So if you knew someone who never washed their hands after using the restroom, would you let them in your home? Out and about socially with you?
In my opinion, anti-vaccine people should be tossed out of everyone's homes, circles of friends, and businesses. This is for people who them OR their children aren't properly vaccinated. Even IF autism or any of the plethora of things were caused by vaccines, the diseases themselves which are prevented by them are much worse, all causing death or maiming.
Vaccinations aren't 100% effective, usually more like 70-85% effective. This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to.
We should safeguard the people who are willing to get stuck by ostracizing those who are foolish enough to not vaccinate.
This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to.
This is not correct. In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread. If there are two left unvaccinated, the chances of one having the disease and the other being initially uninfected and then subsequently infected by the one possible vector is astonishingly small.
In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%.
Moreover, vaccines based on attenuated vaccines (e.g., the polio vaccine) actually infect the recipient with an impotent version of the virus. This virus will be transmitted to others in the community through normal contact, thus conferring immunity to many that did not receive the vaccination directly.
(this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated)
In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%.
Irrelevant. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, public policy must target 100% vaccination.
(this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated)
You may not be endorsing it, but it's important to point out that this argument is ethically dubious.
My favorite ethical test is Kant's categorical imperative, which is briefly that an act is ethical if everyone else can act the same way. For example, if you're wondering whether it's ok to slip onto the subway just as the doors are closing, delaying the train by just a second, you can ask: what if everyone boarded the train that way? Of course, the train would never depart, being constantly delayed by each as-the-doors-close boarder.
If everyone thought that vaccines are ok for others but not themselves, then no one would be vaccinated. Thus this argument is unethical. Let's go beyond "not endorsing" it-- let us all actively condemn it.
The categorical imperative has a lot of problems. For example, is being a doctor ethical? Not everyone can be a doctor, because then we'd all starve. But few people would say that doctor is an unethical profession because of that.
There are a bunch of other actions that most people would consider perfectly ethical that fail this test too. Is going childless ethical? If everyone did that, we'd all die out. How about going to your favorite hamburger joint? If everyone did that, the line would be miles long, and nobody would get served.
The problems work in the other way too: there're some actions that people do consider unethical where there are no problems if everyone did it. Consider cheating (by a constant percentage) on your tax returns. If everyone did it, the government would just raise tax rates to compensate, everyone would end up paying the same taxes anyway, and nobody would be worse off (except perhaps having to throw an additional calculation in). Yet few people would say that cheating on your taxes is ethical.
Why is going childless considered okay, yet killing your infant considered abhorrent? They have the same effect on the world - in both case, there's no kid. They have the same effect on the world if everyone does them - in both cases, we all die out. And yet one is considered fine while the other is highly unethical.
Can't reply to trunnell's response to this, so I'll just leave this here:
The categorical imperative is a nice heuristic to determine whether some behavior will benefit the greater good, but it's also nothing more than that. There is nothing inherently 'ethically dubious' about deviating from a rule of thumb, firstly because the heuristic returns false positives and secondly because you may disagree whether something is a 'greater good'.
If you want to argue that this deviation from this rule of thumb is 'ethically dubious', you'll have to argue exactly that and not argue some blanket claim that everyone should disagree with.
I'm a little surprised by the upvotes on the parent comment.
The categorical imperative is not the only or best rule, but it is a good rule of thumb. It's a good test in this case because it clearly demonstrates the folly of going unvaccinated-- if everyone relies on "herd immunity" there will be no herd immunity.
It matters what we say. The mixed messages out there already are dangerous. Kottke put it best in TFA:
So get your kids (and yourselves) vaccinated and save them & their playmates from this whooping cough bullshit, which is actually killing actual kids and not, you know, magically infecting them with autism.
The categorical imperative, in this case, is simply a slippery slope argument.
As long as only a small percentage rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. If only those who actually have severe reactions to vaccines rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. Even if a few nutjobs fear autism and a few others simply don't get around to it, we're fine.
