost your little boy. I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child. I would kill your aunt for you for the ignorance she spewed.
We are very lucky in this country, that more people don't experience that loss. And we seem to have forgotten WHY we are that lucky, within one generation.
momof4 at January 13, 2011 6:29 AM
On Gardisil, apparently, they don't know how long the protection even lasts. So, if you give it to your 13 yr old, by the time she is sexually active, and MOST at risk - early 20s -the benefit of the vaccine may have worn off.
"Dr. Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers for Gardasil, has called for more complete warnings for parents and questions its risk-versus-benefit profile because it is not yet known how long the vaccine will be effective once administered.[57] The August 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, had an article reiterating the safety of Gardasil[42] and another questioning the way it was presented to doctors and parents.
The new vaccine against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, like other immunizations appears to be a cost-effective intervention with the potential to enhance both adolescent health and the quality of their adult lives. However, the messages and the methods by which the vaccine was marketed present important challenges to physician practice and medical professionalism. By making the vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to adolescents was maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored. The vaccine manufacturer also provided educational grants to professional medical associations (PMAs) concerned with adolescent and women's health and oncology. The funding encouraged many PMAs to create educational programs and product-specific speakers' bureaus to promote vaccine use. However, much of the material did not address the full complexity of the issues surrounding the vaccine and did not provide balanced recommendations on risks and benefits. As important and appropriate as it is for PMAs to advocate for vaccination as a public good, their recommendations must be consistent with appropriate and cost-effective use.[58]
In an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination sponsored by the anti-vaccination group the National Vaccine Information Center in October 2009, Dr. Diane Harper stated that in countries where Pap smear screening is common, it will take vaccination of a large proportion of women in order to further reduce cervical cancer rates. She also stated that no efficacy trials for children under 15 have been performed.[57][59]"
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 6:40 AM
"Babies ARE exposed to these diseases. See the grocery store analogy above and multiply that by every person you come in contact with while out of the house, and every person that enters your house-and dno't try telling me to keep the kids isolated until 2 or 3-talk about endangering your kids!. There are plenty of people out there who don't vac their kids, their kids are menaces to my infants."
I said as long as we continue vaccinating, and have herd immunity, babies and toddlers are not likely to contract deadly diseases, even if they're taken to the grocery store.
Honestly, the likelihood of your 2 yr old contracting polio or Hepatitis from a trip to the grocery store, or even a full-year in day care, has to be infitessimal.
Perhaps influenza or pneumonia, so those should maybe be considered, but things like chicken pox have all but been eradicated. Parents now have chicken pox parties just trying to have their kids catch it. I haven't known a child with chicken pox or measles in years. And never known a child or adult with mumps.
Again, it's a parent's choice. If you want the cocktail of vaccines at such an early age, go for it. But I don't believe it's necessary or prudent to start that early.
It's funny how parents who wouldn't let their babies near junk food have no qualms about injecting preservatives in them so young. Thiomersal was immediately discontinued for a reason, and I don't trust we know exactly why. The government never moves that fast unless there's a serious concern. I believe parents are justified in being suspicious.
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 7:11 AM
You know, the mystery is why, after decades of building herd immunity, the number of recommended shots has doubled, even tripled - from 7 to 14, to now up to 24 - before the age of TWO! Something is wrong with that. If the drug companies aren't making money, then who is?
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 7:16 AM
There's no mystery. There are literally millions of diseases out there. We are getting the ability to immunize for more and more of them.
momof4 at January 13, 2011 7:19 AM
Oh, goddamn it all. I was determined to leave this thread alone, but I have to add something.
Why do you think the rate of exposure to these diseases are so low? Why do you think we in 2011 rarely, if ever, have to see children die of measles, whooping cough, etc.? BECAUSE OF VACCINES. The diseases are not eradicated. They have not disappeared from the face of the earth. We don't see them because the majority of the population innoculates against them. Want to see how polio looks up close? Stop vaccinating. Within a generation, you'll be seeing a lot more kids in wheelchairs. This is not hysteria based on some fearful "gut feeling" my adrenal glands whipped up while I was pondering the nature of the universe. This is what life was like for many people prior to the polio vaccine.
My husband's grandmother lost a child to whooping cough. His other grandmother contracted polio a a child and has never been able to walk without pain. She's having a second hip replacement surgery next month. These diseases are real and not to be fucked with. I sure as shit don't want my son endangered by an unvaccinated kid whose mother's gut got all nervous, because Jenny Mccarthy ha a kid who won't look her in the eye.
mse at January 13, 2011 7:22 AM
What are the new diseases we are vaccinating for before 18 months? I just read the list and it looks like basically the same to me.
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 7:22 AM
Mse, I'm not disputing herd immunity, nor do I want to stop vaccinating. I want it explained why, after decades of building up this herd immunity, where our children are rarely, if ever, are exposed to these diseases, we are required to give them MORE shots than ever. That makes no sense.
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 7:26 AM
This is long, but it's from my friend in Canada...
"People should be suspicious of vaccines, not just for autism. To begin with, science does not know exactly how the immune system functions, yet vaccines try to manipulate the immune system and also, to work, they are designed to create an assault on the immune system.
Vaccinations are also a multibillion dollar industry without a watchdog in place. The pharmaceutical companies are allowed to self-regulate and show their own biased studies to license and sell their products. I don't know of ANY business that is allowed to self-regulate this way, and when they have so much money at stake, why would they be honest and put life before profit? Especially since science does have (and the vaccine industry admits) they have what they term "acceptable losses" all for the greater good.
