Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Driven By An Unknown Force To Change History For The Better Previous entry: Michael Steele agrees to be neutered by his masters at the RNC

Anti-science watch: Jenny McCarthy has her own show

Anti-science warriors, who are beginning to cross ideological boundaries, have just won a major media battle.  Anti-medicine, pro-disease quack Jenny McCarthy is getting her own TV show, at the behest of Oprah Winfrey.

Following in the heels of Dr. Phil and Rachael Ray, McCarthy has signed a deal with Harpo Productions to develop multi-platform projects, including a syndicated talk show and a blog, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

McCarthy’s blog launched Friday on Oprah.com and already features three entries from the actress.

In recent years, McCarthy has been a frequent guest on Winfrey’s talk show, discussing her efforts in helping her son, Evan, combat autism. She also appeared this past Friday as part of Winfrey’s Friday Live panel.

This is a complete disaster.  For reasons I can’t quite understand, Jenny McCarthy is dedicated to fighting medical science on multiple fronts on the theory that she, as a celebrity who has given birth, understands way more about disease and biology than mere doctors and scientists, with their facts and their evidence.  I know that there was some hope expressed that now that Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who published the study that supposedly showed a link between autism and vaccines, has been exposed as a fraud, the anti-vaccination movement would wither away and die.  Unfortunately, I’ve been watching the anti-choice and creationist movements for a long time, so I know that cranks not only don’t care about the facts, scientific evidence against them just redoubles their enthusiasm for the cause, because now they can feel like they’re fighting reality itself.  Overcoming a foe like that is a feather in your cap indeed.  And McCarthy’s acquisition of a TV show demonstrates that I was right—-if they can’t win on the facts, they’ll dominate the media discourse.

The first three blog posts at McCarthy’s blog are the sort of thing that give people who promote healthy eating a bad name.  It’s not that she’s wrong to suggest that eating a bunch of sugar isn’t good for you.  But this is coming from McCarthy, who actually claims to have cured her son of autism through obsessively monitoring his diet.

We believe what helped Evan recover was starting a gluten-free, casein-free diet, vitamin supplementation, detox of metals, and anti-fungals for yeast overgrowth that plagued his intestines. Once Evan’s neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments, speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism.

Her article is hard to read, seeing as how it’s laced with her determined belief that her son “caught” autism.  The evidence is piling up quickly for the best theory regarding autism, which is that it’s genetic.  Even if and when they conclusively prove that autism is genetic, though, McCarthy and her comrades will not give up claiming you get it from “toxins” in vaccines.  That’s just not how anti-science nuts operate.  They need to believe in their heart of hearts that they’re smarter than people who actually know what they’re talking about.  I’m not surprised that McCarthy is obsessed with food to the point where she thinks about it in near-magical terms, either.  Women are already deluged with all these pressures to eat and not eat and be able to eat a lot without gaining an ounce and know how to cook but know how to say no and find that perfect diet solution.  Add to that a career where it’s not important merely to be thin, but to be perfectly thin with no bumps or wrinkles, and food is going to move from being a constant issue to a real obsession.  But that doesn’t make her an expert, nor does it mean you can cure someone of autism by refusing to feed them wheat.

The food quackery is a minor issue compared to her anti-vaccination crap, though.  Despite her and Jim Carrey’s claims to desire “green” vaccinations (whatever that means), they’ve made it incredibly clear that there will ever be a time when they accept any proof whatsoever that vaccines are safe.  Unfortunately, McCarthy’s schtick about how she’s a mom and gosh, don’t we moms know better than anyone else about anything (even though we have an endearing humility) is really appealing to a lot of people who are in charge of small children.  Hiding behind the feelings of parents of autistic kids to push this nonsense is even more despicable.  People aren’t well served by being lied to, and the only people out there really doing anything to fight autism in the reality-based world are the much-despised and spat upon scientists and doctors who actually fight disease, including those that you fight off with vaccines. 

The good news is that despite the economic and celebrity power of the anti-vaccination movement, some people are bravely fighting back, even though they know that even bringing up the subject means that anti-vaccination folks will try to wear them into shutting up through relentless bullshitting and guilt trips.  They had a Momversation video about it, even though it’s just inviting trouble:

It’s imperfect, of course.  There’s all this discussion about “beliefs” instead of facts, and suggestions that someone is “researching” something if they read a whole bunch of unscientific, fact-free screeds and believe those above the evidence-based information out there.  But even as they hedge and try to avoid insulting people who think this is a matter of “belief” instead of facts, they make the important points: not vaccinating your kids is stupid, there’s no science on your side, and the guy who had the one study that seemed to find a link between vaccinations and autism is a fraud.  We need to see more of this, and less of Jenny McCarthy.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:44 PM • (164) Comments

As the brother of an autistic man, I feel for people in these situations. It’s tough, no doubt about it.

That said, it’s still deplorable that some of them are pushing “solutions” that could actively harm other children as well as their own.

Comment #1: Bitter Scribe  on  05/04  at  07:53 PM

So, Oprah’s giving McCarthy this platform. Is it really surprising that Oprah would embrace woo?

Comment #2: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  05/04  at  07:54 PM

Off the top of my head I can think of three celebrities who follow the “a better diet cures everything” program:

1) McCarthy
2) Suzanne Somers
3) Bill Maher

Are there more?

What I find interesting is that Hollywood celebrities, who have more money than they know what to do with, are avoiding traditional medicine in favor of folk remedies or diet/fitness routine “life savers”.  When the people who can afford the best health care in the world are shunning it in favor of specially designed personal care regimes, it adds an air of legitimacy to experimental medical science.

Comment #3: deep6  on  05/04  at  07:57 PM

Related to this, can we possibly get a movement started to stop the liberal blogosphere from citing the Huffington Post?  Their entire medical section is an insult to science, and Jim Carrey himself recently started blogging there with his antivax woo.  It’s really embarrassing that so many liberal bloggers link to their political section, because it just allows this crazy bullshit to continue.

Comment #4: John Cain  on  05/04  at  07:58 PM

That’s Jim Carrey in the top photo?  I did not recognize him.  That outfit, hair included, would be an awesome costume for anyone wanting to go to a party dressed as the biggest (male) douche imaginable.

Given Oprah’s embrace of The Secret (the secret is if you’ve got cancer you deserve it!) I am not surprised at her helping the anti-vaccination crowd.

Comment #5: kaninchen  on  05/04  at  08:00 PM

Another side effect of pushing the “vaccines cause autism” hoax is that it sets up parents of autistic kids to feel horribly guilty for having had them vaccinated in the first place.  I’ve known parents in this situation; even though they “know” intellectually that autism is probably genetic in origin, they just can’t let go of the nagging feeling that they could have prevented it by forgoing vaccinations. 

No one should have to go through life thinking “I should have listened to Jenny McCarthy.”  No one.

Comment #6: Captain Bathrobe  on  05/04  at  08:04 PM

I saw this on Hollywood Reporter and wondered just what the hell is wrong with Oprah that she’d give this woman a show but it’s not too terribly surprising, Oprah likes money and I’m sure McCarthy will make her some because a lot of parents, especially new and relatively well to do parents, are eating this shit up for reasons I can’t understand. Whenever I’ve read message boards on the subject I can’t believe how ignorant people can be. There was even one woman who hadn’t vaccinated her daughter and was hoping she’d get measles because she believed that, were it not for vaccines, humans would’ve evolved to be immune to it by now, never taking into account the fact that the measles would’ve evolved as well.

The evidence is piling up quickly for the best theory regarding autism, which is that it’s genetic. Even if and when they conclusively prove that autism is genetic, though, McCarthy and her comrades will not give up claiming you get it from “toxins” in vaccines.

Nobody wants to think it’s *their* fault (as much as genetics can be someone’s “fault”) so they look for something, anything they can focus their energy on as opposed to accepting it. I can understand the desire to want to “fix” their kids but not to the point where it becomes detrimental to others.

Comment #7: UltraMagnus  on  05/04  at  08:05 PM

Anyone else wish that Jim Carrey would practice what his preachy movies preach and give all his money to the poor?  That way we wouldn’t be subjected to this photo of him wearing a ridiculous outfit that probably cost in the region of $10,000.

Oh.  I see kaninchen’s with me.

Comment #8: BABH  on  05/04  at  08:08 PM

Nobody wants to think it’s *their* fault (as much as genetics can be someone’s “fault”) so they look for something, anything they can focus their energy on as opposed to accepting it.

I think what’s so seductive is the illusion of control.  In my experience, humans would rather accept just about any other explanation than “it was beyond your control.”  Sure, it lets people off the hook, but the thought of being out of control is so frightening to some/most/all of us that we would sooner blame ourselves than admit we were powerless.

Comment #9: Captain Bathrobe  on  05/04  at  08:12 PM

If I recall correctly, there is a metabolic disorder that can interfere with neurological development, but it is NOT autism.  To continue pimping her son’s improvement as proof that “autism” can be cured by a strict diet and not vaccinating is completely offensive and, IMO, harmful to those families whose autistic kids are not “curable.” Apparently, they just aren’t committed enough.

Comment #10: history_mom  on  05/04  at  08:16 PM

I have Asperger’s, and this whole panic makes me angry on a number of levels.  Firstly, because they’re endangering kids by scaring their parents away from giving them important vaccinations; secondly, because they’re attracting public attention to pseudoscience and away from genuine autism research; and lastly, because I think the outcry helps fuel fear of and prejudice against people with autistic spectrum disorders.  Not all cases on the spectrum are the same, and plenty of people with ASDs lead happy, fulfilling lives.  With greater scientific knowledge of ASDs, a lot of us had hoped that some of the old stereotypes would be dispelled.  Unfortunately, these people certainly aren’t helping.

Comment #11: David Paul  on  05/04  at  08:22 PM

My godson didn’t get a lot of his vaccines because his idiot dad listened to these idiots.  When Jay ends up being the only kid at school that gets fucking chicken pox and spreads it to his (or my) little cousins who aren’t old enough to get vaccinated, I’ll only have one clean foot.  The other will need to disinfected from all the asses it’ll be up.

This stuff is ridiculous.  The risks of not vaccinating your kids are so much greater than getting the shots.  The biggest threat, the above-mentioned weakened “herd immunity.”  You know what caused the rise in autism rates?  Better, clearer diagnostic criteria.  My family doctor’s the kind of guy who’ll make time to answer to any and all questions.  Upon a family member’s kid getting diagnosed, I ran all this stuff by him.  He face-palmed.  The guy’s also a diet-freak.  He’s one of those people who promote better living through a better diet, but he’s not a nut job about it.  He just promotes common sense eating habits (and helped me combat the worst of my bipolar symptoms through dietary changes).

All that aside, wasn’t the original issue a compound called thimerasol?  It’s not used anymore and studies have shown the rates of autism have, in fact, continued to rise despite it’s absence.

Comment #12: Spooky Skeptic  on  05/04  at  08:22 PM

Yep, metabolic disorders can often lead to misdiagnoses of, among other conditions, autism because the symptoms are similar.

Comment #13: history_mom  on  05/04  at  08:25 PM

history_mom, the likeliest explanation for her son’s recovery I’ve heard is that he had a very high-functioning disorder on the autism spectrum, and a percentage of kids with that diagnosis recover on their own.  She could have fed him a diet of Doritos and had the same result.  It just happens.

Comment #14: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/04  at  08:29 PM

Yes, they originally blamed thimerasol, but when that was taken out, they expanded it to a long list of “toxins” that are in vaccines, many of which are already in your system in larger amounts.  Even if we could eliminate every “toxin” in the vaccines, they’d just object to the weakened virus, and claim that causes autism.  We’re talking about an ideological opposition to medicine that is sadly easier to push on your children than live up to yourself.

Comment #15: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/04  at  08:32 PM

That’s Jim Carrey in the top photo?  I did not recognize him.  That outfit, hair included, would be an awesome costume for anyone wanting to go to a party dressed as the biggest (male) douche imaginable.

Ha ha, I was just thinking, wow, I can’t believe how hot Jim Carrey looks!  I guess it’s the long hair, I really have a thing about that.

Comment #16: Lady Vader  on  05/04  at  08:35 PM

Ha ha, I was just thinking, wow, I can’t believe how hot Jim Carrey looks!

As they say, mileage varies.  :D

Comment #17: kaninchen  on  05/04  at  08:38 PM

McCarthy admits in the CNN editorial that most of the doctors who have seen Evan since his recovery think he was misdiagnosed.  But I will not discount that he had a higher-functioning form of autism that responded well to early intervention. Actually, the early-intervention would be the most likely explanation for his success and is in line with mainstream medicine.

Comment #18: history_mom  on  05/04  at  08:38 PM

This is largely unrelated nitpicking, but I’m kinda bothered by the tone I got from the original article about the show.  I don’t think it’s fair to Rachel Ray to sort of dismiss her for being part of this media company.  Unlike Dr. Phil and Jenny “The. Best. Mom. Evar.” McCarthy, Ray has contributed to society.  Granted, it was just a quick-fix recipe for some super delish yummo chicken parm meatball hoagies.  It was a contribution that has enhanced my quality of life, none the less.

Comment #19: Spooky Skeptic  on  05/04  at  08:39 PM

Given Oprah’s embrace of The Secret (the secret is if you’ve got cancer you deserve it!) I am not surprised at her helping the anti-vaccination crowd.

I am such a non-fan of Oprah’s, I can’t even get started on her.  But The Secret is such fucking bullshit.  I watched the video, and one of these “experts” said, among many other ludicrous claims, that the anti-war movement was causing more war, because you know, they think about war a lot.  What a bunch of assholes, and people buy this shit.  Oh don’t think about cancer and you won’t get it.  I can totally disprove that shit I will tell you that right now.  Because I always think I have cancer or am getting it.  I am a freaking cancer-hypochondriac, and if thinking about cancer gave you cancer, I would be dead.

Comment #20: Lady Vader  on  05/04  at  08:39 PM

Jenny McCarthy might want to consider the fate of James Frey—what Oprah giveth in audiences of credulous exurban housewives, Oprah can taketh away. But yeah, Oprah does have a tendency to latch on to all sorts of frauds if they’re telegenic and fit into her New-Agey worldview.

the outcry helps fuel fear of and prejudice against people with autistic spectrum disorders.  Not all cases on the spectrum are the same, and plenty of people with ASDs lead happy, fulfilling lives.

Yep, I have a relative who’s autistic, and he’s a happy guy with “normal” friends, a college degree, an employer who appreciates his encyclopaedic memory and ability to “think differently.” His parents didn’t blame vaccines or diet either; they assessed his abilities, found he could be mainstreamed, and busted their butts to ensure that he’d enjoy a happy, fulfilling life—not despite his condition, but because he is who he is.

Comment #21: Gracchus.  on  05/04  at  08:41 PM

I’ve heard is that he had a very high-functioning disorder on the autism spectrum, and a percentage of kids with that diagnosis recover on their own.

A higher-functioning spectrum condition (not disorder) tends to be self-correcting/self-compensating—especially if the child comes from a supportive and tolerant home.

Comment #22: Gracchus.  on  05/04  at  08:45 PM

If you think this is flaky, you should check out the “indigo mom” BS she was peddling before she jumped on the “vaccinations cause autism” bandwagon.

Comment #23: tideoffate  on  05/04  at  08:47 PM

Ha. I was just on Gawker which tears into McCarthy, but also linked to this piece in the Los Angeles Times where measles is up in CA.

Gawker, and the LAT points out that it used to be poor children who would suffer from this disease but now it’s wealthier children who aren’t vaccinated. In this case a kid who wasn’t vaccinated came back from Switzerland and infected other un-vaccinated kids in his class and doctor’s office.

