Mothering: A bastion of woo targeted at young mothers

Spongia tosta for dry coughs that sound like a saw going through wood; often used for croup. Useful for croupy coughs that are worse before midnight,

!!!!!!

So the homeopathic remedy knows what time of day it is?

I have to say, there’s been a lot of stupid things said by homeowhacks, but this almost has to be the funniest thing I have ever heard.

BTW, as a parent with little ones around, I have a lot to say about these parenting magazines, although to be fair, two common ones, Parenting and Parents, very strongly advocate vaccination, so that is not among their flaws.

Mothering certainly is not one that is taken seriously by the mainstream population.

Remember a few years ago when it was discovered that a very active and well-respected member of the Mothering forums was found to be one of those Munchausen-syndrome-by-proxy folks, who intentionally poisons their child to keep them sick? Man, they eliminated all traces of her presence on their website faster than you could say Jenny McCarthy.

There is also the famous (for being sad, I think) thread there where one of the moms says, “My child has autism but we didn’t vaccinate. I didn’t know that unvaccinated children could get autism”

The first sad part is how she had been so snowed by the misinformation campaign to be misled into believe that only vaccinated kids got autism.

The second part was the response, which all took a Kim Stagliano approach of blaming it on the vaccination of the mom, and the mercury in her breast milk.

Ugly.

Homeopathy for young infants? How cruel!

An adult can take this crap knowingly all they want. And maybe the placebo effect will convince them that overpaying for pure water or plain old sugar pills is working for them.

But the placebo effect certainly wouldn’t work on an infant. The only thing it could do is convince the parents that their baby isn’t really as sick as they think she is… and end up delaying real treatment when the health issues escalates to an emergency.

Perhaps someone should inform Dr. Feder that, unlike her practice of choice, real medicine has actually advanced in the last 200 years.

Well, Orac, you sent up the batshit signal. Let’s see if J-Man answers the call.

@ D.C. Sessions. No doubt considering he defended the article with his usual fact-free canards while paying lip service to ‘vaccines work’. The man is a walking contradiction and a medical Luddite.

Well, they certainly are honest about one thing – not being interested in any open or honest discussion about vaccines (or anything else that doesn’t fit their mindset).

To our standard set of detractors (at best) and trolls (at worst) – here you’ve always been given a forum to express your complaints regarding what Orac has written, how do you reconcile this ability with what your “supposed” allies are doing on their own blogs?

I read Mothering for a while in the early 80s when I had a child. I had had an emergency C-section for an unanticipated premature birth, and fell into postpartum depression. I was also something of a hippie, seriously into breast-feeding and home-made baby food, so I found many articles informative. However, after a while I realized the mag was heavily tilted toward nonsense, such as that, if you have a C-section, it’s because you didn’t follow the all-natural path of virtue strenuously enough. I realized that it was contributing to my depression, and stopped reading it. That didn’t cure the depression of course (time did that), but not filling my head with that nonsense definitely helped.

Chicken pox parties are one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard about. Like the kid in the article here, I had my physician’s “worst case” chickenpox when I was a kid. Photos of my chicken pox are in some German medical journal, if my parents are to be believed. Like the kid mentioned here, I had hundreds of lesions, in my nose and mouth and down my throat… and south of the border, too. I had so many lesions that some of them overlapped, and the sores were almost continuous throughout my entire body. Peeing was severely painful. I had to be hospitalized for dehydration because I couldn’t eat – the sores in my mouth and throat made it too painful. I had febrile seizures.

And I never had a secondary infection or anything. It was all chicken pox.

Chicken pox can be very bad. Those people are insane if they want to play around with it and risk their kid getting a case as bad as mine was.

As for homeopathy and asthma, that’s going to get a kid killed some day.

I remember what Chicken Pox as like in our household. I was sick for three weeks & very miserable, then two weeks in, my sister caught it & was sick for three weeks, and two weeks into her illness, my brother caught it & was sick for another three weeks.

So, we had like two straight months of sick kids in our household. My case was fairly mild, compared to both my brother and sister, who were substantially sicker than I was. If we could have avoided it all together, that would have been my preference – but this was well before the vaccine was available.

Just for accuracy’s sake, the “worst case his doctor had ever seen,” with “hundreds of lesions, even in his mouth and down his throat” refers to an adult at the party who caught chicken pox at the party, rather than a child.

Sigh. As a mother of a young child, I’ve faced this demon way too many times. I was active on a forum, not sMothering.com, and the drama was crazy. The anti-vaxx people scan the whole site looking for any posts about vaccination and they would bombard them with stupid. I finally had to resort to concern trolling on my son’s birth board just to keep them away from our group. Our board finally died when it got to the point,just as Pablo states above, that all we could talk about was trivial subjects. A group of us branched off and created a invitation only group, and that’s where we talk.

I feel particularly bad for pediatricians. When I interviewed my son’s pediatrician before selecting the practice, I could see the Dr. tense up when I asked what their stance was on vaccination. They are pro vaccination (obviously since I’ll take my son there) and I’ve gotten the impression from several of the doctors in the practice that they encounter an good deal of resistance from their patients parents. So sad.

(OT but..) Mikey’s new screed, “The Downfall of Science, etc.” ( NaturalNews, today) _directly_ refers to science bloggers *and* links to our esteemed host’s nemesis, JC( no, not *that* JC!)

Thankfully, most mothers I know (certainly not all, but definitely most) don’t think that being a mom also makes you a pediatrician.

Fortunately, yes, BUT there is a close to dangerous amount of literature out there that leads too many to that direction, even in the most innocuous sources. Very often in the parenting books and whatnot, you will see the advice to “follow your instincts, they are usually right.” The problem with the statement is that there is actually a grain of truth to it. When it comes to parenting, it is very often the case that following your instincts will lead to a positive outcome.

The problem with the statement is more in what it doesn’t say. Particularly, that while it is true that your instincts are usually right, that doesn’t mean that someone else’s instincts are wrong. This is where the biggest failure comes in, when moms (or dads or grandmas or whoever the case may be) get into the mindset that “I am the mommy, I think it should be this way, and since my instincts are usually right, then that means everyone else is wrong!” The advice to “use your instincts” is not based on the idea that mom’s know best, it is based on the idea that the key to good parenting is that you care enough to worry about these types of things in the first place. Once you are at that position, the path you choose when faced with these difficult decisions where there is no clear cut answer doesn’t matter. If the decision is close enough to be debatable, then the result of that decision minor in determining the outcome are minor compared to the mindset that got you to face the decision in the first place.

So where they get into trouble is when their insistence that my mommy instincts are so infallible that they apply to every decision, even when there are non-debatable differences in outcomes, or to ignore or underestimate risks that come from applying their instincts.

The biggest issues in terms of mommy instincts problems come in terms of team parenting, where mommy insists that her way is the only way, and when dad doesn’t do it her way, it is WRONG! I always advise new parents (especially new moms) that the only thing that is going to lead to is to dad refusing to participate (why would dad want to feed cereal if every time he did it, mom stood over his shoulder yelling at him because he didn’t do it the way she did?). Yes, mommy’s instincts about how to do it are usually right, BUT so are daddy’s, even if they don’t agree with mom’s. In these cases, there is more than one right answer.

But there are times when it goes too far, and mom thinks that not only does she know more about feeding the baby than dad does, but that she knows more about what leads to healthy babies than the pediatrician does. That is the point of mommy knows best going haywire.

@19 – There is a problem with your attitude. Given that these individuals have shown no inclination for want to hear any information whatsoever that contradicts their “mothering knowledge” it really doesn’t matter what tone is used. They aren’t going to listen anyway or allow any voice in opposition to be heard.

You are, what we call here, a concern troll – that we’re not taking the other side seriously enough or we won’t give them equal time, or gosh darn it, we’re too harsh on them.

At the end of the day, the advice that these people dispense is harming people at best and killing people at worst. How exactly are we supposed to find compassion in dealing with them, if they continue to ignore all of the evidence that is readily available out there. And it isn’t “mother knows best” anymore – it is “the Internet knows best,” because that is where a lot of these people get this false and misleading information.

I have every right in the world to be upset about this, because, especially in the case of vaccinations, their actions do put my child at risk.

Pablo made an excellent point here,

Yes, mommy’s instincts about how to do it are usually right, BUT so are daddy’s, even if they don’t agree with mom’s.

The main reason that I dodged the sMothering bullet was because the title offended me. I never wanted to be THE MOTHER, I wanted to be one of my son’s parents. While there have been times that I’ve had to force myself not to intervene between my husband and son because things were not going my way, I fully recognized that I needed to do so.

This doesn’t make any sense. If the vulnerable children are going to get teh autismz anyway because the mother is toxic why skip vaccines? It is a losing battle anyway.

This is why I bring it up more or less without comment. That it is completely idiotic pretty much goes without saying for even most anti-vaxxers, and most people realize that it is batshit insanity. Therefore, that it was the common response from sMothering members, without contradiction, to her question gives a pretty good indication of how far out there they are.

I found my way to MDC about 8 months ago, when I was struggling with breastfeeding a baby who was reacting to everything I ate and needed ideas/support. Then I accidentally wandered off into the other forum areas and nearly lost my mind from the ridiculousness of it all. Those people are crazy or stupid or both, I can’t decide. I think it’s mostly a giant failure of scientific education in our country that no one can actually think critically–they think they are by not doing what’s ‘mainstream’ but instead they’re doing something far more idiotic.

FWIW, I intended a natural birth (complications happened), will breastfeed until at least 2, make my own (mostly) organic baby food, cosleep, wear my baby, and do all that other ‘crunchy’ baby-raising stuff. My son is also vaccinated on the CDC schedule, and I’ve lost a few FB friends over my posting of pro-vaccination info. There are no magazines catering to me, sadly.

“If you think that if only these (anti-vaccination) women would read this column and its comments and be persuaded, you are mistaken. They would be insulted and have their thinking reinforced.”

If they ignored all the good evidence and sound advice presented here in a straightforward and polite manner and gravitated only to the examples of snark, then yes, they’d find cause to be insulted and declare their convictions reinforced. But that behavior of people is typical of those with set views who are determined to cast blame on others.

As for fence-sitters, I highly doubt there are many who allow themselves to be pushed into one mind-set or another because of “tone”. If “tone” is so important, they’ll look at all the bile and crazy accusations issuing from the antivax sites and be drawn inexorably towards the evidence-based pro-vaccination side, which is far less prone to baseless personal attacks and does not endorse censorship of differing viewpoints (unlike the editors at Mothering).

I particularly like your distinction in the post between “informed consent” and “misinformed consent”; makes the point quickly and cleanly.

My friend invited me to a chicken pox party when both our kids were toddlers (a couple of years back). I thought she was joking at the time. She wasn’t. We decided as parents that it was a good time to go get our son the (optional and pricey) chicken pox vaccine, to protect our kid from such lunacy: We couldn’t protect our son from other parents’ bad decisions, at least we could protect him from some of the consequences.

This is the same friend who recommended I read Jenny McCarthy’s book after she found out my son had autism. She means well, she’s just been misinformed. A lot.

turnipseed @19:

First, the context:
– the magazine is publishing articles, by someone with an MD, encouraging the use of useless remedies and minimizing the risks of pertussis (whose main victims, it is worth repeating, are infants)
– the magazine and/or its associated Internet fora encourage HIV/AIDS denialism, which, as has been noted in Orac’s OP, has led to many deaths in the US and elsewhere
– the magazine and/or its associated Internet fora propagate a fact-free mythology positing that vaccines cause autism (or that vaccines cause all manner of toxic ills and evils, of which autism is a subset) – a mythology that contributes to the continued persistence of infectious diseases due to insufficient vaccine uptake

So right off the bat I conclude it legitimate to be disapproving of Mothering’s take on things.

Second, different people respond to different approaches.
As such, the effort to improve this parlous situation requires a multi-armed approach. Some people who agree with the positions propagated by Mothering will be reached by reasonableness (if not necessarily by reason); others may need to be shocked into clarity by ridicule or excoriation.

Third, this blog is called Respectul Insolence. That being the case, do you really think that the tone here will be – or ought to be – a sort of polite drawing-of-attention to some issues with Mothering’s position?

@ #26 and #34

I deeply resent being called a “troll” (#26) of any kind and that is exactly what I am talking about if you will reread my post. I am not supporting the Mothering people at all, just trying to explain them. I am very familiar with the idea of working to sway fence-sitters, not hard liners, but who is to say where every individual is on that spectrum? I have left this blog before because of these kind of attacks and I probably will do so again. I read the post, but often ignore the comments. They can be amusing in many cases, but I’ve been “told off” one too many times for something far from disagreement with the thesis. I am only giving you the viewpoint of someone who has been in their shoes and was rescued by knowledge, not insults.

I have four children, by the way, all vaccinated and all who contracted chicken pox long before the vaccine, as did I and my siblings. I don’t deny that it can be terrible, but it usually isn’t and you should try to see that that’s what most people base their views on. Again, educate them, but why the need to entirely diminish them?

I completely agree that there is a distinction to be made between respect for a mother’s instinct and that same idea being taken to the extreme the way Jenny McCarthy does. It is that distinction that is where science based views should provide prevail. I was able to persuade someone recently to read some posts from this blog and convince her that the casual reading she had been doing about vax was wrong–not be telling her she was stupid or had the wrong attitude, but by respecting her effort to be a good mother and gently directing her to good information. She wasnt’ a fence-sitter and felt convinced about the “too many, too soon” argument, but was easily swayed by Dr. Mark Crislip.

Again, I would recommend the piece in the NY Times.

@turnipseed

You do realize, of course, that Dr. Crislip is one of the most delightfully sarcastic people I have ever known. He calls CAM “sCAM,” doesn’t hesitate to call ideas and people “stupid” when he sees fit, and is almost as not-so-Respectfully Insolent as Orac can be. And he persuaded your friend. Your example would not appear to support your argument.

