Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

[Kylyssa]

It really is about risk analysis.  A few years back around 700,000 people died each year from measles.  Now, due to vaccinations, we are down to half that number dead each year.  But that's still more than 950 people a day.  And only 2 to 3 people per thousand with measles will die but up to 15% of people who get measles experience other damaging complications.  If my math is right, then over 70,000 people per day experience measles complications like deafness, blindness, encephalitis, bronchitis, and pneumonia.

[notself]

My idiot niece wouldn't get her daughter vaccinated because her friends told her not to.  Yes my niece is breathtakingly ignorant.  When she put her daughter in school she had to sign all sorts of forms and the she felt like an outsider so she went ahead and had her daughter vaccinated.  She did it to fit in not out of any thoughtful analysis.  The world is full of people like her.  I love her but she's a doofus.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/201 ... ough_N.htm
LOS ANGELES (AP) â€" Whooping cough is now an epidemic in California, and is on pace to break a 50-year record for infections for the year.
As of June 15, California had 910 recorded cases of the highly contagious disease, and five babies â€" all under 3 months of age â€" have died from the disease this year...

[Squid]

The CDC did an extensive study looking into the vaccine-autism thing and concluded there was no link.  Also, it may be worthy to note that Wakefield was struck from the medical register in the U.K. but he moved here in 2001.  Unfortunately, here in the U.S. anti-vaccination groups have welcomed him with open arms as some kind of hero.  Very sad.

Your post may read that he was struck off before he moved to America. He has only just been struck off, when he moved to the US he was still officially a doctor.

Yeah, I suppose I wasn't clear about the two different time periods.

[Businessocks]

I'll try to explain, Kylyssa, what might be the reason so many people are commenting on your blog that you need to consider "the other side."  I think it's wrong that they are blaming our autism for not understanding the emotional impact; that's just wrong.

But, I must admit, I do think it's an unfair statement to say that "millions" of people are refusing immunizations because of celebrities' opinions on them and the link to autism. I think that the autism debate is a red herring to many non-vaccinating families.  I honestly have never met or talked to a single non-vaccinating family who made their decision based on a news story starring Jenny McCarthy.  Rather, these families have researched and read medical journals and reports and compared the numbers for themselves (one family I know has a dad who is an M.D.)

So even though I won't express the popular opinion here, I feel I'll try to explain that the issue really is much more complex.  In short, for many families, the problem with vaccines are the lack of true, scientific testing before releasing vaccines on the market. You can find nutjobs claiming anything for or against vaccines.  What makes me sad about the vaccine-autism debate is that it takes the focus away from the unethical practices of vaccine manufacturers and real, known risks that parents (in my opinion) have the right to weigh in their decision to receive and reject certain vaccines and timing schedules.  And I also hate how the debate equates all vaccines as being equal and having the same risk-benefit numbers for very different populations.  

Take the Hep B vaccine, for instance.  Clearly, for adults and teens who may engage in multiple sex partners, for health workers exposed to potentially ill people, etc. the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.  But scientific anaylsis of the risks vs. benefits for infants receiving the vaccine are very different. Likewise, the polio vaccine, when first introduced, produced cases of polio.  In fact, the live virus vaccine was used in the U.S. until 1999; it took parents whose kids were paralyzed after receiving the vaccine to get the killed virus vaccine made the standard.  

On ethics alone, vaccines are often tested on populations that are poor and ill-informed, who believe these vaccines are being given to them out of compassion, not out of a desire to use them as guinea pigs.  All the time, the manufacturers are getting rich, and the western world doesn't have to risk their children.  I'll share this one quote:

Cleveland children, 1976

Fourteen years later, after isolated reports linking the virus and human cancers, Fraumeni decided to look at another group that had received contaminated vaccine.

The group had been the subject of experiments conducted in the early 1960s at Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital. To determine the effect of different amounts of the vaccines, researchers at the hospital inoculated newborns from mostly lower-income black families with doses ranging up to more than 100 times the dose recommended for adults.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0yNSa26Ar

Time and time again, contaminated vaccines have been pulled; vaccines have been rushed to the public before proper scientific testing; scientists have sounded alarm bells about the hazards of using animal tissues in vaccines.  Still, the public is supposed to feel stupid for questioning them?  Or parents who opt out are depicted as ill-informed?  I don't think that's fair.  I'm not saying that's what your blog does, but I think it might be the impression some people who have not vaccinated may be reaching at yet another "Vaccines don't cause autism so get your kids vaccinated" argument.  

I wish all the science were in place about vaccines to make the decision easy for parents.  But I don't think it is.

But you misread - it isn't a "vaccines don't cause autism so get your kids vaccinated" write up.  It's a "vaccines don't cause autism so the belief that they do is not a rational reason to skip vaccinating" write up.  It only addresses the people who choose to skip vaccinations based on that one myth.  It is only intended to address that single reason.  Millions of other people may skip vaccinations for other reasons, some of them reasonable but every reason doesn't need to be addressed on a page singling out a single reason.  The public isn't supposed to feel stupid for questioning vaccines in general but to question their own motivations if, and only if, their motivations for skipping vaccinations are based on all or part of the MMR study misinformation.

