This is why there is vaccine-hesitancy

amother

Brown

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:11 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

Did you read this study?

It's written in a decent journal, I'll give you that. However, the article fails on a few counts:

1) It neglects to factor in enviromental triggers to autoimmune diseases, such as pollution and socioeconomical factors. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

2) In many of the connections the journal makes, such as the appearance of MS after the HBV vaccine within two months, it also admits that the women studied had a high family risk of MS.

"They were at high MS risk, because all had also over-representation of the HLA-DR2 antigen and a positive family history of the disease."

For the connection between Type I diabetes in children and vaccines:
"The authors found that the risk of type 1 diabetes increased among children who had one or more siblings with diabetes, supposing also that any association between vaccination and type 1 diabetes would be more pronounced among children who were genetically predisposed to diabetes"

In the influenza studies, the timeline allowed for up to six months post vaccine to report any negative side effects. In that time period, there could have been a myriad other immune challenges that could account for health problems.

And so on.

At best, the article seems to suggest that innate, genetic factors are spurred into action during vaccination. But let's pretend that these people with predisposition to disease never received any vaccines. At some point, they would come down with measles, with chicken pox, with whooping cough, etc. And that illness in itself would trigger the same signal cascade in the immune system to produce the same results.

If your argument is that all of us should live our lives in those sterile plastic bubbles, then yes, we might be able to avoid a lurking health challenge. However, there are numerous studies that indicate that our relatively disease-free lives and cleaning habits might also account for the rise in autoimmune diseases - the consequences of a robust immune system with nothing to do.

My conclusion is that people should be vaccinated and hopefully further research will determine who is at risk from vaccines. We already know that some people have an increased risk of GBS from the flu shot. In my non scientific opinion, it is not a stretch to think that vaccines could impact other autoimmune issues when combined with increased risk factors, including environmental factors. We need more research.

amother

Ivory

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:14 pm

amother [ Honeydew ] wrote:

Lastly, measles, chicken pox, rubella and mumps definitely are more serious in adults. Before vaccines there were very few adults who reached adulthood without immunity to these diseases because they had lifelong immunity from having had these diseases as a child when it is relatively mild. Today's adults are often not immune to these diseases because of having been vaccinated as a child and losing their immunity over time. So they avoided it as a child but got it when older. Hardly a worthwhile trade-off.

You're missing one crucial factor in this calculation. The children who never reached adulthood because of measles, mumps and rubella. That number is considerably larger than people whose immunity wanes over time in a a society that maintains herd immunity.

It's quite a worthwhile trade-off!

imorethanamother

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:16 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

So much to unpack here, but I will just say this:
The MMR vaccine was not tested against a placebo.
It was not tracked for the same amount of time that all drugs must be tracked.

These are facts. People who are hesitant to inject substances in their bodies and need convincing to do so want these specific points addressed.

You've all actually proven my point.

The provax crowd (99% of the world) is hysterical and can't have a conversation about it.
The antivax crown (the remaining 1%) are calmly focused on facts. Let's try to stay focused on them. Can anyone find a study that showed that the MMR was tested against a placebo, for starters? That would be a fact-based conversation. Thanks.

Ask and you shall receive:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/.....10445

FREQUENCY OF TRUE ADVERSE REACTIONS TO MEASLES-MUMPS-RUBELLA VACCINE: A Double-blind Placebo-controlled Trial in Twins

And this one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/.....02718

We identified 120 articles satisfying our inclusion criteria and included 22. MMR is associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo and is likely to be associated with benign thrombocytopenic purpura (TP), parotitis, joint and limb complaints and aseptic meningitis (mumps Urabe strain-containing MMR). Exposure to MMR is unlikely to be associated with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps Jeryl–Lynn strain-containing MMR).

I look forward to our "fact-based conversation".

nchr

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:16 pm

amother [ Honeydew ] wrote:

First of all, it is not supposed autism. Autism has skyrocketed. Whether you believe it comes from vaccines, pollution, smart phones or eating chicken legs. The numbers prove that regardless of the cause. The govt is not covering up autism, they are just avoiding to find out the reasons for the rise.

