Vaccine related autism study?

[billvon]

I apologize if this has been asked in your thread, but are you personal about this issue? Meaning if you had kids, would you have them vaccinated?

From his first post - "I'm fully on board with getting kids vaccinated" - but that was almost a week ago.

 

[Magical Realist]

Apparently Magical Realist is afraid of addressing science again.

Lemme guess, still haven't found the ten minutes to watch that video yet?

I confess I didn't watch it last night. I have to respond quickly now or I will be banned or cesspooled by Kit. I'll watch it when I get a chance.

 

[Randwolf]

From his first post - "I'm fully on board with getting kids vaccinated" - but that was almost a week ago.

Doesn't that present some sort of cognitive dissonance? Or is he arguing on behalf of freedom of individual choice regardless of the impact to society?

Or, more likely, are you just trying to stir up trouble MR?

 

[Magical Realist]

@MR...

I apologize if this has been asked in your thread, but are you personal about this issue? Meaning if you had kids, would you have them vaccinated?

I think I'd wait until the baby is older before vaccinating. It's this crucial early period of brain development that seems the most sensitive to vaccines/toxins. So I'd probably wait awhile, and if my kid got an illness, I'd keep them at home like most people do. How many would take a sick kid out into public anyway? I wouldn't.

 

[Magical Realist]

From his first post - "I'm fully on board with getting kids vaccinated" - but that was almost a week ago.

The more I've looked into the topic the more I became convinced that there is evidence of an vaccine/autism linkage. I was hoping I was wrong. But there's just too many scientific papers on this.

 

[Kittamaru]

I confess I didn't watch it last night. I have to respond quickly now or I will be banned or cesspooled by Kit. I'll watch it when I get a chance.

Bravo, what an elegant dodge attempt - you haven't watched it since it was posted, yet you had time to scour the internet for these inaccurate "facts" to post to support your position.

The more I've looked into the topic the more I became convinced that there is evidence of an vaccine/autism linkage. I was hoping I was wrong. But there's just too many scientific papers on this.

No, there aren't - the accurate statement is "there's too much fear mongering and misinformation spewed out by those with an agenda and no inclination towards the scientific process on this"

I think I'd wait until the baby is older before vaccinating. It's this crucial early period of brain development that seems the most sensitive to vaccines/toxins. So I'd probably wait awhile, and if my kid got an illness, I'd keep them at home like most people do. How many would take a sick kid out into public anyway? I wouldn't.

So you really don't know anything about the diseases you are talking about... for example, Measles:

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowb...us-diseases-related-to-travel/measles-rubeola

TRANSMISSION
Measles is transmitted primarily from person to person by large respiratory droplets but can also spread by the airborne route as aerosolized droplet nuclei. Infected people are usually contagious from 4 days before until 4 days after rash onset.

The incubation period ranges from 7 to 21 days from exposure to onset of fever; rash usually appears about 14 days after exposure.

CLINICAL PRESENTATION
Contagious from 4-10 days after infection until 4 days after rash onset... yet infection-specific symptoms don't appear for from as few as 3 to as many as 10 days AFTER you are contagious...

Congratulations, you can be a walking, talking germ factory and have NO IDEA you are putting everyone around you at risk.

In addition, and once again:

Vaccine Safety and Adverse Reactions
In rare circumstances, MMR vaccination has been associated with the following adverse events:

• Anaphylaxis (approximately 1–3.5 occurrences per million doses administered)
• Thrombocytopenia (a rate of 1 case in every 25,000 doses during the 6 weeks after immunization)
• Febrile seizures (The risk of febrile seizures increases approximately 3-fold 8–14 days after receipt of MMR vaccine, but overall, the rate of febrile seizure after MCV is much lower than the rate after measles disease.)
• Joint symptoms (Arthralgia develops among approximately 25% of susceptible postpubertal women from the rubella component of the MMR vaccination. Approximately 10% have acute arthritislike signs and symptoms that generally persist for 1 day to 3 weeks and rarely recur. Chronic joint symptoms are rare, if they occur at all.)

Evidence does not support a causal link between MMR vaccination and any of the following: hearing loss, retinopathy, optic neuritis, ocular palsies, Guillain-Barré syndrome, cerebellar ataxia, Crohn disease, or autism. A published report on MMR vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease and pervasive developmental disorders (such as autism) has never been replicated by other studies, and has subsequently been widely discredited and retracted by the journal.