@ Pablo – LOL! I keep getting Parenting magazine too and wondering the SAME thing(s)! I HATE all of it. Worry about this, worry about that, worry about rabid bats that can sneak through tiny holes in your children’s window screens, bite your kid and slither out before you know it. Then your kid could get rabies and you would never guess to treat it in time. (I wish I was joking about that one)

The Chicago Tribune recently posted an article about vaccinating against pertussis, with a story about a newborn baby who almost died and was hospitalized for weeks. I always find it interesting how anti-vaxxers NEVER comment on those stories.

Every time a blogger opens this discussion I always hear the words, “Well, I believe…” It’s like a religion with these people. Like every other type of lifestyle support group out there.

Anyhow, what we need is some “accessible” guy, sort of like Dr. Oz (before he fell down the douche hole), but a real Doctor, to explain the situation in very simple terms.Why do we vaccinate? What was life like when we didn’t? How are we NOT ‘taxing the immune system’? How are vaccines not toxic? How do we know they do not contribute to Autism and what about the personal stories? Who says Doctors just want to push meds? Do they get kickbacks to do so? (Since regular people don’t know these things, it is easy to get swept up in fear and hype) Answer all the usual questions, and – dare I say it? – show them the scare stories of what happens when we don’t vaccinate. An affable Doctor or two, who can dispense the right kind of advice without “criticizing,” personally, the other side. That is ORAC’s job. (and he does it very well!)

A friend gave me a copy of Mothering while I was pregnant. I read through it and it pissed me off so much with all its “attachment parenting, cosleeping, unassisted birth, anti-vax” BS that I threw it in the garbage. Well, wouldn’t you know that another friend gave me a gift subscription to Mothering for a baby shower present! Yikes! Let’s just say that I don’t speak to either of those two friends anymore. Oh yeah, that gift subscription became great fire-starter in my woodstove this winter. Ugh.

“There is no low vaccine uptake rate. Rates in California at all time highs.”

Sid, your statistical illiteracy is showing again. Just because the vaccination rates in a state are at an all time high in terms of the number of people actually getting their shots, that a) can be explained by population growth and b) doesn’t mean there aren’t pockets of people who aren’t vaccinating their kids.

Maybe instead of asking Orac to come back to reality you should take a math class. Really. It would help with your inability to work with numbers.

@G Fish

My statistical illiteracy? Really. Since vaccination rates are expressed as a percentage, population growth has no bearing on rates.

trunipseed said:

I deeply resent being called a “troll” (#26) of any kind and that is exactly what I am talking about if you will reread my post. I am not supporting the Mothering people at all, just trying to explain them. I am very familiar with the idea of working to sway fence-sitters, not hard liners, but who is to say where every individual is on that spectrum?

While I can understand that you resent being called a troll, you may want to google what a “concern troll” is. You may not be intending to concern troll, but that’s how your posts read.

As far as giving us the point of view of the people who are being criticized, we get it. Many of us are parents and have spent time with fence sitters IRL and on forums. Each different blog, forum, whatever has a different tone and I’m pretty sure most of us know how to adjust our tone to the environment. On my old birth board, I was well known for being kind, thoughtful, and a good member of the community. It was a mommy forum, I acted like it was a mommy forum. This, on the other hand is Respectful INSOLENCE. I’d suggest that anyone coming here to read should expect, simply based on the blog’s name, to find some insolence.

Where is Dr. Jay? Whenever he is mentioned on this blog, a bat-signal (or jay-signal) seems to go up, requiring him to post his anti-vaccine apologetics on this blog.

Also, where is augustine? He hasn’t posted anything about chemical warfare or the end times today.

Additionally, I haven’t seen Tony Bateson in awhile. His amish copypasta skills seem to have died off in the last couple months. Maybe he got banned. Tragedy.

Sid Offit is a poor substitute for these true, colossal, hall of fame caliber trolls. Sid is more the utility infielder of trolls, can surprise you sometimes but holds a pretty mediocre batting average. Not much pop in his bat.

Liz

Anyhow, what we need is some “accessible” guy, sort of like Dr. Oz (before he fell down the douche hole), but a real Doctor, to explain the situation in very simple terms.Why do we vaccinate? What was life like when we didn’t? How are we NOT ‘taxing the immune system’? How are vaccines not toxic? How do we know they do not contribute to Autism and what about the personal stories? Who says Doctors just want to push meds?

That would take someone with human compassion. That is something ALL regular sciencebloggers are unanimously deficient in. The problem with sciencebloggers is they cannot communicate very well outside blogging. The tactics you use in written word simply do not persuade people in real live situations. You would have to hire an actor and even then it would still be fake.

Todd

For diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, there are some school districts with rates as low as 43%. See, for example, Blue Oak Charter school on p. 5. Then there’s 24% at Green Elementary on p. 82.
But, don’t let data get in the way of a good fear-mongering

So what was the number of pertussis cases and death cases at these schools respectively? What was it at nearby schools with high rates?

Todd, Don’t let truth stand in your way of good disease fearmongering.

Pareidolius

It reminds me of a grade-school friend’s mom…

Stop right there! Surely what comes next will be unbiased, objective, reality. Anytime someone starts in with an anecdote like this it can only be valid if done from a skeptic bloggers viewpoint.

… who on the surface was “the best mom”, cookie baking, house decorating, organic gardening, Martha Stewart perfection. But on the inside the poor woman was wracked with insecurities, terrible fear, bulemia, pill addiction and as time passed, violent, abusive outbursts that I only heard about years later. That’s what I see when I look at Mothering. An illusion of perfection and safety covering a bed of festering neuroses and fear. And maybe worst of all, they don’t allow any dissent of any kind.

That’s right. Pure objective scientism.

agent smith

Also, where is augustine? He hasn’t posted anything about chemical warfare or the end times today.

Because I’ve NEVER posted on those topics.

@Greg, #17:

Actually, having lived in a country which didn’t exactly have the best medical care in the world (it was in Eastern Europe, I’ll make it fun and let you guess which one), these parties were actually the poor people’s vaccination. The idea was that kids would be exosed to the virus when they’re young and will most likely heal quickly, and then as adults, when it could do some serious damage, they’d be immune.

which kinda-sorta made sense until we figured out the link between chickenpox and shingles. which latter i now have to be wary of, since i had a miserable week of chickenpox as a child — also before vaccines. if i had any kids, they’d be vaccinated out the wazoo against everything i could think of and then some.

“Where is Dr. Jay? Whenever he is mentioned on this blog, a bat-signal (or jay-signal) seems to go up, requiring him to post his anti-vaccine apologetics on this blog.”

He’ll be by, probably to agree with the commenter at #19, reminding us what a classic concern troll he is.

Dr. Jay’s content-free drive-bys often feature admonitions about how nasty his opponents are (and by implication, what a nice polite fellow Dr. Jay is). Of course, this is the same Dr. Jay who has suggested his critics here are paid Pharma shills, and who in a post yesterday attacked the professionalism of reporter Brian Deer, calling him “biased” (which is part of the antivaxer line these days in response to Deer’s beautifully documented series of articles exposing Andrew Wakefield, but it’d be nice if Jay had some evidence to make his drive-bys relevant).

I know it’s a messed up attitude, but part of me kind of wishes these anti-vax champs would put their money where their mouths are: no vaccines for anything, not even when the little ones down the street are dying in droves. I wonder how many tiny little coffins it would take before the True Believers would reconsider. Too many by far, I’m sure.

Sid’s more like one of the Baseball Furies from ‘The Warriors’: an obvious clown, and I can’t wait for somebody to shove a bat up his ass and make him into a popsicle.

Yeah vaccination rates on my block are down this year. Certainly enough of a drop to offset the actions of 30 million Californians.

Oh Sid, Sid, Sid…

Well, then your block gets infectious diseases and so does the next block, and the block after that, and any block that doesn’t vaccinate enough to maintain herd immunity. But then again, your block in CA is the only one that doesn’t vaccinate, right? Just like all the schools which have vaccination rates as low as 43% or so. All that doesn’t add up over millions of people and tens of thousands of refusers…

And thanks for the link. Dr. Reddy’s unsupported speculation provides excellent support for your case.

Says the guy who can’t be bothered to actually back up, well, anything he says. California’s vaccinations are at an all time high? Remind me again, what was your link for that claim? Oh, right. There wasn’t one.

“Since vaccination rates are expressed as a percentage, population growth has no bearing on rates.”

Which is why I said that if you wanted to tackle vaccination uptake in terms of raw numbers, but you missed that part, didn’t you? Of course you did. Reading the whole thing makes it harder to ding me for a perceived sleight.

Tell me something, why are you so eager to use vaccine uptake averaged across the entire state to cover up pockets of abysmally low vaccination which are the centers of infectious disease outbreaks? Or is it no big deal that some town’s kids get wave after wave of childhood diseases and most others don’t because those towns aren’t representative of the whole state?

@Nomen, #60

… which kinda-sorta made sense until we figured out the link between chickenpox and shingles.

Right. Again, keep in mind that I said this was the poor man’s vaccination strategy, not that it was a particularly good idea or that it didn’t have any serious drawbacks.

Rorschach:

I know it’s a messed up attitude, but part of me kind of wishes these anti-vax champs would put their money where their mouths are: no vaccines for anything, …

As far as I can tell, they do put their money where their mouth is, at least in the sense of not getting themselves or their kids vaccinated (and this does lead to outbreaks of disease).

and I can’t wait for somebody to shove a bat up his ass and make him into a popsicle.

Sounds like you’ve got me in your cross hairs Rorschach. Now I know how Paul Offit feels. Comments like these add to my growing concern about the tone of our national conversation. Intimidation and threats of violence have no realm in our public discourse.

We need to move away from this type of incendiary language. Rorschach is a good friend, he’s loved vaccines for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language

@G Fish

Here’s some links
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/HowisCA(03_10).pdf
And according to the California State Department of Health, as of March 2010:

Vaccination coverage in California is at or near all-time high levels

Finally immunizeca.org reports:
Pertussis is the only disease that despite high levels of vaccination in early childhood continues to remain widespread in California
http://www.immunizeca.org/about/directors-update

Which are the centers of infectious disease outbreaks
Where’s your link???
———————

@lilady

Herd immunity > 90 % is very difficult to maintain when pockets in the community refuse to vaccinate their children due to “feelings”, “mothers/fathers intuition”

There is no herd immunity to pertussis. There are an estimated 1 million cases each year in adolescent and adults. You don’t get herd immunity when an illness is endemic

Homeopathic DTaP 30C? Seems like somebody screwed up if they didn’t trademark/license, “DTaP” (FDA, USPHS?).

With globalization, world travel and illegal immigration, diphtheria seems like a sleeping giant. When I was in elementary school, one kid got diphtheria. The parents were rabid rollers, not even antibiotics. Kid didn’t make it.

Don’t retreat, Sid. Reload!

@Dangerous Bacon:

Of course, this is the same Dr. Jay who has suggested his critics here are paid Pharma shills,
And when confronted on it, he says he doesn’t believe Orac in particular is a pharma-shill. Further, he doesn’t know if any particular commenter is a shill, or even if any commenters here are shills, because vaccine-shills are indistinguishable from non-shill pro-vaccine people. It’s just that he feels the need to remind us all that pharma-shills exist out there somewhere, and it’s not at all that he intends to imply that Orac or anyone here is a shill.

That’s a reasonably correct summary, Bacon. Thanks.

Jay

because vaccine-shills are indistinguishable from non-shill pro-vaccine people.

But..but Jay, don’t vaccine-shills get paid for shilling?

@Jay Gordon:

The thing is that whenever you first bring up the pharma-shill subject, you always word it in a way that implies an accusation against at least some of the people here, people get offended, and then you clarify to say of course you didn’t mean any of them. So either you’re being disingenuous, or you’re bad at communicating clearly (online at least) and you simultaneously don’t learn from your mistakes (at least in the realm of online communication).

Further, how does stating that pharma-shills exist out there somewhere advance any of the discussions that take place here? Unless the implication is that something which is shilled for is automatically suspect, because something which genuinely works would have no need for shilling, then your pharma-shill points contribute nothing to the conversation, and just derail the discussion. If that is your point, then you should make it clear.

@Sauceress:

But..but Jay, don’t vaccine-shills get paid for shilling?

He means that they’re indistinguishable from the point of view of a person reading online discussions, not from the point of view of an omniscient observer. More specifically, he said that the pro-vaccines arguments used by vaccine-shills are identical to the pro-vaccine arguments used by non-shills.

@jojo

I don’t accept your excuse about “insolence” at all. I’ve been reading this blog for over a year now and I have met ORAC in “person” (and a magnificent box of blinking lights he is),so how is it I am a “concern troll”?
—-Someone who posts to an internet forum or newsgroup, claiming to share its goals while deliberately working against those goals, typically, by claiming “concern”…—–

Excuse me if I don’t know all the rules of what “tone” to take on each blog! I have never posted anything here that is a defense of anything anti SBM. I thought it was ORAC’s intent to dispel the lunacy of the anti-vax crowd and to try to persuade those even remotely sitting on the fence to see reason. How can you think that anyone who comes here with a question or comment that vaguely shows some empathy for a new mother who may have been exposed to some level of this stuff is a “troll” on any kind?

Be as contemptuous as you like to the real enemy, but give some credit to someone who rads this blog daily and simply tried to participate without being utterly rude. I am not a fool and don’t care to be mistaken for one.

I’ve asked this before, do some of you want to change things or do you just want to rant about it? I, for one, am very concerned about the spread of all thins woo as expressed by ORAC regularly (Dr. Oz, Oprah, medical centers bringing in “integrative medicine”), and while I find insolence a great way to make the case, it seems a crude way to conduct a follow up discussion.