No, I didn't misread.  Please see what I bolded in my post to try to point out that I was trying to help you understand where some of those messages you were complaining about getting were coming from.  I understand that not every blog or article can address every issue.  But this particular issue keeps getting front and center stage, suggesting it is the only issue.

I agree it's about risk analysis.  But I think risk-analysis is more complex than numbers of illnesses and deaths before and after the introduction of a vaccination.  For instance, there are studies about how certain vaccines are more effective when given to a breastfeeding infant while others are less effective when administered to breastfeeding infants.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1785290; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1709 ... inalpos=17

But all of that is off topic to a point.  I'm just a bit surprised that a board full of skeptics is so quick to accept shoddy, unethical science in the name of "the greater good."  I could spend hours linking to articles that discuss the problems with herd immunity theories and efficacy rating reporting inaccuracies, but I think it would be pointless.

Anyway, I knew my response wouldn't be greeted warmly or taken very seriously.  And just for the record, I'm not in either camp.  I don't think vaccines are evil, but I also don't think they are they answer to all ills.   But as I said before, I wish you luck with your blog.

[Tank]

But all of that is off topic to a point.  I'm just a bit surprised that a board full of skeptics is so quick to accept shoddy, unethical science in the name of "the greater good."  I could spend hours linking to articles that discuss the problems with herd immunity theories and efficacy rating reporting inaccuracies, but I think it would be pointless.

Anyway, I knew my response wouldn't be greeted warmly or taken very seriously.  And just for the record, I'm not in either camp.  I don't think vaccines are evil, but I also don't think they are they answer to all ills.   But as I said before, I wish you luck with your blog.

I would appreciate a couple of links if you have a moment.

[Kylyssa]

No, I didn't misread.  Please see what I bolded in my post to try to point out that I was trying to help you understand where some of those messages you were complaining about getting were coming from.  I understand that not every blog or article can address every issue.  But this particular issue keeps getting front and center stage, suggesting it is the only issue.

I agree it's about risk analysis.  But I think risk-analysis is more complex than numbers of illnesses and deaths before and after the introduction of a vaccination.  For instance, there are studies about how certain vaccines are more effective when given to a breastfeeding infant while others are less effective when administered to breastfeeding infants.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1785290; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1709 ... inalpos=17

But all of that is off topic to a point.  I'm just a bit surprised that a board full of skeptics is so quick to accept shoddy, unethical science in the name of "the greater good."  I could spend hours linking to articles that discuss the problems with herd immunity theories and efficacy rating reporting inaccuracies, but I think it would be pointless.

Anyway, I knew my response wouldn't be greeted warmly or taken very seriously.  And just for the record, I'm not in either camp.  I don't think vaccines are evil, but I also don't think they are they answer to all ills.   But as I said before, I wish you luck with your blog.

But what does any of that have to do with the specific issue - that a bad study lead to a myth that vaccines cause autism?  I'm serious - what do other causes parents decide not to vaccinate have to do with the "vaccines cause autism' myth?  I'm not being snarky, I'm asking.  How is this other issue relevant to the "vaccines cause autism" myth?  If you explain it, maybe I can understand it.  To me, it looks like a completely different subject.  Unsafe vaccines surely exist or have existed but I don't get how it relates to the particular myth.  

It's as if I had blogged about women with breast cancer choosing not to get their breasts removed and then people demanded to know why I didn't cover why people with colon cancer don't get their breasts removed.

I decided to write about this particular myth because I am an autistic person who gets frequent messages from people telling me how to cure my autism through chelation or how it was vaccines that caused my autism.  I get more than one direct message per week on the "vaccines cause autism" myth, and much more when lots of people read my autism pages.  I also don't pass (approve) a decent number of  comments on my autism "blogs" per week because they are repeating the autism/MMR vaccine myth.  The emails and private messages on how to fix me and about vaccines causing autism make up about half of my private messages.  The other half is made up of threats regarding my atheist "blogs" or atheism blog and some good stuff regarding my homelessness "blogs."  Since my autism "blogs" make up such a tiny portion (perhaps 1%) of what I write online under this pseudonym, it seemed to me that there must be a reason that about half of my "blog" related private messages had to do with the "vaccines cause autism" myth in one way or another.  Before now, none of those "blogs" have dealt with vaccines, only with my experiences as an autistic person.  

I am unaffected by the other reasons people don't vaccinate their children other than as they affect the population in general.  To be blunt, I have no interest in rational reasons people don't vaccinate.  Why would I be speaking out against rational reasons to skip vaccinations?  And conversely, why would I be writing in support of those rational decisions when it's not a topic people bring up to me?  I mean, how does it relate to this irrational myth people keep bringing up to me?

I'm autistic.  My "blogs" and my blogs are my main way of interacting with the world.  I'm a freelance writer who writes to relax - go figure.  If you are mostly a non-verbal autistic as well, you can probably relate.  Since these online pieces of thought are my major conversation and interaction, maybe you can see why I might be interested in a subject that people keep bringing up to me.





