Discussion in 'Other Hot Topics' started by Becky Stevens mom, May 10, 2010.
O.k., think I got it now.
I'd love to know if we have someone on this thread that is up to speed on the NZ vaccine recommendations I found information about the NZ Meningococcal vaccine recommendations here.
It was an interesting read: their recommendations are based on vaccines licensed there and those seem to be quite different in terms of efficacy than the two US licensed products.
If you look at the menu on the left of that page, it gives you our immunisation schedule plus lots of other info regarding our recommendations. If you've already looked, sorry!
For those who would like more education about the vaccine debate, there is a PBS Frontline episode that can be watched online. It's about an hour long.
I found this in the comments about the episode.
I was not aware that he wrote articles on vaccines.
I thought the episode was excellent.
Dr. Jay Gordon doesn't appear to agree with your thoughts. He appears to feel it was a one-sided piece.
[QUOTE, excerpted from article link above] Luckily for all of us parents, Dr. Gordon has not stayed silent since the show aired. In a piece for HuffPost earlier this week, he wrote:
"Vaccines are neither all good -- as this biased, miserable PBS treacle would have you believe...You had a point to prove and removed material from your show which made the narrative balanced. 'Distraught, confused moms against important, well-spoken, calm doctors' was your narrative with a deep sure voice to, literally, narrate the entire artifice." [END QUOTE]
Edited to add: Dr. Jay Gordon's article link:
Above is Dr. Jay Gordon's article link.
The link in the post above this one was commenting on his link.
He seems a little miffed. I guess I would be too if they had interviewed me for 2 hours and didn't include any part of it. Seems like there was another one just like that. I wonder if there was a similar situation on the other "side"?
I guess now, though, we have to throw PBS onto the pile of organizations that have lost all credibility.
Somewhat related to the thread topic.
The Frontline program seemed to want to portray the situation as parents vs. "the experts". Why else would they have left the interviews of the doctors (who were questioning vaccines) on the cutting room floor.
I wish the program would have interviewed the former head of the NIH, Dr. Bernadine Healy. She seems to be pretty rational in her thought process.
I think that it's interesting to go back and read the original paper that has come under such attack. You can read it here:
The reason that I find it so interesting is that when the paper was published, Wakefield did not state emphatically that the mmr vaccine definitely caused autism. Quite the contrary... The paper brings it up as a concern and suggests that further research be done. Here are a few quotes:
"We did not prove an association between measles,
mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.
Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve
Then further down:
"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children
that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In
most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles,
mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations
are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible
relation to this vaccine".
Taking Wakefield out of the equation, do people have a problem with further investigations being done on the topic?
She's speaking with common sense.
Regardless of what his paper did or didn't conclude I don't think there's any doubt that it and he were pivotal in, if not a primary catalyst of, the anti-vaccination movement.
I have a problem with expending resources on the MMR-->Autism topic, yes. I think it has been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that there's no link - I think the MMR trigger is a dead horse. It seems to me even the Age of Autism crew has, at least publicly, moved past MMR and are now focusing on the "number" of vaccines. I think the Vaccine-->Autism movement should look elsewhere. I'm sure there are still a few unexplored, meaning studied, avenues. For instance, I would love if they could find enough data in existing databases to evaluate a correlation of raw number of vaccines vs. autism. I am, of course, assuming they haven't already.
Two thumbs up for common sense.
In an effort to provide a balance:
Well, the "anti-vaccine movement" (if that's what you want to call it...) was going on long before Dr. Wakefield came into the picture and it will be going on long after this latest chapter fades away. The reason it won't go away is because of all the thousands of parents who think/know that their children have been injured by vaccines.
The mmr vaccine is certainly not out of the picture in terms of autism. That may be your opinion (and ultimately you could be correct) but no, definitely not ruled out as a possible trigger. No way. Too many unknowns.
This is entirely your opinion. While studies may come out and show that there's no link, there are also studies that have been done that show that injected mercury does damage to the body. It may not provide conclusive evidence that vaccines caused 100% of autism cases in children, but it certainly ought to be raising eyebrows and prompting further research before this is declared a "dead horse."
EDIT: It's not merely "my opinion" - it's science.
EDIT2: I'm sorry ... I misunderstood. Yes, it is my opinion that the subject is a dead horse.
I am curious ... how do the last two posters reconcile that data was evaluated and it was shown there was no statistical difference between autism rates between those that received the MMR vaccine and/or one containing thimerosal ( I think the show mentioned there were two different studies) and those that did not?
Maybe someone else would take you on here... but for me you would need to be more specific. Which study/studies? One of the problems is that some of these "studies" have been shown to be flawed over the years. As an example, the Danish epidemiological studies which were for a long time seen as the end all, be all in terms of supposedly showing "no link" between vaccines and autism, were later found to be severely lacking for various reasons. (Of course, severely lacking to me would probably not be as severely lacking for you...).
Separate names with a comma.