@turnipseed: “while I find insolence a great way to make the case, it seems a crude way to conduct a follow up discussion.”

I don’t think you can have that one both ways, turnipseed. Correct me if I’m wrong, Matthew, Chris,Bacon, et al but I think that everything on this menu comes with a large side order of insolence and “crude.” No substitutions.

I would read more carefully, Dangerous Bacon, but the content above is the same as in the all the previous posts about vaccines, “anti-vax loons” and so on. It’s called perseveration and I find myself drawn to it for reasons not always clear to me. I guess I hope to stumble upon a civil discussion of the issues some day . . . I’ll keep looking.

But, to answer the question again: No, I have no proof that vaccines cause autism. And I really do believe that pharma-shills exist all over the Intertoobz and that there are probably none here mainly because there’s no need for them and because Orac is a stand up guy in spite of our major disagreements. (I actually believe that most of you here have a lot to teach a clinician like me but your main interest is in insulting me and others like me rather than conducting that civil discourse mentioned above.)

Best

Jay

@Sid, #84

“Vaccination coverage in California is at or near all-time high levels…”

Heh… You know, that first link is a little confusing because the differences between years through 2004 to 2009 are statistically insignificant so that “is at or near all-time high” phrase seems pretty meaningless. Bit I digress.

Now, tell me again why you’re covering up local pockets of low vaccination rates by the big numbers? Now, knowing your history here, allow me to explain it to you with an example.

Let’s say you need to have about 85% of the public vaccinated to keep up herd immunity against a certain disease. If you have areas with vaccine rates of 60%, 80%, 95%, 44%, 84%, 98%, 99%, 95%, and 97%, you’d get an average vaccination rate of 83.6%. The stats look good because you’re near your goal, but in those two pockets of 60% and 44% uptake, you’re going to get outbreaks of the disease you’re trying to prevent due to… wait for it… low vaccination rates!

I’ve been looking at the data (no detailed statistical analysis because I haven’t got the data on a spreadsheet) and I’m appalled that parents are actively leaving their children unvaccinated.

There’s an entry in http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2009SchoolIZRateTable1.pdf giving percentages of parents who got PBE’s (or Personal Belief Exemptions– parents sign an affidavit requesting that their kids be exempted from vacination) An example would be Santa Cruz Waldorf, where a whopping 77% of parents get a PBE.

I’ve loooked at the other high PBE cases, and I’ve noticed that I keep seeing Waldorf schools getting a large number of PBE’s, and correspondingly low immunization rates. There are other schools of course, with high PBE’s– I was just surprised at how often a Waldorf school showed up.

@Jay Gordon:

And I really do believe that pharma-shills exist all over the Intertoobz…

Why? What evidence do you have? More importantly for the discussion at hand, what evidence do you have that any of the shilling is done for vaccines?

… and that there are probably none here mainly because there’s no need for them and because Orac is a stand up guy in spite of our major disagreements.

What distinguishes a place that needs them from a place that doesn’t? For example, is the comments section on the Huffington Post one that needs them? Because I occasionally post pro-vaccine comments there under another handle.

And, a question of mine from this thread you ignored: what do pharma-shills have to do with the vaccine discussion that take place on this blog? If they have nothing to do with it, then why do you repeatedly bring it up when we’re discussing vaccines?

And a question of mine from another thread that you ignored: you don’t think that Wakefield is a well meaning person who wouldn’t have committed fraud. Why? What do you base this assessment on?

From the “chicken pox parties” article

“Although technically correct, Gershon’s opinion isn’t taken seriously by critics of vaccines. Vaccinating millions of healthy babies every year to protect leukemic children against chickenpox seems a stretch, but it’s the kind of thinking that forms vaccination policy.”

So bolstering herd immunity to protect children,and adults with immune deficiencies,cancer,mitochondrial/metabolic diseases,or on immunosuppressant drugs is all BigPharma® /government propaganda plot,to trample on parents personal freedom,and poison their kids.Typical As someone who had chickenpox severe enough as a child,to cause carditis,and heart complications,and got shingles the first time in my twenties,I would have loved for the vaccine could have been available then.

What do you want to bet,a lot of the readers/posters over there are homeopaths,who believe in “dynamic derangement” as a cause of diseases like chicken pox.

“Suppose a group of people are exposed to Influenza Virus. Only few of them get sick and others remain healthy. Why does that happen? The people who remain healthy were immune to disease and were not vulnerable to disease. Immunity is a inborn tendency in individuals to recognize and acquire antigens. In short, the people who were immune to the disease were dynamically in a perfect equilibrium. People who got affected by disease were dynamically deranged before only, and were vulnerable to get affected by disease bacteria or virus. So, dynamic derangement in the person was first to occur, then bacteria and viruses entered in their body to produce disease. In fact, the presence of particular bacteria or viruses helps us to detect the type of dynamic derangement in a living entity and direct us to the necessary actions required to be taken to restore the dynamic equillibrium.”

http://www.homeopathytreat.com/abouthomeopathy.html#Q11

Hear, hear, Greg Fish at #95. You’ve summed up the danger of ‘Dr’ Jay Gordon, and his betrayal of his customers and their babies perfectly.

Luckily he doesn’t infiltrate our media to any extent here but I did see his performance on Penn and Teller and was horrified. That, and his regular outbursts here at Respectful Insolence suggest most strongly that he is driven by a love of the limelight rather than a genuine medical vocation.

The young parents reading Mothering magazine may never have seen people in iron lungs, and children dying or being maimed for life by preventable illness – but I bet ‘Dr’ Jay has. Whether he’d admit it or not is another thing!

A big thanks to the posters here who researched the California counties and school districts with low rates of completed childhood vaccines. As yet, the California Health Department and the CDC have not posted on their websites and on the MMWR website, the case studies of the 10 infants who died during the 2010 pertussis outbreak.

Such studies involve complete information about contacts, including their immunization status…prior to visiting the infants who died. I suspect that completed epidemiology reports from the CDC will reveal that the infants contracted their deadly disease through a long line of transmission from family members who hadn’t completed the childhood series of immunization or (more likely) an adult with no history of immunization.

Cool, Dr Jay showed up. While thinking of people who are missing, it occurred to me, whatever happened to “Smarter Than You”? He claimed he was going to drop a bombshell on us by late November. I’ve only seen him once since, on LB/RB, sounding the same as he was here. Anyone hear from him since?

Rorschach
(I know it’s a messed up attitude, but part of me kind of wishes these anti-vax champs would put their money where their mouths are: no vaccines for anything,)

augustine:
Are you that shaking in your boots scared to think that people can not exist and thrive without vaccines? Have the disease fearmongerers gotten to you. Spare me your “only because others vaccinate” rhetoric.

Are you claiming that herd immunity doesn’t exist? You couldn’t be more out of your league here.

The only legitimate comparison one can make between Sid Offit and Ozzie Smith is that Sid does such wonderful backflips in its attempts to distract us from its constant misquoting of statistics out of context.

I suspect that completed epidemiology reports from the CDC will reveal that the infants contracted their deadly disease through a long line of transmission from family members who hadn’t completed the childhood series of immunization or (more likely) an adult with no history of immunization.

If they took to their investigation as biased as you that would be the only conclusion they could make. I mean if you automatically rule out the vaccinated, looking for only a chain of unvaccinated, what other conclusion could you make? That would be a case of faulty investigation.

@Roger Kulp, who said: “So bolstering herd immunity to protect children,and adults with immune deficiencies, cancer, mitochondrial/metabolic diseases, or on immunosuppressant drugs is all BigPharma® /government propaganda plot, to trample on parents personal freedom, and poison their kids. Typical.”

Typical and sad. They don’t give a rat’s behind about anyone else, and the quote you posted from that article about chicken pox is yet another example.

Helping sick people is part of a Big Pharma plot how? They never quite have an answer for that one, except to deny that herd immunity exists. I’m guessing they think Big Pharma is using our compassion for others against us, in their plot to have everyone vaccinated.

Why do you folks do this?

“Where is Dr Jay?” Sure enough, he shows up
“Where is augie?” He makes his worthless appearance
“Where is STY?”

NOOOOO! We don’t want these morons around! Please stop asking about them. It’s like they have a beacon, and as soon as you ask about them, they have to respond. Is that what you really want?

Personally, I’m perfectly happy to have threads without the usual gang of idiots. The last thing I am thinking when threads are good is, “Where is [insert name of random dingbat]?”

In other words, be careful, you might just get what you are asking for.

@112

And yet another ad hominem attack from you, but I shouldn’t be surprised by it, judging that is almost what you always do when presented with facts that don’t agree with your POV.

@117

Well, look at the sort-of good point (if there is any)…. you get to see the mindset of an anti-vaxxer in action, and then get to laugh at their mistakes.

lilady

Source investigations conducted by public health epidemiologists are not “faulty” or biased

So how do they determine if an unvaccinated person or a vaccinated is the “spreader”? How does an epidemiologist determine that? Or do they just assume “more likely” to. That wouldn’t be biased at all.

“You’re about as smart as a fish.”

And that means that GTF is still light-years ahead of you in any intellectual race here… even if it were true!

So how do they determine if an unvaccinated person or a vaccinated is the “spreader”? How does an epidemiologist determine that? Or do they just assume “more likely” to. That wouldn’t be biased at all.

Contact tracing and assays for evidence of infection as well as estimation of chain of infection, in short. If you don’t know, then ask instead of barfing out indiscriminate accusations. That’s the problem with you Augie; you simply ASSume that your limited knowledge of hard sciences is applicable to people actually doing them.

as a long time lurker on MDC, one response i have seen from anti-vax moms to questions on “won’t kids die from these diseases?” is either “the disease isn’t THAT bad” and/or “well, natural selection, dontchaknow. Some kids will just die.”

*blink*

My aunt had whooping cough at age 7 months which caused a stroke/brain damage which paralyzed the right side of her body. My SIL nearly died at age 6 months due to whooping cough (an epidemic said to be caused by low vaccination rates in the 70s).

I also worked in child survival in West Africa – I have personally met grown up polio survivors begging in the streets and adults who were blinded by measles. Not to mention parents listing their dead children who were lost to preventable illness. And no, better nutrition and breastfeeding and better hygiene wouldn’t have “prevented” those loses.

I feel like vaccinations are the victims of success – too few parents in the US these days have personally seen the impact of these illnesses, and therefore some have romanticize them. If parents are going to make decisions based on emotions and gut feelings, shouldn’t they include the very very nasty and negative outcome of a world without vaccinations? Because clearly the scientific data does not work in convincing these parents of the dangers.

I know we’re supposed to disregard anecdotes, but I need to say this in regard to the “concern trolls” that post here. Last year, I introduced this blog (as well as Orac’s “other” blog) to a good friend (and soon to be mother). She was on the fence regarding vaccines and was also starting to take an interest in homeopathy.

Orac to the rescue. Seriously. My friend found the insolence to be funny enough to keep reading, and fortunately she’s smart enough to recognize that was is discussed here makes a lot of sense. I credit this blog with turning her around on a lot of CAM issues.

“You’re out of YOUR league. You should stick to making trinkets.”

Actually, Kirsi is not out of her league at all. Evidently, though, you are… or you would have been able to come out with something sensible… and you didn’t.

Augie, you’re a pillock.

I wonder what the homeopathic remedy might be for ribs broken by coughing spasms of pertussis?

Bryonia, it looks like.

@allison, #33:

“FWIW, I intended a natural birth (complications happened), will breastfeed until at least 2, make my own (mostly) organic baby food, cosleep, wear my baby, and do all that other ‘crunchy’ baby-raising stuff. My son is also vaccinated on the CDC schedule, and I’ve lost a few FB friends over my posting of pro-vaccination info. There are no magazines catering to me, sadly. “

Yes, yes, yes!!!! Me too!!! I internet-ly embrace you as a fellow no-magazines-catered-to mom. 🙂 Except at the time of my pregnancy, I was still very vulnerable and worried about vaccines. My dad “helpfully” kept forwarding me all this anti-vax garbage from the internet, fanning the raging flames of fear. Then I discovered Respectful Insolence, and it literally saved my sanity.

My experience was very similar to C. Somers’s friend described in post #128– the tone of THIS BLOG blew past my irrational fears with humor and good information, and it was just the medicine I needed!

Awhile back, one of the ringleaders on Mothering’s “Vaccination” forum posted her thought process behind which vaccinations she would give her children (Hint: The final answer on each vaccine was “nah, don’t need that one either.”) It’s a lovely, lovely example of the circular logic that goes on over there:

First, she listed the risk of death of measles, per cases
Next, she listed the chance of getting measles in the US each year.
Finally, she concluded that since the possibility that anyone in the US could even get measles was 1 in 3 million, the vaccination was unnecessary.
Of course that 1 in 3 million number (if it was correct) is because most US children are vaccinated against measles. If she and her her MDC friends don’t vaccinate, and persuade everyone else not to either …. then her whole argument would fall apart.

As a side note: Biologists might enjoy going over there and doing keyword searches in their “health” forums on terms like “Methylation,” or “homocysteine.” I have never come across so many cases of “That word. You keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

@augustine You have continually questioned the case surveillance criteria used by public health epidemiologists throughout the U.S. for pertussis outbreaks-so I will provide you with the internet site for your (enhanced) knowledge. The web site is at http://www.cdc.gov Vaccines:VPD-VAC/Pertussis main page. I suggest you Check out “Resources for Health Care Providers” the last “bullet” of four “Pertussis Chapter-Vaccine Preventable Diseases Textbook” In your professional judgment, you can make a determination if public health professionals are conducting “biased” and “faulty” investigations. Please communicate your findings directly to the CDC and by all means, let us know how that all turns out for you.

