If the owners of the media have their way, then yes, you are. And as such, there's something I need to get off my chest so it doesn't explode. If you've watched the news in the past few days, you've heard about a measles outbreak in this nation and, thusly ,a renewed panic over nonvaccination. And how so many of us have presumably been misled that vaccines can be linked with autism.
The truth is, we have not been misled. There is plenty of good evidence that more care must be taken when it comes to how we vaccinate our kids. This does not mean we should not vaccinate. It does mean, among other things too numerous to go into here, that the measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox vaccines might not be such a good idea mixed up in one vial.
I'm begging everyone who can hear me. Please don't buy into the hype. Do you think it's a coincidence that this propaganda is being scattered around during autism awareness month? Does 120-something cases of measles (an outbreak? really?) across the entire U.S. concern you as much as 1 in 68 children with autism?
As usual, what the media will say about us "vaccination phobes" is inaccurate. Because most of us are are not afraid of vaccines. We like that modern medicine can help protect us from diseases that used to kill or maim us. What we are afraid of is a vaccine machine that has blown up into a monster that's out of control and that sanity has left the building.
Just this one thing I'm about to bring up should be enough to raise your eyebrows. Just this one. Let's just take the MMR, or MMRV if that's what they're giving again these days (the MMRV is what my kids got before it was temporarily discontinued, who knows why, believe me I wasn't informed that for some reason the potion injected into my kids was deemed unsafe and taken off the market, this was a piece of info I stumbled upon on my own when my own child's health blew up in my face).
But back to my point, there's this measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox vaccine, all in one shot, which is incidentally the only way you can get it because it's the only way Merck will sell it. It is given, for the first time, between ages 1 and 2. Then, in New York State, in order to be admitted to kindergarten, the kids must get a "booster." Of the MMRV. Just a little side note that you may or may not know--it so happens that the only vaccine dose that's requred by New York State law is the measles component, but you can't get that by itself, so what the hell, boost them all. Why not. I mean, if you just wanted to take penicillin, but the only way you could get it was in a formula that combined it with Prozac, Tylenol, and, I don't know, Celebrex, you wouldn't mind, right? I mean what the hell, it won't kill you. Maybe.
So why not give a quadrupal vaccine when just the single component is required. No worries. And if you've heard or read anything about how there are doctors, here and in other countries, doing research that suggests that combining all those vaccines in one vial makes each individual virus more virulent, and therefore dangerous, maybe even causing bowel damage, that some autistic kids have been found to have the vaccine strain of measles in their diseased lower intestine, just put that out of your mind. Keep your eye on the ball, here, there's been an OUTBREAK of measles.
Except get this about that kindergarten booster thing I mentioned above. Most of the time the kids still have immunity to these viruses from the first shot, and need a "booster" like they need a few ounces of arsenic in their juice boxes. You know how you find this out? Simple blood test. It's called "checking the titers" to see if the immunity is still solid. I found a pediatrician that doesn't blink an eye about checking this out before re-vaccinating. Those doctors aren't easy to find. His words were "I check my dogs' titers before revaccinating them, why wouldn't we do it for kids too?" Good question. Maybe the answer has something to do with how well the people who make the MMRV are doing when every child entering public school kindergarten is required to get this booster.
Except that they're not necessarily required. If the child's blood shows immunity to measles, at least in NYS, they're good to go. Maybe you haven't heard this. The doctor I know who doesn't object to checking titers, on children as well as dogs, told me that in his decades of practice there has only been 1 kindergartner who didn't show immunity after the first shot. Sure, that's a small sample. Anecdotal evidence. It's the best we're going to get, because if those with the big power and the big money don't want us to know stuff, do you think that their big power and their big money is going to be put toward helping us gain this knowledge? With huge double-blind scientific controlled studies blah blah blah? Um, no.
So when we're told that there's no incontrovertible evidence that vaccines are related to autism, there's some truth to that. If by incontrovertible evidence you mean "expensive funded study." It's like the old joke about looking for your keys under the lamp post when you lost them in the bushes. Because the light's better over here.
So there you have it. Want answers? We need better lighting. And for that, friends, we're on our own.
6 comments:
Dear Everloving Mess,
I guess I'll call myself Counterpoint Parent.
