Thread: Shut-the-fuck-up... please! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025637
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
Unrepentant – MMR scare doctor Andrew Wakefield breaks his silence: Measles outbreak in Wales proves I was right
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:
Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol and an expert on childhood vaccines described Dr Wakefield's claims as "balderdash".
Prof Finn, I can think of better words...
AFZ
[ 12. April 2013, 20:55: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Adam Finn also said:
His proposal for single vaccines was not based on any observations in his published paper. It came straight out of his head.
I think, Prof. Finn, it might have come straight out of somewhere else.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Bastard scumbag - and I would *love* to see the peer reviewed evidence for whatever he's touting will help autism.
Not that I am cynical in anyway, oh no not at all
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
Calculated legal strategy to avoid liability perhaps?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
And as much as I like Private Eye they deserve a large measure of roasting for what they were printing at first.
[ 12. April 2013, 21:33: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Watch out in Texas. "Dr" Wakefield has been 'over there' since 2001 (see last para in AFZ's link).
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
And meanwhile, we got the results of my daughter's blood test back today confirming she has no immunity to measles, and we have no very clear idea of how to go about making her immune (see TICTH). However a helpful health visitor has said she'll discuss it with colleagues and get back to us, so perhaps we'll get this sorted out yet.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
I want to see that man prosecuted for manslaughter. I believe Brian Deer has shown beyond reasonable doubt that Andrew Wakefield set out to commit fraud.. Which means that everyone who died due to the MMR scare was killed by his fraud.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
As the parent of someone who was a child at the time of the MMR debacle, this bit scares the bejasus out of me:
quote:
Dr Wakefield moved to Texas, US, in 2001 where he is director of Medical Interventions for Autism and in January was promoting a reality TV series on autism.
Has he got Gillian McKeith advising on nutrition?
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on
:
If he's been struck off, doesn't that mean he can't call himself Doctor anymore?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
If he's been struck off, doesn't that mean he can't call himself Doctor anymore?
It just means that he can't practice medicine in the UK. I can't find a list of his degrees, so I don't know whether he has any kind of doctorate, or just the courtesy that holders of the MBBS and similar are afforded.
But the title "Doctor" isn't regulated - we're not Germany. He may call himself "Doctor" all he likes, so long as he doesn't pass himself off as a person able to practice medicine in the UK.
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
Speaking generally, with libel antennae fully extended, I can't understand how any individual who perverted research, feeding an immunisation scare which led to an outbreak of a potentially fatal, and frequently disabling disease, wouldn't be looking at the inside of a jail cell.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by argona
Speaking generally, with libel antennae fully extended, I can't understand how any individual who perverted research, feeding an immunisation scare which led to an outbreak of a potentially fatal, and frequently disabling disease, wouldn't be looking at the inside of a jail cell.
Two reasons:
1. Burden of proof required by the courts is higher than that required by professional disciplinary bodies, such as the GMC.
2. In any case, there is an ignoble history of the courts allowing the GMC to discipline doctors and then behaving as if nothing has happened because doctors are "professionals": how else to explain Shipman being allowed to continue as a doctor despite previously being found by the GMC to have (i) forged prescriptions; (ii) helped himself to unused Class A drugs; (iii) having not kept his controlled drugs register accurately; (iv) not having completed a recognised treatment for drug addiction. And then after a local undertaker reported the oddness of the high number of his patients being found dead fully dressed in their own homes the doctor alerted to investigate (the local coroner)failed to consult the GMC or ask them whether they knew of him, etc, etc, etc.
Post-Shipman things were meant to improve but they haven't.
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on
:
Of course, the single measles vaccination could have been made much more available rather than just to those who can afford it.
My wife and I decided not to get the MMR for our daughter but, instead, to get the single measles and rubella vaccines. The single mumps vaccine appears to have been withdrawn in the UK.
For those who are so sure that there is absolutely no correlation between multiple vaccines and damage to children (especially boys) the recent Italian MMR case should at least raise some questions.
But then we could maybe just prefer the warm glow of mouthing the opinion of the herd rather than actually investigating the facts.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In all honesty, I wouldn't trust an Italian court judgement as far as I could throw it. That country is developing a certain notoriety in my eyes when it comes to assigning responsibility to people who clearly wouldn't be assigned responsibility in most legal systems.
Such as scientists getting in trouble for the l'Aquila earthquake.
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
ETA - cross-post with Orfeo.
Given that the Italian judiciary recently jailed a group of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake (ie for something that cannot yet be done...) I'd say that anyone placing faith in said judiciary's judgement on science needs to think very, very hard about what they are saying.
Perhaps you'd care to share with us how you have investigated the facts of the case?
AG
[ 18. April 2013, 16:06: Message edited by: Sandemaniac ]
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on
:
Here's the award statement of the United States Court of Federal Claims which awarded damages to the parents of Ryan Mojabi who suffered "a severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as Autism Spectrum Disorder" "as a result of his receipt of the MMR vaccination on December 19, 2003".
I am not claiming to know for certain whether the MMR is a contributing factor to the development of autism or gastrointestinal disorders. I'd be relieved to find out that it does not. But why the dogged insistence that it is not and never has been a contributing factor, without at least taking into account evidence to the contrary? It seems to be more a matter of dogma than anything else. In the meantime, surely the prudent attitude is that of caution and falling back on what has a proven track record of safety, namely the single vaccines?
Perhaps we should start calling those who have doubts about the benefits of the triple vaccine "MMR deniers"?