The problem is that too many people are relying on it for foolish reasons (fear of autism) and not weighing the risks appropriately. Going unvaccinated without extremely good reason, in the present circumstance, is foolish, but don't overgeneralize.
>As long as only a small percentage rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. If only those who actually have severe reactions to vaccines rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. Even if a few nutjobs fear autism and a few others simply don't get around to it, we're fine.
As an entire country, you are correct (for many diseases, especially ones who have vaccines in the 85% effectiveness ranges). The range of the outbreaks will largely be limited to those 15% who didn't get immunity once vaccinated, and the remainder of those who aren't vaccinated due to their ignorance.
However for small groups, they GREATLY increase the chance of the disease hitting your population. By small groups, I mean circles of friends, co-workers, schoolmates, nurserymates, etc. You should IMMEDIATELY kick people from those groups, as they increase your and your children's chances of getting infected quite a bit. (Remember, you and your children have a 15-30% of the vaccine you DID take to not work).
Remember, you're not looking at just 15-30% from one disease. They have 0% immunity to EVERY disease.
The categorical imperative, in this case, is simply a slippery slope argument.
Something people overlook is that the slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy in a logical context. People aren't uniformly logical entities, and slippery-slope arguments are not always fallacious when applied to human actions.
At some point in any analysis of human behavior and ethics, philosophy is no longer the right tool for the job. You have to turn to psychology.
Your ethical test can be applied at a meta level as well.
The US Constitution doesn't provide any mechanism for a public policy of vaccination (the existence of NIH, CDC, etc notwithstanding). While such a policy might be desirable, overstepping the extent of federal power granted by the Constitution would, in your Kant explanation, lead to a collapse of all Constitutional control [1]. That would be bad, so we can't allow the single transgression.
I'm in favor of getting vaccinated. I even ensure that I'm up-to-date on everything whenever I leave the country. However, our society is founded on individualist ideals. We are not communitarians or collectivists, and the fact that my action might not be optimal for the community as a whole does not constitute a rationale for controlling my behavior. This is why we tolerate free speech even from evil people; it's why we're willing to let some criminals go free in order to prevent punishing the innocent, etc.
Maybe I wasn't clear: my point was not about mandating vaccination. My point is simply that it matters what we all say about the ethics of vaccination. There has been much muddying of the water by unscientific voices, and to counter that public policy should be crystal clear: vaccines are safe, every child should be vaccinated, and to do otherwise is unethical.
If you want to do otherwise you will always have the freedom to do so. But according to the latest science, there is no publicly acceptable argument for going unvaccinated or for advocating against vaccinations.
vaccines are safe, every child should be vaccinated, and to do otherwise is unethical
I have a friend whose son is mentally handicapped, apparently [1] because, as an infant, his vaccination was both (a) done incorrectly and (b) massively overdosed.
I say this not to advocate against vaccination, but to remind that no medical procedure is without risk. Accidents happen, and there are also individual circumstances that would make some treatments unadvisable.
A statement as categorical and sweeping as yours is taking things too far.
[1] Nobody will ever be able to prove it, but the evidence is convincing to me.
UPDATE: forgot to mention about the (very small) inherent danger in using attenuated virus vaccines, such as the OPV (Sabin, not Salk) polio virus. It seems that in this case, it mutates and reverts to the virulent, paralyzing form in 1 / 750,000 cases [2]. This is tiny, but you can't categorically call it safe.
While I feel for your friend, polio hasn't been given for a generation and a half in the US, so isn't really an apropos topic of discussion. (And is one of the last oral vaccines, which usually use attenuated viruses instead of dead ones).
Any time you stick a needle into someone, you risk giving them a brain embolism. Life is risk. However vaccines are CLEARLY in the make you much safer part of risk, like seatbelts and washing your hands.
You are arguing against scientific data using anecdotal and unproven evidence.
In one case, yes, but the danger of malpractice is certainly well known.