I am still awaiting the results of case studies which will contain no identifying data, no initials of the patients, no gender of the patient, no hospital name, and no immigration status of any close household contacts. In the case report dealing with a B. pertussis outbreak, histories of close household contacts will only state “fully immunized, incomplete immunization or never immunized”. If the case is linked to another case it will state that.

I have participated in the investigation of outbreaks of many communicable disease (I am a public health nurse) Some of these outbreaks have been reported in the MMWR and I know that all identifying data is removed to protect patient and family anonymity.

Pablo: “What they hell DO they talk about in that forum?

Maybe it is just me, but I consider forums to be places of discussion, and discussion means that there has to be places of give and take. I mean, it seems to me that the whole forum would consist of just…”

They discuss how to “treat” the diseases when their kids get them, how to get around state laws requiring it and how to scam private schools who don’t have to allow religious exemptions. They discuss how to convince/force their partners to go along with them. They gripe about doctors who get frustrated at them and complain about how the evil military their husband works for makes him get shots and how they have to get them for work and it’s SO NOT FAIR blah blah blah. Then they post links to websites, “research,” and media sources that support or oppose their view and rejoice or complain about them.

Occasionally a mother comes in saying “X happened and my child is now really at risk of this disease and my husband is threatening divorce/taking custody if we don’t vaccinate, what do I do?” and all the other women start telling her to leave right away and that her husband is trying to KILL her child who has this serious disease and needs vaccination, and they imply that he’ll beat her in her sleep if he’s the kind of guy who would be so adamant about vaccinations.

It’s SO SUPPORTIVE.

@Basiorana:

… how to scam private schools who don’t have to allow religious exemptions.

I’d like to see their argument for why private schools have no right to require that students be vaccinated. I’d also like to see their reaction if a child who was vaccinated got snuck into enrollment in a school that forbade vaccinations (if any such schools exist).

Mothering does not tolerate dissent on vaccines. I was banned from the forum over there a few years ago because I dared argue the rational point of view. I got away with it for a few days and then the ban hammer fell.

The sad part is the anti-vax forum is not the worst part of the site. The worst part of the site is probably the unassisted birth forum. Unassisted as in no midwife. Oh and not low risk pregnancies either. Unassisted home birthing of twins and VBAC’s. Roughly once a month they have to mourn a dead baby because of such nonsense.

I’m not in favor of censorship but this is one area where I could truly make an acception.

@augustine You have continually questioned the case surveillance criteria used by public health epidemiologists throughout the U.S. for pertussis outbreaks-so I…

No. No, I question you, lilady, and called into question your lack of objectivity or bias on the issue. Of course you could rationalize (lie to yourself) your perceived need to be biased but the fact is you’re biased.

Oh, and Jay? A reminder for you that there are quite a number of questions & answers in response to your “Anyone here agree?” post on January 20, 4:31PM which are still waiting for your response. Why haven’t you, as yet, responded? You’ve made a number of posts on this thread since then, so I assume that you’ve certainly had sufficient free time to respond?

Perhaps you’d forgotten about that post?
Or perhaps that was just another of your hit and run troll efforts?

EMG

She found that the number of neonatal mortalities is shocking, like a couple dozen per year

Thanks for the anecdote, EMG. But like the U.S. is terrible in neonatal mortality and the vast majority of births are like under full medical supervision. And that like doesn’t help your pleading. You know?

EMG – that is very very disturbing. How could a woman put their ‘birth experience’ over the well-being of their baby? It’s so self-centred, it’s sickening. My mid-wife promoted home births, but I opted for a hospital birth. Just as well too, as my daughter was not positioned properly and had to be delivered by emergency c-section. The well-being of baby trumps ideals of being a perfect ‘Earth Mother’.

Melissa, Allison & Momma:
I’m another bfeeding, occasional co-sleeping, always pro-vaccine mother. It’s good to know there are more of us out there! I also had some rather hysterical anti-vax propaganda pushed on me by family when I was pregnant. This forum was a lifeline to sanity during those difficult times. It would be great to talk to other mums like you somewhere about general mum/mom non-insolence stuff. If you know of a forum far, far away from MDC, let me know!

prn, unless you have real documentation that what you claim is standard practice, we will assume you just made it up.

@Chris: prn wasn’t very clear, but if he is implying that a woman got sent home from the hospital as not in labor and ended up delivering at home or en-route back to the hospital …it can happen. Unfortunately, we are human and mother nature is a bitch who can surprise the best of us.

@hinterlander, Melisssssa, Momma, and Allison: why not create a site where like minded moms like you can chat? I’d be happy to set up a blogger site where we could just create an “endless thread” sort of thing, with various topics as posts and links to useful sites. (I’m well beyond the baby stages, but as a nurse-midwife I’d be happy to moderate). If you are interested, let me know by emailing me at triskelethecat at g mail dot com and referencing Orac. Lillady, with her public health knowledge, Chris, and all would be welcome and we could link to the useful sites. And, unlike MDC we would welcome the fathers.

then cash it in for a meal ticket”. Somehow I don’t think there will be any mealtickets on offer when the current crop graduates. All my kids pretty much knew/know (2 freshmen, and a junior) what they wanted to do, and see college as a step -so I’m not too worried about the results, although I’m trying to help “optimize” the results (I place learning above credentials), I figure after a few years in the workforce skill and knowledge will sort out the empty credential-ed, from the real go getters anyway.

Myself I was way more than ready for undergrad, but badly not ready for grad school -and most of us get only one real chance at it. I put some of the blame on my undergrad institution, which made getting a three year degree easy as pie, but which was insufficient prep for grad scho

It’s too bad that site is owned by Amy Tuteur. It’s a worthy idea, but Tuteur is a nutter herself. She had a stint on Science Blogs that ended quickly when the crazy revealed itself. Same thing on Open Salon. It’s a shame because she has fascinating ideas about natural parenting as it relates to feminism and she’s been shining a spotlight on Mothering.com’s bullshit for years. But Tuteur really isn’t the best standard bearer for the side of reason and rationality. Trust me.

After experiencing two births with my wife, even the idea of home-birthing scares the crap out of me. With the first, we had some major complications & there was a good chance that my wife & the baby would have died if we weren’t in the hospital (difficult delivery, baby in wrong position) and she dropped about four pints of blood/clots a couple of hours after – which was scary enough as it was, even being in the hospital.

I don’t understand how any mother could put the “child-birth experience” above the health of the child. There is a reason why we have access to medical facilities – people should be taking advantage of them!

My wife went heavy-woo before the birth of our second child and wanted to home birth. Her doc went absolutely batshit and I wasn’t happy about it. Good thing we were at the hospital as the baby didn’t breathe on her own without intervention and would have died at home.

Dr. Jay, you are the last person anyone should get advice from. You are actually part of the problem.

@Dr Jay, you said”Out of hospital births are very safe when the mothers are lower risk and receive excellent prenatal care. This is not always the case, I know.

My experience with hospital obstetrical care is also not uniform but most of the OBs I know are quite good and many are excellent.

My problem involves the care of newborns after the birth. Many hospitals over treat healthy babies, follow out of date blood sugar protocols, treat Transient Tachypnea as a disease and separate babies from their families without good medical reason. Many hospitals are also not sufficiently supportive of breastfeeding.

Let’s re-word some sentances for accuracy:

Out of hospital births may be safe when the mothers are low risk and receive excellent prenatal care and the parents and caregiver have a transport plan in place in case of emergency. The caregiver also has the needed emergency equipment and training to handle basic emergencies.

{No comments about your experiences with OBs. Some are fantastic. Others I wouldn’t recommend to care for a Barbie (TM) doll. I can say the same thing about nurse-midwives, lay midwives, pediatricians, family practitioners…all are human and some are better at what they do than others.}

Some hospitals treat healthy babies with signs of low blood sugar with out of date blood sugar protocols by giving them glucose water instead of breastfeeding and watching glucose levels IF the baby is able to nurse adequately.

Some may treat Transient Tachypnea as a sign of illness rather than a transient issue and separate babies from their families without diagnostic tests that confirm the illness state over the transient state. Due to malpractice, many hospitals are afraid to take a watch-and-wait stand in case the baby develops respiratory distress or worse.

Some hospitals are not sufficiently supportive of breastfeeding because they don’t force women who wish to bottle feed to breastfeed, nor do they force women who want to just skip one feeding to sleep to instead wake up and nurse. (yes, I know that consistent feeding is important. I also know that a resentful mother will quit breastfeeding faster than you can blink). Some hospitals still hand out packs with formula to breastfeeding mothers.

I believe in breastfeeding. But you should not resort to hyperbole. Let’s be honest and say Some hospitals, some mothers. Because it’s true.

I actually found great breastfeeding support at the children’s hospital my newborn was transported to. As he was in the Infant Intermediate Care Unit (having spent only one night in Infant Intensive Care Unit), I had a rocking chair and pillow to nurse him as he was attached to IVs and monitors next to his isolette. They also had a pump station and bottles to store my milk, plus information on where to went a pump when I was at home. When he was detached from the IV, I even got to carry him to the room for his EEG, and nurse him when necessary (though not while he was being attached to the EEG and it was being taken). This was over twenty years ago.

Dr. Jay is full of it.

Melissssssssa, I believe Vitamin D was in the drops I gave my kids, but the memory is fuzzy since the youngest is 16.

I couldn’t think any less of this publication. A friend of mine buys their crunchy-granola view of natural birth completely. (Although in all fairness, it’s not just Mothering – there is an entire subset of childbirth culture that shares this view.) In the past 3 years we have mourned 3 of her babies, all born premaurely. She was so proud to tell us that she gave birth to her first baby when she was only 7 cm dillated, and how happy she was not to be in a hospital because those horrible doctors would’ve insisted on intervention to make sure she was fully dillated first . . . And now she can’t carry a pregnancy much past 20 weeks. It’s almost certainly due to cervical damage, but she refuses to take any steps (other than herbs) to maintain a pregnancy. She’s swallowed the kool-aid, and in her mind it’s better to lose baby after baby than to accept medical intervention.

Chris

Dr. Jay, you are the last person anyone should get advice from. You are actually part of the problem.

Nothing in his post deserved your emotional outburst of personal attacks no matter how justified you think it is. You’re simply a jilted angry lady with emotional issues that you have not come to terms with. This unnecessary response is just further evidence of that.

Haha, Novavax, I can do that. You can’t.

MI Dawn

Thanks a bunch for setting up Mommy Minions. Have just checked it out and it looks great. I look forward to sharing with other parents there.

“The Unschooling forums would be hilarious if it weren’t for the damage they are doing to their children’s future. It’s Homeschooling without all that hard work!”

Urm..I don’t think that that word means what you think it means…

The word ‘unschooling’ can mean lots of things, but the stereotype you’ve got (‘unschooling means that the parents do nothing while the kids wach TV’) is very rare / almost non-existent.*

‘Unschooling’ was originally used to describe any form of home education that was child-led – John Holt, an early pioneer of the American homeschooling movement, coined the term to signify a form of homeschooling that was not intended to replicate school processes. Nowadays, people who call themselves ‘unschoolers’ range all over the place, from people who use a unit-study model and allow their children to choose the unit themes, to people who practice Charlotte Mason education and avoid textbooks wherever possible, to the ‘radical unschoolers’ who try to be 100% child-led, but plan activities and present resources to broaden their children’s education.

In some cases, traditional, structured homeschoolers who aren’t religiously motivated will call themselves ‘unschoolers’ to distinguish themselves from fundies in the HSLDA and similar groups.

The real danger of the Mothering forums isn’t that they will encourage educational neglect – it’s that for many people, the Mothering forums are the easiest non-fundie homeschooling forums to find on the internet. It would be all too easy, as a new homeschooling parent, to see Mothering and get the (luckily false!) impression that all non-fundie homeschool families were anti-vaxxers, HIV-denialists, etc. Other secular homeschooling resources (The Denim Jumper, HSFreethinkers, progressivehomeschool.com, etc.) are harder to find and not nearly as active. Most of the secular stuff lives on individual families’ blogs or in local associations. It’s harder to find, and a secular homeschooling skeptic who wandered into Mothering.community might feel very isolated and discouraged.

(*I’m sure it’s not _nonexistent_ – there has to be someone this lazy out there! – but whoever is neglecting their children this way isn’t much involved with any part of the homeschooling community. Even the Taking Children Seriously people, who are as radically child-led as you get, produce educated kids with a decent record of university admissions.)

“You’re simply a jilted angry lady with emotional issues that you have not come to terms with.”

LoL

You bleeding idiot. Even if psychoanalysis were a reasoned theory (it actually isn’t), your conclusion is totally unsupported by the data available to you. Indeed, the data suggest that you are the ‘bitter and twisted’ one, because your parents failed to home-educate you properly. Instead of doing something about it, you go ahead and spitefully abuse anyone who has had a proper education (home or otherwise) and actually knows something about how science works.

To call you a cretin would be to insult cretins. And I’ve already insulted turds in my previous post to Kirsi about you; so I’m reluctant to insult cretins.

(*I’m sure it’s not _nonexistent_ – there has to be someone this lazy out there! – but whoever is neglecting their children this way isn’t much involved with any part of the homeschooling community. Even the Taking Children Seriously people, who are as radically child-led as you get, produce educated kids with a decent record of university admissions.)

Perhaps I said it wrong, but that area is pretty much like I said. “Unschooling” may work or have a different meaning outside of MDC, but you don’t have to read long to find it is far from the best example of a glowing endorsement of the process. A significant number of the MDC homeschoolers are that way because they want to shield their children from everything those forums say is bad, from vaccines to anxiety of having the kids gone for six hours a day. And it doesn’t take long in the Unschooling forum to find out that a good number of them take that route because they were not capable of performing an effective homeschool.