[ 18. April 2013, 16:35: Message edited by: Craigmaddie ]
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on
:
And just for the record, the reason that the MMR became such a live issue for my wife and me was that her nephew - who already displayed a certain slowness in development - was damaged in an obvious way after being given the MMR. It was a dramatic change within two days of being given the vaccine. It is possible that for certain children a predisposition to autism is activated by the triple jab. Thankfully, most children are not damaged, but for the sake of saving money it appears that a minority of children - especially boys - are put at risk.
[ 18. April 2013, 16:46: Message edited by: Craigmaddie ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
This Wikipedia page cites statistical evidence form Canada and Japan which shows that autism rates increased even when MMR rates declined. This would not be the case if there was a causal link between MMR and autism.
[ 18. April 2013, 17:09: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Here's the award statement of the United States Court of Federal Claims which awarded damages to the parents of Ryan Mojabi who suffered "a severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as Autism Spectrum Disorder" "as a result of his receipt of the MMR vaccination on December 19, 2003".
What joy. A pro-disease acolyte of Nurgle has showed up on the thread. Whose first post on this thread was to cite the Daily Heil.
First we're going to start out with the fact that the only statement in that judgement that says anything about autism say that the parents alledge autism. The poor kid is undoubtedly brain damaged - but the finding of autism is not upheld. Indeed when the kid was screened for autism in 2004 he turned out to be negative.
So not autism then. But some form of brain damage. And the evidence given by the parents is massively different from the evidence in the medical file. And the trip to Tehran obfuscates everything.
Now it's possible that the child was the one in a million to be brain damaged by the vaccine. As opposed to the one in a thousand to be brain damaged by Measles. And that's a tragedy and why the fund was set up.
quote:
But why the dogged insistence that it is not and never has been a contributing factor, without at least taking into account evidence to the contrary?
Who says the evidence is not taken into account? Other than you and your fellow Acolytes of Nurgle? The evidence is taken into account, weighed, and found wanting. People have investigated the statistics pretty thoroughly and found no correlation. They have also investigated Wakefield thorughly and found he was in the pay of lawyers to find something to attack vaccines with - and his research methods were unethical and his findings unsubstantiated.
quote:
It seems to be more a matter of dogma than anything else. In the meantime, surely the prudent attitude is that of caution and falling back on what has a proven track record of safety, namely the single vaccines?
Because we're using the vaccine with an actually proven track record, that leaves children vulnerable for less time, and appears to be safer and more effective. Surely the prudent attitude is that of caution and falling back on what we have tested and used more thoroughly - MMR.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
I am not claiming to know for certain whether the MMR is a contributing factor to the development of autism or gastrointestinal disorders. I'd be relieved to find out that it does not. But why the dogged insistence that it is not and never has been a contributing factor, without at least taking into account evidence to the contrary? It seems to be more a matter of dogma than anything else. In the meantime, surely the prudent attitude is that of caution and falling back on what has a proven track record of safety, namely the single vaccines?
What at 3 x the cost to administer? Where is the NHS to find that kind of money from? Support for parents with disabled children?
The point is there is no evidence to contrary and the precautionary approach will cost lives somewhere else in the age of limited budgets.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
Well said, Justinian.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Of course, the single measles vaccination could have been made much more available rather than just to those who can afford it.
We have been round and round in circles. My daughter was ill after her first MMR and our GP refused to give her the booster. We've been advised by our NHS doctor and health visitor that they'd recommend we go private and get the single measles vaccine, but that privately administered vaccines aren't covered by the same regulations as NHS. And they don't recommend that we use non-NHS for precisely the same reason that they wouldn't give her the booster MMR.
I have no idea why the measles single vaccine isn't available on the NHS for children whose GPs won't adminster the full MMR but would be happy to administer a single vaccine.
Blood tests show that my daughter has no immunity to measles.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
While on the subject of vaccines the CIA shoudl die in a fire.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
This Wikipedia page cites statistical evidence form Canada and Japan which shows that autism rates increased even when MMR rates declined. This would not be the case if there was a causal link between MMR and autism.
Excellent point. The Tubblet needed her MMR at the height of the scare. We went through it all with a family member who's a GP. Children have the MMR vaccine around the same time autism usually starts manifesting which was one of the reasons people saw the potential connection. But even when the number of people getting MMR declined, the number of cases of autism remained unchanged. If there was a connection, you'd expect a decline. And you'd expect a difference in numbers between children presenting autism who'd had the MMR and who hadn't. IIRC, they said there wasn't one.
The Tubblet had the MMR. Not just for her, but for others she comes in contact with.
The protection that vaccinations give only works if enough people have it. Then North East's child would be protected. But because of Wakefield's research they didn't, so she isn't as covered as she could be. Although why the NHS doesn't provide single vacines for people in that situation is a mystery to me.
Oddly enough, I remember all the documentaries where parents where being interviewed at the height of the scare. They knew heaps about autism and fuck all about the diseases the vaccine protects people from. I always wondered how many of them would have been willing to risk measles if they'd known what it could do.
Tubbs
[ 20. April 2013, 20:22: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Measles made my uncle deaf in one ear. He's obviously lucky it wasn't worse than that.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
I have heard BS from anti-vaxers along the lines of "But all those terrible side effects from [measles, mumps, polio, etc] happened a hundred years ago when people were malnourished. Modern children who get enough vitamins wouldn't be affected so badly."
Drives me nuts.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Whereas I used to know quite well a friend's brother who lost the use of his legs through measles. He'll be in his 40s now, I guess. [ETA also the risks of sterility to adult men from mumps are well known]
[ 21. April 2013, 06:09: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I have heard BS from anti-vaxers along the lines of "But all those terrible side effects from [measles, mumps, polio, etc] happened a hundred years ago when people were malnourished. Modern children who get enough vitamins wouldn't be affected so badly."
