- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: For those against vaccinating your kids, here comes POLIO again
Posted on 5/5/14 at 2:57 pm to LSU0358
Posted on 5/5/14 at 2:57 pm to LSU0358
quote:
This is all well and good, but what causes autism then? Is it a genetic defect? If so, why wasn't autism noticed 50 years ago?
The exact cause isn't known. Even its exact effects and manifestations aren't known. But it favoring males to females suggests it's way more likely to be genetic in origin rather than environmental, or there's a protective factor on the X chromosome. Or an exacerbating factor on the Y (least likely, Y really doesn't do much other than make fart jokes funny). Of course, it's probably more complex than a simple gene or even class of genes. It likely needs both genetic and environmental components. Even still, some cases may be entirely genetic. Others entirely environmental (there are people with family history of lung cancer who don't smoke and get lung cancer. There are people with no family history of lung cancer who do smoke and do get lung cancer. There are also those with no history who do smoke and do get it. And you can draw the last group up tired of typing it. But 4 groups, for a parallel to what's likely happening here). Seeing a clear trend in males:females is, in that respect, slightly more comforting (lacking a better word) in that the research can focus on more specific things to get to the root of the cause and to what extent it exerts its effects. We also don't know why glaucoma happens. We don't know why aspirin prevents heart attacks and strokes in men, but only strokes in women. I don't think they know why statins can cause your muscles to break down (could be wrong there), but they're not afraid to recommend you stopping it immediately if you do feel muscle pains.
0
Posted on 5/5/14 at 2:59 pm to hendersonshands
quote:
Posted by hendersonshands If you don't vaccinate your kids, you should have your kids taken from you.
You lack wisdom.
And yes I vaccinate my kids.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 3:07 pm to LSU0358
From your link:
The "she" is the woman reporting the study. I'll go farther and suggest that when numbers are jarringly different like that, there's probably some reason other than a wild rise in prevalence, outside of an epidemic.
So, one thing that's worth noting that isn't touched on on the first page (will read the rest later, but I feel I can address most of your question/concern from the first page info) is that this is all based on chart reviews from select offices/reports. The way it's being reported now, more than ever, is through Electronic Health Record systems which are able to be mined for data by different agencies, including the CDC and NIH. In short, the reporting actually has changed a lot in the last few years, and the number used is simply to estimate prevalence. It's not actually a hard, tried and true prevalence. I haven't heard concern from pediatricians or Family Practitioner articles that I've read about rise in incidence in a single-practice setting (while not necessarily the most accurate, the lack of any one group saying "whoah, we are seeing lots more of this" helps ease the idea of there actually being such a sharp increase in prevalence. Further, the lack of this type of publication also helps curb the idea that a single environmental element is at play, going back to my previous post). That's more anecdotal than scientific, though.
ETA: page 3 of your article discusses in good detail about how these numbers aren't representative and that the only kids being called "autistic" back in the 80s were intellectually disabled whereas now up to 50% are at an average to above-average IQ. I'll encourage you to read that part of the article again, as I am paraphrasing, but in short, even without the definition on paper changing, what it means to the ones diagnosing it is drastically different now than it used to be.
quote:
But she believes increased awareness in identifying and diagnosing children contributes to the higher numbers
The "she" is the woman reporting the study. I'll go farther and suggest that when numbers are jarringly different like that, there's probably some reason other than a wild rise in prevalence, outside of an epidemic.
So, one thing that's worth noting that isn't touched on on the first page (will read the rest later, but I feel I can address most of your question/concern from the first page info) is that this is all based on chart reviews from select offices/reports. The way it's being reported now, more than ever, is through Electronic Health Record systems which are able to be mined for data by different agencies, including the CDC and NIH. In short, the reporting actually has changed a lot in the last few years, and the number used is simply to estimate prevalence. It's not actually a hard, tried and true prevalence. I haven't heard concern from pediatricians or Family Practitioner articles that I've read about rise in incidence in a single-practice setting (while not necessarily the most accurate, the lack of any one group saying "whoah, we are seeing lots more of this" helps ease the idea of there actually being such a sharp increase in prevalence. Further, the lack of this type of publication also helps curb the idea that a single environmental element is at play, going back to my previous post). That's more anecdotal than scientific, though.