I still remember one post in particular from a Mom that was asking what to do because their 8 year old child only wanted to watch videos on the computer all day and couldn’t read yet, and the response were basically “well if that’s what he is leading then go with it!” Some children will lead themselves to learning and reading, others if allowed to lead will have advanced degrees in Spongebob and Super Mario. I’ve seen very little evidence of the MDC Unschoolers having evaluated if their kids are good candidates for it.

Let’s face it, the one thing that seems to be overwhelmingly pervasive on MDC is their rejection of science and conventional wisdom, where personal intuition trumps evidence based thinking in every case. That doesn’t exactly make for the best setting for someone to be educating a child.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are many MDC regulars who are perfectly sane and take the nonsense with a grain of salt as they should. And there are many homeschoolers that perform at or above their peers, and no doubt unschooling works well in certain very limited situations as well.

ugh troll, as I believe many people have told you on previous occasions when you attempt to post evidence on this blog, a publicity brochure printed by a manufacturer for the general public, filled with CYA language, does not constitute scientific evidence.

Sorry, Beethoven, but facts are facts. Evidence is evidence. If they (or you for that matter) could scientifically prove that that the pertussis vaccine could stop transmission you could bet your last dollar that the pharmaceutical company would put that in BOLD letters. Denial doesn’t help you here.

Otherwise the statement “It is unknown whether immunizing adolescents and adults against pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants.” would not be in there.

http://iai.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/68/12/7175

The acellular vaccines presently in use are highly effective at preventing severe disease but are less effective at preventing bacterial infection (1, 4, 8, 17, 20). Presumably, they achieve protection by blocking bacterial attachment and neutralizing the adverse effects of pertussis toxin. In this small study, we found no evidence that acellular vaccines promoted antibody-dependent killing by complement or enhanced phagocytosis by neutrophils

Translation for Beethoven. The fully vaccinated can transmit pertussis.

Why is “conscientious non-vaccinators” not an oxymoron?

About chicken pox.
If you got chicken pox as a child, do the immunity last for the remainder of your life?
I know that the vaccine lasts for a decade or two, not sure if I should get one right now (had chicken pox, not from pox party, just caught it at school).

Varicella Zoster Virus is the pathogen that causes chicken pox. Prior to the development of the Varicella Vaccine, most children (90%), were infected with the virus and acquired chicken pox. This virus, after an individual has recovered from chicken pox, is the virus “that keeps on giving”; it is latent in the dorsal ganglion cells of the sensory nerves. When it reactivates, it appears as “shingles”. People who have suppressed immune systems…congenital or transient… are at high risk for re-activation of the latent varicella zoster virus in the form of “shingles” disease. People with great immune systems, as they get older, do experience aging-related immune suppression.

Varicella vaccine is given to young children, as part of their early childhood immunizations, along with MMR (measles, mumps, rubella vaccine).

Shingles vaccine, is now available and recommended for adults age 50…and beyond. It is also recommended for younger patients who are immune suppressed.

Information about these diseases and these vaccines are available on the web at CDC Vaccines:Pubs/VIS/main page

My wife has a copy of “American Baby,” and they have a great article on vaccines. They address the concerns, state why the vaccines are important (both in number of shots & when they should be given). They also talk about Wakefield (that he had been striken from the roles in the UK & his study retracted), and even have a great quote from Dr. Offit.

Nice to see good parenting magazines out there.

VMB

I am genuinely interested in your answers here, so please be gentle.

Me, too!

@Dangerous Bacon:

I thought the exact same thing – imagine that gorgeous child wracked with coughing, unable to breathe, breaking ribs, red-faced and near death. Seems like a very good argument for vaccinating!

I was too old to get the chicken pox vax, but got the DPT and polio vaccines – to my mother’s relief (she grew up in the 1920s and 30s, when iron lungs and infant deaths were an everyday reality; her elder brother died of amoebic dysyntery). My husband, who is a bit older than me, grew up before vaccines and got the works – mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, measles, and scarlet fever (which almost killed him; I got SF as a child too, through unfortunate chance, and spent four weeks at home, two of them basically unconscious, two of them too weak to walk).

We are both heavily in favour of vaccines. Too many of the younger mothers on the sMothering forums have never seen the results of unvaccinated illness (heck, HiB Influenza didn’t get a vaccine until the ’80s, and I remember the numbers of “special” schools that catered to the kids with the brain damage, deafness, and blindness that were the lagacies of that disease), and don’t understand. It sucks to think that we only learn as a result of negative consequences, but it seems like that’s the only way the anti-vaxxers will understand the consequences of their choices. Certainly, the deaths of other people’s children doesn’t make a dent, adding callousness to their stupidity.

VMB:

There are always reasons to be concerned, which is why it’s so easy to slip in to paranoia. 😉 But there are answers to many questions, and I think the CDC can generally be trusted to be looking out for our best interests. Here are my thoughts on the specific vaccines you mentioned:

HPV:
There are I believe a couple of these out there, and though the CDC is only recommending it for girls at present, it is approved for boys as well. HPV is a very common virus; 50% of all sexually active women are believed to be infected, and it seems likely that a similar percentage of sexually active males as well. It’s better studied in women than in men, largely because it is a major cause of cervical cancer. (It is not the only cause of cervical cancer, just as smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer.) It can be transmitted through oral sex as well as vaginal or anal sex, which is why it *also* causes mouth and throat cancer. The vaccine has been pretty safe in testing (there were serious adverse reports in VAERS, of course, but they turned out to be coinicidental upon investigation — that’s not really unusual and is sort of the point of VAERS, to weed out coincidences versus side effects). It protects against several strains (five, IIRC) but not all strains. One can avoid HPV infection through abstinence, but this may not be a good long-term strategy if children are desired. Also, if there were a good way to ensure that one will never be raped, and one’s partner will never cheat, then human society would likely be different today.

Me, I think it’s worth vaccinating against HPV. At this point, the recommendations are not going to achieve herd immunity, so decide based purely on individual protection and protection of future sexual partners. Also, it’s certainly no excuse for not educating one’s children about safe sex and not being promiscuous, and could even provide a nice conversation starter for the topic, as you explain to the child why they’ve been vaccinated. My kids will get this vaccine.

Rotavirus:
The controversy over this vaccine stems from two things. First, most people in Western nations do not take diarrhea seriously. It’s considered a nuisance and/or a comedic opportunity. Parts of the world which see severe diarrhea more frequently (due to inadequate sanitation) are more acquainted with it — it can and does kill people. In fact, diarrhea is one of the major killers worldwide. Rotavirus is one of many pathogens that can cause severe diarrhea. Others include norovirus, cholera, amoebic dysentery, etc. Some can be controlled pretty reliably with proper sanitation, with cholera being a famous example. Others are more easily transmitted by person-to-person contact, such as rotavirus. Rotavirus is also exceptional for the existence of a vaccine. There was some controversy after an early rotavirus vaccine was linked to cases of intusucception, a terrifying and potentially deadly condition. The current rotavirus vaccine is different, and has never been linked to that sort of thing. My kids got this vaccine.

Combined vaccines:
There is no reason to be more worried about a combined vaccine, IMHO, as long as the various components can all work with the same mixture of adjuvants and preservatives (if applicable). Putting more antigens into the vaccine doesn’t tax the immune system any more; the load is vastly beneath its capacity. In fact, this has been done for years even in what you might think are monovalent vaccines, because many vaccines are actually protecting against multiple strains. Influenza, for instance, is usually trivalent. It only protects against one disease, but there are actually three different antigens. As I see it, a combined vaccine reduces the pain for my child, as well as reducing any possible risk that the adjuvants and such might confer because they don’t need as many of them to get the same protection. It’s more efficient, more cost-effective, and far less pain for my child, so I’m an enthusiastic fan of combination vaccines.

HPV is a very common virus; 50% of all sexually active women are believed to be infected, and it seems likely that a similar percentage of sexually active males as well.

And for objectivity to avoid unnecessary fear she should also point out that almost all of these infections will be cleared by the body. No if’s, and’s, or but’s about it. Some of these not cleared will have persistent infection but will not lead to cervical cancer. Of these, pap smears catch most. Hence cervical cancer is not epidemic in this country.

There is no reason to be more worried about a combined vaccine, IMHO, as long as the various components can all work with the same mixture of adjuvants and preservatives (if applicable). Putting more antigens into the vaccine doesn’t tax the immune system any more;

I have a question? Is the MMRV the recommended vaccine now over the MMR and varicella seperated?

Risk of seizure doubled? How did it do that?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/126/1/e1?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=mmrv+vaccine+seizures&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Pablo — offhand, I’d guess it’s the pride of hardship. It’s not far from “when I was a kid, I had to WALK to school!” even if the magnitude is rather larger. It’s establishing one’s toughness cred.

Personally, I think any childbirth toughness cred story is eclipsed by the tale of the woman in South America (or possibly Central America, I’m not sure) who a few years ago got her 15 minutes of fame because of the way she had her home childbirth. It was pretty extraordinary — she was in a remote region, and went into childbirth prematurely. Worse, she had no car. She recognized that there was a problem, though I don’t recall how or what, specifically, the problem was. She enlisted her eldest child to assist with sterilizing kitchen knives and calling the nurse (who, living in the next village over, would take some time to get there), drank some alcohol as sort of an anesthetic, and then performed a c-section on herself, delivered the child, cut the cord, and then waited for the nurse to arrive. Nurse used the woman’s own sewing thread to stich her up temporarily and then transported mother and child to the hospital. Both lived.

That tops ’em all, though I suspect the crunchy crowd would be horrified by the c-section part. OK, most people would be horrified by that part; that takes nerves of freakin’ steel.

Scott

Please refer to the FDA’s requirements for vaccine approval. They do not, in any way, shape or form, consist of “comparing the safety profile of one vaccine to that of another unknown vaccine safety profile.

Safety is a relative term then. Please refer to individual package inserts as to the manner of “safety” testing.

https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?doc_id=11167&image_type=product_pdf

“In this large study, deaths due to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and other causes were observed but were not different in the two groups.”

Both vaccine groups experienced sudden infant death syndrome after vaccination. What did the non-vaccinated group experience? Oh that’s right. There wasn’t a control group for that. That might be to “rigorous”.

@ VMB

If Augustine’s post got you wondering,

got the reader to assume that HPV vaccine prevents cancer when there is NO ZERO NADA ZILCH evidence that it has EVER prevented one single cancer.

Have a look at this study in Australia.

Following an anti-HPV vaccine program, the number of reported pre-cancer lesions went down in the local population.
This is not going to meet Augustine’s high standards of evidence (being there, done that), but more honest people may conceed that, maybe, there is something good to expect from anti-HPV vaccination.
Oh, and remember, pap smears will only detect a carcinoma, they neither prevent or cure it. If a pap smear “catches it”, it’s too late, you already have a bunch of rogue cells.

Feel free to explore Pubmed, searching for stuff like “hpv vaccine efficacy”. Most of the time, only the abstract is available, but it will give you an idea of what the scientists are concerning themselves with.

violin plays

trisket

Calli Arcale, lilady, Scott, Todd W. and I are glad to listen and talk.

Oh, please stop it. You are not listening. Your “listening” is conditional. Why even give any pro mass vaccination information. The end is the same. It’s not about listening, understanding, or choice. If VMB says “Ok I’ll read your commments”, But then chooses to NOT vaccinate. Your intolerance will surely rear it’s ugly head.

Sid – you’re a dolt. Yes, immunity to pertussis does wane over time, which is why it is important to update people’s vaccinations over time – especially if they are going to be around newborns or young children.

got the reader to assume that HPV vaccine prevents cancer when there is NO ZERO NADA ZILCH evidence that it has EVER prevented one single cancer. (No amount of snark on this blog has yet to present evidence.ONe can only spout off theory of benefit in lieu of evidence)

According to these standards, there is also no evidence that parachutes have ever prevented deaths by falling. If the parachute deploys and the person reaches the ground alive, poof! There goes all the evidence that it would have prevented a death!

@199
“anti-vaxxers will understand the consequences of their choices. Certainly, the deaths of other people’s children doesn’t make a dent, adding callousness to their stupidity.”

very sad statement from someone who probably hasnt had a child start seizuring immediately after the vaccine, or have a child end up hospitalized for 3 weeks after severe fevers post vaccine, and several other traumas our children have endured because we made such a ‘smart’ decision to vaccinate. Glad I could murder my child to protect others. I was the stupid one, and I will forever be a murderer.

treeves, I had a another thought. Could you please find the data and evidence that compares the risk of seizure from a vaccine, like the Hib or MMR, to that of the actual diseases? It is nice in a discussion like this to actually use that kind of information instead of emotional rants.

219
it is sad and emotional to deal with. Would hardly call it a rant. No, sorry, I didnt research anything because it was already over. I wasnt talking about comparing a disease to a seizure…I was talking about death. The seizure led to death. I was saying to 199 dont be so callous calling people stupid when some kids die getting the vaccines. You said your son had the MMR 2 weeks before he got sick with rotavirus which led to seizures. Maybe his little immune system was working so hard after the vaccine that he was more susceptible to the rotavirus. I would probably act all angry to everybody like you do, if I realized that could have caused it. That might be why you are so outspoken for vaccines so you dont have to admit that maybe in your case the vaccine hurt him. It doesnt happen in most kids, but in mine it did and maybe in yours. I truly am sorry, and I accept any way that people express grief.

@treeves: I think you mis-read Chris’s statement. As those of us know, her experience went like this:

baby was born. had seizures shortly after birth which continued. baby placed on meds. baby NOT given DTP for fear of additional seizures. Community had a pertussis outbreak while he was a baby.

Baby developed rotavirus (before the vaccine existed) and became so dehydrated that he had severe seizures on the way to the hospital where he stayed for some time. Baby also was hospitalized 4 times with croup.

Baby (now adult) still has severe defecits from seizures and other issues.