 

[Randwolf]

I think I'd wait until the baby is older before vaccinating.

Well that seems sensible enough, perhaps. You're just discussing the best age for vaccination, right? As in, when is the benefits / risks ratio most optimal, right? Based on the latest scientific studies of course. Because clearly you're not advocating doing away with vaccinations entirely, at least based on your reply here...

Right, MR?

 

[Kittamaru]

Well that seems sensible enough, perhaps. You're just discussing the best age for vaccination, right? As in, when is the benefits / risks ratio is most optimal, right? Based on the latest scientific studies of course. Because clearly you're not advocating doing away with vaccinations entirely, at least based on your reply here...

Right, MR?

Only problem is, the "best age for vaccination" isn't a matter of opinion, but of scientific and biological fact. If the mother has immunity to a disease, she will pass that immunity to the child; breastfeeding prolongs this acquired immunity. However, it is not permanent, and wears off over time, with each antibody having a different "lifespan" as it were.

This is part of what is taken into account when the World Health Organization made their recommendations on when specific vaccinations should be given.

 

[Trippy]

I confess I didn't watch it last night. I have to respond quickly now or I will be banned or cesspooled by Kit. I'll watch it when I get a chance.

Oh yeah - I meant to point out earlier. Measles has an R0 of 18. This means that one infected person can be expected to infect 18 people. This means that in order to achieve herd immunity we need a vaccine uptake. This in turn means that if the vaccine is ineffective for 3% of people (for whatever reason) then it only takes another 3% of people to refuse to have them before we begin to see the breakdown of herd immunity.

 

[Magical Realist]

Well that seems sensible enough, perhaps. You're just discussing the best age for vaccination, right? As in, when is the benefits / risks ratio most optimal, right? Based on the latest scientific studies of course. Because clearly you're not advocating doing away with vaccinations entirely, at least based on your reply here...

Right, MR?

No..I myself get flu shots and advocate all vaccinations for kids and adults. What I would like to see is more research on this causal effect of so many vaccinations on babies. That would be the age at which autism, to the extent that it is environmentally triggered, would be caused. Thanks for helping me clarify this.

 

[Kittamaru]

Interesting how you are in "such a rush to respond to me that you don't have time to watch Trippy's video"... yet you haven't responded to me in the half hour since then...

Seems like you are in such a rush... or just a terrible liar.

 

[Magical Realist]

Contagious from 4 days after infection until 4 days after rash onset... yet SYMPTOMS don't appear for from as few as 3 to as many as 10 days AFTER you are contagious...

Congratulations, you can be a walking, talking germ factory and have NO IDEA you are putting everyone around you at risk.

Well its only the little babies you're worried about isn't it? The ones who maybe run out their passive immunity from their mothers? I can tell you right now that neither I nor any of my kids would hang out with other people's babies. So again your hysterical need to blame is noted.

 

[Randwolf]

What I would like to see is more research on this causal effect of so many vaccinations on babies.

Well, I can't see where that position would cause much controversy. I doubt anyone on this board (except perhaps a few whacko outliers) would oppose more research. Especially if we're going with the current accepted standards of vaccination protocol in the meanwhile. I mean, who would object to that undertaking?

 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting how you are in "such a rush to respond to me that you don't have time to watch Trippy's video"... yet you haven't responded to me in the half hour since then...

Seems like you are in such a rush... or just a terrible liar.

Well how's this then. You're now ignored AND reported for insulting me. Even mods can't be assholes without paying a price for it.

 

[Kittamaru]

It doesn't take that long to know when you are sick. Usually a fever or a headache or the chills. Years of being sick has honed us in the art of detecting sickness earlier, probably long before a rash appears.

Either you are trying to blatantly lie, or you really deserve the derision you get...

Do you understand what an Incubation period is? Given the above, the answer is no.

Or are you trying to suggest you know the biological processes behind Measles better than the CDC...? In which case, lets see your credentials.

For that matter, do you have any evidence to back up your statement that "it doesn't take that long to know when you are sick"?

