Skip to main content

View Diary: Great CDC Coverup–suppressing evidence that MMR vaccines cause autism? (406 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you must be new here ;) (33+ / 0-)

    We have half a dozen or so anti-vax crackpots here (including the ones who declare "I'm not an anti-vaxxer but . . . " and then go on to parrot all the standard anti-vax horse shit). Some of them overlap the pro-homeopathy fans, and some also overlap the anti-science fringe of the anti-GMOers.

    They usually show up in any diary that mentions the "v" word, if you just wait long enough.

    Then you, too, can be part of the Big Pharma Conspiracy (tm)(c).  (snicker)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 08:37:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's like the person who says... (14+ / 0-)

      "I'm not racist, but...."

      The next thing you know, they've pulled out the swastika, and are defending Rush. Limbaugh. Not the rock group.

      Skepticism is evaluating the quality and quantity of evidence to reach a conclusion. It is not gathering evidence to support a closed minded conclusion.

      by SkepticalRaptor on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 08:56:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's VERY common amongst creationists (12+ / 0-)

        "I'm not a creationist, but . . . (insert regurgiquote from ICR or AIG here)"

        I take it as a GOOD sign that we are seeing it here. It means that even the anti-vaxers recognize that most people think they are crackpots, and they are now forced to do their best to hide their crackpottery so people will listen to them.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 09:00:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just check out comments on NCSE blogs. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lenny Flank

          The creationist trolls have no qualms about identifying their mania.

          The problem is they are usually quite ill educated in rhetoric, and while they attempt to spout ICR or AIG arguments, they come out like gibberish.  A sample from a Young Earth Creationists on a blog about the history of the Scopes' Trial:

          "Not everything written in the '30's was right!
          its not science verses fundamentalism(read historic christianity).  Its a opinion made in small circles that claim to know better then mankind and revealed religion.  Its attacking christian doctrines from a status of great authority on research in earth history.  So defending against this attack, then and now, is profiled as a attack on science. This to discredit the attack.  Well then it should be said to be a attack on religion. Right!  Actually its different conclusions and a struggle over which conclusion political authories back up.  I see the scopes trial as a attempt to stop the people from resisting a exclusive doctrine of origins from evolution.   The Scopes trial was not for free enquiry but to stop it.  today this is why creationism is censored in public institutions.  it really was a upper class attack on middle and lower classes beliefs and ability to defend those beliefs in public instittutions that must decide what is true.  Seems that way from Canada."
          If you can parse an argument from that gibberish you are doing better than me.
          •  well, they don't need to hide it now--they've (0+ / 0-)

            already lost all the court cases.

            Back before the Dover ruling, though, they HAD to keep hush-hush about it, since their entire legal argument was that Intelligent Design "Theory" was NOT creationism.

            Of course, many of them blabbed anyway. It led to what became known in anti-creationist circles as "Flank's Law":

            "The ability of a creationist to shut his mouth about creationism's religious motive is inversely proportional to the legal necessity of their doing so."

            http://dododreams.blogspot.com/...

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 05:17:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Not new here - just avoid the new agey (5+ / 0-)

      end of the left and tend to stay out of these things.

      The last medical discussion I entered into was when I replied that a bit of scaremongering about Ebola was necessary and actually did some good. But I was criticized a bit for that. And for stating that no one paid attention to Ebola because no white folk had died from it. Yet.

      This diary is great though. One that I wish I could give extra ratings to.

      And I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine. And I damn all gentlemen. Whose only worth is their father's name And the sweat of a workin' man Steve Earle - Dixieland

      by shigeru on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 09:56:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's not really a New Agey thing here (20+ / 0-)

        As far as the anti-vax and the anti-science fringes of the anti-nuke and anti-GMO goes, it tends to be an anti-corporate ideology that has been taken to a John Birch Society level of silliness, where everything is a capitalist plot and there are corporate conspiracies to "hide the truth" lurking behind every tree.

        I've been a commie since I was 16, but most of the anti-science crackpottery we see here is just cartoonish anti-capitalism with the Big Bad Corporations as comic-book supervillains.