Our sincere sympathies for the death of your child. What vaccine(s) were they that your children responded so badly to? Given the severity of their reactions, I would hope that you or your physician reported them to the VAERS database and avoided those vaccines with your other children.

MI Dawn

treeves, here is a paragraph from the last page of Deadly Choices:

In April 2009, Brendalee and Julieanna Flint traveled to Washington, D.C., to speak to congressional staffer about the importance of vaccines. “Parents need to understand that when they choose not to vaccinate, they are making a decision for other people’s children as well,” said Brendalee. “Someone else chose Julieanna’s path. It doesn’t seem fair that someone like Jenny McCarthy can reach so many people while my little girl has no voice.”

So even if your children have a genetic problem that prevents them from being protected by a vaccine, then you will be dependent on herd immunity. Because, unless you provide real evidence to the contrary, the data show the diseases are far worse than the vaccines.

Chris

Now you need to provide the actual data that the risk of seizures from any vaccine is greater than the risk from the disease.Now you need to provide the actual data that the risk of seizures from any vaccine is greater than the risk from the disease.

No she doesn’t. Could you give a good explanation of why you feel she does? That type of data could never tell you what actually happened to an individual or what will happen in any individual. This isn’t card counting, Chris.

none of it matters now Chris. I dont have to look at any of that anymore. That part is over. attack_laurel said that anti-vaxxers need to see the consequences of their actions… well, there is no argument that when there is a vaccine reaction and your kid dies or ends up severely disabled you have to face the consequences of your actions too. Thats it. No argument here. Nobody ever said that diseases didnt cause problems. You made that whole topic up yourself based off of reminding people to be careful what you say because there are some kids who react to vaccines and can die just like unvaccinated kids. But I think you would argue with a tree because you are that kind of angry person. Have fun with your research if that makes you feel better.

treeves:

You made that whole topic up yourself based off of reminding people to be careful what you say because there are some kids who react to vaccines and can die just like unvaccinated kids.

And exactly, what is the risk of that? How many? Provide real evidence. You made the claim, you do the research and give us the actual documentation.

@treeves

No one will argue that vaccines do not carry the risk of death. The point that Chris is trying to make, I think, is that when it comes down to it, the question is which results in more deaths: vaccines or the diseases they prevent?

Simply making a statement (and I’m not saying this is what you did) that “Well, vaccines can cause death, too”, while true, does not address the whole picture and doesn’t really advance the discussion much. Everyone here will readily acknowledge that, yes, vaccines can results in deaths. However, they will also acknowledge that the diseases prevented cause more deaths. That second part is something that a lot of anti-vaccine folks don’t seem to acknowledge.

At any rate, my condolences on your loss. I agree that any death is too many, and we should always strive to reduce that risk as much as possible. We’ll never remove it completely, but we can make it exceedingly rare. I know that’s not particularly comforting or reassuring, but it’s the best I can offer from myself.

Chris

Why do you think a name calling rant is a substitute for real evidence?

She has real evidence. A vaccinated dead child. No amount of your posturing and bitterness changes the evidence. At least Todd has some couth.

@ treeves:

The anti-vaxers are the ones currently NOT having to deal with the consequences of their own decisions, therefore they’re the ones who need to be made to do so.

I should clarify my last comment. The mathematical risk of a death by vaccination, knowing what we knew at the time, was much less than the risks of the disease. This is true in the vast majority of cases.

“You responded by calling me evil, angry and more. I do not see how you can pretend to play the high ground, while still avoiding providing evidence that vaccines pose a great risk, especially in regards to the diseases that are resurfacing from partial truths like “vaccines cause deaths.”

Not one person said anything about risk but you! Why would I give evidence for something I never said? I will play your game though…I asked you to show me where I said that vaccines cause a greater risk than disease, and you cant, because I didnt. Yes, vaccines can cause death, that isnt news, and I never said disease caused less. In my case (and of course, some others), the risk was the greatest, and I take responsibility for it. You have a problem. I said you are evil because you are almost trivializing his death so you can argue that disease causes more death. When nobody disagreed with that in the first place. Do you understand now how you set people off by putting words in their ‘mouth’?

I understand, Todd, I will let it go. She came in here blazing with “Glad I could murder my child to protect others. I was the stupid one, and I will forever be a murderer.”, and I reacted.

But why spend so much time whining about those who don’t prefer to vaccinate?

Because they’re killing people, including their own children and ours?

This is NOT a question where there is any credible dissent.

@Rinn

If you believe they work then you and your family should do not have to worry about getting sick. But why spend so much time whining about those who don’t prefer to vaccinate?

Well, a few reasons:

1) Vaccines, like everything in life, are not 100% effective. Most are pretty darn close, but there are some individuals who will not gain immunity from the vaccine. So, unvaccinated individuals are putting those people at risk.
2) Some people cannot get a vaccine, due to valid medical reasons (e.g., allergies, too young, etc.). Therefore, they do not get the benefit of vaccines and need to rely on the people around them to be vaccinated. If you do not vaccinate, you put those individuals at risk.
3) There are people who have compromised immune systems (e.g., the elderly, cancer patients, transplant patients, AIDS patients, etc.). If you do not vaccinate, your put those people at risk.

In short, when you choose not to vaccinate for a reason other than a valid medical reason, you are being selfish and putting everyone around you at risk. Many diseases are contagious before symptoms even appear, so you may be spreading disease before you even know you’re sick. Likewise, most people who are susceptible do not have magic neon signs above their heads letting you know that they are susceptible, so you may come into contact with quite a few people at risk for infection without even knowing it.

As to the Mothering forums, did you actually read Orac’s post and the comments here? Did you see the part where they actively silence dissenting voices? Did you come across the bit where they completely scrubbed anything to do with the deaths of people who follow their advice?

If you believe that vaccinations are the best thing for your family then by all means get them. If you believe they work then you and your family should do not have to worry about getting sick.

I don’t have to believe anything. I can look at the evidence and make a rational decision. It’s one of the things we can do if we choose to use the convoluted grey thing that resides a bit north of the collarbones.

What about if we had a way to know how the child/person would respond to wild viruses or bacteria? If we knew it would be mild or subclinical would you still recommend vaccination? Would that be based on individual health or social policy?

And that means what, exactly? Odds are, when they do get the wild virus, things will be worse than with the vaccine. That is established as fact. Don’t just react, think before you post.

@gary

I asked you a reasonable hypothetical question. You said if we had a reasonable way to know if someone would be harmed by a vaccine then you wouldn’t recommend it.

I asked if we had a reasonable way to know if that particular person would only get mild or subclinical disease would you still recommend vaccination. And what would that value be based on?

Where are you getting the idea that the vaccine is only 70% effective?

I just threw out a number for argument’s sake. But many vaccines are lower than that. You may be confusing efficacy with actual effectiveness. But some efficacies are lower than that also.

So can you answer the question?

@Todd:

1) Vaccines, like everything in life, are not 100% effective. Most are pretty darn close, but there are some individuals who will not gain immunity from the vaccine. So, unvaccinated individuals are putting those people at risk.

Since there is no way of knowing who will, and will not gain immunity, and the “effectiveness” we are discussing is not the same as disease resistence, but rather, seriopositivity – isn’t the most responsible course to treat everyone as if they are not immune? Just because a person is vaccinated and shows no symptoms to diseases for which they have been vaccinated, doesn’t mean they aren’t just as capable of spreading those diseases.

Some people cannot get a vaccine, due to valid medical reasons (e.g., allergies, too young, etc.). Therefore, they do not get the benefit of vaccines and need to rely on the people around them to be vaccinated. If you do not vaccinate, you put those individuals at risk.

And those that get vaccinated and still get those diseases? They also put that population at risk. Since we do not know who will actually gain protection from the vaccine, and who will present correctly due to their vaccination status, isn’t the most responsible course to treat everyone as if they are not immune and capable of spreading disease?

There are people who have compromised immune systems (e.g., the elderly, cancer patients, transplant patients, AIDS patients, etc.). If you do not vaccinate, your put those people at risk.

Everyone puts this population at risk regardless of their vaccination status. Those vaccinated not presenting correctly to disease more so. Presenting less symptoms to disease does not mean you are not infected yourself.

Many diseases are contagious before symptoms even appear, so you may be spreading disease before you even know you’re sick.

Exactly. Vaccination status notwithstanding. Unvaccinated people present classic symptoms to the diseases in question. The Vaccinated do not, and there’s no way they could be spreading that disease because they were vaccinated… right? Clinical efficay trials are measuring sera, they do not measure how well a subject will resist the disease when it is encountered. And just because a vaccinated person has enough antibodies (from their vaccine exposure) to prevent them from exhibiting symptoms, it doesn’t tell us much about their capacity to also infect others.

The most responsible (and less discriminatory) way to interact in society is act as if we are all capable of spreading disease. Because we are.

Augustine, do you understand that diseases spread? That’s why we vaccinate everyone we can.

Your social policy comes out in your heart.

What’s wrong with trying to limit the spread of disease?

Most microbial disease vectors (bacteria or virus) are, by nature, contagious. Since a disease can potentially affect both the individual and the society, I have a hard time separating the benefits of the vaccine for the individual from the benefits for the society.

@cynic

And just because a vaccinated person has enough antibodies (from their vaccine exposure)

Vaccine benefits (or generally, primary-exposure benefits) are not just circulating antibodies. The immune response to the second encounter of a specific germ is faster, stronger, and more specific.
In other words, the disease vector will have less time to establish a hold and do nasty things to the host. And the host will be sick and carrying the vector for a shorter period of time.

The most responsible (and less discriminatory) way to interact in society is act as if we are all capable of spreading disease. Because we are.

Well, that’s true, anyone can be (and is) passing germs around. But we cannot stay hiding home forever, some of us have to go out. I would prefer to be surrounded by vaccinated people. True, there is a chance they could be sick. But comparatively to non-vaccinated, this chance is lower, because of this primary/secondary exposure thingy: the opportunity window for the germ to jump from one host to the next is way smaller with vaccinated people.

@Pablo re: the virtues of giving birth when you’re not fully dillated – I don’t get it either, but then I don’t really get the virtues of a ‘natural’ birth. If that’s what you want and you can do it, go for it; but I don’t see how it makes you a ‘better’ mother.

@Rinn:

Forums like Mothering are perfectly fine and there is NOTHING wrong with following maternal instincts for most things because most children are HEALTHY! To read this blog and comments you’d think one would have to take their child to a doctor once a week whether they need it or not in order to be a responsible parent and that’s just ridiculous. To read these diatribes you would think that most children are on the verge of dying at every turn and that a home remedy is going to put the nail in the coffin.

If you believe that vaccinations are the best thing for your family then by all means get them. If you believe they work then you and your family should do not have to worry about getting sick. But why spend so much time whining about those who don’t prefer to vaccinate?

Because when a population isn’t vaccinated, diseases spread to the most vulnerable – the ones that are already sick or the ones that can’t be vaccinated or the ones for whom the vaccine failed.

Of course, I’m sure folks like you don’t give a rip about other people’s kids. If you think the sMothering boards are fine, then you probably think that only the poor kids eating Oscar Mayer bologna and going to daycare get sick.

@Heliantus: The immune response to the second encounter of a specific germ is faster, stronger, and more specific.

This is not limited to only the vaccinated. The literature is very clear regarding a strong cell-mediated response. It seems logical to stop an intruder at the front door rather than engage them once they have broken in and start to rob the place.

In other words, the disease vector will have less time to establish a hold and do nasty things to the host. And the host will be sick and carrying the vector for a shorter period of time.

Please provide a citation. Must be a controlled setting with both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Animals will do.

But comparatively to non-vaccinated, this chance is lower, because of this primary/secondary exposure thingy: the opportunity window for the germ to jump from one host to the next is way smaller with vaccinated people.

Please provide a citation. Must be a controlled setting with both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Animals will do.

Spreading “infection” is reliant upon those encountered.

Dedicated Lurker: So, cynic, how do we stop people spreading infection? Including the asymptomatic. Do we keep everyone in isolation all the time?

You can’t. Being exposed to infectious disease is part of living in a society. If one expects to be isolated from disease, then they must go live in isolation. You cannot assume that the vaccination status of a person has precluded them from spreading disease.

Treat everyone as if they are not immune, you have no way of knowing anyway.

@ Cynic

This is not limited to only the vaccinated.

Well, yes, that’s why I said “Vaccine benefits (or generally, primary-exposure benefits)”.
Ah, maybe it should have been “more generally”.

[various citations needed]

You are right, I should have searched for something. Although it was sort of common knowledge when I was in my first university years, about 20 years ago. I expect that any good book on immunology will say it better than me.

All I have to prove is that the second immune response is faster/stronger than the first. Logically, faster immune response = less time for the bugs to proliferate and invade, no? So less time for being contagious, no?

Surely, you are not asking me to prove that vaccination is followed by an immune response?

Anyway, little google search, and here is a study on human children measuring titers of antibodies during a first and then a second infection. Note how the IgG and IgA showed up in 10 days during the first infection, and 5 to 7 days in the second.
However, only the abstract is available. Let’s search for a full article, free.

Little Pubmed search with “immune response to primary and secondary infection”. Let’s start with something from the 70’s. PMID: 4824634 (1974).
Let’s have a look at some more recent stuff.
PMID: 6860214 (1983) – herpes simplex infection of mouse eyelid. Funny enough, the mice who were previously infected in the ear were experiencing milder eye infection, compared to naive mice.
Ah, 1988, another good article . Immunoglobulin response to herpes simplex virus infection, first and second. I like the final figure.
I could not find more recent articles free to download.

You may try Nin Jiom Pei Pa Koa (ninjiom-hk.cwahi.net). i know a lot of people use it, its also non alcoholic, though it’s effectiveness is not as good as alcohol based cough medicine, but it’s still good to use on not so serious scratchy throat.

apprently ( according to the instruction) children from 2 to 12 can use it.

