Baby monkeys get autism like symptoms after being vaccinated ...

[Tussiemussies]

You can read about the study done at University of Pittsburg:


http://vactruth.com/2012/04/29/monkeys-get-autism/

[redfox]

Much science has demonstrated no connection between vaccines & autism. There is plenty of data demonstrating the life saving benefits of vaccines. Do we really need to get into this strange debate?

[katieb12]

Much science has demonstrated no connection between vaccines & autism. There is plenty of data demonstrating the life saving benefits of vaccines. Do we really need to get into this strange debate?

+1

[danna]

+2 and I have a grandchild with autism....
Till science really demonstrates the connection....children are dying from lack of these life saving vaccines.
Just my opinion....

[peggy]

Not only dying, but promoting the spread of illnesses we should have licked a long time ago!

[Mighty Frugal]

+1


+3 Didn't the first person who tried to show a correlation admit he was either wrong or even lying? The illnesses that we are now vaccinated for once caused such devastation. Everyone I know was vaccinated-why wouldn't everyone (or a larger percentage) develop autism?

I vaccinated my kids and I will continue to do so

[Mer05]

Mighty Frugal - lying. The paper was a deliberate fraud; the journal that published it (Lancet) has retracted it, and the U.K. barred the lead author, Andrew Wakefield, from practicing medicine there. Unfortunately, the idea lingers on. Whooping cough is a thing again, where I live.

[Zoebird]

Wow, from one extremist/alarmist statement to another.

First, vaccines are good. But that doesn't mean that the whole issue is infallable and shouldn't be discussed.

The problem with vaccines is that they have never been studied in children, and neither have cocktails of vaccines. Before a vaccine goes to market, they are clinically trailed on adult bodies. It's unethical to study in children, which is why vaccine reporting is so important. (or any medical side effect recording). What we notice -- as in geriatric medicine -- is that children's bodies do not behave similarly to adult bodies with the same medications.

With this, most of the studies that don't have autism links are epidemiological studies which are looking at reports overall and incident rates around vaccine cluster dates which cannot demonstrate causation inherently. There are some amazing studies of these clusters and clusters of SIDS deaths (SIDS deaths increase around vaccination times), but the studies are clear that this doesn't indicate causation. It can only demonstrate correlation for further study, which is difficult to directly study due to the fact that you cannot run trials on children.

There are, as far as I can tell, very few studies that would "mirror" studies in child-bodies, such as this study. But it's important to also note that this study is not *conclusive*. It will need to be repeated many times over to demonstrate a link.

Secondarily, it is also important to note that we truly do not know what causes autism. There are also multiple suspected causes of autism. A recent study indicates an environmental factors may play a role in it. Others are looking into genetic causes. Some people are studying the brain/gut connection. There are so many possibilities, that we don't know WHAT the cause of autism is. . . even the experts in the field. It's still being questioned very deeply.

Now, lets have a talk about "children are dying. . ." and vaccines. This is an alarmist statement, in my opinion. While it is true, it is also contextualized. The children who are at greatest risk from dying from childhood disease are those who have limited access to good and enough food, clean water, protection from the elements (adequate housing), and difficult environmental conditions (ie, un-hygenic environmental conditions). This means children living in poverty.

So, yes, these children do often become quite sick and die from illness. They are also the ones at risk of dying of starvation, are more at risk for violence and dying from that, and also simple exposure to elements and/or environmental degradation issues (chemicals, human/animal waste, etc). This children also do not usually have access to health care at the critical times when their lives may be saved by that health care, and often die because of this. . . while children who do have access to medical care would likely not die from the disease.

Vaccines aren't going to save these children. Ending poverty will.

That doesn't mean that I'm against the use of vaccines. I'm simply asserting that the reason that these children are dying is a far-more reaching cause than simply not having access to vaccines (which is also part of the equation).

This, then, creates a comparison between children in developed nations vs children in non-developed nations.
First, there is a basic level of sanitation overall, as well as access to medical care. And, some disease in developed nations have been effectively eradicated -- even though the disease itself is still active. An example is polio. In the US, several generations of children have not been vaccinated for polio, and there is wide-reaching herd immunity as well as sanitation that keeps polio from out-breaking in the US.

The vaccine definitely saved lives, but right now, the CDC does not consider that vaccine necessary in the US, and as such, it's not on the schedule for children (or adults).

Comparatively, polio is still actively promoted in NZ because some elements of farm sanitation might allow polio to take root in the community. Even so, polio cases are rare these days, and some families are choosing to forgo getting the polio vaccine due to the ever-decreasing risk of the disease to our population.