        It's silly CT.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 10:03:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (6+ / 0-)

          Some people are so virulently (no pun intended, lol) anti-corporation that literally anything that involves a corporation is evil.  Which is stupid.

          I understand that Pharm companies don't make it easy for us to defend them, as there have been legitimate problems with under reporting side effects, not doing long-term studies, etc.  I acknowledge those incidents and repeatedly call for vigorous regulation of the industry.

          But many of us would be dead if vaccines were never invented and adopted.  We wouldn't have even made it past infancy.

          Pharm companies, for all of their issues and interplay with structural national health care problems, at least make medicines that improve the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.  Way more than can be said about hedge fund assholes that just beam electrons between servers.

          "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

          by mconvente on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:05:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We get the same irrationality with the anti-Israel (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shigeru, ebohlman

          stuff. A rec list diary actually compared an Israel attack on an apartment house that had a Hamas command bunker with the 9/11 attacks, even though Israel had given a warning that the apartment house was going going to be attacked, that Hamas (unusually) did not try to force Gazans to stay in the apartment as human shields, and there were apparently no casualties.

          You don't have to be an apologist for the Netanyahu government to realize that that comparison is ridiculous.  

      •  that's the thing, shigeru (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, G2geek, charliehall2, shigeru

        white folks have died from it.

        Just none (that we know of) in the continental USA (yet).

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Steve Earle, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 10:42:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Big Pharma needs to start cutting those checks . (10+ / 0-)

      I'm tired of providing complementary shilling for vaccines,  effective pharmaceuticals and funding for R&D.

      Moochers.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 10:31:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you are referring to me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wa ma

      I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but....

      What you don't seem to understand is that people can have a nuanced view of these things.  I support the points of this diary.  You will get no argument from me.

      I still don't see the harm, though, of separating out the M, the M and the R for children with compromised immune systems.  Before I traveled to Africa I got multiple new vaccines in one day, and my body really felt it.  In retrospect I would have preferred to space them out and I think parents should be given that option too.

      •  and now we can see how the anti-vaxxers are (8+ / 0-)

        evolving yet again . . . . . .

        There is zero evidence that the number or timing of vaccines does any harm whatsoever to anyone, anywhere. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. Not a shred.

        This whole "parents should be given an option!" thingie is the exact equivalent of the creationist "teach the controversy!" horse shit. It is a deceptive dishonest and deliberate attempt to manufacture a controversy where there is none.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 06:09:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't "evolved" on this issue (0+ / 0-)

          I am not an anti-vaxxer.  One of my recent diaries was to assist a kickstarter-type funding for a malaria vaccine and both of my children and I are fully vaccinated (except for yearly flu shots, which we skip).

          •  "i'm not an anti-vaxxer"..... (0+ / 0-)

            And yet here you are, as you are in every vax diary, regurgitating all the standard anti-vax arguments.....

            What we are seeing here IS the evolution of the anti-vax movement. They now realize that their "vaccines will kill us all oh noes" speeches just make them look like lunatics, so now they have massaged their message. Now, they declare, they "aren't against vaccines" and they "don't mind if everyone else gets vaccinated", but they just want everyone to be "informed" about all the "potential dangers" of vaccines so people can "choose if they want" to be "exempt" from receiving them.  And what are these "potential dangers"? Well, conveniently enough, it's the very same big long list of bullshit that they have been preaching for years now.

            It's the same bird, with the same squawk. All they've done is change a few feathers.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 09:58:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh, in the other comment you didn't know (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RunawayRose, wa ma

              who I was.  Pick one.

              I'm not against vaccines, I'm against crappy science, inflammatory diaries, comments full of personal insults and black and white thinking.  There are only two vaccines that I have some reservations about (based on the actual science), and neither one is the MMR vaccine.  The MMR vaccine is an important vaccine and everyone should get it.  I am just baffled why my one minor caveat of saying that high-risk children should get it in three separate shots is such a red cape for you.  That gets me put into the InfoWars, Illuminati reptilian camp?  Yes, that might slightly decrease compliance rates but surely there is a way to improve follow up and regulation to compensate for that?