From the article:

“As you start to see an erosion of confidence in vaccines and there are pockets of people choosing not to vaccinate, this is what you’ll see,” said Offit, a co-inventor and co-patent-holder of the vaccine for rotavirus. “Measles is not eliminated from the world.”

Comment #24: UltraMagnus  on  05/04  at  08:50 PM

Yep, Jenny’s crazy, Oprah I’m still on the fence about, but I generally consider her a “does-more-good-than-harm” person. So I’m with y’all on most of this.  I do think it’s generally possible that western medicine can have a god-complex, and I have seen many a doctor who made me feel like sh*t for being fat or “making up” symptoms or whatever.  The whole gluten-free thing isn’t a bad idea, either, and for those who are actually allergic to wheat, it seems that western medicine seems fully incapable of diagnosing it.  (After 25 years of debilitating stomach aches and throwing up and horrible gas and uncontrollable belching, and then tubes in every hole imaginable and years of reflux medicine that didn’t do shit and every type of specialist and being told she’s just seeking attention…my little sister then had to be diagnosed by a FRIEND and then told by the doctors that “oh!  it looks like to do have Celiacs!”)

Comment #25: roro80  on  05/04  at  09:03 PM

Admittedly this relative is a little woo (although not enough to forego vaccines), but I have a distant relative who has an autistic son, and she claims that autism often goes hand in hand with food allergies, not that food allergies cause autism, more the other way around.  Since she started controlling his diet, her son has gone from unbelievably out of control to a somewhat normal kid with some extra issues.  Maybe he was misdiagnosed, maybe he had a higher-functioning spectrum condition or whatever, I don’t really know, I’m just throwing that out there.

Comment #26: keshmeshi  on  05/04  at  09:05 PM

Ha. I was just on Gawker which tears into McCarthy, but also linked to this piece in the Los Angeles Times where measles is up in CA.

Here’s a more recent article (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immunization29-2009mar29,0,3148179.story) with a Google map of at-risk schools based on vaccination exemption rates (i.e. parents who buy into the anti-vaccination hysteria)—definite concentration in private schools and wealthy neighbourhood public schools. I notice my niece and nephew attend one of these schools—so glad my family doesn’t buy into pseudo-science.

Comment #27: Gracchus.  on  05/04  at  09:10 PM

You know what caused the rise in autism rates?  Better, clearer diagnostic criteria.

Yes. Thank you. When I helped my brother apply for SSI, I collected his medical records from various hospitalizations, and I was shocked at how all over the map the diagnoses were. Depression, paranoid psychosis, manic depression, on and on.

The clinical psychologist who did the final evaluation of my brother told us that the type of high-functioning autism he has wasn’t even recognized as autism until about 15 years ago. Too late for him. Basically, everyone just wanted to sweep him under the rug. The high school did absolutely nothing about his getting beaten and tormented, and kicked him out at 16.

Comment #28: Bitter Scribe  on  05/04  at  09:16 PM

Since she started controlling his diet, her son has gone from unbelievably out of control to a somewhat normal kid with some extra issues.

The main point is that controlling diet doesn’t really “cure” the “extra issues” (i.e. autism) as McCarthy and others claim.

Comment #29: Gracchus.  on  05/04  at  09:18 PM

Bitter Scribe,

Your brother isn’t alone. When I lived in NYC, I was friends with an engineer/inventor who discovered he was a high-functioning autistic in his early 50s—he described almost exactly the same round of misdiagnoses, including horrible interactions between psychotropic meds meant for “normal” brains and his own “different” brain. He was a brilliant guy, and managed to pull through, but he had a rough life that was literally etched into his face.

Comment #30: Gracchus.  on  05/04  at  09:29 PM

I have ADHD and you hear the same diet horseshit about my disorder, too. It’s garbage. Sorry but the only thing that manages it is Adderall and good coping strategies.

BTW, Bill Maher can be such a douche when he goes on about health issues. He was blabbing this week about how people are getting swine flu because of “weak immune systems” even though Swine Flu is dangerous because it attakcs people with STRONG, instead of WEAK, immune systems (like regular flu does). You think he or his writers could at least Wikipedia the damn subject he’s going to spout off on it.

Comment #31: Ben D.  on  05/04  at  09:33 PM

Since she started controlling his diet, her son has gone from unbelievably out of control to a somewhat normal kid with some extra issues.

As someone with some unpleasant food intolerances (why oh why can’t I digest dairy when I love it so?), I have to say that it makes perfect sense to me that if you have a person who has difficulty communicating who also has food allergies/intolerances that make them physically uncomfortable, their behavior is going to be much worse since they’re going around in a constant state of physical pain.  If you can remove that problem, you can actually work on the underlying issues rather than constantly trying to control the bad behaviors that are caused by the person being in pain.

Totally on the gossipy side, but this came up on a different message board that I visit and there were several mothers of autistic/Asperger’s children who said they had watched the video of McCarthy’s son that she shows as “proof” that he’s all fixed and it was bullshit that he was “cured” of autism.  They recognized many of his behaviors in their own autistic/Asperger’s children.  I suspect that her son is “cured” because she’s convinced herself that he’s “cured.”

Comment #32: Mnemosyne  on  05/04  at  09:43 PM

“The evidence is piling up quickly for the best theory regarding autism, which is that it’s genetic.”

I just wanted to clarify this.  If, by this statement, you mean that autism is solely based on genetics, I would disagree with you.  Unlike we’re taught in gradeschool/highschool genetics, when it comes to gene expression, having a gene does not necessarily mean suffering the ill effects that some with that gene have.  (This is known as incomplete penetrance.)  In addition, there is strong evidence that the brain development of autistic children is always different.  Brain development is influenced not just by genes, but by the chemicals were are exposed to in utero.  One of the more recent studies suggests that the rise in autism has something to do with chemicals, including pesticides.

Here is the SciAm writeup of that study.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment

See this link, for an abstract regarding how autism is based on both genetic and environmental factors interacting with eachother: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19248913?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Here is an abstract discussing how toxins can exacerbate autism spectrum disorders (which makes sense, because it has autoimmune aspects) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19149568?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The autoimmune aspect of autism is why the parents who suggest that their children became ill followign a vaccine are not nuts.  The vaccine may well be a triggering event for their child.  But why would this not show up in causative studies?  Because it is entirely possible that some other immune insult would inevitably come along and trigger the children soon after.  So the parents are correct when they link the trauma of the vaccine to the onset of the condition (some children are born with the symptoms of autism, others are born without, and develop them around 18-24 mos.)  And the researchers are correct when they say that vaccinated children aren’t any more likely to be autistic.

Comment #33: Ismone  on  05/04  at  10:01 PM

A few weeks ago, I was talking to the wife of one of my former professors — they have an autistic little girl — about Carrey and McCarthy’s appearance on Larry King Live. She actually started laughing out loud when I told her some of the stuff they’d said.

I don’t doubt that some conditions on the autism spectrum can be at least somewhat mitigated (but not cured) by a particular diet, and I don’t doubt that there are plenty of sound, legitimate scientific reasons to re-examine the American vaccine schedule, which dwarfs that of most other first-world nations. But any pat, simplistic “X causes Y, and Z will make it better!” claim needs to be taken with an extremely large grain of salt.

Comment #34: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  05/04  at  10:01 PM

I like Oprah, but she suffers from the same delusional belief system that Tom Cruise and Jim Carrey do.

We, as humans, are hardwired to make connections.  The person who saw the tiger in the bushes lived to pass on genes.  The person who didn’t died.  The person who thought s/he saw a tiger—even though there wasn’t a tiger—also lives.  No downside to running away from an occasional imaginary tiger if it means you usually spot the real thing.

Jim Carrey wrote himself a $20 million check before he made it big and kept it in his pocket.  Tom Cruise got turned onto Scientology before he made it big.  Oprah also is a big “visualize it and make it happen” spiritualist type person.

It “worked” for them.  They believed if they visualized their future, it would come to be, and it did. 

They don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation.  Visualizing a $20 million check didn’t make fate give it to Carrey.  Working his ass off, getting lucky and getting the gig on “In Living Color”, and then making a series of movies that hit it big did.  Same for Tom Cruise.  He had a plan, he followed his Scientology, his movies made money, he made connections, started getting involved in producing, which made him more money and gave him greater connections and more access to making more movies.

Oprah lucked into “A.M. Chicago”, and she was damn good at it.  Then when she noticed that most talk shows were pretty slimey—Sally Jesse Raphael, Morton Downey Jr., etc. she decided to make hers better than.  No Maury “who’s the baby daddy DNA specials” for her.  Her savvy has kept her on the top of the game for decades.

These people have talent and they had luck.  Visualizing their future isn’t what made it happen, b/c plenty of people do that and it doesn’t happen.  It seemed to work for them, so they push it.  That’s why Oprah pushed that stupid “The Secret” book: she really thinks that her good fortune is due to meditating on it or asking the universe to give her what she wants instead of the fact that she works hard, drives her people to work very hard, and has the savvy to stay ahead of the game in the talk show world.  She should be proud of what she’s accomplished, but she didn’t get there by visualization, prayer, or Secrets.  She worked for it and lucked out at the right times.

They believe this crazy stuff b/c they think it worked for them.  They have seen a tiger where none exists.  And since they have all seen the same imaginary tiger, they reinforce each other’s belief in seeing the Tiger of Visualizing Your Future. 

It totally makes sense that she’d follow along with Jim and Jenny.  They’re her kind of people, and Oprah is also good at figuring out who will make a decent shot at running a talk show—Dr. Phil is still out there.

I think Jenny’s child had celiac disease, and publicizing that would be a public good.  But the utter nonsense of blaming vaccines and actively dismissing science and is an evil.  Unfortunately, Jenny’s delusion matches up too closely with Oprah’s, and Oprah has more than enough money to do anything she wants.  In this case, a FoxNews Channel for propaganda against vaccines.

Comment #35: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/04  at  10:02 PM

wow… just, wow

when are people going to get the fact that sugar, in and of itself, is NOT bad? too much of it is bad, yes - but too much OXYGEN is bad (and will kill you a whole lot faster). our bodies need sugar. not necesarilly *CANE* sugar (and HRCS is bad in anything more than minute amounts, i know), but sugar. she is wanting things sweetened with “fruit juice” - which is sugar. everything we eat is broken down into sugar.

as for vaccines… i want Gardasil (can’t get it bcuz i am 32. bastards) i want smallpox (because, you know, its come back. we actually had it *gone* for a while…) i want the rest of the hep vaccines. vaccines are GOOD.

Comment #36: denelian  on  05/04  at  10:04 PM

You know, I got raked here a couple of weeks ago for saying that people promoting alternative medicine and other pseudoscience were as much the enemy of the Left as the hard Right are, but Jenny McCarthy is precisely what I had in mind when I said this. Their bullying tactics and blatant postmodernism undermine the base of facts that liberalism is built on, and abuse the concept of tolerance just as surely as an unrepentant racist does demanding that people stop calling him out on his crap.

These braindead motherfuckers need to smarten up or be purged. They make the rest of us look bad, and they’re killing people.

Comment #37: BrianX  on  05/04  at  10:06 PM

also, Ismone;

what you are saying makes sense to me - i carry a genetic disease that has to be “triggered” (i have acute intermitent porphyria, and i would not have any symptoms if there hadn’t been an event in my toddler-hood that triggered it…) but what you are saying is not what Jenny here is saying, or what any anti-vaxers are saying. if they were saying what you were saying i think we wouldn’t all think that they were totally loony tunes…

i actually really feel very bad for their children.

Comment #38: denelian  on  05/04  at  10:11 PM

The thing that really bugs me about the no-vaccine crowd is that they expose the rest of us to disease. I am in my forties and this winter I contacted whooping cough from some unvaccinated child I was working with here in Tennessee. I never had it as a kid because I got my dpt shot, but that wears off. I now find out that due to the rise in dpt, the cdc recommends adults get a booster every 10 years. How is that for progress? Whooping cough is damn painful and lasts for months. Thanks Jim!

Comment #39: caliban  on  05/04  at  10:12 PM

Ismone: you’ve basically said what I have thought for years could be a logical link between autism and vaccines.  It’s not that vaccines CAUSE the autism, but that it triggers whatever latent predisposition exists in the child already.  What so many parents are looking for is a way to reduce the risks for their children; if science can help to isolate which children are at greater risk of a vaccine “triggering” autism (assuming this is the case), then maybe we can fight the pseudoscience and hype around the issue. The kids with an actual risk factor would join the ranks of other people with various contraindications for receiving vaccines, and maybe we could stop endangering herd immunity.

Comment #40: history_mom  on  05/04  at  10:17 PM

Hey: I hope some of you will check out Ismone’s link to the Scientific AMerican article. It says FLAT OUT that autism’s rise is undoubtedly environmental in origin.

Comment #41: KMTBERRY  on  05/04  at  10:27 PM

Vaccines aren’t magic bullets that give 100% protection the first time they are given.  Many vaccines need the initial shot, followed by booster shots in order to get something like 85-95% protection.  Even a good vaccine won’t induce immunity in every person who gets it.  That’s why we need every person to get the vaccine… otherwise, the unvaccinated idiots can give it to kids who got all their shots, but one or more of the shots didn’t give them immunity.  The BadAstronomer (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/) has been on a tear about the anti-vaccination nuts (especially Jenny McCarthy).  She’s a clear and present danger to society. 

I don’t know if he was the first one to come up with it, but I have seen the BadAstronomer change the name of these goof-balls.  They are no longer anti-vaccine, they are pro-disease and they are killing and maiming children who should otherwise be happy and healthy.  It’s important to call these people for what they are.

Comment #42: BlazingDragon  on  05/04  at  10:42 PM

I have to say that I love the term “Western medicine”, which wrongly implies that people in Eastern nations don’t have doctors.

Comment #43: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/04  at  10:45 PM

I’m aware the genes express themselves in different ways in different people, Ismone.  But the point is that no matter how much they know about autism, the anti-science wackaloons will never, ever accept it.

Comment #44: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/04  at  10:50 PM

You know, I got raked here a couple of weeks ago for saying that people promoting alternative medicine and other pseudoscience were as much the enemy of the Left as the hard Right are,

Yeah, people don’t want to believe that, because the quacks largely mean well.  But intention isn’t result.

Comment #45: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/04  at  10:53 PM

f science can help to isolate which children are at greater risk of a vaccine “triggering” autism (assuming this is the case),

Repeated studies have proven that it’s not.  So it’s time to move on.

Comment #46: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/04  at  10:55 PM

(some children are born with the symptoms of autism, others are born without, and develop them around 18-24 mos.)

Where’s Ms.Kate?  I know she’s talked before about specific physical markers that go along with autism (something about head size).

Comment #47: Mnemosyne  on  05/04  at  10:56 PM

Good insights about “The Secret” visualization bull, Caren.

I’m feeling fortunate that my son’s school is 85% low-income kids. Their parents are probably less likely to be in the anti-vaccine, pro-disease crowd.

Comment #48: Orange  on  05/04  at  11:00 PM

This anti-vac stuff seems to be the other side (liberal?) of the coin from the religious kooks and their belief the bible trumps science.

They both stem from the idea that science is at least smarmy, if not outright wrong, has some sort of hidden agendas that are harmful to the rest of us, that it’s gone too far, and that there must be intangibles that it can’t account for.

It seems to me this idea really took off after the atomic bombing of Japan, and blossomed with ideas from the Cold War that had scientific aspects (Mutually Assured Destruction?  Enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth?).  Vietnam was a high-tech war in may ways, and yet we lost.  By the time you get to Agent Orange, and move on to Gulf War Syndrome, with side trips through Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, AIDS, non-medicine-related events like two high-profile Space Shuttle disasters, and other assorted vaguely sciency problems, you’ve got fertile soil for lots of anti-science and pseudo-science crap. 

“Well, those scientists, and engineers, and statisticians, and other know-it-alls don’t do things right, so why should we trust them to keep our precious children from harm?”