Comparatively again, polio is still a problem in India, with active cases every year as well as injury and death from the disease. Polio vaccination is important, as is increasing the basic standards of santitation in both rural and urban environments. Neither herd immunity nor general sanitation standards across the country have created a situation where the vaccine would be rendered unnecessary. In which case, the vaccine saves many lives and helps facilitate the process of rendering itself unnecessary.

Which leads me to the issue of parental choice.

I choose to select and delay vaccination. My son has only had DTaP, and only with the direct consultation with my doctor as to why it would be important. When he was 4 months old, a *vaccinated child* returned from germany with whooping cough. This spread through our small community, hitting both vaccinated and unvaccinated children alike. Our doctor alerted all of his families, and he sent out a package of information about whooping cough, it's symptoms,and risks at various ages.

We were there within a few days for our normal well-baby visit, and we went over the information. He recommended vaccination because the disease for a baby my son's age was more deadly then, say, for a 7 yr old (vaxed or unvaxed) who had a stronger immune system overall and more mobility to move off of her back, ask for help, etc. We thought about it and talked about it from many different angles, and ultimately decided to vaccinate him.

when he was 10 months old, we boosted the first shot, and then were encouraged to finish the booster in NZ. We didn't, simply because we were busy and distracted, and then DS was hit by two bicycles this past December. We took him to the hospital, and they suggested that we boost for the T -- tetanus. We talked about the risks of tetanus, and they sent us home with information going both ways (how to watch for tetanus, get medical care, and what the treatment would be; vs the vaccine, it's efficacy, it's benefits in such a situation, the risks and draw backs). We opted to go with the boost.

So far, DS hasn't had any other vaccines because he is not at risk. NZ is clean, the house is clean, we have medical care, good food, clean water, and all that we need. AND there's herd immunite. MMR diseases are rarely seen. That being said, if Reubella came around, I'd take DS to get MMR. but if it's measels or mumps, I'd be ok with him getting that and letting his immune system do it's work. He's 4 now, and very physically strong and healthy, and the risks of these diseases are low for him all things considered.

People are pressuring me to use the chicken pox vaccine. At an individual level, it lacks efficacy. It makes sense for adults to booster for shingles (even if they had chicken pox as a kid), but for children, it is simply not working that effectively. At best, kids get a more mild form, and you have to boost it every 4-8 years until adulthood just to avoid shingles. Whereas, if a kid gets the chicken pox, it's an uncomfortable illness for about a week, and that child is unlikely to get it again OR shingles as an adult unless they are immune compromised in some way. Thus, it's not really that necessary of a vaccine.

Is it saving lives? well, according to the CDC, there are fewer cases going to the hospital and dying, but it's not the children who died from chicken pox anyway. It was adults over the age of 65 who were immune compromised and had a revisit of the virus as shingles -- which is more painful and deadly. According to the CDC, mroe than 85% of chicken pox deaths are adults over 65, and only 5% of the remaining deaths are in children, usually because their family didn't seek medical care early enough (so, it goes to a lack of medical care, not an issue a vaccine can circumvent).

I'm nto saying that vaccines are wrong or bad. But I don't think we should be so extremist about the whole thing.

There *may be* a connection between vaccines and autism, and there are other injuries that vaccines can cause (that we know that they can and DO) which may not be as extreme as autism, but are no less injuries to the person of the child.

So, we have to weigh the risks as individuals. We have to weigh whether or not the disease is 'bad' enough to be worth vaccinating for, whether or nto our child/community is at particular risk, and so on. And we can do that without freaking out at each other about dying children or injuring children or what have you.

Heck, I knew a lady who knew her daughter was consistently injured by vaccines. Her doctor pointed it out that she had very severe reactions to them. But she said "what can you do? you have to vaccinate!" Why, I asked her. She simply said "because." She wasn't informed. She kept injuring her child over and over because she didn't want to look into why she should or shouldn't vaccinate.

Her choice, sure. I just wish that it was an educated choice, rather than an alarmist reaction either way.

It doesn't need to be "don't vaccinate! injury! bad!" vs "vaccinate! children die if you don't! good!'

I can be a considered medical approach to the health of your child and society. Don't you think?

[sweetana3]

Zoebird, right on. A very reasoned approach to the issue. This is how everyone should respond when something is suggested, such as a treatment or drug. Why, why, why? What are the alternatives and the potential complications, if any? What if we dont do XXX?

Becoming knowledgable about a condition is so important. I have had so many people tell me to go to the doctor when I already knew what they would recommend. I mean a cold does not require a doctor's visit. I broke my little toe but there was nothing a doctor was going to do since it did not involve a compound fracture and a cast was not warranted. I was in pain, took an OTC pain killer and just kept walking. Now it is fine.