        •  you see, this is wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cordgrass, raincrow


          I am a diabetic, and I was recommended to get a pneumonia vaccine a few weeks ago.  Prior to getting the vaccine I had to answer a series of questions... you see, you aren't supposed to get the vaccine if you have recently had pneumonia, for example, within the last year.  Why?  Because it can have a negative effect.  And I was advised that if I developed a high fever or swelling at the injection site, or headache, I should return to the doctor or go to the ER.  Why?  Because sometimes people have reactions to vaccines.  And I had to sign a paper acknowledging the risks and dangers associated with the pneumonia vaccine.  Quackery?  I think not.

          And I have read several papers that show MMR vaccines have led to large (i.e. many hundreds of thousands of dollars) of settlements in cases of encephalitis in children.  While admittedly the government did not admit that the MMR caused the encephalitis, it was considered likely that it may have triggered it, leading to permanent neurological impairment.

          It is one thing to say "no link has been proved to autism."  It is quite another - and patently false - to say that vaccines do no harm ever, or that MMR has absolutely no links to this or any other condition.

          So the flaming rhetoric does no service to science, and it excludes the very real issue that any live virus vaccine has a risk associated with it.  And all you have to do is read the label to see the risk involved.  That is why there is a vaccine court that settles claims in cases where a live virus vaccine (such as MMR) is likely to have produced a systemic reaction such as encephalitis.

          "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

          by louisev on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:35:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, vaccines can have side effects (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aimeehs

            This is a surprise to you?

            Ps--there is no evidence that vaccines cause encephalitis, or any other disease.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:39:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is complete bullshit (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              raincrow, wa ma

              Here is a link from the NIH on Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis

              http://www.ninds.nih.gov/...

              First, unlike MS patients, persons with ADEM will have rapid onset of fever, a history of recent infection or immunization, and some degree of impairment of consciousness, perhaps even coma; these features are not typically seen in MS.
              •  Do you know what the incidence rates are? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ebohlman, aimeehs

                http://www.sciencedirect.com/...

                Small comfort if you're in the 1-2 in 10,000,000 I suppose, but probably not a good idea to compromise the vaccination schedule for much more common deadly diseases.

                •  It IS a good idea for the very few (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  louisev, raincrow, wa ma

                  high risk children.  

                  But that's not my point with that post.  I wasn't using it to support my premise that separating the MMR vaccine should be an option for high-risk children.  I was pointing out that Lenny Flank was lying.

                  •  How do you identify children (0+ / 0-)

                    at high risk for ADEM or normal encephalitis, especially when the risk for developing those diseases is FAR HIGHER from the actual infectious disease itself (e.g. 1000x higher for measles vs. the measles vaccine).

                    •  see below (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raincrow

                      This is a start:

                      http://www.nytimes.com/...

                      Vaccination Recommendations for People with Compromised Immune Systems

                      In general, vaccines are not completely effective for patients whose immune systems are compromised by disease or medications. Often, such patients are given immune globulin if they are exposed to infection. It may take 3 months to 1 year before a person who has stopped taking immunosuppressant drugs regains the full ability to be successfully immunized against disease.

                      Live-virus vaccines are not usually given to people whose immune system has been compromised by illness or by the use of medications.

                      People who should not get live-virus vaccinations include:

                          Persons who have immune deficiency diseases (such as HIV or AIDS).
                          Patients with active leukemia or lymphoma.
                          Patients who are receiving treatments that suppress the immune system, such as corticosteroids, alkylating drugs, antimetabolites, or radiation. (There are important exceptions, however, which are noted in the discussion of individual vaccinations below.) Short-term corticosteroids (given for less than 2 weeks) should not affect any live-virus vaccination. Patients who need vaccinations and who take long-term or high-dose topical steroids should check with their physicians.

                      •  Is there any correlation (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        T100R

                        between people with compromised immune systems and ADEM? Given that's what we were discussing, I don't see the immediate relevance. How do you identify children at 'high risk' for ADEM?

                        Furthermore, given that this is already the recommended medical practice for people with compromised immune systems, why then do you find it necessary to encourage parents to exercise the 'option' in other cases, especially since the issue is with live virus vaccinations rather than vaccinations in general, or any of the chemical products in the vaccine.