In my other case (iatrogenic polio), it's a very well documented effect. Virtually all polio in the USA since the 'late 60s (give or take) has been the result of this.
But in both cases, the risk is vanishingly small.
My point was that a statement like "stop whining: it's perfectly safe" is not correct. In the end, such hyperbole only gives the tinfoil hat crowd a toehold.
And again, using the polio example, an understanding of the tiny risk of iatrogenic polio can help those at particular risk due to immune problems to avoid what is a non-trivial danger for them.
And you're right, the risk of an ill effect is non-zero. That doesn't mean it's not safe, though. If our definition of safe means absolutely zero risk, then almost nothing is safe. Relative to most medical procedures, vaccines are incredibly safe.
I'm going to continue telling everyone I know that they should vaccinate their children because that position is supported by the best available science, and because the alternative is definitely not safe.
For a vaccine to be effective only one person needs to take it. That person gets immunity and thus it's effective.
Secondly, according to your interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative it's perfectly ethical for no one to get vaccinated because everyone can act in that way. You may not like the outcome, but your gedankenexperiment satisfies the categorical imperative because everyone holds the belief and thus it is ethical.
Kant's categorical imperative is merely a way for a large percentage of the population to force their ethics on others. Largely because the primary way it is used is to justify policies rather than have policies stem from it. Since not everyone can agree that everyone should be vaccinated policies to vaccinate everyone are unethical according to Kant.
Well, if the mother was exposed to either the disease or the vaccine, and she is breastfeeding the baby, then the baby will have protection (another strong argument in favor of breastfeeding babies) until they are old enough for the vaccine.
Please provide references. Last I read in the literature there was only some immunity provided. Not every mom can breastfeed. Not every mom can breastfeed enough to constantly transfer antibodies. Not every mom who breastfeeds may have antibodies to the given illness.
Believe it or not (because of my arguments in the parallel sub-thread) I agree with you.
Government doesn't (or shouldn't) have the power to force me to do this. But there's nothing wrong with each individual in the community attempting to persuade those who don't want it.
By analogy: the government doesn't have the authority to endorse any religion, but I'm certainly free to tell you about mine (if I had one).
"In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread."
Vaccines don't necessarily grant immunity. They give you a 70%-85% chance to gain immunity. So even if 0 are left unvaccinated, 30% of the population has no immunity.
It is unlikely to infect a large portion of the population, but especially for vaccines which are only 70% effective, it's highly likely 1 or 2 others will get infected who were vaccinated but it didn't take. In addition to the 30% of people who do not have immunity, immunocompromised people often time can lose immunity to certain viruses based on their condition. They are the 1 or 2 people our society has chosen to be effectively infectable in spite of vaccination. That's why its very important everyone else gets vaccinated.
The likelihood of a huge outbreak is still relatively small, but you're wrong on the statistics of the small infection, as you'd see from a friend coming by or out to dinner with you or going to day care. Roughly 15% to 30% will get many of the diseases when "intensely exposed". The chance of a small outbreak is moderately large with 70% vaccines and even moderate lack of vaccinations.
Your argument, in addition to be attempted technical nitpicking which is wrong, is very dangerous as other posters have made. The effect of one additional unvac on a given population is extremely noticeable on small populations, such as groups of friends and daycares and businesses, aka the very places I suggested ostracizing people from.
"In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%."
I'm curious to know if there have been results that show what sort of percentages of vaccination are needed to be safe from specific diseases. I presume this will vary between diseases as well as demographics.
Unfortunately many vaccines (TB for instance) are only effective in children, and children don't exactly get to make enlightened decisions about whether or not they get a vaccine. By the time they're old enough to decide for themselves it's too late.
It wouldn't be right to ostracize people simply because their parents can't tell the difference between a stripper and a doctor and took medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.
It would be even more unfair to increase the risk of exposure to other children. I think there is a role for public shaming and peer pressure with respect to vaccination.