If you carefully research any vaccine study, you will see they are biased. People who have bad reactions, etc, will be dismissed from studies and then not counted in the final tally. People will be carefully chosen for studies which exclude anyone with underlying medical conditions, yet vaccines are pushed on everyone, especially people with underlying medical conditions, such as diabetes, etc.
The NVICP National vaccine injury compensation program was created in order to pay out people who have died or suffered severe damage from vaccines. It has paid out billions of dollars in the past 2 decades since its inception, including autism cases, so they have accepted that this is medically and scientifically possible, despite the fact medicine denies the connection. The law of USA agrees that vaccines can cause or provoke autism.
The NVICP was created to shield pharmaceutical companies from liability because the lawsuits in the 1980's almost bankrupted the pharmaceutical companies so the government had to jump in and bail them out. Now all vaccine injury cases, including autism are handled through this process that keeps the cases out of the courts and conveniently out of the public eye.
According to research from Northeastern University pharmacy professor Richard Deth and colleagues from the University of Nebraska, Tufts, and Johns Hopkins University, there is an apparent link between exposure to certain neurodevelopmental toxins and an increased possibility of developing neurological disorders including autism and attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder. The research - the first to offer an explanation for possible causes of two increasingly common childhood neurological disorders - is published in the April 2004 issue
of the journal Molecular Psychiatry.
Though some speculation exists regarding this link, Deth and his colleagues found that exposure to toxins, such as ethanol and heavy metals (including lead, aluminum and the ethylmercury-containing preservative thimerosal) potently interrupt growth factor signaling, causing adverse effects on methylation reactions (i.e. the transfer of carbon atoms). Methylation, in turn, plays a significant role in regulating normal DNA function and gene expression, and is critical to proper neurological development in infants and children. Scientists and practitioners have identified an increase in diagnoses of autism and ADHD in particular, though the reasons why are largely unknown."
Paper in full at this link:
http://www.facebook.com/l/9cdd2DWpzQrYMcf1Ym6I7YqCz3g;www.nupr.neu.edu/2-04/deth_article.pdf
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 9:03 AM
I'm sorry your child had an adverse reaction, but basically what you are saying is that instead of going with what has been proven safe for 98% of the population and getting my child vaccinated in 1 dose, I should instead hold back, because of that 2% possibility. This increases the child's risk of being infected before the vaccine is administered (low, I know, but possible) --kat
Actually, I have never told or recommended that anyone do anything except not be a sheep and be fully informed.
Vaccines are a numbers game. Most vaccines are probably safe for most people. The small percentage of people that have adverse reactions are still probably better off than had they caught the disease. The population at large, for the most part, benefits greatly.
My personal opinion is that if you blindly go along and vaccinate your child according to some chart printed out on the Doctor's wall without ever asking some questions, you are a fool.
Why does my child need this? Why do they need it now? What are the risks? What are the benefits? How bad is the actual disease? What kind of immunity does the shot give? What other options are available?
How many parents bother to ask? Or to look farther than that poster on the Doctor's wall?
LauraGr at January 13, 2011 10:18 AM
My child is (mostly) vaccinated. But I asked a ton of questions and I did delay because no doctor or researcher could answer one of them: If the recommended age for a vaccine is, say, one year, and the average weight of a one year old is 22 pounds, how can you recommend the same vaccination cocktail for my incredibly teeny baby who is literally a third less the weight than she should be? I simply could not and do not accept that the same mix of shots was fit for my 16-pounder (at one year). How can these things be one size fits all when every child's over-the-counter medicine bottle takes weight into account for dosage?
And, really, what's the hurry that so many have to be done in a single shot in a single day? I paid extra to have them split apart, and at least that gave me some way of monitoring the reaction.
elementary at January 13, 2011 11:52 AM
If you're asking why we get more shots for the same disease than we used to, they've done studies on how many exposures the average person needs to build up the best resistance and whether smaller more exposures is better than one whopping one. If you were asking why more diseases have shots, it's because vaccinating is easier and safer than treating, so they are always looking for new vaccines.
elementary-tylenol et all has weight ranges of about 10 lbs for doses. My 18 month old and 3.5 year old take the same dose. These things aren't necessary to titrate to the ounce.
momof4 at January 13, 2011 1:20 PM
"To begin with, science does not know exactly how the immune system functions, yet vaccines try to manipulate the immune system and also, to work, they are designed to create an assault on the immune system."
That's the most idiotic thing I've read on here yet, so I stopped right here at sentence one. Vaccines don't TRY to manipulate the system-they expose you to something, you build resistance. We typically use dead or deactivated forms of the virus, because then you can't actually catch it, but the exterior of the virus and it's bonding shape is the same, so your body recognizes it when it sees live ones later, and already has the cells ready to go to kill it. Just like when you get the disease, but without the crappy being-sick part. The immune system is quite well understood. I can lend her my college text if she needs some reading material-I'll even ship it to canada no charge. And, the immune system handles literally millions of assaults A DAY-everything from cancer cells (yes, your body is nearly constantly developing cancer, and your immune system kills those cells before they can grow) to pollen to bacteria and virus's to smog and dirt. Millions. A day. It's designed to. You probably fight off 2 or 3 actual diseases a day without ever knowing. 2 or 3 or even 5 or 6 vacs is nothing to your body. Nothing. at. all.
momof4 at January 13, 2011 1:31 PM
Well, Kat gave you all some studies, and if you could actually recognize what a valid study was vs. an emotional longing, you'd be done.
But it's more important to be right than to do more research.
I especially like the "without a watchdog in place".
Fear! FEAR THIS! Aaaaaahhhhh!
Radwaste at January 13, 2011 2:31 PM
You know why we still vaccinate for polio, cause its still around.