Since you seem to be an expert on the human body... maybe you could explain this:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/overviewguide/pancreatic-cancer-overview-diagnosed

How is pancreatic cancer found?
It is hard to find pancreatic cancer early. Because the pancreas is deep inside the body, the doctor can’t see or feel tumors during a routine physical exam. By the time a person has symptoms, the cancer has usually spread to other organs.

Early pancreatic cancers often don’t cause any signs or symptoms. By the time they do cause symptoms, they have often already grown through the pancreas or spread beyond it.

Or, how about this little gem:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...eases-stds/in-depth/std-symptoms/art-20047081

Chlamydia symptoms

Chlamydia is a bacterial infection of your genital tract. Chlamydia may be difficult for you to detect because early-stage infections often cause few or no signs and symptoms. When they do occur, they usually start one to three weeks after you've been exposed to chlamydia. Even when signs and symptoms do occur, they're often mild and passing, making them easy to overlook.

Or this one:

http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1322978/

Window periods

• The window period is the time during which markers of infection are not detectable.
• The length of the window period varies between individuals; UK guidelines state that for a fourth-generation test the window period is one month.
• Testing during this period can result in false negative results.
• People seeking testing may be confused or uncertain about the significance and length of window periods.

Four WEEKS during which a person who is contagious with HIV may not only not have symptoms, but clinical tests cannot even pick it up.

Yes, we always know SO QUICKLY when we are sick...

Well how's this then. You're now ignored AND reported for insulting me. Even mods can't be assholes without paying a price for it.

So calling you out for your intellectual dishonesty is insulting to you?

Here's a tip - STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

However, you calling me an "asshole" is, in fact, a direct personal attack... so we can tack that onto your ever-expanding rap sheet of infractions.

Tick tock - you have 8 minutes left to either retract your previously unsupported statements OR support them.

 

[Magical Realist]

Either you are trying to blatantly lie, or you really deserve the derision you get...

Do you understand what an Incubation period is? Given the above, the answer is no.

Or are you trying to suggest you know the biological processes behind Measles better than the CDC...? In which case, lets see your credentials.

For that matter, do you have any evidence to back up your statement that "it doesn't take that long to know when you are sick"?

Since you seem to be an expert on the human body... maybe you could explain this:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/overviewguide/pancreatic-cancer-overview-diagnosed





Or, how about this little gem:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...eases-stds/in-depth/std-symptoms/art-20047081


Or this one:

http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1322978/


Four WEEKS during which a person who is contagious with HIV may not only not have symptoms, but clinical tests cannot even pick it up.

Yes, we always know SO QUICKLY when we are sick...



So calling you out for your intellectual dishonesty is insulting to you?

Here's a tip - STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

However, you calling me an "asshole" is, in fact, a direct personal attack... so we can tack that onto your ever-expanding rap sheet of infractions.

Tick tock - you have 8 minutes left to either retract your previously unsupported statements OR support them.

"A person is not contagious during the measles incubation period. A person is mildly contagious when he or she first experiences symptoms, and is most contagious about four days before the onset of the measles rash. Some risk of measles transmission lasts until about four days after the rash starts."----http://measles.emedtv.com/measles/measles-incubation-period.html

This says you are only mildly contagious at the point you start having symptoms, which are fever, running nose, cough. So it IS as I said. You feel the symptoms at the point it starts to be contagious. And most everyone I know stays home when they feel sick. So where's this big threat from antivaxxers you keep talking about?

 

[Kittamaru]

"A person is not contagious during the measles incubation period. A person is mildly contagious when he or she first experiences symptoms, and is most contagious about four days before the onset of the measles rash. Some risk of measles transmission lasts until about four days after the rash starts.

This says you are only mildly contagious at the point you start having symptoms, which are fever, running nose, cough. So it IS as I said. You feel the symptoms at the point it started to be contagious.

Says you. The Center for Disease Control, World Health Organization, and numerous LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS say otherwise:

http://healthvermont.gov/prevent/measles/Measles.aspx
http://healthvermont.gov/prevent/measles/Measles.aspx#Anchor-Ho-23429

People with measles can spread the disease starting four days before the rash begins until four days after it appears.