Ironically, the same science they are fearful of also gave them computers and the Internet (which many of them use to organize themselves), phones, fast transportation, iPods, TV, and cheap stuff at WalMart.  But they don’t think about the benefits, all they see are the drawbacks and the disasters.  So some of them don’t vaccinate their kids.

And when an outbreak of measles, or whooping cough, etc., occurs, it only further reinforces their irrational fear of science and the benefits it offers.

And so we slip further down the slope into the darkness of ignorance and superstition…

Comment #49: MikeEss  on  05/04  at  11:04 PM

Caren, that’s a great post about The Secret bullshit.  You know, they really annoy me with that shit.  It’s like, what do you think that people who die of cancer didn’t at first believe they were going to live?  How many times has someone said “I’m going to beat this” and really believed it and died anyway?  You know, it’s just another God bullshit thing to me.  Oh yeah, God is making sure YOU do well on your interview, while some 5 year old who is praying for food dies of starvation anyway.  Come on man.

It’s just so obvious that first, there’s some talent involved here.  Second, there’s hard work.  And as you rightly point out - LUCK.  It plays a big role.  I think it might be true that a big part of life is just showing up, because the more you show up, the more you increase your chances of being in the right place at the right time, but the fact remains, if you are in the right place at the right time, luck is playing a role.

Comment #50: Lady Vader  on  05/04  at  11:15 PM

“They both stem from the idea that science is at least smarmy, if not outright wrong, has some sort of hidden agendas that are harmful to the rest of us, that it’s gone too far, and that there must be intangibles that it can’t account for. “

I think that on the left, largely anyway, distrust of corporations plays a bigger role in this than distrust of science.  You know, when you have someone like Donald Rumsfeld being involved with Tamiflu, then there is some basis for this distrust.  But it definitely spiraled out of control here, and they have come to resemble the anti-science right, regardless of the roots.

Comment #51: Lady Vader  on  05/04  at  11:18 PM

mnemosyne, i think you are thinking of a different syndrome. Autism spectrum disorders are diagnosed by a kid showing a set of several behavioral patterns and is notably absent of physical markers, like head size.

one thing that i have noticed (as someone who works with a lot of autistic kids all the time) is that dietary and sleep issues are really common. and I have to agree with whoever said above that someone with communication difficulties, relational issues and severe food allergies is going to demonstrate all kinds of “bad” behaviors because they are suffering.

Comment #52: cedarcrane  on  05/04  at  11:21 PM

history_mom,

The thing is, for there to be no measurable causative factor for vaccine, I think that the latent predisposition is one that will inevitably be triggered.

And Mnem, I don’t know if we’re agreeing or disagreeing, but to be clear, I agree that children who are autistic are born autistic, some just do not show symptoms (they initially behave just like neurotypical children) and then they rapidly change at some point between 18-24 months (i.e., they loose language ability, stop making eye contact, etc.).  I think the alteration will happen, no matter what, for children in that category, but they are different than the autistic children who, from birth on, never react like neurotypical children.  (I used neurotypical because it is a term some people with Autism Spectrum Disorder have chosen to apply to others, it is not an attempt to call people along that spectrum non-typical or to other them.)  The one autistic child I know what recognizably non-neurotypical from birth; a good friend’s brother was hyperverbal until he was about 18 months old, at which point he screamed for months, and had to be re-taught his verbal skills from the beginning.  Before the screaming started, my friend told me that her baby brother would make jokes.  It took him years to have the verbal ability/interest in making jokes again.

Amanda,

My point about gene expression isn’t just that genes express differently in different people, it is that they can be triggered/intensified/blocked based on the randomness of gene [removed]to what extent a gene is switched on, if AT ALL), or based on environmental factors which effect gene expression.  For example, if I have a gene for a blood clotting disorder, I may not have the disorder.  At all.  (Here’s hoping, actually).

Comment #53: Ismone  on  05/04  at  11:22 PM

There is some anti-vax stuff on the right wing too (particularly its Ron Paul contingent), and it comes from fear of the Big Gummit. I think wackos in general just gravitate towards certain views, left or right. Trooferism is another phenomenon both on the fringe left and fringe right.

Comment #54: Ben D.  on  05/04  at  11:24 PM

And when an outbreak of measles, or whooping cough, etc., occurs, it only further reinforces their irrational fear of science and the benefits it offers.

As Amanda has pointed out in previous posts on this subject, a lot of these people are depending on herd immunity and then when someone who has been vaccinated gets sick *most* of them up and yell, “See! He/She had the vaccine and they still got sick so what good was it at all? Neener neener neener.” and it drives me up the fucking wall because it just displays an utter lack of understanding of basic science and biology.

Comment #55: UltraMagnus  on  05/04  at  11:26 PM

I’m sure, Ismone, but the fact of the matter is that there’s been so many studies on vaccines and autism that it’s beside the point that there was a theory.  There was a plausible theory—-it was tested, and shown not to be real.

That they’ve found the genetic link means that a lot more will probably be known soon.  But I suspect most of the rise in cases is due to improved screening.  What’s frustrating is anti-vaxxers will also point to a rise in childhood asthma and diabetes, both of which have indisputable, known environmental factors (as well as better screening).  But that’s a false comparison that the data doesn’t support.

Comment #56: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/04  at  11:35 PM

i want smallpox (because, you know, its come back. we actually had it *gone* for a while…)

What?  where’d you hear that?  that would be extremely alarming if true.

Comment #57: D  on  05/04  at  11:44 PM

mnemosyne, i think you are thinking of a different syndrome. Autism spectrum disorders are diagnosed by a kid showing a set of several behavioral patterns and is notably absent of physical markers, like head size.

I looked it up and, no, there is a specific head size pattern that’s strongly linked to autism.  Like, 60 percent of autistic kids have oversized heads, but only 6 percent of non-autistic kids.  Apparently the link has been known for years but never really followed up on.

Here’s another link on Science Daily about it.  Apparently it’s pretty well-accepted now as an early warning sign of autism spectrum issues.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  05/04  at  11:46 PM

This sort of advice can be really dangerous in another way - children become malnourished really quickly and any sort of exclusion diet needs to be done for only a specific length of time, and highly supervised by a nutritionist. Only yesterday I read of a case here in Australia where parents have been charged with manslaughter after their baby daughter died of malnutrition while being “treated” by a homeopath for excema. I get the feeling that many parents who already don’t have a large degree of trust for the medical establishment perhaps would take it upon themselves to restrict their child’s diet, thereby doing harm that in some cases can be severe and lasting.

Comment #59: Lisa  on  05/04  at  11:57 PM

Just wanted to say that Offit is a badass. :D I went to a talk he gave recently and he brought up 3 really interesting points about why this anti-vaccination stuff is so strongly believed by so many people:

1) The thimerosal was pulled from vaccines too quickly: even though there was no link between mercury in vaccines and autism the thimerosal was taken out really quickly, which made even people who hadn’t believed it was the problem suspicious. If it wasn’t harmful, why pull it with such haste? This was a mistake by the scientific community, where they tried to be sensitive to what people wanted but ended up lending credence to the anti-vac crowd with their own actions. (Oops!)

2) Scientist hate saying “prove”: scientists are trained to be reluctant to say shit like “this proves that autism isn’t caused by vaccines!” and prefer to say the more accurate “all 13 studies showed no significant correlation between vaccination and rates of autism” while idiots like McCarthy have no problem spewing false certainty all over the place. The public prefers the stronger statements, and see “studies show no correlation” as waffling and uncertain, instead of just being good science.

3) The knight-in-shining-armor trope: the media likes to portray everything as a battle of good against evil, and that’s how people like to think about the world. In the vaccination debate the autistic child is the victim/princess (of course!), the tearful mother bravely standing up to science is the hero (obviously the mom is the heroic one here!) and that leaves only the role of the villain for the scientists and doctors (and don’t we love our “mad scientist” and “sadistic/evil doctor” characters? It’s so true!) No one is willing to believe that the scientists actually truly want what’s best for kids because that would force them to see the mother as the “bad guy” (‘cause there always has to be one. And apparently scientists and doctors don’t have children…)

I thought these were pretty good explanations for a lot of this woo. And hopefully will help me avoid feeding the woo when I’m a scientist! :D

Comment #60: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  12:05 AM

You know, if I was a pregnant mother and caught measles or some other preventable disease from one of these kids whose woo-woo parents refused to get them vaccinated, I’d be ready to tear Oprah and her latest pet a new one ans well as the ignorant parents who allow their children to be disease carriers for Oprah. How does a child in utero keep from getting sick from these little spawns of Satan? 

Oprah needs to be boycotted. This Jessica Cunning Stunt needs to be stopped. They are ignorant, gullible, and I believe, malevolent idiots.

Comment #61: dejah thoris  on  05/05  at  12:09 AM

Yeah, people don’t want to believe that, because the quacks largely mean well.  But intention isn’t result.

Amanda, I half agree with you, but for one thing. A lot—a fuckload—of pseudoscience is driven as much by narcissism as it is by good intentions. To the extent that a lot of quacks are driven by good intentions, quite a lot of them probably also think they’re putting one over on evidence-based medicine; if you notice, the rhetoric really doesn’t change whether you’re talking about creationism, anti-relativity cranks, alt-med, or “quantum” “spirituality”. It’s the same tired stew of “you weren’t there/you don’t know till you try it”, Paranoid Style thinking, one-sided appeals to tolerance, and general stubbornness no matter what subject is under discussion. In fact, one of the medical bloggers on Scienceblogs.com (IIRC it was Orac from Respectful Insolence, but all of them do battle with the antivaxers on a regular basis) made a pretty good case that McCarthy herself is driven by her own narcissism—she was at one point convinced that she was an indigo child, and the case was made that she seems to be trying to compensate for some perceived genetic imperfection.

McCarthy herself is an example of the Peter Principle of Positive Thinking—her inflated self image took her from a Playboy spread to an acting career she was manifestly unqualified for…

Comment #62: BrianX  on  05/05  at  12:17 AM

We have a 7mo daughter who has got all her shots. We also have several friends who have children of similar age and who refuse to get their kids their shots. And they just can’t understand why we won’t hang out with them. My answer is “because we think you’re morons,” but Ms. F borrows a line from Dr. House and tells them about how we just couldn’t bear having to pick out little baby coffins.

Comment #63: felagund  on  05/05  at  12:23 AM

Has anyone read “The Mirror Crack’d From Side To Side” by Agatha Christie?  It is a good story illustrating the damage that some of these diseases can do.  In the story a woman who desperately wants her own children catches German Measles.  Her child is born mentally retarded and she is rendered sterile.  Years later the Star meets the fan who gave her the disease and is proud of the fact that even though the fan was sick she still went out and met her favorite star.  Of course murder ensues etc.

Comment #64: Vail  on  05/05  at  12:28 AM

If you read carefully, she admits that it wasn’t her magic diet program:

Once Evan’s neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments, speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism

In other words, his behavior improved because he had intense, my-parents-can-afford-the-best speech and behavior therapy. Well, no shit. THAT is what helps autistic kids. They don’t innately learn communication and social skills, they have to be taught, just like you would learn your times tables. They also don’t learn these skills through shunning cottage cheese.

But of course, diet is yet another thing you can use to beat up on women for not being good enough mommies, isn’t it? If your autistic child isn’t ‘cured’ like Jenny McCarthy’s, why, you must not be preparing the perfect foods, you lazy, child-poisoning bitch. Never mind that there is no “cure” and maybe some kids don’t have rich parents who can afford all the therapy they want; you let your child eat Mac and Cheese so it’s no wonder.

Comment #65: mythago  on  05/05  at  12:37 AM

When I helped my brother apply for SSI, I collected his medical records from various hospitalizations, and I was shocked at how all over the map the diagnoses were. Depression, paranoid psychosis, manic depression, on and on.

Could this perhaps have something to do with the fact that many psychologists and psychiatrists are here (gestures at knee-height) in terms of understanding the mind, the body and their interaction with each other and the environment, here (gestures at shoulder-height) in terms of what they think they know, and here (gestures at the straight up, fingers wiggling at the ceiling) in terms of how angry they are when they are called on the ignorance or BS?

Just a thought.

Comment #66: seeker6079  on  05/05  at  12:38 AM

We have a 7mo daughter who has got all her shots. We also have several friends who have children of similar age and who refuse to get their kids their shots. And they just can’t understand why we won’t hang out with them. My answer is “because we think you’re morons,” but Ms. F borrows a line from Dr. House and tells them about how we just couldn’t bear having to pick out little baby coffins.

I’m not an anti-science nut, vaccines are good and all that, blah blah disclaimer here.

But my daughter didn’t have “all her shots” by the time she was 7 months either. Why? Because I think it’s batshit fucking insane to pump all that stuff into a tiny baby.  If she did react to a vaccine, how would I know what she reacted to? What if she’s highly allergic to egg, for instance, which is used in some vaccines—do I get to find that out by a massive reaction after I’ve had her get not one but two or three or four egg-containing vaccines? Nope, no thanks.

My kids receive vaccines, but on a schedule a little less gung-ho and over-the-top than the US protocol. Not everyone who delays shots is a whackjob.

Comment #67: kristin  on  05/05  at  12:56 AM

But my daughter didn’t have “all her shots” by the time she was 7 months either. Why? Because I think it’s batshit fucking insane to pump all that stuff into a tiny baby.

But why do you think this?  There’s certainly no scientific literature saying as much, and in fact all available studies say the exact opposite.  Your daughter is exposed thousands of antigens in the normal course of her life, why is it that a few dead or weakened antigens from a vaccine cause such trouble? 

“Vaccine overload”, as it were, is a complete fabrication, made up by anti-vaxers.  You say it’s crazy to “pump all that stuff into a tiny baby”, but you very clearly have no idea what you’re rambling on about.  Rather than lecturing us with your irrational theories, maybe your time would be better spent reading the literature and talking to your doctor in order to find out the truth.

Comment #68: John Cain  on  05/05  at  01:30 AM

Vail, this is what happened to the movie star Gene Tierney, from the Wiki:

In June 1943, while pregnant with her first daughter (Daria), Tierney contracted rubella during her only appearance at the Hollywood Canteen. Daria was born prematurely in Washington, D.C., weighing only three pounds, two ounces (1.42kg) and requiring a total blood transfusion. Because of Tierney’s illness, Daria was also deaf, partially blind with cataracts and had severe mental retardation. Tierney’s grief over the tragedy led to many years of depression and may have begun her bipolar disorder. Some time after the tragedy surrounding her daughter Daria’s birth, Tierney learned from a fan who approached her for an autograph at a tennis party that the woman (who was then a member of the women’s branch of the Marine Corps) had sneaked out of quarantine while sick with rubella to meet Tierney at her only Hollywood Canteen appearance. In her autobiography, Tierney related that after the woman had recounted her story, she just stared at her silently, then turned and walked away. She wrote, “After that I didn’t care whether ever again I was anyone’s favorite actress.” Biographers have theorized that Agatha Christie used this real life tragedy as the basis of her plot for The Mirror Crack’d from Side to Side.

Comment #69: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/05  at  01:32 AM

John Cain, I gave you my reasoning. The odds are low that a child will react seriously to a vaccine or be allergic to something in its ingredients, but if it did happen to one of my kids, I would want to know which vaccine or ingredient caused it. My kids get shots one vaccine at a time whenever possible.

Comment #70: kristin  on  05/05  at  02:00 AM

By the way, that’s a position I came to by reading the vaccine inserts and discussing the issue with our family doc.

Comment #71: kristin  on  05/05  at  02:02 AM

Amanda is right that improved screening has added to the autism rates. I used to publish a developmental/behavior screening tool, and the whole concept of screening only came about within the last 30 or 40 years. That’s not a long time, relatively speaking, and screens are constantly re-validated and refined.