I knew a guy who had it as a kid, he was my 8th grade shop teacher. He is a carrier of the disease for life. Every time his immune system has to fight againt things like the cold, or the flu, the polio virus has a chance to increase production in his body.
That is true of everyone with the disease.
You recall how many dozens of ecoli recalls there have been in the last few years? Imagine the effect if those had been polio recalls, it transmitts the same way.
Then consider how many people who were innoculated acctually contracted the disease. A good innoculation may have prevented them from suffering the effects of the diease but it doesnt gaurentee that they will never be a carrier of an active infectous virus
lujlp at January 13, 2011 2:34 PM
Vaccines aren't just dead viruses or cells being encountered by our bodies, as they might be naturally. Vaccines are combined with preservatives, which contain "lead, aluminum and the ethylmercury-containing preservative thimerosal". That is why they stopped using thimerosal suddenly around 2000, out of concern for the mercury content, although the government claims it had caused no problems up to that point (after millions of kids had already been injected with it).
I also don't buy your theory about why the number of shots nearly tripled over the past few decades. It wasn't broke, so why fix it?
The more plausible theory is more likely what my friend states:
"The pharmaceutical companies make TONS of money from vaccines. It is a VERY profitable part of their business, other than drugs. It is SO profitable that they actually get government patent protection so that they can be the only maker of specific vaccines for a guaranteed number of years.
The pharmaceutical companies in return make large financial donations to the medical schools, to doctors directly with incentive programs for them to maintain high vaccination percents with their patients, and also hospitals get huge grants from pharma companies.
Essentially, the pharma companies pay for a huge portion of health services, which saves the government and insurance companies a lot of money.
Pharma companies have to publish their profits each year, so you can access their total revenue from vaccines online. The United States has the largest pharmaceutical industry in the world. In 2007, its pharmaceutical revenue totaled $315 billion.
Anyway, I'm not a huge conspiracy theory person. Vaccines make money for pharma; pharma helps government pay for healthcare, research, doctor education, and lets face it, they make some darn necessary drugs that save lives. So they are not all EVIL, but they are money-driven and flawed businesses that probably have more power than is healthy for people like us. You know what they say about absolute power. The pharma companies and governments need to protect their system because it is the only system we have. No matter how broken it may be in some areas, it works in other areas. For every study that shows autism is caused by vaccines, there is a study that shows the opposite.
The pharma companies have been caught paying doctors to write favorable drug articles in the medical journals to promote specific drugs, (called ghost writers) stamped with a real doctor's name. Doctors have been known to work for both pharma companies as well as the FDA, and they merely state they have a conflict of interest at the beginning of the meetings and carry on as if that doesn't matter. Doctors are being given trips and money and rewards to push specific drugs or maintain levels of vaccines in their patients. If a certain number of people die or get hurt from drugs or vaccines, they call it acceptable losses. In fact, they know there will be losses but they decide the perceived benefit is worth it. Unfortunately, they are not always right. It is not a perfect world, but there is no one person out there trying to hurt people. It just happens, and we can pretend it doesn't happen, or we can educate ourselves and make informed choices for our own families."
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 3:00 PM
Read the studies that I linked. They address everything from Thimerosol to delayed vaccination, to why we vaccinate, to what these diseases look like and are capable of because people have obviously forgotten.
I have had 25 years to study, read, talk to doctors, attend talks on this and other related topics. The National SIDS Foundation sponsors a lot of great research and education for medical personel and parents.
Let me say that again in case LS has her hearing aid turned down.
I, personally, researched and studied and learned about this, starting 25 years ago when my son died. Not like you, ls, who keeps throwing junk science facebook links at us. I went to real, honest medical sources and got real data, not 'my friend says'.
So STFU, you are making my eyes bleed.
Kat at January 13, 2011 4:00 PM
I'm curious why you did, Kat, if your son didn't have any shots. My friend has also researched this for years, but she obviously did so because her daughter died after being vaccinated.
I think it's clear that this is a very polarizing topic. It depends on whether you believe the government studies - or any studies -are wholly unbiased, and that the pharma companies can be trusted when they say the vaccines are safe.
But this has NOTHING...and I'll repeat NOTHING...to do with forgetting what these diseases do! My birth mother had polio as a child, and she died recently from post polio syndrome. I've repeated my position SO many times here, yet you and others keep acting as if I'm suggesting not to vaccinate.
Nobody offers any plausible explanation why we needed to TRIPLE the doses of these vaccines...at earlier ages...when we have already spent decades building up herd immunity and decreasing the prevalence and exposure to these diseases.
Polio only exists now in 4 countries - Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. So, why do we need to vaccinate all US children for it before the age of two? What is the rush? Why can't we wait until age 4 or 5? You and momof4 can't answer that because you know it makes no sense.
First, momof4 said we had more shots because we've discovered more diseases, but that's not true. If we were talking about some newly discovered threats, it would be different, but these are mostly the same diseases you and I were vaccinated for decades ago. If anything, our generation should've been vaccinated earlier because our exposure was arguably much more likely. Yet, that's not what's happened - quite the opposite. In fact, as the threat of exposure decreased, the number of shots required more than tripled and were recommended at earlier ages.
Even if there weren't concerns about autism or ADHD, it still doesn't seem prudent to dump so many preservatives into children younger than two when their risk of exposure is so low. We simply do not need to vaccinate so much so early for most of these diseases.
The prudent parents here, like LauraGR, understand that. They're not anti-vaccine, but they're asking the right questions, not just blindly following the government guidelines, which are designed to benefit the drug companies, not our children.
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 4:44 PM
lovelysoul did you not read my post? You just said your mother had polio, that means every time she came over to your house there was a posibbility of her transmitting it to you, or your kids.