@ cynic and others

Actually, studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated are done with humans (not to mention animals), notably with new vaccines. New stuff versus the standard of care, I suppose.
By example, here is one such study . Only the abstract is available, but it does include the number of children in both groups and the effect of the vaccine (curiously, vaccinated children experienced less flu events and absenteism than the unvaccinated).

Pubmed is fun. I should spend more time in it.

Oh, lookee, perfect timimg Augustine. Just go read the study I just posted above.

Will missing a vaccine spell death to you or anyone? Oh, not necessarily. But apparently, you are more likely to spend some time in your bed, feeling miserable. Personally, I would prefer to be up and running. Well, it’s your life.

Every day in the emergency department I see mothers who think something is seriously wrong with their child.

95% need reassurance that it is a minor illness, education on symptoms of concern and encouragement to manage at home.

Around 4% need admission for observation, but you can be pretty sure they’ll be fine.

1 in 100 is truly, alarmingly sick.

So… what does this say about ‘mommy instinct’? Every mommy thought their kid was really sick. Almost all of them were wrong. Not only were they wrong, they were shown to be wrong by one of those horrible, childless, dried up spinster atheist doctors (me).

Of course, if one child deteriorates at home, the parents will likely go to the media, claiming ‘We said our child was sick and they ignored us! Doctors ignore mommy instinct!’

“Do you like being associated with a magazine that promotes homeopathic drugs (and homeopathic vaccines) for whooping cough, Jay?”

Homeopathic vaccines? They inject water?? Well, I suppose it’s better than Ayurvedic vaccines… they inject your own piss! So that’d mean they’d inject some bugger else’s piss!

Ewww!

@cynic

The issues you raised don’t really affect the decision whether or not to vaccinate. We should act as though we are possibly infectious and able to be infected – wash our hands, cover our coughs with our sleeves, don’t touch our eyes/nose/mouth, etc. However, we can only modify our behavior within reason. To act as though every person were possibly infectious could very quickly lead to paranoia and isolation, which is not a viable option for any society.

So, what can we do? We can reduce our own risks of both being infected and spreading infection by doing the things I listed above, as well as getting vaccinated. Yeah, it isn’t perfect, but it is, demonstrably, better than not vaccinating at all (see, for example, measles rates in the U.K. after vaccination rates dropped; same for mumps in Japan; disease history in the U.S. [# cases, not just fatalities]; and so on). Vaccines are just another tool in the arsenal of controlling the spread. It may not remove it completely, but it definitely cuts the risk down.

cynic’s argument appears to be that all risks are equivalent. Since there is a possibility that someone who is vaccinated could still spread an infection and/or actually get sick, vaccines do nothing?

The concept that vaccination makes it much less likely appears to elude him.

Since there is no way of knowing who will, and will not gain immunity, and the “effectiveness” we are discussing is not the same as disease resistence, but rather, seriopositivity – isn’t the most responsible course to treat everyone as if they are not immune? Just because a person is vaccinated and shows no symptoms to diseases for which they have been vaccinated, doesn’t mean they aren’t just as capable of spreading those diseases.

You aren’t making much sense here, either out of ignorance of vaccine effectiveness or you just aren’t conveying your point well. First, you have to include a specific vaccine e.g. measles. Why treat everyone as non-immune when we know the vaccine effectiveness is ~95%. Conversely, pertussis vaccine, since we know that it is of lower effectiveness and does not prevent infection, those with symptoms should (and are in increasing numbers) be suspected as having pertussis. Even so, those with sufficient pertussis immunity (not established) and infected are not going to spread the disease to distal contacts as would someone with full blown pathology.

And those that get vaccinated and still get those diseases? They also put that population at risk. Since we do not know who will actually gain protection from the vaccine, and who will present correctly due to their vaccination status, isn’t the most responsible course to treat everyone as if they are not immune and capable of spreading disease?

Another for which you will have to clarify a particular vaccine/disease and also if you feel as though it is beneficial to allow for wild-type disease to circulate instead. Do you really want to argue that those immunised for measles, rubella and Hib are a threat to others?

Everyone puts this population at risk regardless of their vaccination status. Those vaccinated not presenting correctly to disease more so. Presenting less symptoms to disease does not mean you are not infected yourself.

Are you on crack? There is this thing called epidemiological reports. Avail yourself of them. And while you are at it, go read how many threads are on MDC about dipshit mothers who have to ask if it’s all right to take their pertussis infected spawn out in public since keeping them in the house is such a burden.

Exactly. Vaccination status notwithstanding. Unvaccinated people present classic symptoms to the diseases in question. The Vaccinated do not, and there’s no way they could be spreading that disease because they were vaccinated… right? Clinical efficay trials are measuring sera, they do not measure how well a subject will resist the disease when it is encountered. And just because a vaccinated person has enough antibodies (from their vaccine exposure) to prevent them from exhibiting symptoms, it doesn’t tell us much about their capacity to also infect others.

The most responsible (and less discriminatory) way to interact in society is act as if we are all capable of spreading disease. Because we are.

How many vaccinated people are spreading measles, rubella, polio and even varicella right now? Vaccine effectiveness can be derived post licensure with contact tracing and surveillance. Seriously, what point are you trying to make?

@Augustine

Is it mommy instinct that says give a child Tylenol for a fever? That “instinct” didn’t exist 500 years ago.

Effectively. 500 years ago, the mom would have run for the local witch to get some poultice for the baby. Or something like this.
And if it didn’t work, eventually the villagers would burn the witch. Or hang a few jews. Or something.
Are you really saying that people are looking for cures for their ailments only recently? The need for a shaman is as old as humanity.

@Orac

I wrote last night an answer to Cynic who was asking for citations. I believe I put only 2 html links, but I triggered the moderation anyway. Is it still blocked over there?
(I’m not complaining, mind you. Just checking)

Science Mom,

Why treat everyone as non-immune when we know the vaccine effectiveness is ~95%. Conversely, pertussis vaccine, since we know that it is of lower effectiveness and does not prevent infection, those with symptoms should (and are in increasing numbers) be suspected as having pertussis. Even so, those with sufficient pertussis immunity (not established) and infected are not going to spread the disease to distal contacts as would someone with full blown pathology.

That’s fair, but Todd was talking in generalizations, so he got generalization in response. Measles vaccine definitely does work, I have never stated otherwise. As to your pertussis comment, you have made my point. Someone with full blown pathology isn’t mingling around the herd thinking they have a cold.

Another for which you will have to clarify a particular vaccine/disease and also if you feel as though it is beneficial to allow for wild-type disease to circulate instead. Do you really want to argue that those immunised for measles, rubella and Hib are a threat to others?

I am undecided on the circulation of wild-type viruses and pathogens. Those immunized for measles may definitely show less symptoms, but I am not convinced they are not a threat to others. Specifically the compromised population. Hib is an opportunistic pathogen, best I can tell, and based on what I have reviewed of the literature, I don’t think it offers more protection than breastfeeding. There has been a lot of discussion regarding serotype replacement with this bug as well, and I’m not convinced that it’s universal use hasn’t created more work for us. On many levels.

Are you on crack? There is this thing called epidemiological reports. Avail yourself of them. And while you are at it, go read how many threads are on MDC about dipshit mothers who have to ask if it’s all right to take their pertussis infected spawn out in public since keeping them in the house is such a burden.

I wondered how long it would take you to start talking shit. Thanks for not disappointing. Epi reports? You are the one on crack if you’re putting all of your eggs in that basket. Diagnostic shifts. Increased awareness. Lack of laboratory confirmation. As for being a dipshit, this is not simply reserved for those that forego vaccines. “Johnny is coughing a lot, but he couldn’t possibly have pertussis… he was vaccinated. I think I’ll take him to see my grandmother who has cancer anyway.”

How many vaccinated people are spreading measles, rubella, polio and even varicella right now?

Good question. As far as I can tell, nobody’s looking. I read a case report of a boy shedding measles virus from his vaccine while being asymptomatic… I was told it was a phenomenon and couldn’t possibly be occuring on a wide scale basis. As for my point… why are you pretending to care? You just want to exchange insults to see how vulgar and pithy you can be so onlookers can be impressed. Must get lonely on top of that soap box.

I’m out. Enjoy your high-fives.

Hilantius

Oh, lookee, perfect timimg Augustine. Just go read the study I just posted above.

It’s painfully aware to the regular sciencebloggers that you are a new skeptic. Your skills are very amateur. They are not going to touch your post with a ten foot needle.I’ll give you a pass. Read around some more first before acting cocky with your intellect.

SM: Of course it isn’t limited to vaccinated, but the objective is to eliminate/reduce disease pathology. Which vaccines achieve and natural infection does not.

Some vaccines clearly do. To infer that all vaccines do, is misleading.

Hello? That is precisely what you are doing, lumping all vaccines together which is why I told you you needed to specify which vaccine(s) you were using for an example.

You really need a citation for this?

Well… yes… I do. If we are defining an infectious state based upon symptomalogy, this is also misleading.

And yet I still supplied a list for your perusal. But again, this really is basic immunology/microbiology, which you should be acquainted with.

Host A and Host B are then exposed to Disease X in a natural setting. Host B has enough circulating antibody to identify the pathogen and prevent Host B from showing symptoms (NOT the same as being immune). Host A shows symptoms, or not, depends on immune response. Just because Host A didn’t show symptoms, didn’t mean they weren’t capable of spreading disease. Direct infection studies focus on symptomalogy, as do the textbooks you are referring me to.

There you go again. Which vaccine and disease? Haven’t you even read the Pink Book? There are numerous vaccines which prevent microbial replication to the point of preventing most or all disease pathogenesis and transmission. I don’t know what the hell you are reading, but clearly, isn’t enough or understood.

What happens when both are exposed to a novel pathogen? My money is on the Host not wasting resources looking for bugs introduced to it artificially and the one that has a strong cell mediated response (since that’s the where natural exposure occurs). You are free to bet otherwise. You cannot persuade me to bet with you by telling me to go fetch a textbook. I suspect any other lurkers that selectively vaccinate or do so on a less vigorous schedule feel exactly the way I do.

Your ideas about cellular and humoral mediated immunity are lacking. Different pathogens provoke numerous responses as do vaccines. I don’t follow your example since it is so poorly stated. I don’t care how you or lurkers ‘feel’, I’m only interested in the basis for your contention, which is neither presented well, nor seemingly rooted in a solid knowledge base.

@ Cynic

As for being a dipshit, this is not simply reserved for those that forego vaccines. “Johnny is coughing a lot, but he couldn’t possibly have pertussis… he was vaccinated. I think I’ll take him to see my grandmother who has cancer anyway.”

This is how you will react? Interesting.
If my vaccinated Johnny was coughing, I would suspect cold, flu, strept infection, or, why not?, maybe he got pertussis despite being vaccinated. Vaccines are not 100%, you know. And immunity wanes.
Definitely not going to bring him to grandma, if I have any two neurons working.

But I have a question. You are comparing the case fatality rate of jumping out of an airplane sans parachute vs. someone going unvaccinated. How many people would die if 100 jumped out of an airplane. How many, out of 100, would die from chickenpox if they weren’t vaccinated for it?

Once again, you prove to be a bottomless well of stupidity. An “analogy” is a comparison between two similar situations, often with differing consequences, used to explain a similar concept they share. For example, there are numerous cases of children dying from chickenpox. I was using the extreme case to show that it is possible to weigh relative risks, something you refuse to understand.

In any case, here’s an example of the problems caused by natural infection:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/unprotected-story.htm

Two weeks of missed work is not fatal, but it certainly is not trivial, either, and could easily mean a lost job in many instances.

Augustine, I dont know who you are, but I Love your intelligent, respectful, witty responses. Please keep them coming.

Care to explain why you consider him intelligent, respectful, or witty? Interesting you don’t show up at all until now.

Aug – it depends on both groups. If a hundred people jump out of an airplane without a parachute, and the airplane is still on the ground, I’ll bet all 100 will live. Similarly, if the group of 100 not vaccinated against chicken pox is immunosuppressed because of genetic conditions, cortosteroid use, or cancer treatments, and they get exposed, well, a lot will die.

@Todd W

Some individuals who will not gain immunity from the vaccine. So, unvaccinated individuals are putting those people at risk.

No Todd. You can’t put someone at risk if you don’t have an illness. And no being vaccinated isn’t an illness

@Ded-

It goes without saying that we would be talking about jumping out of an airplane at several thousand feet. The height is what would make a parachute relevant.

Similarly, if the group of 100 not vaccinated against chicken pox is immunosuppressed…

You’re not helping your friend’s argument.

Must not be very many of those groups of 100 then, because if there were then we would have seen a lot more than 80 per year die from chickenpox.

But this brings up a good issue. Confounders. If 100 immunosuppressed chickenpox infected people jump out of a flying airplane san parchute at 10,000 feet then we know what will happen to all 100. Not many confounders there.

His analogy fails. Case mortality is not even close. With any vaccine associated disease for that matter.

Augustine, once again, you fail to realize that there are consequences of diseases other than direct mortality. What’s more, that’s still 80 a year who die of chickenpox, far more than would die from the vaccine. Learn the basics first, before trying to comment.

Augustine, did you ever take grade-school mathematics? Technically, parachutes aren’t 100% effective, nor are seatbelts or crosswalks. So are they useless as well?

Augustine, did you ever take grade-school mathematics? Technically, parachutes aren’t 100% effective,

We’re not talking about parachutes. We’re talking about not wearing parchutes. Stay focused.

Remember you implied that not vaccinated is the equivalent to jumping out of an airplane sans parachute.

Augustine, you were denying the concept of risk. That requires failing basic probability, which I learned in second grade. I mean, do you play in busy streets? After all, you being struck by a car is only a possibility, not a certainty.