I think the whole tie between vaccines and autism got made because children who were hitting all their developmental milestones early suddenly started regressing at about 18 months, right when the MMR vaccine is on the schedule. That was the original vaccine that had people freaking out.

One of the autism researchers I worked with was going back over old videos of children who had later been diagnosed with autism and was seeing similar oddities in their gross motor function as babies.

I don’t keep up with my old co-workers, so I don’t know what the current science is looking like, but I do know that Jenny McCarthy is a menace to society.

And God bless Gene Tierney.

Comment #72: hamletta  on  05/05  at  02:52 AM

“Cunning Stunt”

man i had such a good “you posted this on a feminist blog? really?” post for you in my head before i read this the second time

Comment #73: anonlololol  on  05/05  at  02:56 AM

D:
i mis-typed. that was supposed to say “(because, you know, *if* its come back…
because i have been told by people i know who are still in the military that they are re-starting the smallpox vaccine because there is supposed to be a high chance that someone (who? no one really knows, just someone who is “An Enemy of the US”) has it.

as in, i know three serving military members who have been given the smallpox vaccine in the past two years. not “i know someone who knows a guy whose sister’s boyfriend might have been given…” i mean people i actually know in real life (one of them is related to me by marriage. closely related to me by marriage)

also, high chance in this case = approx. 30% when it comes to something as awful, deadly and highly communicable as smallpox, that *IS* a high chance. let me try and explain why i feel 30% is high… if doing any activity X had a 30% chance of killing you, unless the consequences of NOT doing X were even more extreme, most people would NOT do X. so the 30% chance of someone (presumably immicable to US) having a way to give us smallpox… yeah.

MikeEss:
this is the reason my dad gives for why we are not all living in Heinlein Base in the Moon. the USSR got further, faster (at first) with their space program because they shot for a realistic non-fail-rate of 90%. we have stalled out almost completely (at least on manned anything… we aren’t doing anything new there) because for whatever damned stupid reason, people here in the US were expecting a non-fail-rate of 100%. and tiny teeny failure was enough to derail anything for MONTHS - horrible awful tragedies like the Challenger (was i the only person who got sent home from school for that?) set the whole program back by *decades*
because we no longer have a reasonable view of science. we accept lintanies of side-effects that tend to be at *least* as bad as whatever the drug purports to treat, and somehow it is reasonable. drug companies have drugs out that *kill* people at statistically significant rates (and i’ve been on some of them - Celebex, especially, and yes it made me sick as hell and may have caused the issue with my gall bladder and liver… that is thankfully now fixed. but i am out of superflous organs, my gall bladder was my last one…) we have medical treatments for things that are risky but commone - C-sections come to mind! and we “accept” all the bad shit medicine does to us
but a single small failure on the Space Program IS TOO MUCH!

gods, that pisses me off. if we accepted the same fail rate for the space program as we do in medical practices, we would all be living in the Moon and on Mars! (ok, maybe not *all*... :D

Comment #74: denelian  on  05/05  at  05:27 AM

dejah thoris
love the name! do you also have Capt. John Carter?
can we call you “Deety”?


wink

Comment #75: denelian  on  05/05  at  05:30 AM

I have no problem with the idea that the scientific community might, on one issue or another, be dragging ass.  The cure for insufficient science is, in fact, more science - more testing, more analysis, i.e. more systematic, detailed and non-contradictory identification of the FUCKING TRUTH.  This is what science is, Jenny.

I have two sons with autism, 6 and 4, and the idea that bullshit like Jenny McCarthy’s will suck oxygen, talent and funding from the systematic, detailed identification of the truth breaks my heart and makes me want to start shooting stupid people in the face.  Were there validity to this theory, there would be an army of greedy, ambitious, cutthroat scientists looking to prove its validity in great detail not through faked data but through the actual data that would (for McCarthy’s theories to be true) exist amply.

Comment #76: Bruce Godfrey  on  05/05  at  05:47 AM

Vail,

I think of that book every time this topic comes up.  Glad to know I’m not the only one!

Re: smallpox.  It better not fucking come back.  I’m in a minority with a skin condition that is recommended not to get the smallpox vaccine b/c of the risk of a fatal reaction.

Comment #77: bomberE  on  05/05  at  08:57 AM

I think that the one thing people should understand that if they choose not to vaccinate, they are also putting other people at risk, especially babies.  I know that if I had a child too small to vaccinate, and someone else gave my child a easily preventable disease that killed my baby, I would call the police to arrest them (Reckless Endangerment?), sue the pants off them, and possibly buy a handgun.  I guess that’s the biggest problem I have.  You want to risk your kid fine, you have that right but you don’t have the right to risk mine.

Comment #78: Vail  on  05/05  at  09:12 AM

I’m feeling fortunate that my son’s school is 85% low-income kids. Their parents are probably less likely to be in the anti-vaccine, pro-disease crowd.

Keep in mind that the LAT article descibes voluntary exceptions—deluded and trend-obsessed wealthy people who can afford to vaccinate, but choose not to. I’d imagine that those attending less affluent schools can avail themselves of various government immunisation programmes—the elimination and vilification of which, I’m sure, will be at the top of Jenny’s agenda (way above “get more access to behavioural and speech therapy for all autistic kids”).

There is no such thing as society, after all, so who needs these eggheads and their “public health”? Science ba-a-ad!

that leaves only the role of the villain for the scientists and doctors (and don’t we love our “mad scientist” and “sadistic/evil doctor” characters? It’s so true!)

Sort of a by-default variation on the “Yorran Iconography” from Neal Stephenson’s Anathem.

In other words, his behavior improved because he had intense, my-parents-can-afford-the-best speech and behavior therapy. Well, no shit. THAT is what helps autistic kids.

Exactly. It’s expensive, it’s time-consuming, and if you’re not a celebrity or wealthy you have to bust your butt to get the public schools to provide additional therapy to ensure that these kids can function in a mainstream classroom.

But fear not, TV-watching peons, Oprah and Jenny McCarthy have a magic solution: don’t vaccinate your kids and buy Jenny’s BestMomEvah Cookbook parts 1-8 ($25.95 ea. at fine bookstores) and you too can eliminate the world-threatening scourge and horror of autism.

Could this perhaps have something to do with the fact that many psychologists and psychiatrists are here (gestures at knee-height) in terms of understanding the mind, the body and their interaction with each other and the environment, here (gestures at shoulder-height) in terms of what they think they know, and here (gestures at the straight up, fingers wiggling at the ceiling) in terms of how angry they are when they are called on the ignorance or BS?

To be fair, Asperger’s Syndrome (a form of high-functioning autism) wasn’t entered into the DSM until the 1990s for various reasons, even though it was first identified in the 1940s. But yeah, the psychiatric community demonstrated a lot of arrogance in the interim, and ruined a lot of lives by applying dangerous psychotropic drug treatments for a condition that didn’t warrant them.

Comment #79: Gracchus.  on  05/05  at  09:22 AM

I have an aunt who’s into this kind of crap. Not the worst of it, but she seems to be getting a little deeper in with each passing year. She believes she cured her adopted son of mental issues gotten from his years at a Russian orphanage with a high-cholesterol diet. I admit that the diet probably did nothing to damage the kid, but question whether it was really diet that has helped him develop, or just having a stable home life with her and her husband. She seems to now be of the point of view that absolutely everything in life comes down to diet. It’s pretty wierd.

Comment #80: atheist  on  05/05  at  10:37 AM

To be fair, Asperger’s Syndrome (a form of high-functioning autism) wasn’t entered into the DSM until the 1990s for various reasons, even though it was first identified in the 1940s. But yeah, the psychiatric community demonstrated a lot of arrogance in the interim, and ruined a lot of lives by applying dangerous psychotropic drug treatments for a condition that didn’t warrant them.

I know anecdote does not map to data, but this.  I was very lucky—my life was not ruined, but it was very, very difficult for the first twenty-eight years or so.  When I was born in the early 70’s, autism meant kids that didn’t speak at all, and though I was quiet and didn’t speak much, I did talk.

It’s only been recently that I’ve looked into AS.  For so long I just thought I was weird.  (Which was what I’d been told.)  It’s scary and heartbreaking and a huge relief to see myself in the constellation of symptoms for it.

Most of the early childhood stuff I know because my family thought it was adorable—whenever I wasn’t doing anything else I’d cross my legs and put my arms between them and rock.  For hours.  I learned to read very early and read compulsively.  I never knew how to make friends despite wanting to badly.  I see my deficiencies in making plans and finishing things.  The stammering and dysphasia when I’m upset.  The difficulty telling fear and anger and pain apart.  The self-harm.  The fascination with mathematics and logical systems.  (Maths, for me, are often intuitive.)  The feeling that if rules (say, you always put the emergency brake on, even when the car has an automatic transmission and it’s parked on flat ground, not because you’re worried the car will roll away but BECAUSE THE WORLD WILL END IF YOU DON’T).  The massive discomfort with eye contact, with touch.  The complete inability to visualize anything, ever.  I don’t see anything when I close my eyes, even if guided.  I have to think about how people feel and might react by algorithm.  If no one talks to me for three days, I’m just fine with not talking for three days. 

And it makes so much sense.  It fits, a lot of it.

I don’t know what the point of this was.  I just… I wish I’d been able to get help with learning how to function socially without having to fail at it so badly along the way, without causing so much damage.  And I think back to my grandmother, who was convinced that my social and physical problems were the result of mercury poisoning.  She had my hair tested, she got all my fillings replaced with gold, she tried to figure out what was wrong with my diet that I was so weird.  She believed that putting my thumb in my mouth and pulling would correct an overbite, and forever told me to pull on my teeth.  She would have eaten this Jenny McCarthy anti-vaccination bullshit right up.  I have a strong feeling that I dodged a bullet there.

Comment #81: kaninchen  on  05/05  at  10:44 AM

The early intervention therapy programs that can help autistic kids are so far beyond the scope of what the public schools can offer—some parents are paying for 20 to 40 hours a week with various therapists (speech, occupational, etc.), and a kid getting therapy services at school is lucky to get a few hours a week, and that’s with parents busting their butts to get the school to provide more. Good early intervention costs tens of thousands of dollars a year, which of course is quite affordable to the Jenny McCarthys of the world but less so for the average family.

Comment #82: Orange  on  05/05  at  10:46 AM

Is it really so hard to accept that its genetic? I know people want to think that they’re perfect and everything about them is perfect but in reality, we just don’t know everything that’s in our genes. We never met our great-great-great grandparents so we really cannot know everything that might develop in our (and our childrens) bodies. In the meantime, let scientists do their work and keep getting children vaccinated so that treatable diseases like measles do not become an epidemic. And McCarthy is right about one thing, we do need to put the donuts down even if that won’t cure everything that’s wrong with us.

Comment #83: DC Fem  on  05/05  at  10:48 AM

I always wonder what Dr. Oz thinks of all this anti-vaccine crap coming from Oprah.  Maybe he’s contractually obligated to say shit about it, since it’s not on a Tuesday.

Comment #84: veggiegirl2  on  05/05  at  10:52 AM

You know, if I was a pregnant mother and caught measles or some other preventable disease from one of these kids whose woo-woo parents refused to get them vaccinated,

What ticks me off even more is the sense of entitlement of the antivaxers.  Most of them not only refuse to vaccinate, but they don’t follow quarantine rules for diseases when their kids get them.

You don’t want to vaccinate for chicken pox?  Fine.  There are questions about the vaccine’s continued effectiveness (Ms Kate will go into details if you’d like).  But when your kid then gets the chicken pox KEEP YOUR KID AT HOME.  Do not take them to the park or on airplanes or otherwise expose people who may be vulnerable.  Elderly people who never got the chicken pox and, being old, were never vaccinated can get seriously ill from a disease that’s usually not so bad for children. 

People used to know ‘the rules’ about quarantining for these illnesses.  Now that few children get them, nobody remembers.

If your child gets measles, KEEP YOUR KID HOME.  Don’t send them to school to infect more kids.  Don’t take them to the park where they can infect other kids’ grandparents.  You made the decision to avoid the vaccines, now do the responsible thing and care for your sick child appropriately.

Comment #85: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/05  at  10:58 AM

Another side effect of pushing the “vaccines cause autism” hoax is that it sets up parents of autistic kids to feel horribly guilty for having had them vaccinated in the first place.

Yes.  Originally, autism was believed to be caused by “refrigerator mothers”, which made the mothers of autistic children feel really guilty about being a bad mother.  Now McCarthy is pushing this vaccines thing, which is supposed to make mothers of autistic children feel really guilty about being a bad mother.  The sad part is that now some kids will have both autism and and rubella, whooping cough, or other preventable diseases.

Comment #86: bananacat  on  05/05  at  11:26 AM

Caren,

I think you hit the nail on the head with your description of Scientology/Secret ideology.  The “Kabbalah” stuff is exactly the same.  Here’s the foundation for each one:

“The supposedly random things that happen to you aren’t random.  They’re the logical result of unseen forces that control the universe.  Luckily, you can learn to control those forces (if you pay us enough money).  So the things that ‘happen’ to you haven’t really been ‘happening to you’—you’ve been causing them all along!”

This is an incredibly powerful rap, especially in a social setting dominated by an Industry (Hollywood) in which success is, as you pointed out, essentially capricious and random, and in which people very clearly do not get what they deserve.  The brilliant thing about this world-view, and the reason so many quacks have found success with it, is that it’s so attractive both to those who are successful (like Cruise and Carrey and Oprah) and to those who aren’t successful.

The successful person says:  “I used to worry that all my success was just luck, that I didn’t deserve it.  Now, I know that there’s no such thing as luck!  All along, I’ve been making my own luck—so I really do deserve to get $20,000,000 per movie!  And I’m so happy that I’ve been learning how to make my own ‘luck’ consciously, and how to share this wonderful religion/method/secret with everyone!”

The unsuccessful person says:  “I used to worry that success was based entirely on luck.  Now, I know that I can make my own luck!  All I need to do is clear my body thetans/say ‘Yahweh’ 1,000 times while wearing a red string on my wrist/think about lots of money, and I’ll be successful!”

And, of course, since it’s all bullshit, it’s impossible to disprove.

My sense is that success in Hollywood is so random that a lot of people in the Industry overreact and simply can’t handle the strain of thinking of anything in their lives being controlled by luck or randomness.  It’s too scary.  So they prefer elaborate schemes that assign causes to everything.  I think Jenny McCarthy’s vaccination woo fits into that pattern.

Comment #87: Pesto  on  05/05  at  11:29 AM

These people have talent and they had luck.  Visualizing their future isn’t what made it happen, b/c plenty of people do that and it doesn’t happen.  It seemed to work for them, so they push it.

Caren, I loved your “tiger in the bushes” screed.  Reminds me of my white-hot disdain for professional “motivational speakers”; what they don’t get (or admit), and what many of their acolytes don’t seem to understand, is that what works for one person ain’t gonna work for another.  There IS no universal, one-fit solution to Success, or Living Well, of Being Happy, or Finding Love.  The big lie that there is has always troubled me.

Comment #88: Ranylt  on  05/05  at  11:42 AM

Everybody likes to think that they know better for themselves and their kids than the government. Like me, I don’t care how much the FDA says that growth hormones in cows are fine and dandy, I’m not convinced. But I digress.

There’s definitely people on here who don’t get the chicken pox vaccine because they think it’s unnecessary. But if your kid gets chicken pox and infects grandma and she dies, or infects pregnant Aunt Ruby, well, that’s what I would consider irresponsible.

There’s also a lot of people who muck with the vaccination schedule, apparently not based on actual studies/knowledge, but rather just because it feels right to them. I mean, I’m sympathetic to the idea that it doesn’t “make sense” to vaccinate a baby for 4 different diseases at once…. but a long time ago, it didn’t “make sense” to vaccinate people at all, because OMG, wouldn’t you catch the disease?? For all *I* know, it makes perfect sense to vaccinate a whole bunch of diseases at once, because then the immune system works extra hard and really overloads on the protection. I don’t know, that’s my point.