                        Finally, given that un-vaccinated children who actually catch measels, mumps, or rubella are ~1000x more likely to develop ADEM, how does that factor into your risk analysis?

                        •  It's not already the recommended (0+ / 0-)

                          medical practice, as far as I know.  That advice was for children who should temporarily (or permanently) avoid vaccinations altogether.  But it makes sense that children with those indicators in their history might benefit from taking the MMR vaccine as three separate vaccines.

                          Another reason for parent choice is that given the choice, maybe some anti-vax parents would choose to vaccinate their children if it could be done this way.  I know the argument against that is compliance, but I think we could work out some kind of workaround.  That pertains to your last point.  I'm not saying wait six months between each separate vaccination.  The increased risk of having the vaccine administered over two weeks rather than one day is negligible.

                          The analysis of ADEM risk factors is still in its infancy, but seems to be tied with MS.  

                          •  ADEM is tied to MS (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            T100R, aimeehs

                            in the sense that it seems to lead to MS with a higher rate (and even this is controversial), I don't know of any 'indicators' in children that would identify those at high risk for ADEM, especially considering it appears to be virally induced, which of course makes it useless as an indicator for vaccine avoidance.

                            As far as your first point, I'm not sure what you mean. Of course immuno-compromised children have a different medical profile when it comes to vaccinations, that's well known:

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

                            But once again, this has ZERO to do with giving parents an 'option' with regard to their healthy children.

                            You can't use risk factors for immuno-compromised children as a way to justify changing a vaccine schedule for children not in that group. That makes no sense, completely different risk profile.

                          •  "can't" is a pretty strong word (0+ / 0-)

                            What if a child had a high risk genetically of MS?  I don't see how a two-week vs. one day window of risk would make that much difference.  Again, it's hard to say definitively because research is still early days, but why not err on the side of caution.

                            I am not a doctor and I don't know the ins and outs of vaccine protocols, but if a child who already had a past history of being immuno-compromised (even if it is just from what the parents say rather than in a medical log) is automatically now (when healthy) give separate doses of the MMR vaccine, then I am content with the current state of affairs.

                          •  You're right. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            T100R

                            Can't was the wrong word.

                            Of course you 'can', but you shouldn't. Because it puts the healthy child at greater risk.

                            Your appeal to 'caution' only makes sense if you are actually evaluating all of the risks involved, and in this instance your 'caution' may actually be incautious and lead to greater net risk.

                          •  I see your point (0+ / 0-)

                            But theoretically it could be set up so that parents are given a date for the physical.  If the child is at risk, they could make two additional appointments two weeks and one week before the physical.  If the family is a no-show for the first two visits, at the physical the child gets the full MMR.

                            Nuance.  :D

                          •  I'm still not sure (0+ / 0-)

                            what you mean when you say "if your child is at risk". If your child is immuno-compromised, you'll do it differently.

                            What other risks are you talking about?

                      •  where did you get this link from? (0+ / 0-)

                        Since I doubt very very much that you sit around reading five-year-old back issues of the New York Times, I presume you found this link on some website or another dealing with vaccination issues.  Which one?

                        That will tell us a lot about your sources of information, as well as how seriously we should take your claims of "I'm not anti-vax, really!"

                        Which is precisely why I expect you will not tell us.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 04:02:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  with this I do agree (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cordgrass


                  The issue I have with the diary is that it (and so many, many other comments) that there cannot possibly be a safety issue or any problem with vaccines, despite the fact that MMR vaccine is considered a risk factor for the fetus in pregnant mothers, and that there are risk associated with many vaccines, most particularly the live virus type.  Small chance of adverse reaction does not equal NO chance of adverse reaction, and my objection is that in a blog post meant to be 'scientific' the idea that there is any risk associated with vaccines is considered a 'conspiracy theory that is hide-ratable' is simply not in line with medical facts or practice.  

                  "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

                  by louisev on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 09:34:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Pretty sure that's a strawman. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    T100R, aimeehs, tarkangi, ebohlman

                    Saying that there is no link between austism and vaccines is not saying that there are never any adverse effects to vaccination.

                    However, these adverse effects are strongly outweighed by the risk of not getting vaccinated for pretty much everyone.