There are people who still have the polio virus in their system alive and moving around in public capable of tramsmitting the disease to others.
lujlp at January 13, 2011 5:06 PM
I don't believe that's correct, Luj. She recovered from polio, after being in an iron lung in childhood. As an adult, she was a smoker, which damaged her already weakened lungs even more. They're discovering now that polio survivors often experience post polio syndrome in old age. She had difficulty walking and breathing again, which led to her death. But she was not contagious with polio.
"A person who is infected can spread polio about 7-10 days before symptoms begin. A person can continue to spread the disease for about three to six weeks after the beginning of symptoms. However, a person is most contagious for the 7-10 days after symptoms have begun."
lovelysoul at January 13, 2011 5:28 PM
LS, you name it, someone makes money off it. Or do you rent your trailers for free?
"It wasn't broke, so why fix it?"
Are you insane? Medicine is moving at a lightning pace. Every discovery and advance we make, makes it possible to do new things-it is rightly a hockey stick curve. Or would you rather be amish? I"m not blind any more than LauraG. My pedi has no issue giving me a script "just in case" or telling me the bigger dose I can use on an OTC med for my kids, because she knows I"m not an idiot and will only do what is needed. And catching my kid turning blue because pertussis is making her unable to breathe (through some miracle-sorry Amy, but science can't say how I heard my kid gasping from a floor down, with a closed door between me and her, and the TV on and 3 adults talking) and having to speed her to the hospital 2 miles away because the ambulance wouldn't make it in time is NOT what's best for MY kid. I'd rather-MUCH rather-them be asbergers or autistic, and I know enough kids of each to know what I'm saying.
"If a certain number of people die or get hurt from drugs or vaccines, they call it acceptable losses. In fact, they know there will be losses but they decide the perceived benefit is worth it. Unfortunately, they are not always right"
Except they are. I'd be devastated beyond my ability or desire to understand if I lost my child for any reason, vaccine reaction included. But that doesn't mean I think my kids should be able to risk illness or infecting others who maybe CAN'T get vac'd or fight off an infection. When looking at societal health, one does have to look at the numbers. And the numbers are vaccines win. Every time. If you could bring back my great-grandmother's generation, they would think (rather rightly I must say) you were insane and needed to be locked up for your own kid's safety. Of course, they only know what it's like to routinely lose siblings and friends to these diseases.
"Polio only exists now in 4 countries - Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. So, why do we need to vaccinate all US children for it before the age of two? What is the rush? Why can't we wait until age 4 or 5? You and momof4 can't answer that because you know it makes no sense."
Do you not understand the concept of planes? Worldwide travel? That someone can be sick or carrying and not know it and infect any number of people less than 12 hours after leaving one of those countries? You live in florida, that's a prime spot for foreign-born illness for christsake.
"First, momof4 said we had more shots because we've discovered more diseases, but that's not true."
No I didn't, and this seems to be the level of cognition you are bringing to this subject. I said we'd developed the ability to vaccinate for new ones. As in, ones we couldn't vaccinate for before, not ones we didn't know about before. I'm pretty sure chicken pox has been widely known for some time. I also addressed the dose issue, feel free to research it and get back to me if you find me in error somewhere other than "your friend" with a dismaying inability to think.
momof4 at January 13, 2011 8:59 PM
Autism is this decade's ADD. It is hugely, enormously over-diagnosed to the point where I'd say only about 1 out of 10 diagnoses are legitimate. If you pick anyone between the ages of 5 and 15 at random off the street, you can take them to a diagnostic center, tell the center directors that you have complaints about their behavior, and the center will diagnose them as autistic. This happens because it provides parents with a convenient excuse, and it provides school districts with more of that federal moolah.
A few random points:
* I contracted both chicken pox and mumps prior to the age of 4, and before I was ever exposed to a school or day care environment.
* My mom had whooping cough at the age of 3, again before she was ever exposed to a school environment.
* Our grandson is severely autistic (non-communicative and unable to feed, clothe, or bathe himself). His symptoms appeared within days of birth, well before he ever received any vaccine. Expensive rounds of tests a couple of years ago revealed that that is condition is genetic -- his fate was sealed at conception. His mother was the carrier for the genetic defect that got him; she has been tested and advised not to have any more children.
* Polio has not been totally eradicated in the United States. There was an outbreak among an (unvaccinated) Amish community in Minnesota in 2005.
Cousin Dave at January 13, 2011 10:21 PM
how prevalent is the disease? the polio virus, for example, in this country is just as widespread as it ever was. but we don't see it. BECAUSE WE'VE - MOSTLY - BEEN VACCINATED. i could explain why this is true, but you don't care. you like your gut. increase the number of unvaccinated people and we'll see it again. and then it will mutate in those unvaccinated people that catch it first. and then it will spread to those of us who were previously immune. thanks.
and lovelysoul you keep talking about how it's just not "necessary" to immunize children "so young". prove it. it's been stated several times that it's precisely those very young children that MOST NEED THE VACCINE - because they are incapable of fighting the disease (which, actually, is still around, not "eradicated", as people tend to believe when no one they know actually has had it). and really? you're going to keep your kids - and yourself - completely, 100% isolated from the rest of the world, entirely, until your kid is "old enough"? and when will that be, exactly? because exposure happens in the grocery store. it happens on the playground. it happens in your own backyard. at your kid's cousin's house. everywhere. so good luck with that.
by the way, how are you going to feel then if your kid, despite low odds, dies of measles? "well, it was such low odds....."
and your friend's kid died. sorry for her loss, really, but it doesn't prove a damn thing. it also doesn't make her an expert in ANYTHING other than how it feels to lose a child. listen to some medical professionals - i am one, by the way - who actually know what we're talking about, because you know what? we're not conspiring to kill your kids. i know, it's quite a newsflash, tell your neighbors.
miki at January 13, 2011 11:55 PM
Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that they invent an HIV vaccine soon. HIV leads to AIDS, which is a deadly disease. So, should we vaccinate every 2 month old for it?