So even though it’s easy (and right!) to make fun of the wackjobs who endanger us all by being idiots, I still think it’s sensible to not give in to the siren call of “I’m not anti-vaccine, but....”, at least not without some research / evidence / studies to show that your “common sense” is actually, you know, true.

And if anyone does have “spreading out vaccines is better” research, I’d love to see it. Because, yeah, it makes sense. I just would like to know if it’s true.

Comment #89: Essie Elephant  on  05/05  at  11:43 AM

(And the flip side of that - “I get all vaccines because The Government says so” isn’t much better. See growth hormones in cows, above. My point is that these and other topics need to be carefully researched, without appeals to my emotion/gut or appeals to authority.)

Comment #90: Essie Elephant  on  05/05  at  11:45 AM

The anti-vax people. Sigh. In my work with autistic children and their parents(who need more coaching and work than their actual kids, as in “yeah, look so sorry that the universe/god/fate/genes/disco ball gave you this kid, at this time, stop whining, stop looking for the magic bullet, such as no more vaccines, and putting your kid on a damn horse, and do the actual work, either a combo of floortime/SI/Behavioral Therapy* , oh, and while we are at it, let’s be realistic and realize that at some point, your kid is only going to go so far, and we might need to look at alternative arrangements for the safety of your other children ‘kay?” At least I was honest, and you won’t believe how many parents appreciated my honesty, over the wishy washy, “well, you know..you just don’t know..” type of therapists.

It actually broke my heart having to say that to parents, because I know that such brutal honesty is not appreciated, and I am taking away the one thing that keeps a lot of people going in these situations, and that is hope. I personally don’t believe in hope, because hope keeps people in prisons, such as “I hope that he will stop drinking.  This hope would lead me to see such bullshit such as, “oh, he’s much calmer if I place him on a horse, (yeah, I am too, nice blue sky, rhythmic rocking, people telling me how fantastic I am, animal that is patient and accepting, who the fuck wouldn’t be more calm?) Or the parent who went with the no anything diet, after their kid only ate wonder bread for four years. Yeah, I would feel better and act better once I got my intestinal blockage out. And these parents would say, “since I started making him his juice cocktail with every vitamin in the world in it every morning   isn’t he much better?” And I would say, Or, maybe it’s the gizillion dollars you spent on Behavioral therapy finally taking place after a year of treatment?

Oh, no, it could never be the actual hard work, the therapists/teachers/aides who worked their fucking asses off trying to get the kid to communicate, oh no, it had to be the fucking sky fairy magic bullet bullshit of “My in-laws said Feldenkrais worked on their dog walker’s kid, so we tried it, and he no longer smears feces on the wall” Really, what about the two months of overnights I spent modifying his behavior, that had fucking nothing to do with stopping the feces behavior did it?”  The response was always, “oh, no, I am sure that helped a lot too.”  I had to scoff at that, one session of having someone yank on your kids joints, versus a carefully crafted and implemented behavior plan that “helped”. Yeah, I am angry and bitter,  bitter that once again belief will always trump evidence.

That’s the kind of shit that made me quit working with the kids. I could sit on the floor and deal with tantrum, or a kid throwing shit everywhere, or trying to bite me, but what I couldn’t deal with were the parents and their magical thinking.

I don’t fault the parents, I mean,  I get the devastation, the feeling like they don’t do enough, plus the parents just trying to live life in general,(home, other siblings, work, marriage) and I ask them after a long day at work to stand at the fridge and make sure their kid points to the card that says milk before giving the kid the milk he wants and is screaming for. I get where as a parent I would say “fuck that shit” too and want something easier like, “oh, just don’t vaccinate the kid”.  There were times when I would just say “fuck it feed the kid on the couch in front of the TV, who needs to work that hard?” Because, being a parent in our society is tough enough, add something like autism in the mix, and it becomes not just hard, but almost downright impossible.

So, I get why Jenny McCarthy wants to believe its all about the vaccines. It’s just that she isn’t doing her son any favors by taking the easy way out, or telling desperate parents that there is an easy way out.

*My personal take, floortime(Greenspan) Sensory Integration (shown to be ineffective) are all Behavioral Therapy, just not the Lovaas/Skinner behavioral therapy that people think I mean when I say that.

Comment #91: theunmarrieddaughter  on  05/05  at  11:47 AM

If your child gets measles, KEEP YOUR KID HOME.

Except, aren’t kids with measles contagious before they show symptons?

Comment #92: Bitter Scribe  on  05/05  at  11:52 AM

My daughter was diagnosed with Sensory Integration and that therapy may not work for autistic kids but she is thriving in Occupational Therapy.  I have to say a big thank you for people who work with kids to make their lives better/easier.  She is doing so well now in school (there are still good days and bad days but a lot more good days now) and we’re very happy with all the progress.  We are also very lucky that our insurance pays for it!

Comment #93: Vail  on  05/05  at  12:08 PM

Pesto:

My mother-in-law is an “energy” worker who “counsels” paying clients on how to make their own good luck or unmake their bad.  She lives out of town, but she “works” on me and my husband from afar (we didn’t ask, trust me), and anything good that happens to us (good real estate find, hubby getting his doctorate, great speech, etc) is a result of HER work, not our own elbow grease.

Drives us batshit.

Comment #94: Ranylt  on  05/05  at  12:08 PM

I think a big part of this is that parents of young children have not seen the devastating effect of infectious diseases.  They just don’t realize the risk they are taking by leaving their kids (and others) vulnerable.  Children can actually die from these diseases.  It’s really easy for McCarthy to tell others not to vaccinate when her own son is already protected.  She even said that it’s OK if kids die.  I would be really worried if she had another child though.  Even when diseases aren’t fatal, there are other consequences.  I had to miss two weeks of school when I got the chickenpox.  Fortunately, it didn’t cause any problems for me, but it could be really bad for a kid who is already struggling in school.  These aren’t harmless diseases.

Comment #95: bananacat  on  05/05  at  12:21 PM

Yeah, the same disappearing of people and effort is a big part of the “God blessed me with _____” bullshit.  I heard a story about a monastery in California where the nuns brought in money making pumpkin bread.  Until their oven broke.  Now, no pumpkin bread, and no money!  But it’s not anything to worry about.  God will make sure they get a new oven.

If someone gives them an oven, human beings dug up the metal that went into making that oven.  Human beings made the parts.  Human beings collected the parts and put them together.  Human beings paid for the oven, paid for it to be shipped to the monastery by human beings, and paid for it to be installed.  Yay new oven!  Let us all thank God for our new oven.

I suppose believers would say that God prompted all those people to do all those things, but if God can influence events on that granular a level, why did he break the oven in the first place?  A test of faith?  How is that different from a six-year-old testing the strength of her toothpick bridge by jumping up and down on it?

Comment #96: kaninchen  on  05/05  at  12:22 PM

This was on CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/04/autism.brain.amygdala/index.html

Comment #97: Vail  on  05/05  at  12:31 PM

Ah, Oprah, still one of the biggest shitheads in the world.

Comment #98: ice weasel  on  05/05  at  12:39 PM

DC Fem,

I would have no problem believing autism is soley caused by genetic factors if the information indicated that it were.  But the best information indicates that the rise in autism has to do with environmental factors.  Read the stuff I posted upthread, or google phthalates and autism for the (Swedish?  I think it was Swedish) study.  Tay sachs is genetic, trisomy 21 is genetic, autism has genetic factors but a complex etiology.  Which is not surprising, because it has autoimmune aspects, and I don’t think you can ever have an autoimmune condition that is separate from the environment, (and yes, I took immunology, so I’m not completely talking out of my ass here.)  That said, I don’t agree with McCarthy about vaccines because the best evidence we have suggests that children who become autistic have brains that are different by the time they are born, whether they show symptoms of autism from birth, or begin showing them around 18-24 months.

Everybody else,

And speaking up for the rational elements of the non-vax. crowd, as someone who is pretty vaccinated (I have the Hep. B vaccine, funny how no one was ever like STD!  Oh noes! when that one came out in high school), I gave serious consideration to gardasil (but decided odds are, if I’m fucked I’m already fucked, since I am now in a permanent relationship), but I never get the flu vaccine.  Some subset of the no-vax./delayed vax. crowd object to the following:

(1) the age at which vaccines are given, (a) the Hep B vaccine given at birth to prevent mother to child transmission—we have no idea whether that protects children out of childhood, and the less invasive thing to do would be to test the mother, (b) any vaccinations at very young ages, because again, there is poor data about the timing of various vaccinations and their continued effectiveness (due to the development of the immune system, I would really like to know what the cba is for giving my kid the MMR at 2 vs. 3, the data really isn’t out there);
(2) the types of vaccines that are given—I’ve heard that for the chickenpox one, it really is better for the child to just get the illness, because of its lack of effectiveness after 5-8 years for at least some of the population (since adults who get chickenpox often develop shingles, if the immunity for chicken pox provided for the vaccine starts tailing off around adulthood, we have a problem);
(3) the fact that vaccines are given in combination—usually, you are not exposed to the measles, the mumps, and rubella on the same day.  This raises all kinds of interesting immunological questions, for example, if you expose the immune system to multiple antigens at once, does it create as strong and lasting of an immune response as you would if you exposed it to a single antigen at a time?
(4) possibility of creating autoimmunity—it is hard to say whether the number of autoimmune problems we have are on the increase, or whether we are simply better at diagnosing them—but immune insults and the manner in which they are delivered effect autoimmunity.

Of course, lots of anti vax. people just think vaccines are the devil, and that is pretty stupid.  But not all people who are critical of vaccines are crazies, many of them are just concerned about the questions I listed above, and are not particularly thrilled that the medical establishment is blowing them off and creating vaccination protocols without first running research to see, hmm, are MMR better together or apart?

And I still stand by my argument that vaccines could trigger autism, the reason this would not be picked up in the causative research (which is piss poor, by the way) is because due to the child’s brain structure, the autism would be triggered eventually anyways.  So there would be no differential levels of autism among the vaccinated and non-vaccinated under a trigger hypothesis.

Comment #99: Ismone  on  05/05  at  01:08 PM

I’m just curious; do the people who think selective and delayed vaxers (notice, not the anti-vax people) are insane think the same about most of Europe and Japan? The fact of the matter is that we have a much more intense vaccine schedule than, literally, the rest of the world.

A link to the vaccine schedules in Europe: http://www.euvac.net/graphics/euvac/index.html

Comparing Japan’s schedule to the US: http://www.vaclib.org/basic/japanusa.htm

Another simple fact is that the pertussis vaccine is only 80% effective. That means that even in 100% compliance, including boosters every 10 years throughout adulthood (and who here gets their DTaP booster every 10 years?) 1 in 5 people would still be totally susceptible to pertussis. Which means they can catch it, and spread it, including to newborns. Google isn’t telling me what the vaccine compliance rate is for the DTaP, but I’m going to bet that it’s higher than 80%.

Another fact is that there is little to no variation in vaccine dose by age or body weight. Specifically, for HepB (which is usually given at birth, regardless of the hepatitis status of the mother) a newborn will receive the exact same dosage as an 18 year old.

Frankly, there is a lot to question about the current vaccine schedule and protocol, and suggesting that anyone who does so is a total idiot anti-science wackaloon is idiotic.

Comment #100: Ashley  on  05/05  at  01:28 PM

I had to stop commenting on it, but a good forum with a lot of anti-vax (and delayed vax) people is mothering.com.  It’s a very useful parenting site, otherwise.  If you were interested in seeing their various arguments, the vaccine portion of the board has a lot of information.

Comment #101: plunky  on  05/05  at  01:30 PM

Plunky, I’m on MDC and there is some good information there, but there’s also a lot of wackaloon info. For instance, it seems that most people on MDC are very concerned about food allergies, but know absolutely nothing about drug allergies. Just a personal annoyance of mine as my children are potentially seriously allergic to several antibiotics (because I’m allergic to all the cillins, the husbandman is allergic to erythromycin, and both of those allergies appear to be heritable).

Comment #102: Ashley  on  05/05  at  01:35 PM

To Amanda’s credit, she is criticizing those who don’t engage in actual research about vaccines, instead of those who do.  I just wanted to open up the discussion to acknowledge that some people have good reasons for being skeptical towards certain things about our vaccination schedules.  The people Amanda is responding to in this post, however, including Jenny McCarthy, do not.

Comment #103: Ismone  on  05/05  at  01:35 PM

And I still stand by my argument that vaccines could trigger autism, the reason this would not be picked up in the causative research (which is piss poor, by the way) is because due to the child’s brain structure, the autism would be triggered eventually anyways.  So there would be no differential levels of autism among the vaccinated and non-vaccinated under a trigger hypothesis.

If vaccines “triggered” autism I think that would be able to show up in these studies, though. The timing of the vaccinations would be correlated more tightly with the “start” of the autistic behaviors, while the unvaccinated kids would “start” being autistic at more variable times. Which I haven’t heard *any* evidence for…

But even if that “trigger” hypothesis were true, why risk your child *dying* or *killing someone* because you don’t want to trigger a condition that will pretty much inevitably be triggered anyways? There is no significant difference between autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated kids, so giving the vaccine obviously isn’t doing anything bad to them that wouldn’t already happen anyways (unless you’re planning on never exposing them to any potential pathogens or allergens ever anyways, in which case let me know how that works out for you… :p) I guess this “it doesn’t matter” thing is kinda what you’re saying, but it seems pointless to bring up—no effect is no effect is no effect. It’s a waste of time to pretty much just say that vaccines expose kids to diseases found naturally because that’s the *point* of vaccines. It’s a couple antigens out of billions… what are the odds that those are the (only) ones “triggering” it anyways?

Long story short, saying that vaccines “trigger” autism by this definition is meaningless. Being born “triggers” autism too, in that you’re born and then you’re diagnosed with autism, but it would be stupid to freak out and try not to give birth to anyone anymore.

Comment #104: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  02:20 PM

In the past, I’ve been anxious about my son potentially having autism. I’ve observed little signs that are potentially worrisome. Did they show up around the timing of some of his vaccines? Yes. Do I think that vaccines are potentially the culprit? Not at all. I have only to look at myself and my family, which has a bumper-crop of “peculiar loners who live in a cabin in the woods”. And when I look at the same family, I also see the consequences of not vaccinating. An aunt who died of Whooping Cough at age four. A great-uncle who died of menningitis. In the case of the latter, my mother told be that “it took 4 strong men to hold him down while he was in his death throes.” Vaccinations save lives.

Comment #105: echolalia  on  05/05  at  02:24 PM

I gave serious consideration to gardasil (but decided odds are, if I’m fucked I’m already fucked, since I am now in a permanent relationship),

Off-topic, but you don’t always have a say in these matters. I’m one of those “virgins who got HPV from a rapist” that the slut-shaming crowd always claims don’t exist. The vaccine is pretty easy and painless, so you might consider getting it, if you’re covered.

Comment #106: Essie Elephant  on  05/05  at  02:27 PM

And speaking up for the rational elements of the non-vax

There are none.  Unless a child has an immune disorder or allergy, there is no rational reason to risk your child’s life.

Comment #107: bananacat  on  05/05  at  02:27 PM

the fact that vaccines are given in combination—usually, you are not exposed to the measles, the mumps, and rubella on the same day.  This raises all kinds of interesting immunological questions, for example, if you expose the immune system to multiple antigens at once, does it create as strong and lasting of an immune response as you would if you exposed it to a single antigen at a time?