Drives me nuts.
What a load of nonsense. But there's plenty more where that came from. We moved somewhere posh because of Rev T's job. There things that were seen as signs of bad parenting and not on - like not treating your kid for nits - where we lived before were now acceptable. Kids shouldn't have chemicals poured on their heads ... There could be side effects! They were going to try something they'd found on the Internet ... And then they'd wonder why everyone else's kids and their families kept getting nits every few weeks. (Frankly, I would have covered our heads with almost anything if would get rid of them. I hated having nits).
Tubbs
[ 21. April 2013, 16:35: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
According to the British Medical Journal BMJ 10% of children develop fever, malaise, and a rash 5-21 days after the first MMR vaccination. Our son had a febrile convulsion, which really scared us.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
my eldest son had febrile convulsions whenever he had fevers for the first two years of his life. had nothing to do with his shots. scary as shit, but it passed. and he's fine. hale and hearty, even. obsessive mountain bike rider and was prom king at his high school last week. studies medieval italian history in his spare time. girls call the house constantly. he eats anything that doesn't bite back.
has all his shots. obviously not seriously harmed by them and HEY he's alive despite asthma and a heart murmur, so hooray for immunity.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
According to the British Medical Journal BMJ 10% of children develop fever, malaise, and a rash 5-21 days after the first MMR vaccination. Our son had a febrile convulsion, which really scared us.
Yes, but- I assume you read the whole article- that statistic about side effects is given in the context of how much worse the side effects of the actual diseases are. A fever for a couple days is nothing compared to blindness, sterility, heart damage. Or death.
Some tiny number of people are injured by air bags or seat belts every year. Nobody argues that we shouldn't have air bags in cars because of those few people; air bags save so many more lives than they endanger.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Some tiny number of people are injured by air bags or seat belts every year. Nobody argues that we shouldn't have air bags in cars because of those few people; air bags save so many more lives than they endanger. [/QB]
I think some people do argue in such a way. I remember the row before seat belt legislation was brought in. Some will never be convinced by the fall in road casualties.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Every individual cases of possible side effects is disturbing and shocking to those who are affected. The hard thing to realise is that those events do not effect that general conclusion that it is better for the population as a whole to take the very very small risk of a bad side effect in exchange for the very very high percentage benefit of both individual and population disease prevention.
What seems to be at fault is the failure to understand that there is no such thing as an absolute copper bottomed 100% guarantee that any form of medical treatment is free from risk. We have this idea that our children must be 100% protected because we cannot bear the thought of anything bad happening to them. And that's not realistic.
The MMR vaccine is very, very safe. Which does not mean that proper follow up to rare cases of side effects is not a good idea. We might get some kind of better idea of why that happens and be able to reduce the exceptional risk thereby. But that has to be done calmly and carefully, avoiding jumping to conclusions. And even if some causation link is found in a rare case, that does not invalidate the general evidence of very very low risk, nor the sensible choice to decide to have children protected this way.
There is the well known logical fallacy that "after means as a result of". A few months ago, my wife and I both went down with a bad dose of 'flu very shortly after receiving 'flu jabs. By far the most likely reason is that we were already carrying the 'flu virus when we received the jabs and the incubation period was completed before any protection kicked in. None of which stopped some of our relatives querying the safety of the jab. We think we were just unlucky.
Coincidences happen. Apparently obvious conclusions don't stand up to detailed examination of the facts. And referring back to the OP, those so-called professionals who play on people's very natural concerns for reasons of their own are beneath contempt for the damage they cause.
I have sympathy for all those who, for whatever reasons, feel they were on the "down side" of the very very low risk and as a result have been drawn to question just how low that risk actually was. Trying to get to the bottom of what might have happened in any particular case is both understandable and necessary. Drawing any sorts of general conclusions from an individual case or from anecdotal evidence is really not wise. So far as Wakefield's so-called "evidence" goes, you can safely take it that he wasn't struck off without very good reason.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The hard thing to realise is that those events do not effect that general conclusion that it is better for the population as a whole to take the very very small risk of a bad side effect in exchange for the very very high percentage benefit of both individual and population disease prevention.
And, what is more, in the absence of known risk factors in a given individual, it is a better risk for that person to take the risk of a vaccine than to take the risk of the disease.
That balance of risk does change as the population achieves 'herd immunity', but even then, as the current measles outbreak is now demonstrating, if you are not immunised you are vulnerable to the decisions of others who may also choose not to be immunised, which, together with your decision, will lead to a breakdown in the herd immunity and leave you exposed to the disease in later life.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
According to the British Medical Journal BMJ 10% of children develop fever, malaise, and a rash 5-21 days after the first MMR vaccination. Our son had a febrile convulsion, which really scared us.
Yes, but- I assume you read the whole article- that statistic about side effects is given in the context of how much worse the side effects of the actual diseases are. A fever for a couple days is nothing compared to blindness, sterility, heart damage. Or death.
Some tiny number of people are injured by air bags or seat belts every year. Nobody argues that we shouldn't have air bags in cars because of those few people; air bags save so many more lives than they endanger.
IIRC, you got a leaflet that went through the potential side effects and gave some advice about what you did depending on what happened – ranging from Calpol to “Go to A&E, straight to A&E, do not pass go …” etc – and what you needed to flag up with your GP as it meant you shouldn’t have the booster. You’re only the second person I’ve come across whose child had convulsions – it’s very rare. Hopefully your child had no lasting effects from this – the other child I know is built like a brick shed and getting ready to go off to uni FWIW.
