Posted on 04/06/2014 9:06:58 AM PDT by Hojczyk
None of the New York parents who are refusing to vaccinate their children today were around the city in the summer of 1916, which is good for them and good for any of the kids they might have had. It was in that summer that 27,000 children nationwide were struck by a polio outbreak, 9,300 of them in New York. Of those 9,300 victims, 2,700 died. The Salk family at 116th St. and Madison Ave. escaped the scourge, meaning that their two-year-old son Jonas was spared. History notes that when he grew up, he had a little score-settling to do with the poliovirus.
Parents who oppose vaccines are not only misinformed, they’re spoiled, having grown up in a world that stands behind the berms built by the scientists and vaccine developers who came before them. If you’ve never seen measles — or polio or whooping cough or mumps — you have the luxury of believing they don’t exist.
“We live in a very healthy community,” said one of the sublimely glib doctors cited in the Mother Jones story. “The incidence of these diseases are very low, not only here but nationwide. And so it’s safe to do a modified vaccine schedule, in my opinion.”
But the incidence of these diseases is very low precisely because most doctors and parents don’t think the way you do and do vaccinate on schedule. “We live in a very dry community,” the doctor might as well have said. “So it’s safe not to maintain the levees and flood walls that have protected us until now, in my opinion.”
And so you drown; and so unvaccinated children get sick. The words “in my opinion” are not themselves some kind of rhetorical vaccine. They can, instead, be the pathogen. Like all pathogens, they can kill.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Another one of those statements that always seems to come out during these kinds of threads. Where and when did that happen?
And don't tell me during the ‘50s, because I was there. As a matter of fact I went to a measles party, a mumps party, and a chicken pox party. You know, those parties where one kid had it, and parents brought all the other kids over to catch it so that they didn't have it during the school year.
Funniest thing is (and this was during the middle of the baby boom so there were LOTS of kids then) nobody died. In fact those were just considered ‘normal’ childhood illnesses. And of all those kids that I have kept up with, none seems to be suffering from any ill effects. Strangely enough, at my company it is the people over 50 that have the best attendance record.
So exactly when did this epidemic of death take place?
The mother is the “environment” for babies. There is already a well established link between maternal age and autism.
This article has a good overview. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-maternal-age/
Speaking of incoherence:
“You’re openly admiring your vaccines don’t work, you admit they wouldn’t protect everyone even if everyone was vaccinated, you fantasize that the risk of infection increases through non-vaccination rather than actually infected people (who you admit pose a risk even to those vaccinated)”
I ain’t admiring(?) or admitting, but simply stating that vaccines reduces risk. I will take a reduced change of polio than sure chance of polio in a world full of un-vaccinated idiots. I think you will find your buddies in Talibastards who are killing polio workers.
Then why is the ‘environment’ of a 40yr old mother different from the ‘environment’ of another 40yr old mother?
Unless the argument involves some sort of protective mechanism of early youth pregnancy ‘protecting’ the eggs somehow. In that case it’s ‘environmental’ and related to the chemical/biological process in question. And not age related.
I am a strong advocate of vaccination. As a libertarian my philosophy is that I should not hurt others and that others shouldn't hurt me. Vaccination does that.
However....I am one of those people who went through the full series for Hep B and, yet, blood tests show that I have no immunity to the disease. I did not respond. I have chosen not to re-take the series due to my current occupation and extreme unlikelihood that I would be exposed to Hep B. ( I did respond to the Hep A vaccination.)
A certain percentage of people, given a particular vaccination, will not develop immunity. This is why my friend's child contracted measles even though he was vaccinated. Vaccinating large numbers of people in a population establishes herd immunity. If someone does contract a disease the chances of it spreading are greatly reduced.
Finally....Yaelle makes some good points. Single doses delivered in “one use” syringes would be better. And....Children should be vaccinated for the limited number of diseases that really are a threat to their health. My grandson was vaccinated against multiple diseases ( Hep B was one) within minutes of being born. Really? Is this necessary? I don't think so. I would think that just being born is enough of a stress on a newborn without adding an immune challenge to his tiny 6 1/2 pound system.
People seem to forget a major facet of the anti-vaccination debate:
Before Vaccines were created by doctors in the hopes of preventing disease, illness and horrible death. Now we have our Government behind the effort.
Our government has demonstrated nothing but loathing and harmful intent to it’s people.
I am a pretty intelligent guy, with a background in chemistry and biology (Although not bio-chemisty and human biology) and I don’t understand the chemicals that are in play - fully. Doctors would tell us “Listen, this seems to work” but only Government comes in and says “You (have to) do this”.
And that is where the hair on the back of my neck stands up. When the government says “Do this” it is NEVER for our benefit.
So yea, the government is why I choose not to vaccinate.
Genetic susceptibility. Most of the epidemiological studies are pointing at an interaction of genetics and environment.
There is no getting around the data on age. A mother over 40 has a 77% higher risk of having a child with autism than does a mother under 25.
If age was irrelevant, that risk differential would not exist or would be so small as to be irrelevant. Maternal age has no effect on color blindness or hemophilia, but infant gender does because they are x-linked recessive disorders.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/51/12/3353.full
The rates are increasing at about 3% a year worldwide, and it’s fairly constant throughout. The very best data is from the last 50 years in the Western world (20 years throughout) and it’s showing a steady uptick in every population. Interestingly, Northern Europeans and, of all places, Kuwait are leading the trend.
To get to the ‘meat’ of the article, go to the “Discussion” section.