I think you need to take some more immunology courses.  Everyone is exposed to antigens constantly, yet our immune systems handle it.  It is impossible to be exposed to only one antigen at a time, even if you receive only one vaccination.  Our immune system isn’t like a line at the DMV that handles only one customer at a time.

Comment #108: bananacat  on  05/05  at  02:32 PM

Bagelsan,

For children who do not show symptoms at birth, onset usually occurs between 18-24 months.  I do not think there have been any studies trying to correlate the timing of onset with vaccines or other immunological insults, merely trying to correlate the presence or absence of vaccination with autism. 

The reason I think it is important to acknowledge the possiblity of triggering is because some parents report that their children have a breakdown and start experiencing symptoms of autism after being vaccinated.  When people see something with their own eyes, and are told, without explanation, that they are wrong, it becomes easy for them to write off the medical establishment.  That’s why I think triggering is an important yes but to discuss.

Because it is a disease with autoimmune features, the idea that a vaccine or other immunological insult could have something to do with it isn’t beyond the pale.  But because we know there are significant differences in brain structure between people with ASD and not, we know that it isn’t the cause.

So that is why I think triggering matters.

But it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vaccinate.

And my other point is that there are rational reasons to be wary of certain claims made about vaccinations, as well as certain protocols.  I know dumb people who don’t vaccinate (they all got the whooping cough, no joke) and smart ones who limit and delay vaccinations.  I just don’t like to see them grouped together, and I’m concerned there is a danger that will happen, although Amanda is taking aim at those who read innernet screeds instead of the research.

Comment #109: Ismone  on  05/05  at  02:34 PM

  I do not think there have been any studies trying to correlate the timing of onset with vaccines or other immunological insults,

The very study that claimed there was a causal link was doing just that.  Of course the data was false.  Other studies trying to repeat the results did the same, and of course none found a link.

Also, you keep saying auto-immune disease get triggered by immune insults.  Do you have a citation for this?

Comment #110: D  on  05/05  at  02:39 PM

Essie,  I’m too old to be covered, but I am still thinking about getting it.  Yeah, I’m really glad that those slut-shamers weren’t around when I got the Hep. B vaccination.  Not that my (conservative, Catholic) mother would have listened to them, bless her.

catgirl,  I know some rational non-vaxers (a family member who is a former medical researcher).  And I’ve taken immunology, as I mentioned in my post above.  And usually you are not exposed to three serious pathogens at once, such as measles, mumps, and rubella.  And even if you are, naturally, that is not the same as having them injected into your bloodstream in sufficient quantities to generate an immune reaction that is strong enough to create protection.  In addition, it isn’t just the MMR that we inject, but an adjuvant, which is a chemical that is designed to stimulate an immune reaction.  When we normally get sick, we don’t have adjuvants running through our bloodstream.  So having the immune system respond aggressively enough to three very different pathogens at once to generate an immune response is not like anything we normally experience.  Now, whether its lack of “normalacy” means jack shit in terms of creating a danger is something that needs to be researched, but the lack of research on the matter is troubling.

I like my medical protocols to be based on research, not based on, eh, we should just give these three together.  (See, e.g., lets give statins to women, even though the original research shows they don’t decrease heart disease risk in women.)

Comment #111: Ismone  on  05/05  at  02:41 PM

And usually you are not exposed to three serious pathogens at once, such as measles, mumps, and rubella.  And even if you are, naturally, that is not the same as having them injected into your bloodstream in sufficient quantities to generate an immune reaction that is strong enough to create protection.

I don’t think our immune system cares how “serious” they are, though. It all looks like random non-self proteins to our white blood cells! We make them *less* serious for the vaccine, anyways. And I’d say that stepping on a rusty nail, for example, injects just as much nasty crap as a vaccine all at once without the benefit of having it all pre-weakened for your safety. (Besides, the whole point of vaccines is to get a strong immune response. Strong immune responses, like everything, are awesome in moderation.)

When we normally get sick, we don’t have adjuvants running through our bloodstream.

Of course, the pathogen isn’t usually killed/disabled either, in the real-life case. So there’s that. (I’m not saying it’s not different than the non-vaccine exposure scenario, just that it’s different in a way designed to compensate for a different difference… :p)

I like my medical protocols to be based on research, not based on, eh, we should just give these three together.

I feel you on the research thing (I do love my research!) but vaccines/autism is one of those things where it’s really hard to be 100%-cause—>effect-certain without some really unethical human experimentation. I mean, *ideally* we would randomly select a group of kids to get vaccinated and a group to leave unvaccinated, but that’s impossible to do without risking the lives of little kids involuntarily so that’s an absolute no-go kind of study.

I agree about lumping people; smart people without particular immunology background should be dealt with differently than people who just don’t give a shit about others ‘cause “hey! I can benefit from all your hard-earned herd immunity without having to get a shot! Sweet! Screw those old/sick/allergic people!”

Comment #113: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  02:53 PM

And I’ve taken immunology, as I mentioned in my post above.  And usually you are not exposed to three serious pathogens at once, such as measles, mumps, and rubella.  And even if you are, naturally, that is not the same as having them injected into your bloodstream in sufficient quantities to generate an immune reaction that is strong enough to create protection.

Yes, I read that you took immunology, and I don’t think that one course (or however many you took) was sufficient.  Our immune systems react to all foreign bodies, whether they are serious pathogens or not.  We create an immune response that is strong enough to create life-long protection for anything that our immune system responds to.  Once the immune system starts making an specific antibody for any foreign material, it will continue to make it forever.  Our immune system doesn’t know which stuff is harmful and which stuff isn’t.  It can only tell what is part of our body, and what isn’t.

For children who do not show symptoms at birth, onset usually occurs between 18-24 months.  I do not think there have been any studies trying to correlate the timing of onset with vaccines or other immunological insults, merely trying to correlate the presence or absence of vaccination with autism.

As mentioned above, the (fraudulent) Wakefield study was designed to study exactly this.  Wakefield reported an onset of symptoms within weeks of receiving MMR.  It turns out that most of the children already had symptoms of autism before the vaccination.  It is actually common for parents of autistic children to first notice symptoms around the time of vaccination, but when they look back, they will remember that there were signs at a much earlier age that they didn’t notice.  For first-time parents, this is especially common because they have not seen typical child development to compare it to.

Comment #114: bananacat  on  05/05  at  02:54 PM

Our immune systems react to all foreign bodies, whether they are serious pathogens or not.

Oh god, catgirl, get out of my mind!

Comment #115: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  02:57 PM

Erm, I guess a *slight* caveat about the “our bodies don’t care if it’s a mean bug or not” thing is the idea of virulence factors. A lot of pathogens can turn on and off the virulence genes that actually harm their host—for example, some bacteria will lay low in the body until they have a large enough population and then all start producing their toxins at the same time. But this is actually because it’s *bad* for the pathogen to be virulent to some extent. Nothing gets the attention of the immune system faster than our bodies taking damage, so many viruses and bacteria will desperately try to slide under our radar by being inoffensive as much as possible. So if anything we would *prefer* for pathogens to dash in, guns blazing, because then we can find them and wipe them out before they can get a foothold and multiple. Obviously some really overtly nasty bugs still win despite wreaking detectable havoc, but plenty live in mortal fear of our immune systems and prefer not to make waves by being pathogenic.

(I don’t think this is actually all that relevant to autism/etc, now that I think about it—I just really love this stuff. ^^)

Comment #116: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  03:06 PM

speaking of this anti-vac horrorshow - I was horrified at how the racist cartoonist that likes happy whales implied that “teh Mexicuuns” were to blame for the outbreak of measles among children in San Diego a while ago. When it was proven that it was an unvaccinated (upper middle class) WHITE child who was patient zero.

*sigh*

This is yet another reason I will never have kids. I might turn into a self important douchebag.

Comment #117: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/05  at  03:19 PM

catgirl,

The seriousness matters because I care about how strong my immune response to the three of them is.  And I understand we take in nasty stuff when we get poked with a rusty nail, but adjuvants are really, really different than a rusty nail.

And you are wrong about “life-long” protection.  No vaccine gives everyone life-long protection, someone threw out a number upthread about how one vaccine is only 80% effective.

I realize the Wakefield study is wrong.  I would like to see a study to see if the onset of delayed-onset autism is linked in any way to an immunological insult.  For the reasons I stated above, which are to have a way of discussing it with parents who see profound changes in their children following
vaccines, so they don’t fall completely off the science wagon.  And because it is probably true.  Also, that way it will assauge guilt—no matter what you do, your child will get triggered, so don’t make vaccination decisions based on a fear that it will “create” an autistic child.

Bagelsan,

I think the best data we’ll get will be self-selecting non-vaccinators and delayed vaccinators.  But like I said, due to the profound differences in brain development, I really can’t buy that a post-birth vaccination could “cause” autism.

Comment #118: Ismone  on  05/05  at  03:20 PM

I would like to see a study to see if the onset of delayed-onset autism is linked in any way to an immunological insult.  For the reasons I stated above, which are to have a way of discussing it with parents who see profound changes in their children following vaccines, so they don’t fall completely off the science wagon.  And because it is probably true.  Also, that way it will assauge guilt—no matter what you do, your child will get triggered, so don’t make vaccination decisions based on a fear that it will “create” an autistic child.

It’s just that these studies are *really* time-consuming and expensive, using up resources that could be devoted to finding the *actual* source(s) of autism or on developing better vaccines. I’m not convinced that more studies will convince the woo types of anything, and I think *therapy* for easily woo-ed parents is a cheaper and better way to assuage irrational guilt than demanding yet another study in a long line of studies which all agree that a connection between vaccines and autism just doesn’t exist.

I think the best data we’ll get will be self-selecting non-vaccinators and delayed vaccinators.

I think this is basically what we have now. It’s not perfect but it’s as good as a really rigorous statistical analysis of multiple careful population studies can get. :b Sadly, I think that the only “data” that these anti-vac and delayed-vac types will find convincing is a lot of their own children dying of easily preventable diseases. So yeah.

Comment #119: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  03:30 PM

these anti-vac and delayed-vac types

Er, not to do exactly what you objected to and group them together or anything… ^^;

Comment #120: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  03:31 PM

catgirl,

Also, while I recognize that some of it is denial (the parents of the autistic child I know were in denial even though it was clear to me, observing her from birth, that she had the symptoms all along, although they became really obvious by the time she was two), I think there is some pretty good evidence for the delayed onset model for some people who are autistic.

Here is a psych. study discussing home movies of delayed onset vs. early onset vs. control children.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118626192/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Comment #121: Ismone  on  05/05  at  03:31 PM

Sadly, I think that the only “data” that these anti-vac and delayed-vac types will find convincing is a lot of their own children dying of easily preventable diseases. So yeah.

I wouldn’t be so sure.  McCarthy actually said that she doesn’t mind if children get preventable diseases and die.  If this starts happening, they will just blame the doctors and pharmaceutical companies for not providing them with a magical vaccine that contains absolutely nothing but still works.  Also, it sucks that children have to die to prove a point to their parents.  I think the only way some of these people will change their minds is if their child gets autism and an infectious disease.  It’s just a shame that children have to die to prove a point to their parents.

Comment #122: bananacat  on  05/05  at  03:37 PM

Bagelsan,

I see your point about funding priorities.  But I really don’t think there have been that many studies about vaccines and autism, particularly because, as you pointed out, most kids get vaccinated.  And even though the diseases people are choosing not to vaccinate against (or to delay vaccinating against) are big nasties, they are rare (I know, I completely agree with you that freeriders on herd immunity are pretty damn not cool), and they don’t kill everyone they infect.  So I don’t think we’ll get a whole bunch of babies dying, just some.  And I didn’t get the flu vaccine this year, which (since it contained an H1N1 strain) might help me out if I am exposed to the swine flu, but it might not be that deadly after all, and life is full of tradeoffs.

Comment #123: Ismone  on  05/05  at  03:38 PM

But I really don’t think there have been that many studies about vaccines and autism

There have actually been pretty many studies.  I’ll see if I can find some links.

Comment #124: bananacat  on  05/05  at  03:43 PM

catgirl,

I’m looking too, not fair to make you my researcher, but what I meant were studies with non-vaccinated control populations.

Comment #125: Ismone  on  05/05  at  03:49 PM

The diseases that childhood vaccines protect against are rare now.  They are rare because of widespread vaccination against them.  Before vaccines were available, smallpox, measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, and the like were common childhood diseases.  These are not diseases that are difficult to transmit the way STDs are; these are diseases that spread very rapidly through unprotected populations.  Even if getting vaccinated against these diseases caused or triggered my personal version of being neuro-atypical, my parents made the right decision in vaccinating me.  Autism spectrum disorders hard on the people who live with them and hard on the people who love them, but it could be much, much worse.

Comment #126: kaninchen  on  05/05  at  03:56 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16729252

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11581466

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889

First two for timing, third for non-vax autism rates Follow the Related articles for numerous others.

As to autoimmune trigger, I was unclear.  My apologies.  I was wondering if there was evidence that such was always the case.

Comment #127: D  on  05/05  at  04:33 PM

So I don’t think we’ll get a whole bunch of babies dying, just some.  And I didn’t get the flu vaccine this year, which (since it contained an H1N1 strain) might help me out if I am exposed to the swine flu, but it might not be that deadly after all, and life is full of tradeoffs.

(I guess it depends on how you define “a whole bunch” when it comes to dead babies… :p The CDC says that diphtheria had a 1 in 10 fatality rate and got about 150,000 people every year in the 20’s, I would call 15,000 deaths a year from something that’s now preventable neither “rare” nor “some”...) Life’s full of tradeoffs but I don’t like tradeoffs that end up in us losing immunity to dangerous diseases in exchange for absolutely no benefit whatsoever, yanno?

Comment #128: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  04:59 PM

Even if getting vaccinated against these diseases caused or triggered my personal version of being neuro-atypical, my parents made the right decision in vaccinating me.

Yeah, a lot of my family is non-neurotypical and plenty bright to boot—definitely better than dying.

So wait… vaccines cause autism-spectrum, which causes nerdiness, which causes getting a Ph.D. in the sciences, which then goes on to invent more vaccines… OH MY GOD it’s self-perpetuating!!1 :D

Comment #129: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  05:04 PM

Ismone:

That article is provocative, but pretty much all the quotes are from the people who did the study or are pushing its results (the tag says it was originally published in an environmenyal-health mag). One of the obvious confounders is that they weren’t in a position to look at the family histories of autism cases to see whether there was anything different about the people moving to california in later years, for example.

Comment #130: paul  on  05/05  at  05:25 PM

D,

Yes, I think you’re correct that autoimmune diseases aren’t always triggered by an immune insult, if I was unclear on that point, sorry, they are complex buggers.

Thank you for the studies, the third one looks pretty good (although just for MMR, which was what I found, a lot of the studies focused on either MMR or thermiserol).  The second one is also fascinating re: onset.  Although I would be curious to see a broader study re: immunologic insults including vaccines and trigger times.  I have heard anecdotes (I know, they d/n = data) of children with regressive autism developing symptoms after vaccines.  A lot of it could be the phenomenon catgirl is describing, which is that parents tend to try and blame a given event for the autism, even if the child was always showing symptoms.  (The psych. link I posted upthread showed that people with both early and delayed onset autism behaved differently on the home videos than the control group.)  But a person I know had a younger brother who basically screamed for six months, almost nonstop, after getting his vaccinations, and lost his (quite advanced) verbal skills at the same time.

Bagelsan,

I see your point about the dead babies, but 15,000 a year is still tiny compared to many other deaths we’re unwilling to prevent.  (I.e., how many lives would we save if we lowered the speed limit to 55?  Or put in more center dividers on freeways?  Or put fences around backyard pools?)  And it is hard to know how many more deaths, if any, would occur if we unbundled DPT, or gave it to kids at age three instead of age two, or perhaps even age four . . . but of course, fewer people vaccinating means that eventually, the herd immunity will be harmed, which means more of that illness.