The BMJ you linked too states that 90% of children have no reaction to the vaccine at all and there has been no change in the number of children diagnosed with autism or Crohn's since the MMR was introduced in the UK. If there was a connection between the two things, there would be a change. The family friend who was a GP that I mentioned in a previous post also commented that no one had ever managed to reproduce Wakefield’s findings – that’s no one ever – and that wasn’t for want of trying.
The measles epidemic in Wales has resulted in a death. RIP Gareth Colfer-Williams. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
The sad thing is that heath bosses fear that there could be more.
Tubbs
[ 22. April 2013, 12:02: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Unfortunately this doesn't mean that Wakefield will be charged with manslaughter although morally he perhaps ought to be.
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
According to the British Medical Journal BMJ 10% of children develop fever, malaise, and a rash 5-21 days after the first MMR vaccination. Our son had a febrile convulsion, which really scared us.
Yes, but- I assume you read the whole article- that statistic about side effects is given in the context of how much worse the side effects of the actual diseases are. A fever for a couple days is nothing compared to blindness, sterility, heart damage. Or death.
Some tiny number of people are injured by air bags or seat belts every year. Nobody argues that we shouldn't have air bags in cars because of those few people; air bags save so many more lives than they endanger.
Thankfully he's never had a febrile convulsion since. And now he's a healthy teenager.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
But why the dogged insistence that it is not and never has been a contributing factor, without at least taking into account evidence to the contrary?
Because there isn't any evidence to the contrary. Wakefield lied in his paper, and was struck off the medical register for it. Other studies have been done and they haven't shown a link. Where is this evidence we should be taking into account?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
@ Amorya
On the other hand the health "professionals" do sometimes ignore genuine concerns about the safety of the vaccination schedule for certain infants, specifically the premature and underweight.
I know of pre-term twins who weighed exactly half the average when the date of the first vaccination was reached. After emergency hospital admission they spent 4 nights extremely unwell before being able to go home. The mother was referred to a consultant paediatrician who recommended that either the vaccine dose be reduced to be commensurate with their weight or that vaccination be delayed until they were bigger.
The health visitor dismissed this out-of-hand, backed up the the GP. So the second vaccination was given, followed by a blue-light admission and 14 nights in hospital. Vaccination given assumed baby weight somewhere between 5 and 7 1/2kg - babies weighed 3 1/2kg.
When the next vaccination date came around the mother refused, backed up by a letter from the consultant paediatrician (now very cross): health visitor again questioned and GP threatened to remove family from list.
Mother found another GP who worked with consultant. Repeated letters from NHS demanding babies be presented for vaccination were replied to by consultant but ignored.
Vaccination eventually worked out by consultant so that it took account of low weight: immunity achieved and children not hospitalised.
However, NHS websites still say very small babies should be vaccinated as normal -in fact say more important: that may be but until and unless doses are reduced proportionately I'd not be prepared to risk it - would you?
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Absolutely. Anecdotes like this are often not tested and are often second or third hand. It does not discount the evidence based medicine that vaccination is safe in pre-termers and low birth weight bubs.
I have seen children die from vaccine preventable diseases. It is unpleasant.
This does not discount the emotional validity or distress of your friends. But their account may be coloured by their distress and not represent the factual medical truth. Any number of factors may have contributed that are not vaccine specific. This does not discount the pain caused to your friends, or their understandable concern.
[ 23. April 2013, 10:31: Message edited by: Patdys ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
This does not discount the emotional validity or distress of your friends. But their account may be coloured by their distress and not represent the factual medical truth. Any number of factors may have contributed that are not vaccine specific. This does not discount the pain caused to your friends, or their understandable concern.
Exactly. There's a difference between a concern being genuine and the reasoning behind a concern being well-founded.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Patdys
Anecdotes like this are often not tested and are often second or third hand. It does not discount the evidence based medicine that vaccination is safe in pre-termers and low birth weight bubs.
1. Not an anecdote: twins were close family; I took my turn sitting between cots in paediatric ITU.
2. I accompanied on visits to the consultant paediatrician. Also went to first GP with parent to try to mediate.
3. I didn't say that vaccination isn't possible/safe in pre-term and low-weight infants: but what I did say - based on conversations with paediatrician at the time and subsequently - is that a "one-size fits all" approach in relation to dosage is not sensible and can be unsafe. And parents of low-weight infants should be extremely cautious because there are plenty of health "professionals" who can't be bothered to find out about exceptions/special cases and so don't consider they exist.
I think vaccination should be pursued by all responsible parents - but I also think the health staff should consider genuine concerns and learn about instances where things may need to be different.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Patdys
This does not discount the emotional validity or distress of your friends. But their account may be coloured by their distress and not represent the factual medical truth. Any number of factors may have contributed that are not vaccine specific. This does not discount the pain caused to your friends, or their understandable concern.
Apologies if it was unintentional but, frankly, this sounds unbelievably patronising: "emotional validity" - what the hell is that? "Factual medical truth" is what I gave you - and said so in my original post.
"Any number of factors" - you were told the specific factor - extreme low weight. That factor was not invented by the mother or father, it was cited as a factor by 2 consultant paediatricians.
My family members (and friends, by the way) were not "caused pain" - their children became extremely ill and were taken to hospital by ambulance with blue lights flashing, sirens, etc. Don't know if you're UK based? Here in the land of the NHS you don't get admitted to hospital unless its an emergency - you can't book yourself in: you certainly don't get cots in a paediatric ITU unless there is a bloody good reason - quite apart from anything else we don't have enough of these facilities and doctors will move heaven and earth to get babies out of them as quickly as possible because there's usually a queue of infants who need an ITU cot and one isn't available.