To answer your question, the pharmaceutical lobby is the most powerful lobby in Washington outspending oil and gas at a ratio of 2:1. Now draw your own conclusions.

Some of the greatest contributors to higher rates of Autism include:

1. Children used to need to meet eight criteria to be diagnosed - today they only need to meet two: awkward social interactions and repetitive behaviors.

2. There is more awareness of the condition, which has lead to more treatments. Accordingly, autistic children can receive services they never used to be able to access. Also, there is not as large of a stigma today as once upon a time. How many people do you know with children locked on a porch or in a hidden room or even in a home? These were normal years ago, even for what would be called mild autism today.

3. Some people misuse and abuse the diagnosis to obtain free services or other therapies and schooling their children would not otherwise be able to access.

Quite possibly the most extensive medical review ever conducted was done on the MMR and autism using the Danish population. It included over half a million children born from 1999 through 2010. The test showed that there was no link between the MMR and autism, even in groups considered high risk for autism (I.e. older parents, a sibling with autism, etc.). The results showed the same rates of autism amongst children who were or were not vaccinated with the MMR. The study strongly supports that MMR vaccination does not increase the risk for autism, does not trigger autism in susceptible children, and is not associated with clustering of autism cases after vaccination.

We'd don't know what causes Autism. Science does believe it is present at birth and consists of multiple different subsets of diseases. It has been likely linked to certain chemicals mothers were exposed to during pregnancy, but that was not found to be the only cause. We do know, however, that it is not related to or caused by MMR or to vaccines.

nchr

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:19 pm

amother [ Green ] wrote:

Just to point out, the anti-mmr study was done on a study of 12 special needs children, also with no placebo. In addition, the numbers from this study actually showed that there was no connection and Wakefield himself admitted to falsifying the report. He also never said not to vaccinate, only to separate the measled mumps and rubella to separate vaccines.

Retrospecive analysis from the many years MMR has been given also do not show causative connection between the vaccine and autism.

He also owned a large percentage in a company that manufactured separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. It is perhaps one of the best examples of falsifying something and creating outrage in order to pocket money.

amother

Honeydew

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:21 pm

amother [ Ivory ] wrote:

Can you tell me how you know they're avoiding to find the reason for it? Or is that your own assumption?

I AM in the research field, I can wholly ensure you that there are LOTS of studies about autism ongoing. One of the latest theories is that the gut bacteria is a major contribution of it. There are many papers out on this as of late. Why don't you google them, and start reading a bit?

Interesting. This was exactly Andrew Wakefield's hypothesis.
And ftr, I have read many of the latest papers on this and other topics. I read more than a bit, thank you.

SixOfWands

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:22 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

I have two children with autism, and believe me, no one is "covering up". As of right now, "Big Pharma" has no magic pill they can sell to the masses for autism, so they have no reason to want to increase it. Right now, autism is costing insurance companies AND the government billions of dollars. Billions. The government has no reason to want to "cover up" and "avoid finding out the reasons for the rise". They very much want to stop the increase.

Also, why is the pharmaceutical lobby the biggest lobbyists in Washington? Why IS it that they outspend oil and gas?

Well, let's see. What's the United States' biggest commodity. Is it oil? No. We don't produce oil. Is it gas? Well, gas is a byproduct of oil, mostly. So , no. We get those mostly from the Middle East.

We disbanded factories. Industries. We moved most of these offshore, and import nearly everything we use in our home. The only thing the United States really produces is healthcare. And with our health-obsessed economy, which is ironically worse off due to the excess of food, healthcare is exploding, along with our population. People demand better drugs, more drugs, and new diseases are emerging all the time.

HIV is the single biggest moneymaker in the healthcare market today. Pharmaceutical companies can get rich selling them their vital drug cocktail that they need to live, they can live on them for decades, and they will develop dangerous side effects to their liver and other organs that will necessitate more drugs. And yet. And yet. The government has single-handedly thrown everything they can into the war on AIDS. The NIH funds thousands and thousands of laboratories to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to find a way to cure AIDS. The numbers of newly infected have decreased dramatically due to their efforts.
Why would they do that if "Big Pharma" would profit off of HIV?