In the manner some of you are reasoning this, the answer would be yes. After all, a 2 month old could be molested by an uncle or family member who might be HIV positive.
In fact, why wait for 2 months? There are so many molesters out there, he/she could be molested on the way home from the hospital! Better do it at birth.
That may seem rational to you, but it's seems like an extreme overreaction to the many of us.
"I'd rather-MUCH rather-them be asbergers or autistic, and I know enough kids of each to know what I'm saying."
How about neither? Dead or autistic. You seem to be acknowledging the autism connection, like, "Dammit, I'm gonna vaccinate more and often, even if it makes my kids autistic!"
Autism is surely genetic, and there are obviously kids. like Dave's grandson, who would've been severely impaired anyway. The question is what are the vaccines doing to some kids with this genetic susceptability? Are vaccines making some neurological conditions worse?
We always had Aspergers. We called those kids geeks. But, now, almost every school has a special ed class filled with kids who are severely impaired with autism.
Where were those kids 30 or 40 yrs ago? Were they all institutionalized, or kept at home? I'm honestly asking because they weren't at my school.
In fact, research doesn't even seem to be able to tell us whether there are more autistic kids, much less, if there are, what is causing it. So, we kind of all have to use our gut on this.
I personally suspect there are a greater number of truly neurologically impaired kids today. It's just a guess, but I'm around kids and at school a lot. ADHD may be overdiagnosed. We just called those kids "hyper", in my day. But now, we seem to have kids who are beyond hyper and totally unable to concentrate.
Is this environmental, gestational, food dyes...allergies...what????
Some of you don't seem to believe there's even a problem, and I suppose if you feel that way, you'd have no motivation to look for causes.
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 7:42 AM
Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that they invent an HIV vaccine soon. HIV leads to AIDS, which is a deadly disease. So, should we vaccinate every 2 month old for it?
It would seem reasonable to vaccinate at around the time doctors are recommending HPV vaccines -- preteen years. I haven't heard any doctors recommending HPV vaccines for babies. Since HIV is largely a sexually transmitted disease, 9-13 is a good range.
Where were those kids 30 or 40 yrs ago? Were they all institutionalized, or kept at home? I'm honestly asking because they weren't at my school.
The severely disabled kids, like my nephew, who is 25 with the cognitive function of an 18-month-old, stayed at home. Or died from whatever it was that caused their problem. The kids who were functional but not normal went to their own special school, like my nephew does now. The schools have become more integrated, with special ed classes in average schools for the kid who can't function on a normal level. I have a friend who went out of her way to have her kid diagnosed autistic because the kid was a little slow and she wanted her to have the extra help.
Is this environmental, gestational, food dyes...allergies...what????
Could be all those things, could be none of those things, could be one of those things. Why settle on vaccines? Why not provide an all-organic diet of nothing but raw foods you prepared from your garden? Why not eliminate video games and TV and all the things that could be likely to contribute to a lack of attention span? Is it because harshing on vaccines is way easier?
Some of you don't seem to believe there's even a problem, and I suppose if you feel that way, you'd have no motivation to look for causes.
You seem to think you have found the cause, which leads to the same end.
In fact, research doesn't even seem to be able to tell us whether there are more autistic kids, much less, if there are, what is causing it.
Then why worry so much about autism if there's no evidence it's even a bigger problem than it was? Why put kids at risk of contracting diseases we know are problems to protect them from something you fear might be a problem?
I personally suspect ... It's just a guess,
This is the problem. As humans, our "gut feelings" are dirty, filthy liars.
MonicaP at January 14, 2011 8:28 AM
LS, do you even understand the nature of reporting networks?
The same mechanism that makes a bar singer like Ke$ha a millionaire reports every little cough and sneeze.
Further: do you think that genetic diversity means fewer cases of {insert affliction here} as the population goes up?
While you should not take someone's word that a thing is true ("There is no link between autism and vaccinations"), you should recognize that professionals with the tools and motivation to investigate this and support their findings have produced this statement.
How does your own level of expertise measure up?
This is not an appeal to authority. It is a call for you to look at data, not fearmongering, and make the call based on data, like trained investigators do.
No, we do NOT "kind of all have to use our gut on this." That's just what you want to do.
That's not so lovely. You're retreating into absurdity. That's my sign that either you know your position is untenable or you're prepared to reject anything that is counter to your preconceptions out-of-hand.
Want to go with a gut feeling? What do you get when you see this?: Where vaccination rates drop, outbreaks of disease are occurring.
-----
This issue is really, really simple.
Monitor the health of your infant. Understand the differences in general health and the capabilities of your child vs. that of others. Put away the rose-colored glasses; not every kid is going to be a winner all the time. Ask the pediatrician about the differences between your child and the models she's using in recommendation. Your kid will be strong against some things and weak vs. others.
And remember that the price of being unique is a different susceptibility to disease. There are some diseases that your youngster will flatly not survive. If you live in a community where travel is common and you don't vaccinate, prepare for severe illness at your house, and to see that you have brought it to others.
Medicine, while fraught with opinions about the significance of this or that, is still a physical science. The bug given the opportunity to grow on your child's tender flesh doesn't care about your family. You cannot protect against all of them, you should protect against most of them, and that's what vaccination does.
And it works. Note the period?