An in-patient hospital consultant paediatrician was sufficiently concerned he wrote to a colleague to refer these infants - and copied the GP in on that citing the vaccination, low-birth weight and continuing low weight.
The "understandable concern" was understood by and confirmed by the second consultant: both consultant paediatricians put those "concerns" in writing - shame those concerns were ignored by a GP, 2 health visitors and a practice nurse.
Whilst I realise that an instance like this may be rare, your reaction does not inspire confidence in people who can observe on an almost daily basis genuine concerns, even those expressed by other, more senior doctors, being routinely ignored by GPs and nurses.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
But why the dogged insistence that it is not and never has been a contributing factor, without at least taking into account evidence to the contrary?
There is consistently strong evidence that MMR has no large-scale effect on incidence of Autism.
The simplest evidence is that after MMR was withdrawn in Japan, and replaced with single vaccines, incidence of autism continued to rise.
The Japanese study cannot rule out the possibility that MMR triggers autism in a tiny minority of children who are susceptible for reasons we don't yet understand. However until we *do* understand those reasons - if any, and can identify the tiny number of susceptible children - if any, there's really only one sensible option.
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
I have a totally untested and unscientific theory, but based on observing a lot of different children who I worked with as a TA responsible for SEN children. That children with autism generally have both a phenomenal memory (and struggle to just shrug things off like normal children. Getting over things that concern them takes hours/days longer than other children) and also have a strong aversion to physical touch. It strikes me that 'autistic symptoms' that comes up from the MMR (or any other jab-type vaccine) might simply be from panic caused by someone unfamiliar with them touching them, causing them minor pain, and not being able to get over it quickly. Fundamentally what is happening is not that they 'become autistic', but that it is the point at which the world stops being a safe place and the symptoms start to emerge, particularly as it is at about that age that the first signs of autistic behaviour generally start to emerge. However, as I say, I have virtually no basis for this in science, merely observation.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
But why the dogged insistence that it is not and never has been a contributing factor, without at least taking into account evidence to the contrary?
Because there isn't any evidence to the contrary. Wakefield lied in his paper, and was struck off the medical register for it. Other studies have been done and they haven't shown a link. Where is this evidence we should be taking into account?
There's evidence - such as the case highlighted by L'organist - that in very specific circumstances it's better to wait before vaccinating. But those are the exception rather than the rule.
But there is no external / independant evidence that supports Wakefield's findings.
Tubbs
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Tubbs
There's evidence - such as the case highlighted by L'organist - that in very specific circumstances it's better to wait before vaccinating. But those are the exception rather than the rule.
Exactly: my own children were vaccinated as a matter of course.
The only reason I wasn't is that I'm so old the only thing available was Whooping Cough (pertussis)and Polio - BCG at 13. (Oh, and polio done with a HUGE needle...!
I think part of the problem is a disconnect between the medical profession on one hand and the older generation on the other.
Example? Well, I've had chicken pox, and measles, and German measles (rubella), and mumps, and whooping cough as well (vaccination too late...). No, I personally didn't suffer any lasting side effects other than multi-coloured teeth from the whooping cough (the disease and the early form of vaccine could affect the developing 2nd teeth - annoying but not deadly). And while most of my peers had the same list of illnesses I personally don't know of any who suffered any lasting effects. My partner knew of one chap who developed hearing problems some time after measles - but he came from a family with a history of deafness so who knows??
And I'm not unique - that is pretty typical of many of us born before the vaccinations became available, because the side effects were pretty rare. You see, one's mama knew that your eyes would become sensitive and so you were kept in semi-darkness: now I'm told that was a side-effect but we didn't know it at the time and some of us don't know it or acknowledge it now.
Meanwhile, the message being broadcast by the health professionals is that measles is is very serious, that side effects are common, that people will die, etc, etc, etc - and we just don't believe it because it didn't happen to us or anyone we knew. And this apocryphal belief is handed down in families...
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Apologies if it was unintentional but, frankly, this sounds unbelievably patronising: "emotional validity" - what the hell is that? "Factual medical truth" is what I gave you - and said so in my original post.
It was an extremely patronising post.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Meanwhile, the message being broadcast by the health professionals is that measles is is very serious, that side effects are common, that people will die, etc, etc, etc - and we just don't believe it because it didn't happen to us or anyone we knew. And this apocryphal belief is handed down in families...
Quite.
Me and my mates in Indonesia had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and most normal childhood diseases. They were not scary diseases.
The stats people come up with these days for diseases like measles are most likely based on hospitalised cases rather than normal cases. Hence they are skewed
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
And since we're sharing rare anecdotes, my son reacted badly to two vaccines.
It was the first time I thought to think twice.
My GP new fuck all about possible side effects.
I was never warned my son might end up significantly disabled from a vaccine (regardless of how rare it might be).
That's just so, so, so, so wrong.
I believe laws have changed more recently tho. I think parents are legally obliged to be warned now.
Better late than never.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Meanwhile, the message being broadcast by the health professionals is that measles is is very serious, that side effects are common, that people will die, etc, etc, etc - and we just don't believe it because it didn't happen to us or anyone we knew. And this apocryphal belief is handed down in families...
I'm not so sure about that. I think the reason that people of my generation (with rare exceptions) were all given all our vaccinations is that when our parents were children, their families all DID know someone who had a lost a child to measles, whooping cough and the like. My maternal grandmother, for example, had a little sister who died at the age of 11 months from an infectious disease. Our grandparents knew perfectly well how dangerous all those childhood illnesses could be.
