07 Jan 11
http://tinyurl.com/2g77mbu
A decade-old study authored by former British surgeon Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been deemed "fraudulent" in an editorial in the British Medical Journal.
The authors of the editorial say Wakefield--who was stripped of his medical license after Brian Deer of the Sunday Times exposed flaws in the study in 2004--manufactured parts of his subjects' medical histories to make it seem as if the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was linked to autism. Wakefield also recruited most of his only 12 child subjects through an anti-vaccine parents' group, Deer writes.
Honestly, I'm stumped on this one. I've read so many reports of studies showing:
1) vaccines cause autism
2) vaccines do not cause autism
that it's getting ridiculous.
I know some people who won't vaccinate their kids for fear of autism and others who call people like that criminals for neglecting their children's health.
So, what say you? Does anyone think they know which camp is correct?
Does anyone have a problem with government mandated vaccines on the grounds that parents should be the ones to decide whether to incur the "risk" (if there is one)?
07 Jan 11
Originally posted by sh76I have a problem with any government mandated vaccines except in the case of infectious diseases which are readily capable of causing death or serious illness.
http://tinyurl.com/2g77mbu
[quote]A decade-old study authored by former British surgeon Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been deemed "fraudulent" in an editorial in the British Medical Journal.
The authors of the editorial say Wakefield--who was stripped of his medical license after Brian Deer of the Sunday Times exposed flaws in the study in 2004--manufactured p ...[text shortened]... t parents should be the ones to decide whether to incur the "risk" (if there is one)?
07 Jan 11
Originally posted by sh76I'm not aware of any reputable, peer-reviewed study that makes any statistically significant association between vaccines and autism.
http://tinyurl.com/2g77mbu
Honestly, I'm stumped on this one. I've read so many reports of studies showing:
1) vaccines cause autism
2) vaccines do not cause autism
that it's getting ridiculous.
I know some people who won't vaccinate their kids for fear of autism and others who call people like that criminals for neglecting their children's healt ...[text shortened]... that parents should be the ones to decide whether to incur the "risk" (if there is one)?
07 Jan 11
Originally posted by SoothfastThere was a report in the Lancet many years ago, the 60's, implying a 'tenuous' link between certain measles \ mumps etc type vaccines and autism. In the U.K. the 4 in 1 vaccine for children was quickly changed to the 3 in 1 but with no mention as to why. This change had many many parents deeply concerned and considering all options...this was probably wholly responsible for thousands of children having none whatsoever until a later age, therefore lessening the statistically considered susceptability to age and the autism \ vaccine risk.
I'm not aware of any reputable, peer-reviewed study that makes any statistically significant association between vaccines and autism.
07 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RevRSleekerThat's the best thing we can dredge up? Some study that "implied" a "tenuous link" half a century ago?
There was a report in the Lancet many years ago, the 60's, implying a 'tenuous' link between certain measles \ mumps etc type vaccines and autism. In the U.K. the 4 in 1 vaccine for children was quickly changed to the 3 in 1 but with no mention as to why. This change had many many parents deeply concerned and considering all options...this was probably w ...[text shortened]... lessening the statistically considered susceptability to age and the autism \ vaccine risk.
So anyway, there are now lots of children in all strata of society who have not had vaccinations because their parents acted irresponsibly and without doing their homework, and I've yet to hear of any study finding the incidence of autism being lower among unvaccinated children.
09 Jan 11
Originally posted by sh76Although government-mandated vaccines are a small infringement of personal liberty, they are justified by the concept of "herd immunity" - the fact that a disease can be eliminated entirely from a population if levels of vaccination are sufficiently high - and also by the corresponding negative effects of partial vaccination programmes. For instance, if an insufficient number of people are vaccinated against mumps, then the consequence can be an increase in the average age at which people contract the disease - a problem, since mumps is a more serious disease in adulthood than in childhood. In this way, a half-hearted vaccination programme, as is likely to result if it is voluntary, could lead to more deaths from mumps than no vaccination programme at all. Compulsory vaccination can thus be justified as leading to the best of all possible outcomes. See the Wikipedia discussion here:
Does anyone have a problem with government mandated vaccines on the grounds that parents should be the ones to decide whether to incur the "risk" (if there is one)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_modelling_in_epidemiology#The_mathematics_of_mass_vaccination
Wikipedia also presents statistics showing the effect of the allegations of a link between measles and autism on the prevalence of measles. "Before publication of Wakefield's findings, the inoculation rate for MMR in the UK was 92%; after publication, the rate dropped to below 80%. In 1998, there were 56 measles cases in the UK; by 2008, there were 1348 cases, with 2 confirmed deaths."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
For those worried about their children's safety, it should be also be noted that all vaccines have potential side effects, but that the side effects are less common and less severe than the effects of the disease itself. For instance, about one in a thousand measles victims develops measles encephalitis, with consequences ranging from death to severe brain damage; the chances of acquiring encephalitis from the vaccine are about one in a million.
I had measles as a kid (since it was thought I was allergic to one component of the vaccine) and though I made a full recovery, it was not an experience I would wish on anyone.
09 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderTeinosuke's post expresses a similar sentiment.
I have a problem with any government mandated vaccines except in the case of infectious diseases which are readily capable of causing death or serious illness.
But let's look at this another step deeper.
If vaccines are considered safe, why should parents have the right to sacrifice their children's health (or lives?) on some speculative or non-existent danger? Parents have been convicted of manslaughter for not taking their kids to the doctor as they grew sicker and died.