Radwaste at January 14, 2011 8:55 AM
"Then why worry so much about autism if there's no evidence it's even a bigger problem than it was? Why put kids at risk of contracting diseases we know are problems to protect them from something you fear might be a problem?"
Because I believe it is a problem. My son does have Aspergers, and at least two of my friend's sons have low functioning autism. The odds of that seem high. Yet, I was the parent who went unquestioning to the pediatrician at 2 or 3 months and had all the recommended shots, and now, that seems rather stupid...that I didn't even ask questions before having my tiny son loaded down with Thimerasol, which has been pulled from the market. 24 shots in under 2 yrs.
I will never know whether this caused his condition to be worse than it might've otherwise been, or if it had no effect at all. But neither do you or anyone else. I certainly don't expect the government to come out and admit that it did.
All I'm suggesting is that parents not be unquestioning sheep when it comes to what we inject into our kid's bodies. That's not an extreme position.
Those of us with kids on the Autism spectrum certainly like to tell ourselves that it would've happened anyway, and that's quite comforting. Doesn't make it true though. I'm just being honest about my doubts. I'm concerned that vaccinating him so early with so much wasn't a wise move.
What's disturbing to me is that it seems that even if a link WAS proven between autism and vaccines, many here would still opt to vaccinate on the same schedule. They'd rather risk autism than chicken pox or polio, even though the risk is low.
If the government came out right now and said what many parents suspect - that there is a link between these preservatives in vaccines and increased severity of neurological disorders in some children, would you still go for all 24 of those shots or would you demand the government find out how much is too much and when to give certain vaccines so that they would be safer?
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 9:26 AM
"While you should not take someone's word that a thing is true ("There is no link between autism and vaccinations"), you should recognize that professionals with the tools and motivation to investigate this and support their findings have produced this statement."
I do not trust that all this research is unbiased. The liability would be huge - billions upon billions of dollars. When there's that much money on the line, does anyone really believe the pharma companies are above paying for professionals with the tools to make them look innocent? They've already been caught doing this, time and again, with drugs. But I guess you believe all that research too.
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 9:34 AM
Thimerosol has been removed from children's vaccines. Except when it hasn't. Like the rush-to-market Swine flu vaccine. You gotta read the fine print.
LauraGr at January 14, 2011 9:45 AM
If the government came out right now and said what many parents suspect - that there is a link between these preservatives in vaccines and increased severity of neurological disorders in some children, would you still go for all 24 of those shots or would you demand the government find out how much is too much and when to give certain vaccines so that they would be safer?
None of this is relevant because there is no proven link between autism and vaccines. Fantasizing that there is isn't a useful exercise. I would accept any new data presented, but my personal feelings on the matter do not count as data. It's like saying, "What if there's a link between autism and candy corn? Would you still give your kid candy corn?" Who cares, since there isn't.
Why I find disturbing is that intelligent, well-educated people like LS have gotten so stuck in the "government is evil and out to kill your babies" mentality that they are putting their own kids (and everyone else) at risk.
It's easy to fall into psychosis on this. The government is lying to us! Scientists are lying to us! Lies everywhere! If you seriously believe this is likely, then there's no way in good conscience you could allow your children to use or consume anything you did not make with your own hands, with ingredients you did not make yourself. I mean, any business could be bribing government officials to OK any product at all. The chair you are sitting on now could be giving you ass cancer.
We can all be absurd if we take it far enough.
MonicaP at January 14, 2011 9:49 AM
I doubt very much the incidence of autism has gone up. I just think they're more aware of it, and are diagnosing it more, just as with a thousand other conditions like ADD. (And as someone pointed out, they're likely over-diagnosing it because people are so damn paranoid about it.) I also don't recall tons kids being *diagnosed* with those conditions when I was a kid. But I can easily think of a bunch of "weird," "hyper" or "intense" kids that probably would be diagnosed with autism or ADD today.
The only research connecting autism and vaccines was proven to be a fraud, and the other "evidence" is beyond anecdotal. I had tea for breakfast this morning when I usually have coffee. Now I'm sneezing and I think I'm coming down with a cold. Are the two connected? Um, no. They happened to occur at the same time.
Yeah, some parents are apparently still worried. But for what it's worth (if we're going to get anecdotal here), I know several scientists and doctors who are also parents, including my sister-in-law. ALL of them are having their own kids vaccinated on the regular schedule.
Gail at January 14, 2011 9:56 AM
I cannot believe how much trust there is here for big pharma. What part of they've already been CAUGHT lying and paying for doctors and studies doesn't get through? This isn't an industry that has a track record for honesty. I hardly think it's absurd to be wary of their claims.
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 9:58 AM
"I also don't recall tons kids being *diagnosed* with those conditions when I was a kid. But I can easily think of a bunch of "weird," "hyper" or "intense" kids that probably would be diagnosed with autism or ADD today."
I agree that ADD is way overdiagnosed. And perhaps Aspergers was just not recognized. But I never even knew of a kid with severe or low-functioning autism growing up. Maybe they were all in institutions, but you'd think that I would've had some family members or friends with the condition if it was as prevalent as it seems today. I come from a big family.
My brother was mentally retarded. He was integrated into regular school. So was a cousin with Down's Syndrome. Where were all the low-functioning autistic kids? It's a mystery...unless it's not. Unless there just weren't as many.
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 10:06 AM
You can say that about just about every industry. There are mistakes and crooks everywhere you go.
The fact is, overall vaccines and modern medicine generally have saved millions of lives and extended our life expectancy and the quality of our lives.
With all due respect, my biologist and doctor friends know much more about this than you do (or I do), and are far more qualified to assess the data. Are they vaccinating their own babies as part of some huge Big Pharma plot to make millions? No. They're doing it because they believe it's the safest, most sensible thing to do.