ETA: page 3 of your article discusses in good detail about how these numbers aren't representative and that the only kids being called "autistic" back in the 80s were intellectually disabled whereas now up to 50% are at an average to above-average IQ. I'll encourage you to read that part of the article again, as I am paraphrasing, but in short, even without the definition on paper changing, what it means to the ones diagnosing it is drastically different now than it used to be.
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:08 pm to LSU0358
quote:
The increase in the number of vaccines kids take now vs when I was a kid (I'm 30) is concerning. Are all of these really needed? For instance, is the mortality rate of MMR worth the possible risks?
This is a much bigger issue. Plus You can add the desire by many providers to combo vaccines together.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:10 pm to STEVED00
quote:
You can add the desire by many providers to combo vaccines together.
Can you or anyone explain why combo vaccines are worrisome?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:39 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
Can you or anyone explain why combo vaccines are worrisome?
Many vaccines are recommended to be given at the same time even though they could be easily staggered (HIB and DTaP is a good example). If your child does have a reaction then as a parent wouldn't you want to know which vaccine caused it?
I believe vaccines are good but I feel that a parent should do his/her homework when it comes to your child's vaccine schedule. Also, I believe doctor's should not blindly obey predetermined schedule but also take into consideration the specific circumstances of each child when designing the child's vaccine schedule.
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:45 pm to STEVED00
quote:
Also, I believe doctor's should not blindly obey predetermined schedule but also take into consideration the specific circumstances of each child when designing the child's vaccine schedule.
That sounds good and all, but what does it even mean?
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:47 pm to Boats n Hose
quote:
That sounds good and all, but what does it even mean?
Dr. Sears has a really good book on vaccines if you are interested that goes into a lot of this type of stuff.
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:54 pm to STEVED00
quote:
The increase in the number of vaccines kids take now vs when I was a kid (I'm 30) is concerning. Are all of these really needed? For instance, is the mortality rate of MMR worth the possible risks?
Well... This is often an misunderstood concept regarding vaccinations.
The number of vaccines is not proportional to the amount of vaccines people are getting.
The active contents in a vaccination that will stimulate your immune system to produce the appropriate antibodies are called antigens. Therefore, each vaccination contains specific antigens to drive the production of antibodies that will in turn protect you from the real disease.
As medical technology advances, we are able to developed and improved on these specificity of these antigens, allowing a proper immune response with minimal amount of antigens.
Thus, the amount of antigens contained in just one vaccine you received 30 years ago is much greater than the amount of antigens contained in all the vaccines a child receives put together.
So the number of vaccinations do not equal the the amounts of vaccination.
The number of vaccinations is nothing to be concern about either... you child is exposed to more antigens from a bowel of cereal or going to the park.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:54 pm to STEVED00
quote:
Many vaccines are recommended to be given at the same time even though they could be easily staggered (HIB and DTaP is a good example). If your child does have a reaction then as a parent wouldn't you want to know which vaccine caused it?
Good point. In a patient whose parents will actually follow up, very few doctors wouldn't mind spacing these out.
You also write about rubella being insignificant in the young child (postnatal). This simply isn't true. Though it's a rare virus with rare complications, which include infection of the brain (encephalitis), this really comes back to the herd immunity thing. Most rubella infections are sub clinical in non-fetuses. The problem with being non-vaccinated here is that pregnant women are then way more easily exposed to this virus that's very morbid for their child. I'm all for personal freedoms and that jazz, but one little needlestick once with an insurance policy for if anything goes wrong (built into the very low cost of the vaccine) is worth way more to the women and fetuses it protects than it is to me.
Yes, other people should do their homework before agreeing to and blindly prescribing vaccines, though. Hep B isn't big on neonatal wards, but it is given then to raise immunization rates because, unfortunately, a large number of parents do not being their children to physicians. Again, for those parents who will come on time, it's easy to take interest and spread the schedule out. For those that don't, the AAP and most physicians do solemnly believe they are doing more good than harm with these "compressed schedules" and combo vaccines.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:56 pm to STEVED00
quote:
Many vaccines are recommended to be given at the same time even though they could be easily staggered (HIB and DTaP is a good example). If your child does have a reaction then as a parent wouldn't you want to know which vaccine caused it?