                    The risk from live virus vaccines to immuno-compromised patients is already part of medical protocol, that isn't what the pie-fight is about now, is it?

                    We're not defending doctors forcing vaccines on immuno-compromised patients, and you're not defending parents protecting their immuno-compromised children.

                    No, you guys are protecting the right for under or mis-informed parents of normal healthy children to exercise an 'option' to compromise the safety of their children and the general public.

                    The CT has to do with the insistence on facts that are flat out wrong, like drug companies are hiding the link between vaccines and autism.

                    •  nope (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cordgrass, wa ma


                      I've never had any conspiracy theory on autism and vaccines.  I am pointing out to you - and to those here who are so hyped up on shooting down anyone who has any reservations at all about the safety of vaccines (particularly infant vaccines of the live virus type) that you are not promoting a scientific view, but instead indulging in groupthink.

                      See the patently erroneous 'fact' that Marin County schools have < 50% vaccination rate posted elsewhere.  now THAT is a conspiracy theory, and all it takes as a minute or two on Google to see just how distorted some of the claims in this diary are.

                      "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

                      by louisev on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 11:09:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "You guys" (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        aimeehs

                        was a general identification of the people promoting anti-vax views. If some of the critiques don't apply specifically to you, feel free to ignore them.

                        But what exactly do you mean by this:

                        anyone who has any reservations at all about the safety of vaccines (particularly infant vaccines of the live virus type)
                        What reservations are you talking about specifically?
                      •  Nobody, here or anywhere else, is arguing (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        T100R, Cassandra Waites

                        that there are no risks to vaccines (and no, "big pharma" and the "medical establishment" are not saying that). What rational people are arguing is that, except in very specific and well-known situations, the risks of not vaccinating vastly outweigh the risks of vaccinating. And guess what? Standard medical protocol is that people in those situations don't get vaccinated (and thus must rely on the people around them getting vaccinated to protect them from exposure).

                        Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

                        by ebohlman on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 01:55:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  you are mistaken (0+ / 0-)

                          From earlier in the comment stream, Lenny Flank wrote:

                          yes, vaccines can have side effects (1+ / 0-)

                          This is a surprise to you?

                          Ps--there is no evidence that vaccines cause encephalitis, or any other disease.

                          you are also mistaken about the so-called anti-vaxxers here.  In the comments section here I haven't seen anyone saying that it's okay to skip the MMR vaccine.  I believe everyone posting here is pro-vaccine, including myself.
                          •  (sigh) (0+ / 0-)

                            If you are going to bullshit about me, then don't do it where I can see.

                            I'm the one who also wrote:

                            Yes, some vaccines have side effects. This is a surprise to you?
                            But thanks for the word games.
                            In the comments section here I haven't seen anyone saying that it's okay to skip the MMR vaccine.  I believe everyone posting here is pro-vaccine, including myself.
                            And yet all our regulars seem to be (again) quoting typical anti-vax crapola from typical anti-vax crapsites, and are full of typical anti-vax stories about how "dangerous" and "harmful" vaccines are and how "Big Pharma" conspires to hide all that data and evidence from us.

                            Walking. Quacking. Duck.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 03:45:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ps---since I doubt very much that you sit around (0+ / 0-)

                            at night reading the FDA's website, can you tell us which website you got your FDA quote from?

                            That will tell us a great deal about your sources of information. . . . . . . . .  .. . .

                            (Which is why I don't expect you to tell us.)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 03:53:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I googled it (0+ / 0-)

                            do you want my search words?  I'm not sure I can remember them.  

                          •  search history was in the dropdown list (0+ / 0-)

                            for my google search box

                            "mmr vaccine separate shots risk"

                            I flipped through the results until I found a reputable source (the FDA).  It shows up on the third page.  You can do the same search yourself.

                  •  yes, people who think that science is a (5+ / 0-)

                    Corporate conspiracy to 'hide the truth', are, by definition, anti-science CTers. And should be banned on sight, per KosRule Number 13.

                    Ps--if you would like to compare the 'adverse reactions' Of vaccines with the known effects of preventable diseases, I'm game any time you are.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 11:08:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  and what is your source for this link? (0+ / 0-)

                Since I doubt very much that you sit around at night reading the NIH's website for entertainment, I presume this link was provided to you by some website with an interest in vaccines.