There is no law requiring vaccinations. Perhaps there should be, but you really can't shame people for exercising their right to control what goes into their body, no matter how dickish it may be. And you REALLY can't shame them for their parents being idiots.
Sure you can shame people for exercising the right to control what goes into their body. It is just as much your freedom to criticize them as it is their freedom to not vaccinate. Just because something is not illegal doesn’t mean you can’t shame it. (I agree that you can’t shame people for decisions their parents made.)
You most certainly can shame them, and as long as they get the vaccinations they can, even the ones unlikely to be effective, they've done enough in my eyes to be let in areas I can control attendance to.
And missing one vaccine because their parents are idiots isn't the point. Its the walking infection vectors who are the people who have absolutely no vaccines in them in are the issues.
The point isn't to absolutely protect against every disease. Vaccinations don't do that. The point is protect against walking disease vectors. Once they get all the vaccinations they can, they're much like you or I: fully vaccinated.
I agree with you that the comment is derogatory, but derogation is deserved by people who go to Jenny McCarthy for medical advice on how to ensure the safety of their children.
Yeah. Let the record show I've got nothing against strippers, just people who take medical advice from them. Except I suppose maybe the ones who are just doing it to pay their way through med school...
I totally agree with you.
That is, until my son was born, and people started sharing horror stories for both sides of the argument.
As a father, some other part of me kicked in that wasn't very logical. This is much harder decision than it seems.
My mother in law shared with me her first-hand experience of 'watching-the-lights-go-out' in a healthy 3-year old minutes after she was vaccinated. It's not autism, and it's anecdotal evidence, but it made me dig deeper, and doubt any certainty on either sides.
Studies are NOT conclusive. Dozens of studies where done defending the use of mercury in amalgam fillings for example, and just now the dentist community is coming around to admitting that it does negatively impact patients' health. Years after many people were saying that, and were called naysayers.
I didn't vaccinate my son. It wasn't an easy decision. And I'm not certain of it. He will receive a shorter list of vaccines, on a longer less-stressful schedule than the one recommended by the govt.
Anybody who assumes certainty for either side of this argument hasn't given this enough thought imho
This is ridiculous. There have been less "alleged" cases with vaccine caused autism than there are deaths by swimming pool accidents in kids. The greater good must be served, EVEN IF IT DID CAUSE AUTISM in a super ultra rare instance.
How about those who can't afford it? It's also truly a personal and private choice. I don't judge you because you are insane about getting shot up, thats your choice. Mine is to question face value headlines, see what's happening and make an educated choice.
Furthermore vaccinating the most of the world is not going to happen until they are made strictly for all people and not for profit. Patenting medicine and vaccines and distributing it to only those who are "deserving" sound a bit off no?
I'm sympathetic to poor people not paying for expensive vaccines, and if that were the only problem, it'd be at least partly the fault of our public policy for not doing something about it (a lot of the benefit of vaccination goes to society as a whole rather than solely to the person being vaccinated, making it a fairly classic case for public subsidy). And that probably is a pretty big part of the story in the developing world.
In the U.S., though, we do actually have quite a lot of free vaccination clinics, and many people have health insurance that covers vaccinations. It's possible there aren't enough free clinics, and if studies show that a large % of people not being vaccinated are skipping it due to the expense, then that's something we should work on. But I don't believe that's currently the case--- a large proportion of the people skipping vaccinations could have had them completely paid for, either by their health-insurance plan, or via free vaccination clinics, but deliberately chose not to get them.
edit: Actually, are there good studies on the primary causes of non-vaccination? It'd be interesting to see estimates of the numbers of people who fall into categories like: 1) fear of autism/etc.; 2) fear of allergic reactions; 3) religious objections; 4) too expensive; 5) too inconvenient / never got around to it.
Childhood immunization uptake exceeds 95% in many countries. So vaccinating "most of the world" is clearly do-able. In the situation where uptake is low, the issues revolve around supply, access and parental ignorance, and not the cost of the vaccine.