The thing that raises my eyebrows the most is the age of onset is also getting younger, with even small infants being diagnosed. That actually has produced one theory: that susceptible kids are just getting sicker younger and that there may not be an overall increase after all. (We’ll see)
So whatever is triggering the disease is something that even very young kids are exposed to (or there’s something that they should’ve been exposed to in early infancy - pinworms, bacteria - that they’re *not* getting). Whatever the that is, began about 60 years ago.
“Talibastards” and “idiots” and a spelling error, (btw. You meant to say “change,” right) combined with a retreat on your actual intent?
Yeah, because that’s what you want here - FREE CHOICE - right? Yeah, sure you do.
And do when the Taliban kill vaccine workers, people in America who question vaccine safety are ON THE SIDE OF THE TALIBAN?!
On behalf of every soldier who died fighting those bastards, I say most sincerely, Screw You. You just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaccines are evil. No one arguing a genuine good would even think of such a foul thing to say. But someone arguing for evil wouldn’t even notice the difference.
So some women are genetically inclined to wait till 40 to have babies?
“There is no getting around the data on age. A mother over 40 has a 77% higher risk of having a child with autism than does a mother under 25.
If age was irrelevant, that risk differential would not exist or would be so small as to be irrelevant. Maternal age has no effect on color blindness or hemophilia, but infant gender does because they are x-linked recessive disorders.”
Back to my original question. If the studies point to an interaction of genetics and environment, what genetics are different in 40yr olds that haven’t had prior pregnancies compared to those that have? Because it looks like the entirety of that difference is the exposures between age 25 and age 40. Ie, the environment. The older you are, the more ‘exposed’ you are. Else there would also be age differences in strictly genetically heritable diseases as well.
One other interesting thing is that they’re realizing that there may be even more instances of T1D than we realize. It seems that every time an obese child is diagnosed with diabetes, it’s assumed that it’s T2 and further investigation is rarely done. (An actual test for insulin levels at the time of diagnosis would answer the question. T2 has high insulin levels, T1 would have low - before given their first dose.)
As obesity doesn’t make a child immune to T1 (autoimmune) diabetes, it’s been suggested that some of these children must be misdiagnosed and that the rate of T1D may be much higher. The CDC is trying to get a new study off the ground to investigate this possibility.
I’ll add to this discussion. My mom taught in a k-12 inclusive rural school beginning in 1964. NONE of their kids had t1d. Out of several hundred kids. That would have been a ‘big deal’ requiring a refrigerator for the kid’s insulin injections. Moreover they’d heard of kids who had bee sting allergies that were bad enough to kill but none of the kids in that school system ever had anything like that. There were no pediatric cancer cases either.
Fast forward to the same school system with the same demographics. Every year there are 3 or 4 pediatric cancer cases, there are double digit numbers of epi-pens on hold in the principal’s office, just in case. And there are 12-15 (depending on the year) t1d kids. I’m sure all that’s just ‘better diagnosis’ and ‘rent seeking’. /s
I was absolutely shocked when my sister (who lives in NYC) nonchalantly told me that before her newborn baby left the hospital the her little girl was given an HPV vaccine. The baby was THREE DAYS OLD!
When I asked her if the baby had received any other vaccines, she told me, no, the doctors said they were unnecessary and would only be required a few months later.
I bit my lip and kept my mouth shut, as our family was there to celebrate my first niece's homecoming and I didn't want to start an argument.
But I can't be the only one who thinks giving an HPV shot to a 3-day-old infant is crazy...am I?
Steep increases in caloric intake also occurred about 60 years ago along with the agricultural green revolution and technological advancements that created the modern urban sedentary, entertainment based lifestyle.
From what I’ve read, the greatest increases are occurring in developing countries, i.e. higher caloric intake.
So I’m not sure that diabetes is a function of a newly introduced pathogen or mechanism, so much as a function of lifestyle change evolving from technology.
I suspect increasing maternal obesity plays a large role in the increasing numbers of younger children developing the disease.
Or higher caloric-density in food. What looks like a relatively small portion can still contain tons of calories. We equate caloric intake with the size of the portion we see.
My daughter’s friends’ child was an eight week old infant, still on breast milk, when diagnosed. Type One isn’t part of the obesity problem. I’m talking about autoimmune diabetes, not Type Two. Weight has nothing to do with T1. (My son was normal weight when he developed the first symptoms and underweight at the time of diagnosis.)
Not true in NYC. My sister had her 3 day old infant vaccinated for HPV at LICH in Brooklyn. According to her, the doctors recommended it. This was the first vaccine the child ever had, before a Rotavirus, or DTaP, or even Hepatitis B...
I admit, I have issues with the HPV vaccine, but to do this so early in a child's life is insane. This about money, not health, and certainly not protecting children.
I guess you never sat through the night with a toddler who was having an adverse reaction to a vaccination. Rejecting all vaccines is probably not rational. Blindly accepting everything the medical establishment hawks is as well.
I thought your vaccines protected you from diseases.
Why would you care about unvaccinated people, unless your vaccines don’t work?
The question no rabid vaccinator can answer.
The most important thing to examine is an outbreak. Who were the victims? The latest whooping cough outbreak in CA had about 40% vaccinated children. Vaccination surely helps people not catch a disease, but sometimes it is only false security.
If you believe your child cannot catch pertussis, you might be setting yourself up for danger. You might panic, not realizing that pertussis can be mild and can cause discomfort and such, but it is not likely to kill and to understand how to treat it. Antibiotics may or may not be a good solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.