To vaccinate or not to vaccinate???

I am far from an expert on autism, but I would be hesitant to believe anything you read that isn't a peer-reviewed journal article. Most journalists don't really understand science. Most likely there is a correlation between inducing labour and autism, and some people take that to mean that inducing labour causes autism. It could be that there is a third factor that makes both more likely, or that something specific about kids with autism that makes them more likely to need to have labour induced.

 

Yea, I tried to make clear- I may have worded it wrong.... but there are basically a LIST of things that have been shown to have a correlation to having a higher rate of autism. You are exactly correct- there has been shown to be a correlation to labor induction and an increase of autism. (Not sure who did the study but I saw it on cnn-- and they actually said the same thing there that you just did- that just because there is a correlation doesn't mean that it's the induction itself that gives the increase in risk. It very well could be because of some condition that is more common in mother's that need to have labor induced.)--- So, yes, it is not the cause or not known whether it is the actual induction that increases risk or another factor common to both. HOWEVER... doesn't make me really hope I have to induce again-- I'd say (this is just my own head thinking), that because there are many different reasons mothers have to induce and they didn't specify the induction occurring for any given reason that it COULD be the actual induction itself that makes it more likely but yea, never know....

The crazy thing about autism is, no, they def don't know a cause. They know a whole list of this makes it more likely...and so does that and that too... but there is really no one who knows WHY these things increase risk.

 

but just to reiterate what eggsprog is saying...

just because something correlates with something else doesn't make "it" more likely to happen.

things can correlate that have NOTHING to do with each other. like the amount of potatoes exported from idaho over time can correlate with number of deaths by drowning in a swimming pool from year to year.

you can look at the graphs and the lines lay almost right on top of each other - as one goes up so does the other. but that doesn't mean if idaho starts exporting more potatoes you should be fearful of drowning in your swimming pool.

 

Murder rates are positively correlated with ice cream sales

The autism and vaccination link was based on a falsified research paper that has long been revealed as a fraud and debunked. Yet the story was so sensational that people can't let it go. I've seen a lot of parents put themselves, their children, and others in danger by choosing not to vaccinate. They spend their money on lawsuits and books that make profit from desperate and misinformed parents.

A lot can be gained by gathering a basic understanding of science and scientific literature. It makes it much harder for someone to be fooled by sensational "scientific" articles.

 

i've been in a couple pretty extensive facebook debates about this topic. while the anti-vaccine people i'm arguing with have mostly remained closed-minded, i have found myself becoming a tiny bit skeptical about some vaccinations.

what happens when your kid is the one that gets a seizure and brain damage after getting vaccinated?

 

True. I know some parents who vaccinate selectively, or delay vaccination to reduce the greater risks. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. I guess it's mostly a risk-benefit analysis with the seizure/brain damage piece. You mentioned the the MMRV vaccine has the greatest risk of seizure, which I believe is the typical MMR vaccine with an immunity against chickenpox added in.

I don't have children, so I haven't thought about single vaccinations at great length yet. Chicken pox doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Is it still possible to get an MMR vaccine without the V?

According to the internet: The estimated death rate for chicken pox is 1.4 per 100,000 cases (0.00 14%) in normal children, but rises to 30.9 deaths per I 00,000 cases (0.0309 %) in adults. The death rate is 7% in children with leukemia.

So maybe it isn't worth it?

Then there is the whole concern with herd immunity. Is it selfish not to vaccinate your children when they could pass on illnesses to those with weakened immune systems?

 

i believe you are right, the V is for Varicella (chicken pox)
everyone our age probably got the disease instead of the vaccine, so we dont' think of it as a big deal. and if the death rate from chicken pox is really 0.0014%, and the risk of a seizure from the vaccine is 0.08%...maybe this particular vaccine isn't worth the risk.

i think you can't get MMR without the V

and i think herd immunity is important, yes.

 

wait now, is .08% the actual figure, or are you using this as an example? does this mean .08% die from seizures, have seizures on a regular basis for the rest of their lives, or they just do a little freak-out dance for a couple of minutes one time and then are just fine?

...and does this mean that it has been proven that the vaccine causes the seizures, or do people say, "my kid got a vaccine, then 2 days later had a seizure" so that it is simply a suspected cause?

 

Yeah, it would be interesting to see what percentage of kids that age have seizures anyway, controlling for vaccination rates.

I wish I was rich so that I could spend all of my time researching things that I'm interested in...

 

to vaccinate

 

Ohio currently has many cases of mumps and measles.


http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/04/30/Mumps_and_measles_outbreaks_spreading_.html

 

1 out of 1,250 = 0.08%, so it's the actual figure

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmrv

i would guess that some or most of the kids who have a seizure caused by fever are fine afterwards, but some are not. i haven't seen the stats on that.