Gail at January 14, 2011 10:09 AM
"I do not trust that all this research is unbiased."
Yes, there is a worldwide conspiracy to contaminate kids for money. Never mind that the employees, board members, etc of these companies vaccinate their kids at higher rates than the US as a whole, as do doctors.
DO you really think drug companies WANT to be sued by millions? Phen-fen, accutane, celebrex...these drugs are costing those companies billions right now. They ARE motivated by self-interest, and the US has more than enough lawyers to see to it that they are punished in the pocketbook if they make a mistake. I can assure you, they do everything they can to NOT make them. It just doesn't make financial sense to the company, setting aside the fact that these companies are run by humans, who as a whole have a particularly strong abhorance to misusing kids.
momof4 at January 14, 2011 10:33 AM
No, M4, I don't believe the pharmaceutical companies want to be sued. But they makes mistakes, and I don't expect them to be too forthcoming when they do. They haven't shown that. It usually takes pressure, much of it inspired when victims find each other and organize.
They'd rather quietly try to fix the problem, as they may have done by removing Thimerosal. They're not going to announce that they screwed up a whole generation of kids. Nor would every employee know about that either. They keep it out of the courts and the public eye, as they have done, quietly paying out billions in damages.
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 10:46 AM
Of course if your child is the one who happens to get the rare disease it is terrible... but if the odds are very low, that should be taken into account.
Just like it would suck if your kid was the one who got kidnapped walking to school. Does that mean kids shouldn't walk to school?
I'll be vaccinating, myself, but not against everything. I will be doing Tetanus and Polio, definitely, for example.
However I do think pros and cons need to be weighed, for each vaccine as an individual.
NicoleK at January 14, 2011 11:24 AM
"I do not trust that all this research is unbiased."
Not what I said. In fact, I showed you how to discard the junk. Don't be dismayed that you're now repeating some of that junk. That happens when you don't take the effort to study the issue.
Now - how many times must you be told before you get it? Vaccines work. Period.
If you don't vaccinate, and someone in your family gets sick, you have reaped what you've sown.
This is not changed one whit by any belief you might have about the ethics of drug companies.
Drug company profits? Off-topic. Irrelevent.
Vaccines work. Period.
And, given that so much travel goes on today, you personally are probably alive because of it.
I've told you what has to happen for you to protect your family. It's not complicated if you can simply throw the hyperbole away and be logical.
Radwaste at January 14, 2011 2:33 PM
"I've told you what has to happen for you to protect your family. It's not complicated if you can simply throw the hyperbole away and be logical."
Again, you're misrepresenting or misunderstand my position. My kids ARE vaccinated. I'm not against vaccinating them. My only regret is doing it so early, without question. We were not traveling when my son was a baby. Nor did we live around anyone from Nigeria, India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. I don't believe he needed 24 shots in 18 months. I wish I had been more like LauraGr and Nicolek, asking questions about the risks/benefits and which shots were really necessary to start giving at that young age. I wish I had waited a little bit and insisted on single doses. My son got the fullest doses of mercury-laden Thimerosal.
I was just reading about the little girl, Christina Green, who was shot in Tucson, and HER brother is autistic. The article said because of his autism, he doesn't really understand that she is gone, so it's not a mild case.
Too many of our boys, particularly, are autistic. There is something wrong. I'm sorry you all have your heads in the sand and think it's only overdiagnosis. But I've gone from knowing no one who was autistic to seeing autistic children all over. And, until we understand what is really causing this increase, I think parents should be cautious about anything they inject into their kids, especially boys, who seem most susceptable.
You still need to vaccinate, but you can do it in a smarter, slower manner. Assaulting a tiny infant's immune system with preservatives is just plain stupid and unnecessary.
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 3:05 PM
You don't need to go to India or Afghanistan, or for that matter, know anyone who has. You just need to be behind me in the grocery store after I've come back from India, or near one of our many servicemen coming back from Afghanistan or Pakistan.
A doctor friend told me yesterday that the increased diagnosis of autism has gone hand in hand with a corresponding decrease in the diagnosis of other developmental problems. Some experts believe it's simply a case of giving a different diagnosis to the same problems. (I'm sure someone can come up with a better link for this, but here's an interesting article in the meantime. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on/article_view?b_start:int=2 )
But let's say for argument's sake there really is an increase in autism (not just an increased diagnosis of it). There's not a thing -- nada, nothing, zilch -- to connect it to vaccines except one discredited, fraudulent study. Some parents noticed symptoms symptoms around the same times their babies are vaccinated? But that's not surprising at all -- the time babies get vaccines also happens to be the time of life when the first symptoms of autism manifest themselves.
I switched jobs at age 41. Soon thereafter, I started noticing I needed bifocals when I previously had perfect vision. Did my new job cause my eyes to go? Um, no. That's around the time of life when most people start needing bifocals. Actually, the change in vision comes around the same time as periomenopause for a lot of women. And probably coincides with the onset of erectile disfunction in men. Does that mean one causes the other?
So (since we're assuming an increase in autism for the sake of argument), what else could be causing it? Maybe it's all the increased wireless signals in the air for internet and cell phone. Why not? Those weren't around twenty years ago. Or maybe our increased use of plastics is mutating our genes. A new virus we haven't identified yet. Microwave ovens. Global warming. A lot of stuff has changed, increased, or decreased over the last decade or two. So why attribute autism to vaccines, other than that one discredited study?
Most babies are vaccinated. Few are autistic. If vaccination causes it, why are most kids fine? I'll bet there are kids who are in the "vaccine exempt" group who are autistic, too. So what happened to them?