When vaccinations were performed in my school (child of the 80s), the only person who didn't get them was someone who was allergic.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I'm not so sure about that. I think the reason that people of my generation (with rare exceptions) were all given all our vaccinations is that when our parents were children, their families all DID know someone who had a lost a child to measles, whooping cough and the like. My maternal grandmother, for example, had a little sister who died at the age of 11 months from an infectious disease. Our grandparents knew perfectly well how dangerous all those childhood illnesses could be.
When vaccinations were performed in my school (child of the 80s), the only person who didn't get them was someone who was allergic.
Yes- my mother remembers, at age 5 or 6, standing in a long, long line of other young Baby Boomers waiting for the polio vaccine pretty much the minute it became available. What a miracle for my grandparents' generation, that a terrible, crippling disease that they dreaded every summer suddenly wasn't a risk to their children anymore.
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
.
Me and my mates in Indonesia had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and most normal childhood diseases. They were not scary diseases.
The stats people come up with these days for diseases like measles are most likely based on hospitalised cases rather than normal cases. Hence they are skewed
.
Well bully for you then, it must be a figment of my imagination that my normal, non-hospitalised, case of measles left my with very damaged eyesight.
Posted by nomadicgrl (# 7623) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
.
Me and my mates in Indonesia had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and most normal childhood diseases. They were not scary diseases.
The stats people come up with these days for diseases like measles are most likely based on hospitalised cases rather than normal cases. Hence they are skewed
.
Well bully for you then, it must be a figment of my imagination that my normal, non-hospitalised, case of measles left my with very damaged eyesight.
I have within my circle of known people (1)My mother in law - measles, non hospitalized. Left with permanent heart damage. (2) My pastor -measles, non hospitalized. Left with seriously damaged eyesight. (3) Pastor's twin brother - non hospitalized. Left deaf in one ear. (4) Family friend, Polio, hospitalized. Left entirely lame on one side. All of these effects were results of diseases contracted in the early 50s (polio late 40s). All had adequate nutrition and hygienic homes - just to forestall another common argument in the "vaccines aren't necessary anymore" train of thought.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The evidence overwhelmingly shows the existance of negative health effects in a significant number of non-vaccinated people.
The evidence overwhelmingly fails to show any significant link between autism and MMR.
Will some people have a poor reaction to a vaccine? Yes. There are people allergic the the fucking sun. Water, cold, touch!, are some others.
The point is how many people will be harmed themselves, or harm others, by lack of vaccination v. the infinitesimal amount harmed by being vaccinated.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Meanwhile, the message being broadcast by the health professionals is that measles is is very serious, that side effects are common, that people will die, etc, etc, etc - and we just don't believe it because it didn't happen to us or anyone we knew. And this apocryphal belief is handed down in families...
I'm not so sure about that. I think the reason that people of my generation (with rare exceptions) were all given all our vaccinations is that when our parents were children, their families all DID know someone who had a lost a child to measles, whooping cough and the like. My maternal grandmother, for example, had a little sister who died at the age of 11 months from an infectious disease. Our grandparents knew perfectly well how dangerous all those childhood illnesses could be.
When vaccinations were performed in my school (child of the 80s), the only person who didn't get them was someone who was allergic.
I remember reading my gran's house-keeping manual - a collection of recipes, household tips and medical advice - published in the 1930's as a child. The chapters on childhood diseases were scary as they were explicit about what little could be done to treat them and that death / lasting repercussions were a real possibility. That generation accepted the diseases as a normal part of growing up along with the health risks. Most people in the pre-vaccination generation would have known someone affected. The post-vaccination generation doesn't and then is shocked to learn that these normal, childhood diseases aren't that harmless.
Tubbs
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
It is also true that diseases do not have the same virulence all the time. Take rheumatic fever. It was a real killer and even if you survived was likely to damage your heart. My sister was rushed to hospital when it was suspected in the 1970s. Yes it was one of the dreaded childhood diseases. No vaccination for it though. It just stopped spreading or the doses of it became so mild people did not notice it.
My memory and I went through most of the childhood diseases in the 1970s was that they were nasty but not usually threatening. I have had measles, mumps, chicken pox, German measles and whooping cough (despite vaccination). The problem was that without vaccination we did not know when they might start being lethal again. You were basically playing Russian Roulette with this diseases.
Jengie
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Patdys
Anecdotes like this are often not tested and are often second or third hand. It does not discount the evidence based medicine that vaccination is safe in pre-termers and low birth weight bubs.
1. Not an anecdote: twins were close family; I took my turn sitting between cots in paediatric ITU.
2. I accompanied on visits to the consultant paediatrician. Also went to first GP with parent to try to mediate.
3. I didn't say that vaccination isn't possible/safe in pre-term and low-weight infants: but what I did say - based on conversations with paediatrician at the time and subsequently - is that a "one-size fits all" approach in relation to dosage is not sensible and can be unsafe. And parents of low-weight infants should be extremely cautious because there are plenty of health "professionals" who can't be bothered to find out about exceptions/special cases and so don't consider they exist.
I think vaccination should be pursued by all responsible parents - but I also think the health staff should consider genuine concerns and learn about instances where things may need to be different.
It was not meant to be patronising. I am sorry. What I was trying and failed to convey is that we are coloured by our experience. You and your family, me and some other families. But our personal experiences should not dictate medical practice. It is the weight of evidence, published and reviewed, that should be the basis for public health policy.
I think we probably are very close in our opinion on vaccination. There are good and valid reasons for delaying. Some vaccines have had dose reduction (flu). And I guess we never defined which particular vaccines we were discussing. I had assumed it was the usual childhood disease vaccinations. For the majority of vaccines, weight has not proved to be an issue.