1 in 1,250 was the WORST risk of seizure from any vaccine on the list, so i chose this worst one to illustrate my point.

the CDC site linked implies that these seizures are caused by a fever, which is caused by the vaccine. because further down they say that very rare side effects are so rare that they cannot be sure they are caused by the vaccine.

 

Yea, I know all this.

I actually took a lot of courses on stuff like that in the 3 years I was in college for psychology... not that psychology is a HARD science but def got that concept.

I was never trying to imply that induction of labor can CAUSE autism. All I was saying was that since my child was born after labor being induced and I heard about the CORRELATION afterwards, I am glad he was/is okay. Of course there IS a chance that the induction itself can increase the chances of autism but I know what correlation means... it could just as easily be something in the women that makes them more likely to induce is the thing making autism more likely... or like eggsprog said, something in an autistic child that makes it more likely for labor to need to be induced. Or actually any number of other, outside variables. But, yes, indeed I do know that correlation does not equal causation. And I did not think I did, not did I intend to, imply otherwise.

Unfor for some of the vaccines (not all of them) parents are pretty much asked to chose between well, what MAY be better for their child (if there is more risk of them getting...say, a seizure, than the thing being vaccinated against) and the good of society in general. Vaccines are def good BECAUSE of herd mentality...and if no one does it... herd mentality goes away... but when it's an individual child... I can def see both sides and imo, that's why it's good to thoroughly research each indy vaccine.





**anyways... to the posts after the ones I quoted w people saying there's nothing wrong w looking at the costs/benefits of each indy vaccine, that is def the way to go...what I did with my son and what I'll be doing with my daughter. I personally feel more comfortable staggering the vaccines a bit and believe the large number of vaccines often given at once can be a problem for some children.

 

Ifl science

 

Really though, they give newborns Hep B vaccinations and that's pretty ridiculous. If I don't have Hep B, my newborn isn't going to have sex or IV drugs, so unless the hospital is going to give her a Hep B positive blood transfusion, there's NO risk at all.

 

This is my fear. My instinct when it comes to the vaccine controversy is that serious effects can be difficult to prove or track.

People think, oh my kid got shots today so he's drowsy. Your kid's brain is swollen because he was injected with diseases and preservatives.

How can you prove what a little brain damage at the age of three months effects over the course of a lifetime?

From the CDC, vaccines commonly include Aluminum, Antibiotics, Egg protein, Formaldehyde, MSG and Thimerosal (the mercury based preservative)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

A more specific list shows ingredients like, "bovine extract" and "insect cell protein"

So basically they are pretty weird concoctions. There's no real proof of immunity from vaccinations and they don't know how long they last. People/kids get sick with the diseases they've been vaccinated against.

My point in this thread is that no source is unbiased, they are all trying to persuade you one way or the other.

When they give you the stats on vaccine injury, they don't tell you how many claims are made each year that are not PROVEN in court and thereby are not factored into the stats (they are like 3000 to 1)

 

^^^sounds kinda like fear-mongering...

the risk of catching a deadly disease, that we have almost eradicated through the use of vaccines, is a larger risk than the risk from getting a vaccine.
i wasn't trying to be open minded and see the other side of the argument in the post you quoted. maybe you should try to do the same

there are reasons for tiny amounts of preservatives in vaccines - so mold doesn't grow in them.
there are reasons for scary sounding things like formaldehyde and aluminum - which are in such low doses that they are very likely to be safe. and infant gets more exposure to aluminum from drinking formula than they do from all vaccines combined. BUT, to be fair - a vaccine is delivered to the bloodstream, so the effective dose is larger because of that, than compared to ingesting through the stomach.

sure vaccines are "weird concoctions" but most of modern medicine is pretty "weird"
humans are just really weird apes
and HF is a weird forum, so who is to say that weird is bad?

 

very good..

aluminum and formaldehyde .. child will get more exposure to this at the bus stop from automotive exhaust..

 

No. There is extensive proof of immunity from vaccinations. Just as an example, according to the NY State Department of Health,

http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/measles/fact_sheet.htm

A vaccine does not confer absolute, permanent immunity to all people in all situations. Booster shots are often needed 10 years or so after getting a vaccine. People with compromised immune systems may get sick even though they've been vaccinated.

The level of immunity conferred by vaccines is still damn good.

 

I strongly recommend that anyone who feels uncertain about vaccines watch this video from PBS/FRONTLINE

http://youtu.be/e-PUrDEQn6E