If the vaccines really are dangerous, why should parents be forced to risk their children's health for the purpose of stopping infection?
09 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76It's a Natural Right to raise your children free of collective interference. If reasonable minds can differ on the consequences of a particular practice, the State should not be criminalizing a parent's decision which should be given extreme deference.
Teinosuke's post expresses a similar sentiment.
But let's look at this another step deeper.
If vaccines are considered safe, why should parents have the right to sacrifice their children's health (or lives?) on some speculative or non-existent danger? Parents have been convicted of manslaughter for not taking their kids to the doctor as they grew sicker a ...[text shortened]... uld parents be forced to risk their children's health for the purpose of stopping infection?
EDIT: I don't think Teinosuke's post "expresses a similar sentiment"; it expresses a typical sentiment of his that the government should be able to make decisions for you and enforce them by punitive sanctions if the collective determines that is what is best for you. I do not feel that this is allowable where a Natural Right is concerned (of course, Teinosuke thinks you only have such rights as the collective grants you).
09 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderCan reasonable minds differ as to whether a child is better or worse off having gotten an MMR shot? (Quite apart from the potential consequences to people that interact with the child.)
It's a Natural Right to raise your children free of collective interference. If reasonable minds can differ on the consequences of a particular practice, the State should not be criminalizing a parent's decision which should be given extreme deference.
Depends on how you define reasonable, I guess. But I don't think there's a clear cut answer.
09 Jan 11
Originally posted by sh76If there's not a clear cut answer, then the parent's decision should be given deference. In fact, I'd say the standard should approach the "rational basis" test.
Can reasonable minds differ as to whether a child is better or worse off having gotten an MMR shot? (Quite apart from the potential consequences to people that interact with the child.)
Depends on how you define reasonable, I guess. But I don't think there's a clear cut answer.
Of course, if we were talking about serious, highly infectious diseases then there would exist a more compelling government interest.
09 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYou mean the parents' decision should have to pass rational basis review or the government's regulation has to pass the rational basis test?
If there's not a clear cut answer, then the parent's decision should be given deference. In fact, I'd say the standard should approach the "rational basis" test.
Of course, if we were talking about serious, highly infectious diseases then there would exist a more compelling government interest.
I don't recall ever seeing the rational basis test applied to the former.
09 Jan 11
Originally posted by sh76The parent's decision.
You mean the parents' decision should have to pass rational basis review or the government's regulation has to pass the rational basis test?
I don't recall ever seeing the rational basis test applied to the former.
What courts have done regarding these matters is not controlling on my opinion.
09 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderCan you explain what the difference is between what you said:
I don't think Teinosuke's post "expresses a similar sentiment"; it expresses a typical sentiment of his that the government should be able to make decisions for you and enforce them by punitive sanctions if the collective determines that is what is best for you. I do not feel that this is allowable where a Natural Right is concerned (of course, Teinosuke thinks you only have such rights as the collective grants you).
"I have a problem with any government mandated vaccines except in the case of infectious diseases which are readily capable of causing death or serious illness."
and what I said?
People die of measles and its complications. People die of mumps. Pregnant women contract rubella and give birth to seriously disabled children. Granted, these deaths and disabilities are rare, by they happen. How frequent do fatalities or serious disabilities have to be, in your opinion, before the state is justified in implementing a mandatory vaccination programme?
And in this instance "the collective" would not be determining "what is best for you", but determining what is best for the collective. Of course, in reality, the decision is not made by "the collective" (when was the last time vaccination was an issue in a national election?), but by the government acting on the consensus of available expert scientific opinion.
09 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe words "readily capable".
Can you explain what the difference is between what you said:
"I have a problem with any government mandated vaccines except in the case of infectious diseases which are readily capable of causing death or serious illness."
and what I said?
People die of measles and its complications. People die of mumps. Pregnant women contract rubella and give b ), but by the government acting on the consensus of available expert scientific opinion.
Measles might be debatable. Rubella is an exceedingly mild disease. Of course, I have no objection to the government making these vaccines available to those who desire them.
The government is the representatives of the collective, so your point is nonsensical.
EDIT: Teinosuke: For those worried about their children's safety, it should be also be noted that all vaccines have potential side effects, but that the side effects are less common and less severe than the effects of the disease itself.
But your child's chance of getting the disease at all seems to be fairly remote, so this is misleading.
09 Jan 11
1 edit
The words "readily capable". Measles might be debatable. Rubella is an exceedingly mild disease.
So how capable is "readily capable"? If "measles it debatable", at what point do we draw the line? Of course I'm aware that rubella is very mild - so mild that many victims may hardly be aware they have it. On the other hand, if they come into contact with a pregnant woman, the effects can be serious for the foetus. As so often with your posts, I have a problem with the implication that there's a clear line we can draw when in reality (to use your own words in a previous thread) "precision is not possible".
The government is the representatives of the collective, so your point is nonsensical.
No, my point was that the people best placed to weigh up the pros and cons of compulsory vaccination are medical professionals with access to the relevant data and the training to interpret it.
But your child's chance of getting the disease at all seems to be fairly remote, so this is misleading.
Fair point. So the actual statistic that needs to be compared is the chance of people getting and serious side effects from the disease vs the chance of serious side effects from the vaccination. However, the fact that the optimum situation from a parent's point of view may be to have everyone else vaccinate their kids but to keep your own kids unvaccinated (thus benefiting from herd immunity while not risking side effects of vaccination) I can't help feeling that a kind of prisoner's dilemma situation is likely to result.