I honestly feel as a matter of public health it should be free. If it was someone I saw every day who alleged this reason, I'd take them to the doctor right then for the shots, paying for it.
When the 9/11 truthers were spreading their bull and it finally managed to touch a few of my coworkers, I found my indignant attitude that anyone could believe something so obviously false was far better at convincing people of the truth than reasoned argument. Unfortunately, people are pack animals before they are rational beings. Probably the best way to respond to such claims as "vaccines cause autism" is to just say, "Wow, I didn't realize there was anybody left who still believed that." It's mean, but it's for their own good, and it works quickly. They don't get as upset as you think they would.
They probably just put you on their internal "bozo" list and will quietly killfile your views and opinions in the future, which is the price you pay for expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion.
I am not anti-vaccine. However, my toddler had a very severe reaction to a vaccine she was given at two years of age. This led my wife and I to decide to not allow our daughter to have all of the vaccines at once. She is not completely vaccinated but will have them all before she turns five. We feel that staggering the vaccinations out as much as possible allows her immune system to respond better without severe reactions that cause very high temperatures, which could lead to brain damage and/or death.
I'm sorry that this happened to you. However, the question that you pose is empirical and has been studied extensively. To my knowledge, no benefit has ever been shown from spacing out vaccinations.
Staggering vaccinations is unlikely to be helpful or harmful, but in general would reduce adherence, so should be discouraged on a population scale without evidence supporting it.
Our pediatrician recommends spacing the vaccinations. It turns out that when you give them very early, many require a booster later because the infant immune response isn't as strong. If you give it a bit later, no booster needed. So then if there are risks they are less by virtue of having only one immunization.
Never been thrilled with the insistence of infant immunization of Hep B either. Main vectors: sewage an sexual contact. I think we an safely rule those out for a few years at least.
Main vectors: sewage an sexual contact. I think we an safely rule those out for a few years at least.
Don't dismiss sewage. A surprising fraction of people don't wash their hands, and if you don't wash your hands before preparing food you can pass on diseases.
And to go farther with that point, multiple vaccines like MMR are standard across the population, so they are better tested and better understood than multiple spaced-out single vaccines.
Here's a review of Dr. Bob's schedule from the journal Pediatrics:
This is a legit concern. My wife also had reactions to some of the vaccines given her as a child, putting her life in danger, as did some of her siblings. So when we have kids, we'll definitely be very careful about that and do a lot of research beforehand.
The autism concerns are almost certainly overblown, and the benefits of vaccines are enormous, as has been pointed out.
But I think its also a mistake to unreflectively get every vaccination possible. Side effects can and do happen. As with every medical procedure, responsible parents should know what they're getting into, and what the pros and cons are. Even though the answer SHOULD be to get vaccinated in 95% of cases.
Which is exactly the kind of research I'm talking about - to determine what chemicals are in the injections, and the statistical incidence of side effects for them and any indicators that a person might be at risk.
If you're going to be ignorant, then you should go ahead, trust your doctor, and get the vaccination. But I don't think it's wrong to do the research on something before it goes into your child's body, just as long as you are properly scientific about it and rely on good research.
I don't get the part about not trusting your doctor. When aP vs P was made it was rolled out nationally.
You will probably find that anything you discover in your research is already being done.
All the things that are marginal and maybe won't be "good research", although of course you may considers the "possible" results enough reason to act, but you need to be very knowledgeable on the subject, and few people are.
The autism concerns are almost certainly overblown
I don't mean to pick on you, but this is exactly the kind of thing so many here have a problem: that some people still equivocate and hedge because they think "hey, who knows?" in spite of all the evidence being on one side. How many studies will it take to convince you that there is no link at all between autism and vaccines?
Modern vaccines have almost no side effects beyond mild fevers. Talk with your pediatrician, most will promise you that you'll see nothing like the things your wife's generation saw.