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowb...us-diseases-related-to-travel/measles-rubeola

TRANSMISSION
Measles is transmitted primarily from person to person by large respiratory droplets but can also spread by the airborne route as aerosolized droplet nuclei. Infected people are usually contagious from 4 days before until 4 days after rash onset.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Transmission
The highly contagious virus is spread by coughing and sneezing, close personal contact or direct contact with infected nasal or throat secretions.

The virus remains active and contagious in the air or on infected surfaces for up to 2 hours. It can be transmitted by an infected person from 4 days prior to the onset of the rash to 4 days after the rash erupts.

So, while a person may have a fever or flu-like symptoms, they will be contagious for quite some time before they even think to go to the doctors.

Again, infection-specific symptoms (ones that would alert a person to a problem worth going to the doctors for) don't occur for an average of 4 days (sometimes longer, sometimes less) AFTER they are contagious.

Your deadline has passed, and you have not backed your statistics from before up (including your made-up statistics for risk of death from accidents, murder, etc)

 

[Bells]

I think I'd wait until the baby is older before vaccinating. It's this crucial early period of brain development that seems the most sensitive to vaccines/toxins. So I'd probably wait awhile, and if my kid got an illness, I'd keep them at home like most people do. How many would take a sick kid out into public anyway? I wouldn't.

You would take your child to the doctor, wouldn't you?

Diseases like measles are infectious days before any of the symptoms appear. It takes about 10 days for the symptoms to appear. They are infectious from about 4 days before any symptoms appear. So your child would go to school, childcare, play dates, shopping and supermarkets with you.. And being an air born disease, imagine how many they get to infect before the symptoms appear? Imagine that in a daycare center for example?

Then the symptoms appear and you take your child to the doctors or the emergency room.. The disease remains present wherever the sick child has been for hours, even after they have left the room, in the air where they have been. So imagine how many you have infected there? You walk through the carpark.. Take them to the pharmacy to buy medication for them.

The vaccine timeline is not a random thing. If you want your child to be properly protected from it, you need to get them vaccinated within the allotted time.

Measles is one of the most infectious diseases. It is more infectious than ebola or HIV.

Your ideology is stupid, moronic and dangerous. It is unscientific, is backed by quacks, most of whom do not even have a medical degree and those that do, are in it for the money, like Wakefield and his ilk, who had a lot to gain financially by creating the MMR scare he fabricated. The rest are bimbo tv personalities and dumbarses who believe that their wealth status means they are somehow immune or they believe the quacks who preach "all natural" bullshit while clutching their mobile phones, etc.

There is no science behind your ideology.

 

[Randwolf]

if my kid got an illness, I'd keep them at home like most people do.

This sounds great in theory but not so easily practiced in reality. When / if you have kids, you'll find they often get the "sniffles". It's not feasible to yank them from school every time this occurs, nor would it be worth the risk (IMHO) of exposing other children to a potentially fatal disease based on such unsubstantiated "caution".

This is not your normal ghost story MR, this is real - with real consequences. Such irresponsible advocacy of relying on parents to detect the presence of measles early enough to prevent infecting others seems extremely dangerous. I usually like to watch you get our neighbors all worked up but this topic is nothing to play with - there are people that actually follow this "vaccine abstinence" advice - their children and others pay the price for such a cavalier attitude. I advise that you reign it in here, but advice can fall on deaf ears...

 

[Trippy]

This sounds great in theory but not so easily practiced in reality. When / if you have kids, you'll find they often get the "sniffles". It's not feasible to yank them from school every time this occurs, nor would it be worth the risk (IMHO) of exposing other children to a potentially fatal disease based on such unsubstantiated "caution".

This is not your normal ghost story MR, this is real - with real consequences. Such irresponsible advocacy of relying on parents to detect the presence of measles early enough to prevent infecting others seems extremely dangerous. I usually like to watch you get our neighbors all worked up but this topic is nothing to play with - there are people that actually follow this "vaccine abstinence" advice - their children and others pay the price for such a cavalier attitude. I advise that you reign it in here, but advice can fall on deaf ears...

Thankyou, I was going to raise this point myself. People don't stay home when they have the sniffles because the sniffles, by themselves, are not serious. The sniffles, by themselves, could signify nothing more than an allergic reaction to perfume. I, for one, am guilty of going to work with the sniffles.