                Which one.

                That will tell us a great deal about where you get your information, and how seriously we should take your "I'm not anti-vax" claims . . . .

                (which is why I don't expect you to tell us.)

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 03:59:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  ps------- (0+ / 0-)
            And I have read several papers
            Where.  Where have you read them.

            Since I doubt that you sit around at night reading epidemiological journal articles for entertainment, I presume you "read" them at some website or another.  Which one.

            That will tell us a lot about your sources of information . . . .

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 03:57:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  ps--don't flatter yourself (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cordgrass, mconvente

        Although I do remember your user ID from numerous crackpot discussions about homeopathy and GMOs and vaccines, all of the crackpots here run together in my mind, and I don't give a rat's ass about any of them as individual crackpots.

        So I'm not "out to get you !!!". Mostly, you mean less to me than the kid who delivers my pizzas does.  (shrug)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 06:48:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Nuanced view" (7+ / 0-)
        "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." -Harlan Ellison
        Many vaccines have, for some people, short-lived side-effects. That doesn't make them harmful. Traveling to Africa, I imagine your vaccine set included the typhoid and yellow fever vaccines, both of which have fairly high rates of fatigue and soreness (up to a week, especially for the yellow fever shot) as side effects. Your chances of experiencing these conditions would not have been changed if you had taken them separately, except that, if you were unlucky with your side effect profile, you would have had more days with side effects.

        Likewise, for the general pediatric population, there is absolutely no medical reason why the MMR vaccine should be separated into its components. Doing so provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever, but does increase the chances that the full vaccine sequence will not be completed (for whatever reason), leaving the child at risk (and, even if not, delays vaccination for one or more dangerous diseases).

        "Too many too soon" is a specious anti-vax argument. Anyone making such a claim is either willfully anti-vaccination or making uninformed arguments about medical issues. The former are delusional conspiracy theorists who should be made unwelcome in public discourse, and the latter, I direct to the wisdom of Mr. Ellison.

        •  thank you for mansplaining (0+ / 0-)

          my soreness and fatigue to me.  Yes, I indeed received both the typhoid and yellow fever vaccine and would have preferred to have had them done separately.

          Also, I did not say "for the general pediatric population" that the MMR should be administered separately.  I said that it made sense for certain children.

          •  No, that's not what you said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aimeehs

            You said that "parents should be given that option".

            And that's wrong.

            •  what I said in full was (0+ / 0-)

              I still don't see the harm, though, of separating out the M, the M and the R for children with compromised immune systems.  Before I traveled to Africa I got multiple new vaccines in one day, and my body really felt it.  In retrospect I would have preferred to space them out and I think parents should be given that option too.

              •  And it remains wrong (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aimeehs, ebohlman

                The universe of children who manage to be sufficiently immunocompromised as to be unfit for the MMR combination vaccine but yet adequately immunocapable to receive those shots individually is very, very small.

                But regardless of the absolute number of children for whom a delayed vaccine schedule might, maybe, possibly be a good idea, parents should not be given the option to alter the vaccine schedule. They lack the medical expertise necessary to make that determination, and they are not entitled to compromise their child's standard of care out of ignorance.

                •  This is why I am phonebanking for Berwick (0+ / 0-)

                  President Obama's appointee to run Medicare and Medicaid, who is now running for governor of Massachusetts.  Patient-centered care that takes into account the patient's input will greatly improve medical care.

        •  It also means more needlesticks for the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pasadena beggar

          kids.

          Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

          by ebohlman on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 09:07:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  See above re: "sample size." (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, aimeehs

        There's no evidence that separating vaccinations achieves anything of significance. In the case of the MMR vaccine, it is estimated that more than 500 million doses have been administered since the three vaccines were combined in a single dose in the early 1970s. That's a LARGE sample size.

        The greatest harm (statistically speaking) of separating MMR (or MMRV) into separate vaccinations is probably patient compliance; the likelihood of completing the full suite of vaccinations in a reasonable amount of time drops significantly - and children are left vulnerable to those diseases against which they have not yet received vaccination.