We shouldn't value our anecdotes and experiences over evidence based medicine and let it inform medical practice. The thread is full of anecdotes. All valid experiences. All truthful. But with contradictory conclusions.
Again I am sorry for not conveying my thoughts well.
Evensong, you have made your views known in the past on vaccination. We are not going to find any middle ground on this issue.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is also true that diseases do not have the same virulence all the time. Take rheumatic fever. It was a real killer and even if you survived was likely to damage your heart. My sister was rushed to hospital when it was suspected in the 1970s. Yes it was one of the dreaded childhood diseases. No vaccination for it though. It just stopped spreading or the doses of it became so mild people did not notice it.
Jengie
It has not stopped spreading in this part of the world, unfortunately, and the effects are as bad as ever. See here: NZ Doctor Magazine. Of course this will never get fixed because it requires more of a socioeconomic solution and there is no political will for that as long as the victims continue to be those who 'don't matter' politically.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Patdys
It is the weight of evidence, published and reviewed, that should be the basis for public health policy.
Weight of evidence is not available: little if any research has been carried out into whether or not dosages should be adjusted according to weight if any infant is very small compared to its for-age peers. Informally, some paediatricians have kept an eye on this but trying to get funding for a study ... Well, what drug company is going to fund it - and no government will either while they're trying to achieve herd immunity rates of vaccination.
quote:
I think we probably are very close in our opinion on vaccination. There are good and valid reasons for delaying. Some vaccines have had dose reduction (flu). And I guess we never defined which particular vaccines we were discussing. I had assumed it was the usual childhood disease vaccinations. For the majority of vaccines, weight has not proved to be an issue.
I was discussing standard UK vaccinations: Diptheria/Tetanus/Whooping Cough/Polio/Hib - and weight proved to be a big issue.
quote:
We shouldn't value our anecdotes and experiences over evidence based medicine and let it inform medical practice. The thread is full of anecdotes. All valid experiences. All truthful. But with contradictory conclusions.
I made it clear I was not being anecdotal but factual. In any case, a lot of medical history taking involves what can be called anecdote - that is why doctors ask "what seems to be the problem" and "what symptoms do you have" - otherwise how would they start to take a history, hm?
My own experience of "evidence based medicine" recently is not good: in fact the last person I knew whose doctors waited for the "right" symptoms before sending them for tests didn't do too well - they only produced the "standard" and "right" symptoms 48 hours before death.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Evidence based medicine is based on the prevailing philosophy of medicine at the time. The questions you ask and the questions you do not ask will dictate the evidence you collect or the evidence you ignore.
The "scientific endeavor" is based on noticing correlations ( x happened then y happened so perhaps they are related) and investigating them for evidence.
Correlation certainly does not prove causation but neither does it rule it out altogether.
Only without bias can the "truth" be investigated and "evidence" for that found.
But we are human beings......we do not exist without bias.
So all those dingbats (like the New Atheists) that say they believe only "the evidence" are not registering the fact that a bias is already implicit in "the evidence".
The questions you ask determine the answers you get.
But if you don't ask questions you never get anywhere.
So life is really just a viscous hermeneutical circle.
( I think that covers my philosophical musings quota for the day ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Patdys
It is the weight of evidence, published and reviewed, that should be the basis for public health policy.
Weight of evidence is not available: little if any research has been carried out into whether or not dosages should be adjusted according to weight if any infant is very small compared to its for-age peers. Informally, some paediatricians have kept an eye on this but trying to get funding for a study ... Well, what drug company is going to fund it - and no government will either while they're trying to achieve herd immunity rates of vaccination.
Quelle surprise!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
L'organist, we are using language differently I think . I hear what you are saying. I am happy to leave things here if you wish, or I can unpack what I mean by evidence based medicine and anecdote etc if you wish. PM may be easier.
Evensong, we are using language differently I think. I am trying to communicate in English. You appear to be trying to be a tool.
Of note, you have been more successful in your purpose than me in mine.
<sigh>
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Evidence based medicine is based on the prevailing philosophy of medicine at the time. The questions you ask and the questions you do not ask will dictate the evidence you collect or the evidence you ignore.
Do you really, seriously, think that this does not happen as part of the 'scientific endeavour' as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The "scientific endeavor" is based on noticing correlations ( x happened then y happened so perhaps they are related) and investigating them for evidence.
From where I'm sitting, it's increasingly about trying to find something [hopefully] original to look at, which has more than a snowball's chance in hell of attracting some funding...
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Only without bias can the "truth" be investigated and "evidence" for that found.
And with funding. Let's not forget the funding.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So life is really just a viscous hermeneutical circle.
viscous? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/viscous
or vicious perhaps...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is also true that diseases do not have the same virulence all the time. Take rheumatic fever. It was a real killer and even if you survived was likely to damage your heart. My sister was rushed to hospital when it was suspected in the 1970s. Yes it was one of the dreaded childhood diseases. No vaccination for it though. It just stopped spreading or the doses of it became so mild people did not notice it.
Jengie
It has not stopped spreading in this part of the world, unfortunately, and the effects are as bad as ever. See here: NZ Doctor Magazine. Of course this will never get fixed because it requires more of a socioeconomic solution and there is no political will for that as long as the victims continue to be those who 'don't matter' politically.
The Wiki entry states that, “Rheumatic fever is common worldwide and responsible for many cases of damaged heart valves. In Western countries, it became fairly rare since the 1960s, probably due to widespread use of antibiotics to treat streptococcus infections. While it has been far less common in the United States since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been a few outbreaks since the 1980s. Although the disease seldom occurs, it is serious and has a case-fatality rate of 2–5%”.