I keep putting the words "blog" and "blogs" in quotations because blogs contain posts which are usually serial in nature.  A single, stand alone piece is not a blog.  "Post" would be a more accurate term than blog in this usage.  Or one could use the term editorial if one were feeling charitable.

[Businessocks]

Kylyssa,

You sound very upset in your response, and I'm sorry if I caused that in you.

The other info relates, imho, in that
1. One faulty study does not necessarily discount people's anecdotal evidence in their minds.  This anecdotal evidence-- coupled with the fear that not the whole truth about vaccines, and therefore the autism-vaccine connection is being researched and taken seriously-- coupled with unethical, poor study of vaccines, gets all tangled up together.  In short, if vaccine research is shoddy and unethical in other areas, why would the autism-vaccine research be taken as fact and trusted so quickly?  Just to be clear, not my point of view, but definitely a popularly held belief in the autism-vaccine camp.

2.  As I've said twice now, it relates in that I was trying to paint a picture of why (I think you called people's messages to you "self-righteous) folks might be sending you messages that were upsetting or angering to you.  That was the impression I reached from your mentioning the messages.  No one in the autism-vaccine camp that I've encountered and worked with sees it as a single issue; it's not colon cancer vs. breast cancer to them.  It's vaccines = unknown risks, dishonest reporting of statistics, etc.  Thus, they don't trust the studies.  They feel the need to point out why we shouldn't be so quick to trust these recent studies that found, in their opinion, what they wanted to find.

To sum up, I'm sorry if I said anything.  I've worked in depth with this community in trying to understand and help them communicate with health workers.  It's one of those issues that scientists want to use numbers to try to heal emotional hurts, and it's not working.  So my intent, again, was to try to help you understand the comments you were receiving.  

Of course it makes sense that this one area relates to you, but to others, it's not as isolated.  I hope that helps clear it up.

Peace to you.  Good luck with your writing and all you do.

[Kylyssa]

Kylyssa,

You sound very upset in your response, and I'm sorry if I caused that in you.

The other info relates, imho, in that
1. One faulty study does not necessarily discount people's anecdotal evidence in their minds.  This anecdotal evidence-- coupled with the fear that not the whole truth about vaccines, and therefore the autism-vaccine connection is being researched and taken seriously-- coupled with unethical, poor study of vaccines, gets all tangled up together.  In short, if vaccine research is shoddy and unethical in other areas, why would the autism-vaccine research be taken as fact and trusted so quickly?  Just to be clear, not my point of view, but definitely a popularly held belief in the autism-vaccine camp.

2.  As I've said twice now, it relates in that I was trying to paint a picture of why (I think you called people's messages to you "self-righteous) folks might be sending you messages that were upsetting or angering to you.  That was the impression I reached from your mentioning the messages.  No one in the autism-vaccine camp that I've encountered and worked with sees it as a single issue; it's not colon cancer vs. breast cancer to them.  It's vaccines = unknown risks, dishonest reporting of statistics, etc.  Thus, they don't trust the studies.  They feel the need to point out why we shouldn't be so quick to trust these recent studies that found, in their opinion, what they wanted to find.

To sum up, I'm sorry if I said anything.  I've worked in depth with this community in trying to understand and help them communicate with health workers.  It's one of those issues that scientists want to use numbers to try to heal emotional hurts, and it's not working.  So my intent, again, was to try to help you understand the comments you were receiving.  

Of course it makes sense that this one area relates to you, but to others, it's not as isolated.  I hope that helps clear it up.

Peace to you.  Good luck with your writing and all you do.

I thank you for all of your attempts to explain.  

Any insight as to why, when I never before brought up vaccines on any of my autism pages, people felt compelled to contact me to say that vaccines caused my autism?  A few have directed me to alternative "medicine" practitioners and suggested that chelation would fix me but most have just written to basically say, hey, you know vaccines caused your autism.  I can understand why someone might try to be helpful in giving me information they think could fix my ills but why the other?  

Why just look up autistic people online to comment on their pages or to email/pm them telling them vaccines caused all their problems?  If people hadn't contacted me in such a way, I'd never have known the myth existed.

If the "vaccines cause autism" myth barely exists at all and hardly affects anyone then why did so many people spontaneously contact me to tell it to me as if it were true?  Is it merely a coincidence that UK compliance with vaccination schedules dropped drastically after the faulty MMR study was released?

Type "vaccine safety" into the search engine of your choice.  Then examine the top 100 results.  You will find that well over half of those results which are anti-vax (many results you get will not be anti-vax) include the "vaccines cause autism" myth as if it were true.  I have been unable to find one anti-vaxxer page on which the "vaccines cause autism" myth is questioned.  

And yes, I consider people who message me with the words "Your affliction doesn't allow you to see the truth" to be self-righteous.  That's the nicest way it gets put.  "Stupid" and "retarded" come up far more often.  "If you hadn't got [sic] vaccinated you'd be normal" isn't very nice, either.