        In short, there's no demonstrated need to separate them, and the risks of doing so would outweigh the purely hypothetical benefits.

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:10:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There really isn't any nuance here (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrooth, ER Doc, aimeehs

        There really aren't any vaccines given in the US today that carry the risk of common serious adverse events. And the reason that vaccines are given in combo doses is to make it MORE convenient for parents, and to reduce the cost of distribution.

        The only real question that I as a scientist have for the vaccine establishment in the US is why we don't give the BCG tuberculosis vaccine here -- most of the world does.

        •  Nice that you live in a world without nuance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raincrow

          common serious adverse events

          This is all based on statistics, and I am a statistician.  But some people are outliers, some children are known outliers, and those children should be able to have three separate vaccines.

          •  Got any evidence that the triple vaccine (0+ / 0-)

            is worse than three separate ones? From any peer reviewed study?

            •  sort of, yes (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wa ma

              http://www.fda.gov/...

              This is from the FDA, so can be considered the horse's mouth.

              Increased rate of fever was previously identified as a safety signal in the ProQuad prelicensure studies. To better understand the risk of febrile seizures that might be associated with ProQuad vaccination, Merck committed to conduct a large, postmarketing study at the time of licensure. In January 2006, Merck initiated a large Phase 4 observational study to evaluate the risk of febrile seizures in 25,000 children receiving their first dose of ProQuad. The study was recently completed and the data are undergoing analysis, but the interim results of the study are reflected in this labeling revision.

              The interim analysis of Merck's post-marketing study showed that febrile seizures occurred more frequently 5 to 12 days following vaccination of approximately 14,000 children with ProQuad (0.5 per 1,000) when compared with a historical, age and sex-matched control group vaccinated with MMR and varicella vaccines administered separately at the same visit (0.2 per 1,000). In the 0-30 day time period following vaccination, the incidence of febrile seizures with ProQuad (1 per 1,000) was not greater than that observed in children vaccinated with ProQuad's individual components, MMR and varicella vaccines, at the same visit (1.3 per 1000).

              this was comparing MMR combined with chickenpox vaccine vs the two vaccines administered separately at the same visit.  Mind you, the control was at the same visit, not spaced a week apart.
              •  This does not prove your point (0+ / 0-)

                This is MMR + varicella together, vs. MMR separately from varicella at the same time. It days nothing about M, M, and R spaced apart or even separately at the same time.

                •  It proves that combining separate vaccines (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wa ma

                  into one vaccine shot can end up being more risky, healthwise.  

                  But as for the specific MMR alone, compared to the monovalent vaccines, I found out something interesting.  I am usually pretty handy with the google, but was having a really hard time finding anything at all on this subject.  I found this:

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

                  And this is an excerpt from that article:

                  In recent years, there has been growing controversy over the safety of the MMR vaccine, which has been allegedly associated with a variety of rare conditions including thrombocytopenic purpura, aseptic meningitis, joint pain, sensorineural deafness, convulsion, encephalopathy, chronic enterocolitis with regressive developmental disorder and Crohn’s disease [6]. From the public health perspective, it is important to identify whether the combined vaccine is associated with adverse events compared with its component vaccines.
                  Despite much attention on MMR, the methodological quality and applicability of the evidence of possible unintended events following MMR compared with its single or double antigen component vaccines have not been assessed.
                  Recent reviews are descriptive and mainly focus on the
                  alleged association with Crohn’s disease and autism [6,7].
                  In other words, at least up until 2003 when this article was published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccine, those comparisons of adverse events were never conducted.  So unless you have a link to more recent studies doing this comparison, neither one of us can claim the facts in this matter.  It has never been formally studied.  However, the warning by the FDA in my comment above certainly does indicate that there could be a difference in risk between three monovalent and one trivalent vaccines, especially if they were administered over a period of a couple weeks rather than the same day.
    •  The "Woo Woo" brigade. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ebohlman

      Who will then mock the Right Wingers for Climate Change Denial. Just as bad.

      WTF!?!?!?! When did I move to the Republic of Gilead?!

      by IARXPHD on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 12:33:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site