Comment #131: Ismone  on  05/05  at  05:27 PM

Paul,

Check out the phthalates study.  (Yes, I know this is just the SciAm link, I am lazy, I am guessing the study abstract is on pubmed.)  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=link-between-autism-and-vinyl

This suggests there is at least one environmental cause/contributor.  2x is a pretty big effect. 

Ismone

Comment #132: Ismone  on  05/05  at  05:30 PM

There are, in many jurisdictions, zoning codes that require pools be fenced, or for trampolines to have safety features installed, under the ‘attractive nuisance’ princible.  No one here has claimed that we always do everything to reduce risk—we’re humans, we indulge in risky behavior.  But the perceived risk of vaccinating children, or of delaying vaccination of children, is much higher than any established actual risk.  Even without considering autism spectrum disorders, some fraction of vaccinated children will have bad reactions to some component of any given vaccine.  Some of those children may die.  And it may be true, though I suspect those who believe it to be straining at gnats, that some children might become autistic.  But the risks involved with creating a non-vaccinated group, which, Ismone, you come close to advocating, affect not only the people in that non-vaccinated group, but others whose vaccinations are not as effective as others, people whose immune systems are compromised, and who did not choose to take that risk.  Are autism spectrum disorders so awful that we should risk those people’s lives on the possibility that vaccination might play a role in the etiology of those disorders?

Comment #133: kaninchen  on  05/05  at  05:39 PM

‘Princible’ should read ‘principle.’  I am not doing so well with the typing today.

Comment #134: kaninchen  on  05/05  at  05:41 PM

No, my issues with vaccination have to do with bundling and timing, not autism.  I don’t think it causes autism, and I’ve said so several times on this thread.  I think it may trigger the onset in some people, but if it does so, I think the autism is already inevitable because the changes in the brain can be measured well before vaccination usually occurs.

I don’t think autism spectrum disorders are awful, in fact, I am a little concerned that some “treatments” for autism spectrum disorder have more to do with making other people more comfortable around people who have ASDs, instead of making life more pleasant for people with ASDs.  (Although I know, sad as it is, that sometimes getting people to present “normally” really improves how other people treat them.  I just hate it that my friend with the autistic child feels the need to apologize—because that’s the tone she takes—that her child doesn’t want to be hugged, or perhaps not interact with us, or gets distressed if we talk too loud or there are too many of us in the room at one time.  She shouldn’t have to apologize, everyone else should be more sensitive to the fact that her child interacts with the world and people differently, and her physical boundaries and modes of expression should be respected.) 

But if I thought that vaccination or other immune trauma played a role in any illness, I would want to know what that role was.

Comment #135: Ismone  on  05/05  at  05:49 PM

Just once, I would like someone who is against bundling vaccines to provide a study. A link. Something. This is something that could be tested in animals, if not in humans, for crying out loud.

Because not bundling makes a kind of sense - don’t overwhelm the immune system. But “makes sense” does not equal true and you could make a similar argument from ignorance and say it “makes sense” that bundling the vaccines sends your immune system into overdrive and makes you REALLY immune.

Does anyone have a link? I’m serious, I’d like to know.

Comment #136: Essie Elephant  on  05/05  at  06:48 PM

McCarthy actually said that she doesn’t mind if children get preventable diseases and die.

Seriously?  Seriously?

Fuck it.  Print that LARGE and LOUD.  Jenny’s got all of Jimmy’s money to protect her own and get the best medical treatment.  The rest of us don’t. 

Let’s see how many people still want to play along with Jenny when she’s happy to let kids die.

Seriously?  How is she rationalizing that?  Because sans evidence her widdle baby was injured by “vaccinations”, no one should be allowed those protections?  Even if those kids die? 

Whackadoodle.


—-

There is a difference between people concerned about timing of vaccinations/delaying some vaccinations vs. antivaxers.  Delayers tend to have done some research—that includes actual science—and while they may be making decisions I disagree with, are at least trying to be responsible, and making an informed decision. 

Antivaxers believe in woo and think their baybee is more specialer than other people’s babies.  They are the ones who let their chicken poxed kids run around with open sores at the park after the schools send them home.  Irresponsible, stupid, and relying on everyone else’s herd immunity.  And now apparently not caring if other people’s kids die, just so they don’t have to vaccinate.

I hate how much education has been devalued in our culture.

Comment #137: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/05  at  06:56 PM

Essie,

I should do a more in-depth search, because I don’t think there are comparison studies exist, but I should verify (my husband was looking about a month or two ago).  It bugs me that they did the move to bundling without doing research.  It bugs me that they do the Hep. B for infants without doing research, even though I personally have the vaccine.

Comment #138: Ismone  on  05/05  at  06:58 PM

re. bundling - it’s my understanding that the U.S. vaccine schedule exists in large part because of our healthcare system.  Much easier to ensure kids are fully protected by sticking them multiple times in one visit than to expect parents to bring kids back for repeated visits. All kinds of issues there: ability to afford multiple copays, ability for parents to take time off work for multiple visits, only so many well-child visits allowed by the health plan.  There are a lot of people who can’t afford the time or money to space vaccines. 
No citation for this, just memories of a lecture from a few years ago. But it makes sense - the CDC doing what it can to protect the most people while strugging against the massive healthcare machine in this country.  (to be clear, I’m okay with bundling. But it’s fun to imagine an American healthcare system in which people can choose to space vaccines without repurcussions from their HMOs.)

Comment #139: Shiny  on  05/05  at  06:58 PM

But “makes sense” does not equal true

Precisely. Medicine was hobbled for centuries because doctors kept obsessing over doing what “made sense” (eg, balancing the four humors) rather than doing what empirical data and experience showed was correct. Centuries of science and medicine concentrated on doing things that “made sense.” What makes the average person think that their ideas about what “makes sense” when it comes to treatment results in a better outcome? Either show that something works and has a tangible effect, or stop pushing the idea.

I have the Hep. B vaccine, funny how no one was ever like STD!  Oh noes! when that one came out

Well, basically they just committed a lie of omission and made no mention of the fact that it is spread primarily by sex. Though I think there were some references to things like “living in close quarters” would cause its spread. Basically they made a good move, there. Pointing out that Gadrasil protects against an STD was, in retrospect, probably not a good idea. Better to just talk about it in terms of just “a vaccine against cancer.”

Comment #140: Tyro  on  05/05  at  07:01 PM

But if I thought that vaccination or other immune trauma played a role in any illness, I would want to know what that role was.

Given that the ‘immune trauma’ from becoming infected with unmodified live virus or bacteria has objectively worse known outcomes than being vaccinated with modified live or dead virus or bacteria, with or without adjuvants, and that creating an unvaccinated population would adversely affect unconsenting people who depend on herd immunity for their health, no.  I do not think that is a reasonable price to pay to try to find out if vaccine might trigger a disorder that will inevitably be triggered anyway.  Science has to be bound by, if nothing else, doing the least harm to the least amount of people.

Vaccinations have been and continue to be one of the great successes of science-based public policy, right behind public water and sanitation.  While the people concerned about the so-far vaporous ill effects of immunization are really, truly concerned about their cause, their special snowflakeness doesn’t give them any right to put others at real risk.

Comment #141: kaninchen  on  05/05  at  07:25 PM

Sorry, kaninchen, that is not why I am concerned about vaccines.  I’m not saying get rid of them all, I am saying they aren’t some kind of sacred medical practice that should never be questioned.  (Yes, I know this is somewhat OT, since Amanda’s going after the whackaloons, but since we’re here, we’re here.)

And immune trauma from a disease is different from immune trauma from a vaccine.  In some ways, for some diseases, getting the disease is clearly worse.  In other cases (i.e., the flu vaccine) it may well be a toss up.  For a limited number of people, getting the vaccine is worse, due to the adverse effects.  I just want to keep those adverse effects very, very rare.

Wanting more research, and wanting to know about the possibility of triggering does not mean I want to put an an end to vaccinations.  People have always been allowed to opt out of vaccinations, and if we want them not to, in droves, people’s concerns about vaccines need to be answered with research.

A lot of current protocols are not backed by research, and that should change.

Comment #142: Ismone  on  05/05  at  07:33 PM

A lot of current protocols are not backed by research, and that should change.

Where are you getting that idea from? I work for an IRB and I can tell you for a fact that there are many many MANY drug trials going on - not just at our IRB but a few other independent IRBs as well as IRBs connected to teaching hospitals.

There’s shittons of research happening every damn second - on HUMAN subjects- all over the globe.
If there wasn’t I’d be out of a job.

<a href=“http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html”> and see how much protection there is for human subjects of research (even still) under the US government.

Comment #143: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/05  at  07:45 PM

The BadAstronomer is on top of the pro-disease people.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/05/congress-hears-about-antivaxxers/

Good to hear some people are taking this to Congress so they can hear the real story over the din of the pro-disease assholes.

Comment #144: BlazingDragon  on  05/05  at  07:51 PM

What is ‘immune trauma’ as you’re using it, and why is it bad?  How does it relate to the thus-far discredited attempts to find a link between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders?  Antigens have to be introduced to the body to provoke an immune response and provide even limited immunity.  Are all adjuvants bad?  Aluminum is a fairly common one—why would the very small amount in a dose of a vaccine have such deleterious effects and the widespread use of aluminum beverage cans and cookwear—are just fine?

As mentioned above, U.S. immunization protocols are not defined based on research but on on cost and compliance issues.  If vaccines are spread out more, it requires more trips to the doctor, more injections, more cost, more exposures to the adjuvants you’ve expressed concern about.  It also results in less compliance and less protection to the community at large.  Should people with limited time and resources be forced to pay more for a vaccination schedule more to your liking?  Should their children also delay entrance to school for having been unable to afford the delayed schedule?

Comment #145: kaninchen  on  05/05  at  07:57 PM

Ismone:

That swedish study, once again, is interesting but is also a questionnaire-based study with all of 72 positives, and the ostensible risk factor was the most common kind of flooring in the country, which doesn’t help you explain why rates of diagnosed autism are increasing. It’s pretty clear that a crapload more research needs to be done, but it needs to be solid, well-designed research, because one out of 20 studies of random noise will produce a “statistically significant” result otherwise.

Comment #146: paul  on  05/05  at  08:43 PM

I’m not saying get rid of them all, I am saying they aren’t some kind of sacred medical practice that should never be questioned.

Seriously. That’s not how science works. What you are describing as your ideal is called the scientific method and we do that already. Science does its best to hold nothing sacred and nothing as dogma. But after dozens of studies you need to be able to let go, and say “well, the one in a trillion chance that all of these have missed something important is just too small to worry about anymore” and move on with other research that hasn’t been as-close-to-proven-as-we-can-get to be useless.

Also (and I should try to dig this up) I believe there actually *was* a study looking at the vaccination schedules for several dozen countries and the schedule didn’t really correlate at all with autism rates in those countries. Some of them did less bundling and had pretty comparable autism rates with the US, for example.

Regarding adjuvants, the first vaccination (against smallpox) didn’t have those and had to compensate by injuring the site of vaccination more to provoke enough of a response. Adjuvants were added to vaccines because it was shown that the vaccines then worked better. I prefer getting an adjuvant to scraping off bits of my skin, personally, but to each her own…

Comment #147: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  10:05 PM

Danica,

Has there been any research on the difference between providing MMR together or separately?  Or the difference between vaccinating at 2 years and at 3?  Because those are the questions I am talking about, spacing and age at time of administration.

I understand that there are limits on human trials, but when we are moving from one treatment protocol to another, data should be collected.

Kaninchen,

I want people to have the choice to unbundle vaccines, and I want to know whether it is a good idea.  People can already opt out of immunizations altogether, so we’re going to get less compliance.  I’m just not comfortable that the cost/compliance balance has been struck at the right place. 

And yes, I am agreeing with you that autism is not caused by vaccine.  But let me discuss why I think immune insult/trauma can be bad.  WRT adjuvants, there is a big difference between eating off of something (or even eating something) than having it injected into your bloodstream.  There are two main things about adjuvants to focus on—(1) is the adjuvant itself safe, or does it cause problems and (2) does the type of immune response caused by an adjuvant differ in an important way from the type of immune response caused by routine exposure to pathogens?  Turning to the first, there are concerns that while we’ve got adjuvants in our system, we might react allergically to things we otherwise wouldn’t (which might actually militate in favor of fewer vaccines, so bundling.)  In the case of any give pathogen, it is possible that an adjuvant mediated response might be so different than a non-adjuvant mediated response that the immunity conferred might be different.  This may be going on with the varicella vaccine, which is showing something like 90% immunity, but also a number of people who lose all immunity within 5-8 years (and thus become higher-risk for those nasty shingles.)  There has been talk of adding varicella to the childhood vaccine roster, and if they did it, I would think it would be a foolish idea.

Another reason that immune trauma/insult is relevant is because autism is autoimmune, and other autoimmune disorders have been triggered by immune trauma.  Due to the developmental complexity of autism, if that is a cause, it is one that probably happens prenatally.

Paul,
The thing about the Swedish study was that they were not looking for the effect they found.  Phthalates and BPA and other endocrine disruptors are starting to look really problematic, particularly with regard to sexual development.  (Yes, mostly animal studies, yes, we’re in such a soup of chemicals it is hard to tell what is doing what to us at times.)

Comment #148: Ismone  on  05/05  at  10:08 PM

Bagelsan,

So, then show me the studies that exist which justify bundling MMR, compare immunity of bundled vs. non-bundled MMR, and discuss varying rates of vaccine efficacy based on age of vaccination.

Like I’ve said, that’s what I’m focused on.  The possibility of triggering, so we don’t entirely lose parents of autistic individuals who witnessed what they thought was a cause, and the scientific backing for our medical protocols.

You’re right about how science works.  But unfortunately, medicine isn’t always conducted based on how science works.

Comment #149: Ismone  on  05/05  at  10:11 PM

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/generation_rescue_and_fourteen_studies.php#more

Here’s a good link to a blog that talks a lot about this stuff; you could check it out.

Comment #150: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  10:19 PM

WRT adjuvants, there is a big difference between eating off of something (or even eating something) than having it injected into your bloodstream.

What’s the difference?  Needles are icky?  Eating is the main way we get stuff into our bloodstream.  It doesn’t get a shield by being absorbed through a mucus membrane.  Some compounds undergo some chemical changes prior to and during absorption, but not all.

Another reason that immune trauma/insult is relevant is because autism is autoimmune, and other autoimmune disorders have been triggered by immune trauma.

What evidence is there to support any of this statement?  How is autism in any way an autoimmune disorder?  What ‘immune trauma’ trigger which autoimmune disorders?  How do those immune trauma relate to vaccines?  Are they avoidable?

Again, what is immune trauma?  Immune response to an environmental antigen?  Immune response to live unmodified organism?  Immune response to dead or modified live organism?  Immune response in the presence of an adjuvant?