This is the reason why the anti-vaxxers are such a big problem. If everyone who is healthy gets vaccinated, then the diseases can't spread, and even the kids who can't get a vaccine for legitimate medical reasons will be safe.
I'd like to see schools required to disclose any children who have not been vaccinated without a valid medical reason. (I'm in California -- you can get into school without vaccination if you state a personal belief.)
My 4 year old had a very strong reaction to a vaccine this year and had to be transferred by ambulance. We have an appointment to special center where they test the vaccine's different components separately. Maybe that could be another option in your case too.
His next vaccine is only at 12 so we could just do nothing but we want to know if tetanus shots could be the culprit because they are often administered following an accident.
I'm completely fine with this. We just need to internalize the externality. You not vaccinating your child harms not only your family but potentially many others around you.
We need some sort of legal construct that would hold those who do not vaccinate responsible if there is an outbreak in the area. For example, you don't vaccinate your daughter for whooping cough and my daughter(too young to vaccinate) catches it. My daughter has to suffer months of terrible pain and discomfort in addition to potential long-term consequences. I should be able to seek compensation from you.
Of course there are other social alternatives, such as lychings.
As a side note, you probably don't know shit about vaccines. What makes you think spacing them out will improve her reactions to them?
Provided that most everyone else does get vaccinated, it should be fine to avoid vaccinating the small percentage of people with natural allergic reactions to the vaccine.
I don't think you should find the allergic culpable in your scheme, because if the reaction is bad enough, you're asking them to either endure suffering or die so that there is no possibility that they can harm you.
How exactly would you be able to prove that your daughter caught a disease from any particular person?
For instance, if someone with whooping cough coughed hard, then left the room, and 10 minutes later your daughter walked through the room on the way to meeting the other person's daughter, how exactly could you tell that?
I think that there ought to be a law against people who think "there ought to be a law against X" ...
> How exactly would you be able to prove that your daughter caught a disease from any particular person?
Set the standard of evidence to whatever the current technology can provide. Right now I'm fine with unvaccinated people having responsibility for all outbreaks in their area.
> I think that there ought to be a law against people who think "there ought to be a law against X"
I think there ought to be a law against people who don't know the difference between civil and criminal law.
"As a side note, you probably don't know shit about vaccines. What makes you think spacing them out will improve her reactions to them?"
For the same reason that I let my toddler eat dirt if she wants to. The longer her immune system has to build up a defense, the better it will defend against something in a vaccine that causes her medical or allergic distress.
If your kid was allergic to peanuts, would you be allowing your neighbors to force her to eat peanuts?
Science is very difficult, frustrating and time consuming. The reason we bother with it is that human intuition is remarkably bad at most things.
You should just admit that you are making medical decisions about complex phenomenon based on vague feelings. Why do we even bother studying immunology? Let's just ask how camworld is feeling today!
What makes you think spacing them out will improve her reactions to them?
The thinking probably goes something like, "If A and B each individually cause severe symptoms, A and B combined will probably be worse." This accurately describes most things.
And heavy things fall faster than lighter things! Right?
Oh wait, intuition can and is very often wrong. Particularly with respect to complex phenomenon such as the human immune system.
You are getting vaccinated though. You get they are important and are going through a very harsh trial (high temperatures are very scary in young children, especially to them) to get them all. You should be given a medal.
Vaccinating a child is not a matter of choice, but compulsory, because unless the parents of an un-vaccinated child can guarantee that their kid will not spread a terrible illness such as polio/whooping cough/ whatever, they should be quarantined. If you watch the documentary, you will understand what I am saying.
Also, the hope is that vaccination will become unnecessary in the future, for example, smallpox vaccines are not being administered anymore, because it has been eradicated completely. That is not the case with many other preventable diseases (there are many areas in the world where they still occur, and so it is necessary to exercise caution).
There might be some legit concern as far as simultaneous vaccination for several diseases goes, though, but that is not sufficient reason to endanger the larger population until the (possible) causal relationship between vaccines and brain damage is firmly established.