I'm not scared of the outbreak. All my kids were vaccinated on a normal schedule advised by my pediatrician. I'm obviously concerned for those exposed to the outbreak who either are too young to receive vaccinations or those immuno-compromised. Fortunately, most regions still have a high enough herd immunity to suppress outbreaks.
I'm writing to provide an alternative viewpoint to your blog entry. I suspect you and many reading this will not like this response before reading it. However, I'm a science educator and I'm hoping for polite, questioning dialogue if you are willing.
From my point of view, it's just a matter of weighing the odds:
- The chance of death from measles in the U.S. is 1-3 in 1000 or 0.2-0.3%.
- The chance of a severe complication from the MMR: 1 in 1,000,000 or 0.000001%
I'm glad you say it does not mean we should not vaccinate, however an overwhelming amount of science research finds no link between vaccines and autism. The researcher who originated the link Andrew Wakefield (1998) was found to have faked data, hidden financial interested, practiced unethical and unnecessary medical interventions on children (joked about making them vomit), had his paper retracted by the Lancet for being, and lost his medical license in the U.K.
1 in 68 children with autism is concerning. However, much of the increase can be explained by changes in diagnostic criteria, inclusion of milder cases, earlier age of diagnosis, the effects of wider awareness of autism, increased funding, and expanding treatment options meaning parents are more likely to seek services. That is not to say there are not other environmental factors, but vaccines have been studied and have not found to be the cause.
The reasons kids get boosters is because due to individual differences, it's difficult to tell when a child will lose immunity as they grow. Rather an unneeded booster than the loss of immunity to a deadly disease.
Yes, anecdotal evidence is one data point. That's why double-blind, large experiments are used. Why sneer at it? It's the gold standard of all scientific research, it's the way you can *avoid* researcher bias when carrying out any experiment.
The scientific method isn't perfect. Sometimes, scientists (just like Andrew Wakefield) will abuse the system, lie, fake results. But it's the best method we have. And the frauds and the liars are found out.
The published article is the first step, the next is to see if those results are replicated, across the globe, in different countries, by unrelated scientific teams.
I guess the difference I see between us is this: If I see consistent, robust, high participant peer reviewed studies finding a link between the MMR and autism (let's say 3), I would change my mind.
How many saying there is *no* link would convince you? Would you *ever* be convinced the MMR is safe? Which of us has a more reasonable view?
The case against Andrew Wakefield's research was overturned because there were no grounds for the allegations. Astonishingly, the media didn't cover this.
Otherwise, Anonymous, thanks for your input
In all sincerity I have never heard *any* overturning regarding Wakefield. Would you mind digging up a link to more information for me? I suspect anything reported of that nature will not be directly overturning any verdict to do with Wakefield specifically, but I'm alway open to being wrong.
Here's one. I'm away with my family at Sesame Place for their autism awareness day and fumbling with my tablet at the hotel so I may not have come up with the best one, can probably dig up a better link once I'm home.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9262180.htm
As far as I can see, that link and the ruling only exonerates Prof. Walker-Smith and *not* Andrew Wakefield. And actually confirms Wakefield's conclusions were incorrect. If fact, on page 6 it says the following: "Dr. Wakefield’s statement and subsequent publicity had a
predictable adverse effect upon the take up of MMR vaccine of great concern to those responsible for public health. There is now no respectable body of opinion which
supports his hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked." - ref: http://www.eastwoodslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Walker-Smith.pdf
As life would have it, during the course of this discussion my parents have been in a horrific car crash (drunk driver, head on collision, last Saturday night) and are recovering from serious injuries. My end of this polite, questioning dialogue will theerfore have to take a backseat while I help do my part to get my family through this. I'll just say that in the course of my continuing journey through healing my children and learning how to be the best special needs parent I can be, I've become confident about the validity of Wakefield's inquiries and concerns about the MMR, and feel strongly that the work that he and Walker have done deserves attention and further examination, not venom and condemnation. When you're in the thick of a child's illness, I think there's a level of discernment and intuitive knowing that comes with the experience. While this falls short of full-bore scientific methodology, it has its place. And I DO value that full-bore scientific methodology--I just have had my share of reality checks that have shown me that the luxury of the full scope of what science is capable of requires power and resources not always available to those who need it the most. So little hints and hunches and glimmers of light, a possibility here, a line of inquiry there, is all a lot of us are given to work with. No it's not enough. But often it's a start that's aborted before it sees the light of day, and that's one big ass tragedy, over and over again.
Post a Comment