Gail at January 14, 2011 3:52 PM
And what's one thing we know for sure? Vaccines prevent diseases. Diseases that are still around. Diseases that can still kill or make you very sick.
Gail at January 14, 2011 3:55 PM
"Autism is surely genetic, and there are obviously kids. like Dave's grandson, who would've been severely impaired anyway. The question is what are the vaccines doing to some kids with this genetic susceptability? Are vaccines making some neurological conditions worse?"
Thanks for the concern, LS. In our particular case, the answer to your question is no. As it's been explained to us, our grandson's body is incapable of producing a protein that is necessary in order for the cerebral cortex cells to develop. Without it, the cells remain in an immature, non-functional state.
I can think of a couple of guys I went to school with who would have perhaps been diagnosed with Asperger's if that diagnosis had existed then. Our colloquial diagnosis for them was "spazz".
Cousin Dave at January 14, 2011 4:28 PM
"...Our colloquial diagnosis for them was 'spazz.'"
I feel a little bad about it, but that comment made me spurt coffee out of my nose. (I also agree with it.)
Gail at January 14, 2011 4:45 PM
That's right, Dave. I think the incusion of Aspergers as part of the Autism spectrum has confused things greatly. There seems to be no breakdown within the increased diagnosis of how many are Aspergers and how many are cases of more severe Autism, like your grandson.
As I said, I never knew or heard of a kid with low functioning autism-like symptoms growing up. Yet, like you, I knew several kids (and adults) who would probably be diagnosed with Aspergers today.
Here's a Slate article showing a connection with TV viewing and autism rates:
http://www.slate.com/id/2151538
Gail, your article was interesting. I like how they share the blame a bit. This isn't just about crazy parents deciding to reject vaccines. The medical establishment and the pharma companies have played a role in creating this situation too.
They drastically increased the vaccination scheduling, even while the prevalence of most of these diseases had been drastically reduced. They added in things like Hepatitus vaccines, which were questionable for babies. Were they really needed so early? Were toddlers going to be sharing needles?
All this they did not explain. Why, in a time of reduced illnesses and exposure did we need to triple the number of vaccine doses given to infants? This lead the public to view the whole thing as purely profit-driven and lose faith in the process. Add to that the abrupt removal of Thimerosal and it seemed like there was something to hide.
Thimerosal may not be the smoking gun. Maybe it's aluminum or some other component. Or maybe it's TV or other environmental factors. They've studied identical twins, and if one has autism, the other is very likely to...but it's not 100% so obviously, in some cases, genes are not the only trigger.
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 4:56 PM
Also, as the article says, the Amish have very low autism rates...but they also don't watch TV, or vaccinate, or eat artifically dyed, processed food.
lovelysoul at January 14, 2011 5:06 PM
And of course, the Amish are a very contained gene pool. That's why they are way more subject to certain diseases that are quite rare in the general population. See, e.g., http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/60II/main700519.shtml
Gail at January 14, 2011 5:13 PM
And of course, people have started having children later in recent year (probably less true among the Amish). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41028118 The article I've attached only mentions older mothers, but I am certain I recently (in the last year) saw an article linking older fathers to an increased incidence of autism, too.
Gail at January 14, 2011 5:29 PM
Yup, I did see such an article about older fathers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5313874.stm
Gail at January 14, 2011 5:30 PM
See also this (saying that many Amish do vaccinate, and that they may simply not identify autism as often as we do). http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm
Gail at January 14, 2011 5:33 PM
Moreover, the Amish population in the United States is quite small -- about 200,000, more or less, according to Wikipedia. I'm not sure how many conclusions you can draw from a pool that size, even taking aside the question of whether they are diagnosing them differently and the fact that they come from a quite unique gene pool and a very different lifestyle.
Gail at January 14, 2011 5:50 PM
"We were not traveling when my son was a baby.".
Gross conceptual error. If the population around you travels, you don't have to move a muscle. They'll bring disease to you. Or, if you're not vaccinated, your lack of herd immunity can bring disease to another unvaccinated soul moving near you.
"I'm sorry you all have your heads in the sand and think it's only overdiagnosis. But I've gone from knowing no one who was autistic to seeing autistic children all over."
See what I mean about your lack of logic?
If the number of cases is large, so is the opportunity to find correlation. There is no correlation between vaccination and autism.
So, look for something else. Just like the medical profession is doing. Do you really think you're the only person who sees autistic children? The only one who has an interest in finding out why they are afflicted?
Your citations indicate you have no idea how to isolate a causal element. I'm sorry, but I don't have a reference you can use to learn how.
And when the champion of the antivax movement is a seriously offensive liar clearly working for personal gain, what kind of thinking is it that points at the other side and claims shady deals are going on?
Radwaste at January 15, 2011 6:47 PM
hey LS - did it ever occur to you to wonder WHY the incidence of, for example, polio, is low? IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE VACCINATED. the more people who are not vaccinated, the more incidence we will see. and your example of the HIV vaccine is ludicrous. HIV is not spread through the air, measles are. therefore - the baby is not at risk for HIV. but he is at risk for measles. whether or not you've been traveling. vaccines. do. not. cause. autism. this has been proven REPEATEDLY, by more than one study, by more than one agency, and there has NEVER been any evidence otherwise. just something that makes parents think they have something concrete to blame. which makes them feel better. so, for all those people you successfully convince to not vaccinate their children properly - thanks. thanks for putting 100s of other babies at risk. thanks for putting me at risk. thanks for risking an epidemic of diseases we should all be protected against. i really appreciate it. job security, and all. which is WAY better without vaccines than with them, by the way.
miki at January 18, 2011 2:20 AM
Leave a comment