AND they think they're found something that will make it impossible to transmit HIV, which would be amazing. And would effectively end the use of a lot of medications within a couple of decades. https://www.theguardian.com/so.....ssion

As to autism ... when someone falsifies a study to connect autism to vaccines, you have to conduct additional studies to see if the results of the small-scale study can be reproduced (they can't, they were falsified), then still more studies to see what's going on (fraud). Then you have every conspiracy theorist and tin foil hatter screaming that the connection MUST be there, so there are more studies showing the same things. You wind up wasting years, and billions of dollars, debunking what was a fraudulent study to begin with, instead of conducting research that could be helpful.

nchr

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:24 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

1. Please study the Danish review I referenced a few comments above. That is as extensive of a test as has ever been conducted, on over 500,000 children born between 1999 through 2010.

2. Vaccines do not need a placebo. Placebos are used to test efficacy as in "did this drug improve concentration." A placebo cannot induce immunity so it is irrelevant with vaccinations; whereas a placebo for an antidepressant or pain medication may give person the feeling of being treated and work in and of itself. Regardless, the "placebos" in regard to vaccines are the individuals who had never been vaccinated before the discovery of the vaccine or those who forgo vaccines.

Lastly, what you define as "hysterical people" exist on both sides of the coins and a black and white comment like that is inappropriate.

amother

Honeydew

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:33 pm

nchr wrote:

The Danish Study only tested the mmr. And then the claim is made that vaccines (plural) don't cause autism.

Using individuals who had never been vaccinated when vaccines weren't yet discovered as placebos is ridiculous. Did they live in the same conditions we do? with clean water, proper sewage systems, adequate nutrition, availability of certain medications etc etc??? by far not a viable placebo group.

nchr

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:34 pm

amother [ Honeydew ] wrote:

1. Vaccination with 2 MMRs offers lifelong immunity in 97% of individuals, regardless of titers which can be misleading, as has been explained multiple times in threads.

2. During the civil war, measles killed so many soldiers, especially in the south, that many believe the measles had a significant impact on the outcome of the war. In fact over 4,000 soldiers died of the measles in the Union Army alone (out of about 65,000 soldiers who had the measles). These were not children, but young adults and adults who hadn't developed the disease as children or a small percentage of whom had had the disease but had not developed immunity.

imorethanamother

Fri, May 03 2019, 2:36 pm

amother [ Honeydew ] wrote:

Dr. Berkovic's study is very interesting and it's great he did such a study. The issue is, if there are many people who are born with a genetic predisposition to seizures or other neurological issues, why are vaccines a one size fits all product? Shouldn't every baby be required to go through medical screening before receiving a vaccine to determine whether it can be detrimental to his/her health? Why wait till after the fact to give this child a medical exemption when all of it could have been avoided?

And why can't puppies be pink and why can't grass be made of fuzzy sparkles?

What "medical screening" are you suggesting? Do you understand what's happening here, medically and scientifically? Are you suggesting that somehow, we genetically DNA sequence every single newborn, cross-reference it to every study that exists about their genes, release that information to your insurance company and your doctor, and cross your fingers and make an educated guess whether or not vaccines may or may not be harmful?

Do YOU know which genes have a negative correlation with vaccines? If you don't, then what exactly are you proposing?

I have two children with autism. To date, there is no single gene that is associated with the disorder. I have other children without autism. How exactly are you supposed to know which gene is the problem? And which gene is susceptible? And should I put my neurotypical children in danger for a hypothetical, unproven, scientifically unresolved guess?

I get that you're not a doctor or a scientist, but you're really not recommending anything of import here.

amother [ Honeydew ] wrote:

Chicken pox do not give "lifelong immunity". They remain dormant until at some point, they can be re-activated and cause shingles. Shingles is very, very painful.

And even if adults obtain lifelong rubella immunity, is that worth the severe side effects to unborn children in utero when exposed to children with the illness?? Is that a risk you're willing to take with your own babies?

Is death amongst those who got measles worth the "lifelong immunity" it confers to the lucky survivors? Even if those who died are your siblings? Your kids? Your aunts or uncles?

I think that's definitely a worthwhile "trade-off", if you ask me.