But that depends:
1: what is the benefit of staggering the vaccines. Answer: none
2: how frequent are these 'reactions' Answer: rare
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:57 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
You also write about rubella being insignificant in the young child (postnatal). This simply isn't true. Though it's a rare virus with rare complications, which include infection of the brain (encephalitis), this really comes back to the herd immunity thing. Most rubella infections are sub clinical in non-fetuses. The problem with being non-vaccinated here is that pregnant women are then way more easily exposed to this virus that's very morbid for their child. I'm all for personal freedoms and that jazz, but one little needlestick once with an insurance policy for if anything goes wrong (built into the very low cost of the vaccine) is worth way more to the women and fetuses it protects than it is to me.
My point on the rubella is that if we are more worried about ensuring herd immunity then why couldn't it be postponed a few more years instead forced down our throats at 18 mths with Measles and Mumps.
Hep B is a vaccine that if parents wouldnt do their HW then their kid would get it at 1 day old when totally could and probably should be delayed several years.
This post was edited on 5/5/14 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 5/5/14 at 4:58 pm to Lokistale
We had our boy vaccinated at 2 months, and my wife asked the very same questions. Which ones do you know what he's reacting to? Pediatrician said it's pretty much stats. The odds of reacting to this particular one is slim to none, but the odds of the other one are greater.
She's a nurse, and she's for vaccinations but not a ton at the same time. They need to be spread out. We deal a lot on foster and adoption cases, and the bad thing she sees a lot is a kid getting placed in a new home who has never had any, so they just pile it on. That isn't a good idea.
She's a nurse, and she's for vaccinations but not a ton at the same time. They need to be spread out. We deal a lot on foster and adoption cases, and the bad thing she sees a lot is a kid getting placed in a new home who has never had any, so they just pile it on. That isn't a good idea.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:01 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
McCarthy is a fool who should be thrown in front of a train.
You're right. That's why the anti-vaccine idiots are starting to use Mayim Bialik. I've been seeing this image go around facebook in the last week or so.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:03 pm to STEVED00
quote:
My point on the rubella is that if we are more worried about ensuring herd immunity then why couldn't it be postponed a few more years instead forced down our throats at 18 mths with Measles and Mumps.
I'm not positive, but my guess is that by that age, many women who are starting families either are or are considering becoming pregnant again. Just a guess. I don't have a solid reason there. But if you're talking about measles, mumps, and rubella having separate potential reactions, I would disagree. Allergic reaction to the antigen itself is pretty rare. Reaction to the preservatives (it is impractical to consider preservative-free vaccines in this day and age at the cost people expect) is way more likely. Why put it with M&M? Because those are two that can kill the child, and adding a third to save his/her little brother/sister is safe and effective without adding another needle stick, which probably carries more risk of infection than the vaccine does of an undesired reaction (generalized statement not actually based in fact. Also not looking up neonatal sepsis rates 2/2 vaccination. Forgive me).
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:04 pm to sicboy
quote:
That isn't a good idea.
But why is that not a good idea? Why do people think their child need to get one only vaccination at a time?
What is the benefit? Except to ease the parents' own anxieties... If that is the purpose than you are not acting in the child's best interest.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:04 pm to Lokistale
quote:
1: what is the benefit of staggering the vaccines. Answer: none
quote:
2: how frequent are these 'reactions' Answer: rare
Your 2nd point contradicts your 1st. Side effects are rare but they do happen and you can decide with your DR whether or not it is worth going forward based on your child's reaction. If you don't know which vaccine caused the reaction then a parent might decide to stop both vaccines.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:07 pm to STEVED00
quote:
Hep B is a vaccine that if parents wouldnt do their HW then their kid would get it at 1 day old when totally could and probably should be delayed several years.
It's harm reduction. Most of the kids won't come back in several years. A significant portion of them will contract Hep B that could have been prevented by:
1) better parenting
2) hospital vaccination early on
AAP can't really advocate for 1, so they go with the 2nd. Also, again, the vaccine is a few dollars. Any reaction attributed to the vaccine is covered by a huge fund that exists specifically to cover vaccine-related injuries. So even for those "bad parents" (those that don't read up on vaccination schedules and don't being their child in for well- child examination and future vaccination) have lower rates of Hep B thanks to the approval of the vaccination for use in neonates.
Again, nothing wrong with putting it off. But there's also really not much wrong with doing it then.
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:11 pm to LucasP
quote:
with a syringe full of autism
Posted on 5/5/14 at 5:11 pm to LSUDVM1999
Everything you need to know...
https://howdovaccinescauseautism.com
https://howdovaccinescauseautism.com
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News