Comment #151: kaninchen  on  05/05  at  10:22 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146903?ordinalpos=24&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

“No evidence of an increase of bacterial and viral infections following Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine.  ...Our study confirms that the MMR vaccine does not increase the risk of invasive bacterial or viral infection in the 90 days after the vaccination and does not support the hypothesis that there is an induced immune deficiency due to overload from multi-antigen vaccines.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19108524?ordinalpos=31&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

“The MMR vaccination coverage in Malopolskie voivodeship improved rapidly and finally reached a high level during last years. The number of new cases of autism spectrum disorders in children during that time revealed a slightly rising but not significant trend, while the number of childhood autism were stable. Ecological study showed no correlation between MMR vaccination and an increased risk of childhood autism and autism spectrum disorders in children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007835?ordinalpos=43&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

“Immunogenicity and safety of measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine followed by one dose of varicella vaccine in children aged 15 months-2 years or 2-6 years primed with measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine….This MMRV vaccine appears an immunogenic and safe substitute for a second dose of MMR vaccine in young children. The increase in anti-varicella antibodies observed after a second dose of varicella vaccine supports a two-dose schedule for varicella-containing vaccine.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12403249?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log;$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

“Recently multiple individual vaccines were put together into one syringe. This is ideal to simplify the administration of vaccines and reduce emotional distress from multiple injections. However, combination of many vaccines may interfere with the properties of each individual antigen and complicate the schedule. From earlier studies, most of the combinations of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (whole-cell) vaccine (DTPw), Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (Hib), hepatitis B vaccine (HBV), and inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) were safe and adequately immunogenic. On the other hand, there was a notable reduction in anti-PRP when Hib was combined with acellular pertussis vaccine (DTPa). Combination of hepatitis A vaccine and HBV was safe and effective. Those coming soon in the pipeline are DTPa-Hib-HBV, MMR-varicella, pneumococcal-meningococcal. With the increase in demand, health-care providers need to be acquainted to these combination vaccines. The bottom line is to make sure that the children get vaccination appropriately.”

Comment #152: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  10:30 PM

What evidence is there to support any of this statement?  How is autism in any way an autoimmune disorder?

Isn’t that the meme that came from that debunked study about gut bacteria/certain foods causing brain inflammation causing autism? First I’d heard of the autoimmunity thing. I believe most people think it’s mostly genetic (huge concurrence in families, *much* higher concurrence in monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins, etc.) They’ve started to find a few genes tentatively associated with it…

Comment #153: Bagelsan  on  05/05  at  10:33 PM

Amanda:  “I have to say that I love the term “Western medicine”, which wrongly implies that people in Eastern nations don’t have doctors. “

I think I disagree with that statement.  I have never heard ‘Eastern medicine” and assumed that Asia had no doctors.  It seemed a little obvious to me that they were talking about a different *style* of medicine.

“Western” medicine is mechanistic in its approach.  The body and mind are two separate things, and what you do to fix one does not affect the other.

“Eastern” medicine is holistic (God, please don’t flame me for that word!) in that both body and mind are treated simultaneously.  The reasoning behind that may be less-than-scientific (yin and yang energies, etc.), but it still results in treating the whole person, instead of just the part that’s “broken.”  “Western” medicine is just starting to catch on that treating the whole person (taking into account emotions, etc.) often results in better outcomes.  “Eastern” medicine is catching on that aspects of Western medicine result in better outcomes when it comes to trauma, etc.

Do I go get acupuncture when I break a bone?  Hell, no!  “Western” medicine is great for that (and “Eastern” medicine practitioners know very well how to set bones).  But an “Eastern” medicine practitioner might also include instructions for a change in diet or meditation to help the person get over (or past) the trauma of the injury.  “Western” medicine is still pretty weak in that regard.

It’s still pretty much assumed in “Western” medicine that if the trauma is healed, you should be just like you were before the trauma and there is little understanding or acceptance for those people who *just can’t seem to get past it.” 

We just call it PTSD and treat it after the fact, rather than starting treatment at the time of the injury.

(pause)

Sorry for the rant.

Comment #154: Mhorag  on  05/06  at  11:12 AM

Has there been any research on the difference between providing MMR together or separately?  Or the difference between vaccinating at 2 years and at 3?  Because those are the questions I am talking about, spacing and age at time of administration.

I understand that there are limits on human trials, but when we are moving from one treatment protocol to another, data should be collected.

Dear - there is SO much data out there. SO MUCH. and SO MUCH of it is being provided, kindly, to you by other commenters here.

What’s frustrating about your method of “argument” is that it’s the same argument that many xians use against atheists - “If you can’t PROVE there is NO GOD I’m going to go ahead and believe what I feel are signs that there IS a god” Even though there is NO scientific proof that there is a god. And there hasn’t been. Ever.

There is LOTS of proof and study of and improvement of vaccines (as well as many other drugs)- in fact the MMR vaccine history can be easily googled.

Why are you asking everyone to provide you with some form of new gospel you can believe in?
Go and do some reaserch yourself. Start with- as I suggested, basic human rights as they relate to medical research (hint: research on babies is a bit tricker as you have to get the consent of the parent - much like consent of a caregiver for Alzheimer’s research. You have a very limited time window for babies as well.)

You seem to be carrying about this false belief that drug companies and the FDA just throw drugs out there on the market without doing a damn bit of research. In fact, there is REAMS of research- there are millions of “adverse event reports” and you know what? Lots of them are hard to separate what is a pre existing condition (like autism) and what if any, effect introducing a drug has on a pre-existing condition.

But, I have news - THERE ARE NO PERFECT DRUGS. THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET. When developing drugs they shoot for a formula that will do the most good and the least harm.
You seem to be insisting that a drug MUST be perfect. Sorry but the vast variants in each individual’s makeup means that not every body will process a drug the exact same way. The many many trials and studies on the MMR vaccine (since it was introduced in 1972 (!!)) means that it’s a PROVEN drug.
Humans are not suddenly evolving so that the MMR vaccine is ineffective or does something it’s not supposed to .

You keep saying you want people to have a choice - they can make that choice, however, the “herd immunity” of some communities, already weakened by people believing in junk science might make that a big mistake.
Do you know what happens to an infant or child who contracts measles, mumps or rubella? It’s not pretty, sometimes fatal and if not fatal causes serious issues for the child’s health later on if they survive and since it’s entirely preventable and a rare thing (considering all the children who DO get the MMR vaccine and are normal) for a child to have a serious reaction to ANY vaccination (according to the FDA and a VAST majority of doctors & scientific evidence) WHY are you ignoring ALL the facts? Why are you ignoring the history of these diseases? 

It’s fine to start a luddite type religion but denying a child a basic tool for healthy survival is child abuse. Not only of that child but of the children that come into contact with it if it contracts measles, mumps or rubella.

Comment #155: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/06  at  01:26 PM

Danica and others,

None of the cites provided (I cannot get to the science blog one) compare MMR together to M, M, R apart in terms of effectiveness.  None of the studies have to do with the age that the vaccine is given.  These are not minor concerns.  My position is not that the vaccine becomes magically unsafe, my position is that the difference that bundling makes in creating lasting immune protection hasn’t been studied.  The only study that comes close is the third one that bagelsan linked to, but unfortunately, the abstract doesn’t contain the data or methodology.  (Yes, I know that is unsurprising.)  That is point one. 

No, autism’s autoimmune nature has not been in any way debunked.  Just go on pubmed, run a search for “autism autoimmune” and start reading.  About 1/2 to 2/3 of the first 20 results looked on point.  That is point two.

And Danica, I am really not thrilled with the patronizing and name-calling in your post.  Disagreeing with you about science does not mean you should start with ad homs about me being stupid (no perfect drugs—well no, shit) and a bad parent.  (I’m not one yet, but thanks for the thought.)

Regarding the lack of perfect drugs.  Being someone who has dealt with my own drug reaction issues (whee!) as well as witnessed first hand some of the joys of what happens to geriatric patients because our understanding (or at least their GP’s understanding) of polypharmacy is limited, I get the whole tradeoff thing.  I am not asking drugs to be perfect.  But if I’m going to be told I and others like me are babykilling morons because we want to delay and unbundle vaccines, there had better be some damn proof.  I would like to know whether or not I have to reimmunize any child I give birth to (and at what age) if the idjits vaccinate him or her with Hep. B even though I have the vaccine and cannot pass it to my child.  I would like to be able to balance the increased risk that an 18 mo. old child of mine will get D, P, or T, if I wait until three to vaccinate them, and whether their immunity will be longer-lasting if I delay the vaccination.

The reason I asked about studies addressing these points is because I have looked for them REPEATEDLY and not found them.  So has my sister, so has my husband.  Again, the one Bagelsan found is the closest I’ve heard.  And my point about choice, which I think I’ve made abundantly clear, is that people already can legally opt out of vaccinating their children.  If people who value public health want that not to happen, these are the types of questions that need to be answered.  And they are good questions because they give everyone better data about what the tradeoffs are inherent in delaying or bundling vaccines.

And spare me the child abuse bullshit.  It is not child abuse to be concerned about my child’s continuing immunity and the timing of vaccines.  Quite the opposite.  It is being an informed parent and an advocate for my (potential future) child.  Do you think it is responsible parenting to just let a child coast on their at-birth Hep. B immunization?  Despite the fact that young children’s immune systems are underdeveloped?

Comment #156: Ismone  on  05/06  at  02:06 PM

Do you think it is responsible parenting to just
let a child coast on their at-birth Hep. B immunization? Despite the fact
that young children’s immune systems are underdeveloped?

YES.
Full stop.

Comment #157: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/06  at  02:13 PM

I note that you still have not provided a definition of what you call immune trauma.  Please, do.

Comment #158: kaninchen  on  05/06  at  02:22 PM

Oh sorry I thought you said IRRESPONSIBLE parenting oh well. That’s the bad thing about only having internet accress at work during short breaks. Good thing there’s espresso. *yawn* My apologies to kaninchen, etc.

Here’s the tl;dr version of any response to what you wrote above that I can send you.

Don’t make post after post of handwringing, making false assertions about how medical science & research actually works (and PLEASE provide a definition for “immune trauma”) and saying that since you’re the ONLY person in the world to have a child (or be considering having one) all other children and what their parents do is irrelevant.
It’s not.
I don’t want to be on the bus or in any other crowded area with a sick child with an incredibly communicable disease- especially if that disease can be avoided for that child early on.
People don’t have kids into a void- you are not a special snowflake nor is your child.
Your rights to take liberties with a child under your care’s health end when that child’s health adversely affects the health of everyone else in the community.

OK I’m going for another cup.

Comment #159: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/06  at  02:42 PM

Immune trauma is a way that I have been (carelessly, I admit, but obviously as well since I use them interchanably and with a slashy mark) referring to immune insults.  Pick whatever medical definition for that term you feel is most accurate. 

I am not making false assertions, Danica, I am telling you where there is not data and why I think we should gather data in that area before changing medical protocols.  But please, if the only arguments you have are to characterize my concerns about vaccine protocols as “false” without any support, and to say all kinds of nasty things about my future parenting, or somehow link what I’ve written to morons who drag their sick children out in public, those “arguments” speak for themselves.

Comment #160: Ismone  on  05/07  at  06:04 PM

We aren’t the ones agitating for changing medical protocols, Ismone.

Your proposed definition for ‘immune trauma’ is tautological.  And seems to be synonymous with ‘the immune system doing what it does all the time.’  Please give a definition of immune trauma.

Please state why ‘introduced directly into the bloodstream’ is horrifying while ‘introduced into the bloodstream by way of the alimentary canal’ is not.

Please explain why placing people imperfectly protected by their own vaccinations at risk of disease and death is an acceptable cost to you to avoid still undefined ‘immune trauma.’

Comment #161: kaninchen  on  05/07  at  06:13 PM

i’m sorry, i don’t want to fight with anyone…

but are you guys *READING* what Ismone is writing?

she is *not* advocating changing *anything* just POOF because she said so.

she is saying that she thinks more info should be gathered wrt HOW VACCINES ARE GIVEN.

now, i grant that this is not my area of expertise. but i was taught that the vaccine schedule, as we have it now, was created around WWII - and we CERTAINLY have learned a great deal since then, and that justifies *doing new studies incorporating new knowledge*

that is what Ismone is saying she would like. studies on the current vaccine schedule, studies on whether certain vaccines work better without being bundled, studies on the *optimum* time to vacciniate for X disease, and whether or not a child will *need* to be re-vaccinated. this last? important. i got chicken pox at 5. i got it AGAIN at 26. and i have been told - by my mother, who is a Nurse Practicioner in OB/Gyn and specializes in neonatal - that the chicken pox vaccine only last around 10-15 years. so you *do* want to re-vaccinate with that. what if giving the Mumps vaccine is most optimal at 18 months, but the Ruebella is most optimal at 36 months?
WE DON’T KNOW. and that, THAT is what Ismone wants studies on.

i don’t understand “immune trama”, but i still think you are mis-understanding what she is saying. she has *NOT advocated people not getting vaccines (or getting their kids vaccinated) she is saying that many people are already *NOT* complying, and if they are given the option to “spread out the vaccines”, it is possible that many who have opted out (or would opt out) would, instead, practice vaccination if they are offered different schedules.

and this has merit psychologically, even if it is proved that every current vaccine schedule is perfect. because if you are trying to explain to a villiage of people with no modern skills and knowledge, say, that their water is carrying something that makes them sick, it is *much* easier to explain that there are “little evil demons” in the water that are killed by boiling than it is to attempt to give them enough of a scientific background to comprehend bacteria and viruses (as in, saying there are demons killable by boiling will have everyone boiling water immedietly, while trying explain the science will take, at best, weeks and won’t convince everyone). then, after you have the necissary health compliance, *THEN* you explain the science (and hey, “little evil demons” is a pretty good description of most things that make us sick)

Ismone, i, too, would like a definition of “immune trama”. is this like when i got carbon monoxide poisioning and it trigger my porphyria (if, indeed, that *is* what actually caused it. one doctor thinks it might have been large and constant exposure to things that trigger porphyrian attacks, most probably tomatoes and rosemary/thyme…)

Comment #162: denelian  on  05/08  at  05:46 AM

Bagelsan, who is better at the Google than I, has quoted studies showing that the multivalent measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) is safe and effective.  Is it the safest possible?  Is it the most effective possible?  Possibly not.  But it is safe enough to have been used by tens of millions of children in the United States alone with only rare adverse reactions.  It is effective enough to make these diseases rare enough that we have forgotten how awful they are.

Ismone has not addressed key questions regarding her proposals: Is the cost of doing new research on the MMR vaccine worth the possible benefit of that research?  Can we as a matter of public medical policy, afford to put those people with compromised immune systems at risk of infection and death by reducing the protection given by herd immunity?  Is it a good idea to encourage parents to not vaccinate their children (or to delay vaccinating their children) by implying that vaccines may not be safe?  If MMR were split into three vaccines given at three different times, how would she help parents who may not be able to find time or money for three doctor’s visits?  If injections—introducing substances directly into the bloodstream—are bad, why require more of them?  Why are injections bad?  If the disorders she fears are triggered by vaccination would inevitably be triggered by something anyway, why choose actual infection over vaccination?

She also refuses to define the core of her argument.

Please, Ismone, define ‘immune trauma.’  Without using another word that means ‘trauma.’

Please, Ismone, say how so-called immune trauma differs from the normal function of the immune system.

Please, Ismone, provide some support for your contention that autism spectrum disorders are autoimmune disorders.

Comment #163: kaninchen  on  05/08  at  11:52 AM

i don’t think she is saying that spliting them should be standard, just an *option*. for those who are worried about it, as a pallitive measure. those who won’t get the vaccine because they think, for whatever reason, that giving three at a time is bad might decide to get them if they can get them singly.
my opinion (which is *just* an opinion, as i said i only know the basics) is that since this particular area has not been examined, that it would probably be good to check it. it should not be, if i understand how these studies work, all that much, because it could piggy-back on other studies.
now, if i could have a child (or much more likely, when - if i am allowed - i adopt a child) unless there are studies then saying that a different schedule is better, i am just going to get the vaccines as they are written *now*. and probably insist that my guy and I get boosters, where they might be needed, to boot.
i don’t think that Ismone is is saying that injections are bad, per se, i am reading her as saying “it might be safer to spread the vaccines out more, but we don’t know and i would to have that studied”. its possible that i misunderstood her - it looks like what she is saying is that it might be possible that some vaccines trigger a condition *earlier* than it might be triggered otherwise. *shrug* i’m much better on genetics smile

but i also do not know what “immune trama” means.

Comment #164: denelian  on  05/08  at  06:26 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.