So what's the prevailing wisdom today about the Hannah Poling case?
...the government’s Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that five shots Hannah received in July 2000, when she was 19 months old, “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder” and resulted in a brain disorder “with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
Records were sealed at the time. Don't know if they have since been released.
EDIT: Summary of latest news, 2010-09-11:
US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) will pay over $1.5 million to the family of a child whose parents allege acquired autism after routine vaccinations in 2000....However, the payment does not acknowledge a vaccine-autism link.
Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child."
It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. Her condition could have been triggered by any fever. The link to vaccines is tenuous. The vaccine court is being widely lambasted for paying them off.
It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms.
This sounds like a dodge, frankly. I am not encouraged.
EDIT: I am further discouraged by the voting here. I see an instance of potentially non-conformed data. What do you do with non-conformed data?
As best I can tell, nothing can be done with this data right now, since details of the court's decision have not been released. The most you can do is reserve a measure of judgement till further information is available.
Instead, I see a strong desire to dismiss the data. This is poor epistemological form. This is not encouraging.
Two questions, for now:
* What symptoms of classical autism were not present?
* More to the point, why would classical autism be the standard, rather than autism spectrum disorders?
You do sort of get to the fundamental problem of autism not being an actual disease, just a group of symptoms. The mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies suffered by Poling have a distinct, but overlapping set of symptoms. So, the reason I mentioned classical autism is that the symptoms of mitochondrial encephalopathy[1] go well beyond those, never mind the milder symptoms of ASD.
Apparently, the court's justification for giving the award is that the fever from the vaccine might have been one of the many fevers she suffered that led to the particular expression of this condition. Sadly, her parents had already given her the "autism" label, which only confuses the issue.
Just as I would not trust the court to decide that vaccines don't cause autism, I don't trust the court to decide that vaccines do. The science decides, and pretty much has decided.
I'm not closed to the idea that vaccines could conceivably have some subtle detrimental effect, in fact I have some other non-mainstream beliefs about health issues, but the evidence just isn't there. When you're reduced to citing the fact that people are trying to discourage you from believing X as one of the primary reasons you believe X you are firmly in conspiracy nut territory.
When you're that committed to a cause, every scientific result that comes out against your cause is easy to dismiss as either wrong, a deliberate lie, incomplete, not 100% proof, etc.
This is especially troublesome in areas where the True Believers invert the burden of proof: rather than asking for proof that vaccines cause autism, they'd only be satisfied with proof that they don't, which is a much more difficult task (and don't get me wrong - I have no doubt whatsoever that even if rock solid proof was offered, they'd still reject it outright).
The point of stuff like this isn't to convince Jenny McCarthy, it's to convince fair-minded yet ignorant parents who might have heard Jenny McCarthy talking on Oprah and lack any other information.
(I don't know whether Jenny McCarthy has ever talked on Oprah, but she must be talking somewhere.)
No, but perhaps when non-vaccinated kids start dying of things that sounds hilarious because we've eradicated them - things with names like "dropsy", "whooping cough" and "cholera" - people will start thinking. It'll be a terrible price to pay, though, for parents who just wanted to do the best for their kids.
I can't believe the fascists on HN that would be fine with shunning, punishing, or even suing the un-vaccinated.
There are risks to being vaccinated, and risks to not being vaccinated.
That (from the article) :
---
"The last result is a bit of an anomaly in that it implies that exposure to TCVs from birth to 1 month and birth to 7 months actually protects against ASD. The authors quite rightly comment on this result thusly:
"In the covariate adjusted models, we found that an increase in ethylmercury exposure in 2 of the 4 exposure time periods evaluated was associated with decreased risk of each of the 3 ASD outcomes. We are not aware of a biological mechanism that would lead to this result."
---
Should tell you that this cannot be said to be a completely conclusive study.