@papa zita

If they’d actually say that the lottery has a better risk/return ratio, then that might well explain why they didn’t do well…

Certainly not better, but they couldn’t have done much worse, either. They both exhibited classic gambler behavior – doubling down on losses, going all-in, etc. Each lost over half of their assets (one well over), and both were ahead early in their trading “careers”. I have told friends in the past that playing the market is exactly like gambling and not to put in more than you can afford to lose. My father’s hard-earned knowledge from 1929 made a serious impression on me.

Well then, augustine, what are you arguing?

This unfair and erroneous comparison:

To put it simply, the reason we don’t have studies of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated is the same reason we don’t study parachute vs. no parachute.

To clarify my last statement: Polio and smallpox are no longer daily threats because of vaccination policies. Measles and chickenpox can kill, and so vaccination is still necessary for them, and asking someone to go without would be unethical. The risk-benefit may not be as extreme as with parachutes, but it is still there, and the comparison is still valid.

You seem to believe that weighing risks means “predicting the future”. Try to learn the basics first before making an argument, don’t just go by instinct. The Lord may be guiding your words, but he may want you to look like a twit as a warning to others.

@ Cynic

I’m sorry, but I start to believe we are not talking about the same thing. When I was talking about primary/secondary infection, I did not mean passive immunity/specific immunity, as you seem to suggest.

Of course, the body engages injected pathogens and “encountered” pathogens identicially… that biochemical reaction instigated by contact with the mucosa is just stupid.

Could you elaborate? What’s happening when the pathogens come into contact with mucosa that is so important?
And do you mean that pathogens never sneak inside the body naturally?

Much better to start a shitstorm inside.

Citation please.

The only reason I think cynic is not the infamous Th1Th2 is that they have not mentioned the word “naive” yet.

Augustine the ignorant:

So you “treat” them all to manage malpractice risk. How is that evidence based? It’s not. Doctors are a victim of their own system.

No, I don’t ‘treat them all’ – the vast majority get reassurance and a shove in the direction of the exit. I spend hours every day educating about why antibiotics are unecessary and what symptoms should make them seek review.

This is why people like you are loathsome – you erect straw men and use them to peddle your ‘all doctors are swine’ message. Your ignorance is nauseating.

gary falcon:

My point was that the benefits of vaccination, as with parachutes, are well-established…

Stop right there. The benefits of vaccines are laid over many confounders. The benefits of parachutes do not have to be sifted out of confounders.

To imply and recommend that no more research be done with the health of vaccinated vs. (totally)unvaccinated is to stifle scientific progress and knowledge.

I spend hours every day educating about why antibiotics are unecessary and what symptoms should make them seek review.

You spend hours everyday? Really? So how many Rx do you write anyway? Count them up. Are you really any different? Or do you think it’s just your colleagues overprescibing?
Why do you think people put so much faith in antibiotics? Do you think most doctors are still ignorant on the fact that antibiotics are oversold? The fact is they still over prescribe. Are they just too weak minded? Does the wants of society overpower them? Are they insecure? Do they practice defensive medicine to cover their own asses in lieu of patient’s health?

So if it’s not you then who? What type of doctor over prescribes antibiotics? Are skeptic based doctors immune from this type of practice?

#12 “But the D&D instructions make more sense. A healing potion that depends on the time of day? That’s just nuts, man.”

Maybe the potion was brewed by a cleric of Pelor.

#8 “A statement about nothing, followed up with a bunch of “me, too”s. That’s a conversation?”

You have clearly never listened to a bunch of twelve-year-old girls talking. It’s excruciating.

Falcon, it was a stupid analogy to begin with. Just admit it and move on.

@ Cynic

One last try, if you are still around. I was reading again our crossed posts, and I keep having the feeling we are not talking about the same thing. Maybe it’s because English is not my first language, or maybe you are not clear enough. Or maybe both.

I will re-state a few of my points, which I believe you misinterpreted. I will also state what I believe are a few of your opinions. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Me: “This is found in basic immunology/bacteriology textbooks.”
You: “Correct. All based upon symptomalogy.”
No, that’s wrong. I didn’t refer you to medical books. Medical books or studies may be based upon symptoms, but immunology books are not. They talk about the mechanisms of the immune system and its interactions with the self (your body) and the non-self (everything else). And bacteriology textbooks? Bacteriology is (among other topics) about finding and characterizing bacteria, including in an infection situation. Same for virology.
And a good number of studies on vaccines or infection do look at antibody titers, viral amount, or bacterial presence. These studies don’t rely uniquely on symptoms.

You:”Asymptomatic does not mean “germ-free”. I’m fine with my germs.”
By “germ-free”, I was not talking about all your germs. I was talking about the pathogen who tried to invade you and which your immune system was successful at killing. My point was, if your immune system mounts a response which is fast and strong enough against a specific pathogen, there will be none of this pathogen left to be spread around.
More precisely, there will be a lot less compared to someone whose immune system is still busy finding the proper antibodies to produce. Hence the interest of giving the immune system a leg start by injecting a less harmful version of the pathogen or of its constituents.

You: “Being asymptomatic does not mean you are infection free.”
Yes, this is correct, especially for viral infections (HIV is notorious for this). But this is not correct for all infections, and further, my point was that asymptomatic people have a lesser load of the pathogen (viral or bacterial) and are thus less contagious, on average, than people who exhibit symptoms, because their immune system is busy killing it.
Do you believe that, on the average population, for a specific illness, the severity of the symptoms does not correlate with the severity of the hold of the pathogen on the host? More severe symptoms, more free-roaming pathogens, less symptoms, more pathogens antagonized by the immune system?

You:”the body engages injected pathogens and “encountered” pathogens identicially”[not]
Yes, there are differences.
Will you agree that vaccines which mimic the natural way of entrance of a pathogen should be doing a good job at training your immune system? I am thinking of flumist, of anti-rotavirus vaccines (which are swallowed), of the anti-tetanus vaccine.
Now, for vaccines which do not precisely mimic the normal pathogen invasion, do you have a specific example in mind where this is an issue? I don’t deny this could be, I just would like to have a specific case to talk about.

What happens when both [host A, vaccinated against X, host B, not] are exposed to a novel pathogen? My money is on the Host not wasting resources looking for bugs introduced to it artificially and the one that has a strong cell mediated response (since that’s the where natural exposure occurs).

Could you elaborate on this? I don’t understand what you mean.
The host is wasting resources keeping all these memory B-cells ant T-cells around after a first encounter with a pathogen (or any antigen from the outside, actually). And the host is wasting resources producing antigen-presenting cells to chase around anything which does not belong to the inside of the body, regardless of previous exposure. How are vaccines disrupting this?

@Science Mom –

not for those, like you who act with authority and expertise but don’t know a B cell from a T cell.

Your sanctimonious bullshit grows old. I know the difference well, I thank you for your consideration.

Shouldn’t you have done that to begin with instead of generalising to the point of stupidity? Your ‘general’ responses were wrong because of the differences in disease epidemiology, vaccine effectiveness and host responses.

Good lawd woman, can you fit through the door with the conceit exploding your head? I suspect not. You chimed in during a general conversation that was in response to general fear mongering.

It’s working great. I get along swimmingly with those that are genuinely seeking information to make decisions. Ignorantly arrogant douches like you, not so much.

That’s because you’re an asshole incapable of seeing your own hypocrisy. As for being arrogant, I think your picture is next to the definition… regardless of the slobbering over your words wherever you may go.

Oh go whine and save the performance for someone who actually might give a toss.

You cared enough to talk shit to me, perhaps you should evaluate your own standards before you open your wide-ass mouth. As for kicking my ass? All you’ve managed to do (which is all you EVER manage to do) is claim superiority while saying nothing. Go kick the MDC moms some more, but before you put your big-ass foot in my direction, you had better make certain you’ve got reason for it.

All this from a closet-selectively-vaccinating hypocrite. You can suck it lady. When you’re ready to truly face your position and stop pretending, maybe we’ll talk again. Probably not.

Cheers

Heliantus,

I’m sorry. I forgot there was civil discussion here.

…infection do look at antibody titers, viral amount, or bacterial presence. These studies don’t rely uniquely on symptoms.

This is fair. In a clinical setting, we do rely mostly on symptoms. What occurs in a clinical setting transfers to epidemiology, and sometimes it is accompanied by laboratory findings. So in the real world?

My point was, if your immune system mounts a response which is fast and strong enough against a specific pathogen, there will be none of this pathogen left to be spread around.

I understand this. Let me see if I can clarify my position. Children (people) encounter pathogens on a daily basis. Sometimes that encounter will produce fever, etc… This tells us that the mucosa, and various other mechanisms, are working as they should and there is a successful non-specific response. Fair so far?

How can we know what pathogen was encountered (many do not warrant a doctor visit)? Isn’t it possible it was for a disease for which there is a vaccine? And if so, what would remain would be memory cells which cannot be measured. Fair?

Do you believe that, on the average population, for a specific illness, the severity of the symptoms does not correlate with the severity of the hold of the pathogen on the host? More severe symptoms, more free-roaming pathogens, less symptoms, more pathogens antagonized by the immune system?

I think there are too many things to consider. Diet, sleep, sunshine, etc… I think that a person that eats species appropriate (ie. mostly hunter/gatherer) and sleeps with the cycle of the sun has a better chance of fending off disease causing agents. I think that robust children who encounter those disease causing agents generally respond well, mount strong fevers, then the next day you have no idea what happened (this is has been my experience with 4 children). I think the knee-jerk response to contain a fever is a very bad practice.

Which leads to what I considered to be my biggest/only point: we have no idea who will respond well and who won’t. I don’t think vaccination status should be a determining factor, and all too often it is via epidemiology or the likes. And it is often used in debates, when it simply is not true.

Could you elaborate on this? I don’t understand what you mean.
The host is wasting resources keeping all these memory B-cells ant T-cells around after a first encounter with a pathogen (or any antigen from the outside, actually). And the host is wasting resources producing antigen-presenting cells to chase around anything which does not belong to the inside of the body, regardless of previous exposure. How are vaccines disrupting this?

I’m sorry, I was being a little sarcastic and trying to be simple so it may have made me unclear. There is some evidence for a allergic response to injected vaccine (pertussis). This is where I derived “introduced to it artificially”. There is also some evidence (though not conclusive) that hyperactive immune systems turn on the host (but I did not say that in my first post, and this is not an attempt to shift the goal posts, just an observation). Taken in totality, I chose the phrases that I did, albeit not perfect.

@Science Mom,

you come in swinging a big, limp dick and then shriek about ‘intellectual superiority’ of those that refute your bullshit.

You are incapable of seeing your own contribution to any altercation. We were getting along just fine until you started talking shit. Then you started to shove your ego down my throat, as per usual.

The problem is your inferiority complex; you think you know what others do but don’t want to do the work to actually achieve that knowledge and experience.

There are many here who aren’t scientists or physicians, don’t try to act like one and earn and achieve respect nonetheless.

Nice projection. I’m not acting like anything, except pissed off at you. And I’m certainly not here to earn your respect… Why would I? Every encounter I’ve ever had with you has ended in you slinging insults and shoving your intellect in my face (a very familiar story to a LOT of people). Similarly, I cannot respect people who fail to see the void in their own positions and stifle the exchange of information and ideas with their own prejudice.

I’m not here to argue the specifics of each vaccine and the disease, and I did not engage in a specific argument. I engaged in a general, rhetorical one (and it wasn’t mine, have a look up yonder) in hopes that vehement vaccine defenders would stop using such arguments and accept parents that decide to delay or forego vaccines and stop promoting discrimination. Using rhetoric and fear-laden arguments against them is not going to work because they do not stand up to scrutiny. Vaccination status is not the end-all, be-all of immune/health status. To act like it is, is intellectually dishonest

Sicence Mom @342

The problem is your inferiority complex; you think you know what others do but don’t want to do the work to actually achieve that knowledge and experience.

In other words, cynic is a prime example of gnoron.

I’m wondering if we’re looking at the “perfect solution fallacy”. The traditional form of it: “Why bother with social welfare programs? There are still going to be poor people!” The traditional response: “Why bother with police departments? There’s still going to be crime!”

Science Mom:

Stop listening to Hilary Butler, that’s a sure path to being mocked.

I remember when she was the Grand Dame of the sMothering forums. Then I heard she was also banned. I wonder how crazy she had to get to be banned from there!

I can’t be the first to think of this, but I’ve not seen it anywhere.

What would be the response if someone (heroically, unexpectedly) discovered a vaccine against autism? (And I do realise that rubella vaccination has that as a secondary effect.)

Do we know how the anti-vaccination promoters would react?

How did I miss this gem? The HUGE and I mean HUGE problem with publications like this one, babycenter.com, babble.com (the list is unending) is that it attacks otherwise rational people with “crazy” when they are the most susceptible to it. Speaking strictly for myself, I was so tired as a brand new mother (not to mention terrified and unsure of myself) that I would read things like this and begin to question my choices. I am not a complete idiot so as soon as I saw no vaccines, I’d have run from the exits and made sure that these devoted readers of mothering did not come within a mile of my brand new unvaccinated baby. They sow the seeds of irrationality at a time when mothers wanting to do the very best for their children, might believe more nonsense than they would were they not sleep-deprived, reeling from hormone instability, feeling less than competent and perhaps even a little (gasp) depressed. This is not only peddling of nonsense, it is deliberately using a new mother’s state to indoctrinate her into a religion of crazy. I think that it is morally repugnant and marketing of the worst sort. As for these, “if” people, what a weak and fence-sitting place to live. I imagine fenceposts are rather uncomfortable.

http://statgirlskewer.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-i-pick-on-babycentercomnot-just.html

A little frustrating that no one really attacked these institutions till a study came out – now everyone is attacking these organizations. I guess the studies were just great ammo.