This is the sort of moronic ignorance that should be shamed. The anomaly noticed by the researchers is one that does not have a known biological explanation but that does not mean that exposure to a small amount of mercury in infancy does not actually protect against ASD. It just means that the study confirms previous studies that found no risk from these vaccines and suggests that there might actually be an irony-laden protection provided by these vaccines.
This study is, to date, the most complete and conclusive study available. It shows that vaccines, and particularly those that used ethylmercury as a perservative, do not cause autism or autism-spectrum disorders, just like EVERY OTHER FUCKING STUDY OUT THERE!
I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.:
Person 1: Vaccines cause autism!
Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof!
Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win!
The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of not being vaccinated.
I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something like:
* Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness.
* Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent.
* There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines.
* [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product.
* [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').
I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting we shun bikers.
I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc.
At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2 groups.
Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better predictor of who is in the best shape.
Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and 80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+ lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15 years.
The problem is that if a certain percentage of the population doesn't take the vaccine then the risks associated with not taking the vaccine greatly increase.
For example, (as an unvaccinated person) your chances of catching the flu while living in a city where 90% of the population is vaccinated is much lower than if only 40% of the population were vaccinated.
Also you have to consider the risks to others. Even with the vaccine there is still a chance of getting the disease, though one would need to come in contact with the disease to get it. So someone that chose to be unvaccinated is at a higher risk of catching the disease, and therefore transmitting it to someone that was vaccinated (though I'll admit that the actually numbers in this scenario are probably pretty low).
>vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them
Vaccination is a risk you take with yourself or your children and everyone you and they come in contact with.
This is why you should be shunned. You're playing with the lives of those who should be shunning you.
We're not talking about the flu vaccine. We're talking about measles, mumps, rubella, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Hepatitis, Varicella, Meningitis, Rotavirus and various other VERY FATAL ILLNESSES. If there are enough flu vaccines for everyone in a year, you should get them, but we're talking about the main, childhood vaccines which protect against the horrible diseases of earth's past.
You not only should be shunned, you should have to walk around with a sign alerting people to your presence as a willing infection vector to make you well labeled enough the rational among us can avoid you.
We don't shun bikers but we make them pay higher insurance premiums. They mainly endanger themselves anyway. If I take a very selfish viewpoint and I can choose between a collision with a biker vs a car driver I'll pick the one with the less mass.
> The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product.
Actually, it works sort of like this: the companies that make vaccines are immune from prosecution in normal courts, all jurisdiction for these cases goes to a special court (the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) that weighs scientific evidence, the facts of the case, and the relevant law to determine the outcome. The general idea is that there is a higher bar to cross regarding evidence and there is no jury for an ambulance chaser to sway. The court deals with specific instances of harm from vaccines and not general classes of claimants (e.g. no "class actions" in this court.)
Do you deny that there are risks to not being vaccinated, and that the risks of not being vaccinated are many times greater than the risks of being vaccinated?
I agree with much of your previous post. However, I chose to downvote because you expressed yourself in a way that invites hostility and discourages reasoned exchange of ideas. Both the use of the derogatory term "fascist" and the implied assumption of unworthiness from "I can't believe" gave me the impression that you weren't interested in engaging those who expressed alternate views, only in insulting them.
Had you instead stated "there are risks to being vaccinated as well as to being unvaccinated. We should not punish or shun those who have decided the first set of risks outweigh the second" I'd have upvoted you instead. The ideas are the same, but the expression invites discussion.
EDIT: compare to your response to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 . Downvotes are the price you pay for "expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion."
In my opinion, anti-vaccine people should be tossed out of everyone's homes, circles of friends, and businesses. This is for people who them OR their children aren't properly vaccinated. Even IF autism or any of the plethora of things were caused by vaccines, the diseases themselves which are prevented by them are much worse, all causing death or maiming.
Vaccinations aren't 100% effective, usually more like 70-85% effective. This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to.
We should safeguard the people who are willing to get stuck by ostracizing those who are foolish enough to not vaccinate.