The Wiki entry didn’t mention anything about antibiotic resistance in relation to rheumatic fever, but I’m guessing that this could possible in the future.
The Wiki entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhumatic_fever
Tubbs
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
Weight of evidence is not available: little if any research has been carried out into whether or not dosages should be adjusted according to weight if any infant is very small compared to its for-age peers. Informally, some paediatricians have kept an eye on this but trying to get funding for a study ... Well, what drug company is going to fund it - and no government will either while they're trying to achieve herd immunity rates of vaccination.
We've also run up against the "this hasn't been researched" problem. My daughter had her first MMR at 14 months, but although she was the right age, she had health issues which meant she wasn't weaned, in fact wasn't close to being weaned; she was still getting most of her useable calories from breast-feeding. My health visitor wondered retrospectively if the first MMR should have been delayed until she was weaned, given that she was probably still getting some residual protection from my breast milk. But she found that there was no research at all on giving the MMR to unweaned toddlers, for the perfectly good reason that the number of children still primarily breastfed at 14 months is vanishingly small. It is possible that had we delayed my daughter's first MMR, she wouldn't have had a bad reaction, and would have had her booster with no problem. But we just don't know.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Evidence based medicine is based on the prevailing philosophy of medicine at the time. The questions you ask and the questions you do not ask will dictate the evidence you collect or the evidence you ignore.
Do you really, seriously, think that this does not happen as part of the 'scientific endeavour' as well?
Uh no. Last time I checked, medicine was a scientific endeavor.
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Only without bias can the "truth" be investigated and "evidence" for that found.
And with funding. Let's not forget the funding.
One reason why medical care should never be fully privatized. Profit does not make truth. Far from it.
As I said, bias abounds in the so called areas where people believe "only the evidence".
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As I said, bias abounds in the so called areas where people believe "only the evidence".
I suppose anecdotes beat evidence. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I suppose you can suppose as much as you like.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Ah, postmodern scepticism at work. Here's the process.
"Once you look at the social behaviour of scientists and medical folks, you'll realise it's just another power game. Doesn't really get at the truth of anything does it?
After all, look at Andrew Wakefield's profile during his period of fame.
Such a pity that he turned out to have an axe to grind. Ah well, just another so-called scientist/medic type proving they're not to be trusted you know. But maybe he really was right all along? I mean, how can you tell who to trust these days. They're all in it for something you know.
People say you shouldn't pay too much attention to anecdotal evidence. But why not? I don't see why it's any less likely to be right than the so called findings of so-called experts. After all, we all know what they can be like. Change their minds whenever the research grant changes, if you ask me. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
I'd rather make up my own mind, you know. Don't confuse me with so-called facts. When it come to your facts, that is. How can anyone be sure how factual those facts really are?"
Something like that anyway. It's a consistent form of incoherence, hard to argue anyone out of.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ah, postmodern scepticism at work. Here's the process.
<succinct description deleted, see above>
It's a consistent form of incoherence, hard to argue anyone out of.
How to argue someone out of incoherence:
Exhibit A: The Clue Bat.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ah, postmodern scepticism at work. ..................It's a consistent form of incoherence, hard to argue anyone out of.
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
— Jonathan Swift
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Me and my mates in Indonesia had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and most normal childhood diseases. They were not scary diseases.
The Evensong school of reasoning: most people get over the flu. Therefore millions of people didn't die in 1918-19.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Wades sluggishly through strawman after strawman.
Boooooooooooring
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You're the one who decided that measles "wasn't a scary disease".
It's damn scary. That's precisely why it gets vaccinated against.
Rubella gets vaccinated against not because of the damage it can do to you as a kid but because of the damage it can do to unborn children.
The whole reason for vaccinating against these diseases is because people saw a need for a vaccine. People don't prioritise trying to find vaccines for common colds because common colds don't have much significance. For you to just go 'pfft, no big deal' is frankly pretty damn appalling.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
One time I was riding my motorcycle and came to a newly-installed stop sign on the lonely Canadian highway. I slowed to stop... and I noticed a pair of largish headlights looming in my mirrors. A logging truck, and it wasn't slowing down. I quickly darted my bike through the light and off to the side of the road, and the logging truck blew through with nary a flicker of its brake lights. Would have certainly killed me if I hadn't moved.
Similarly, one of my motorcycle riding friends stopped at a stop sign in Victoria, and promptly found himself sitting on the hood of a Civic with his bike punted across the intersection. The driver "hadn't expected him to stop".
CLEARLY, motorcycle riders should never stop at indicated stops. Right? Maybe NOBODY should stop at indicated stops! Because this relatively rare and terrible thing could happen! And everybody knows that the government only puts them in due to the corrupt Big Sign lobby, and the ticket revenues for those wise enough to ignore them.
Fuck. You. Fuck each and every one of you anti-vaccine selfish idiotic fucks. You're walking trash cans of cognitive biases corroding reason.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So life is really just a viscous hermeneutical circle.
viscous? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/viscous
or vicious perhaps...
Or it could mean she's really thick.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
If you truly believe the reduction from 535,000 to 158,000 deaths per year for a preventable disease due to vaccination is boring, then stuff you.
This is why epidemiology and population medicine is so important. Yes we have our own experiences of vaccination or not vaccinating consequnces; ourselves and friends and families. These are anecdotes; individual cases; not a perjorative term nor taking anything away from those who have experienced them. But it is the mass numbers of cases, the collection of anecdotes, the large studies that are important in public health decisions.
We cannot afford to let single incidents, or even dozens, guide public policy. Policy must be based on epidemiology- evidence based medicine. And we cannot allow flawed or fraudulent studies- bad evidence based medicine- to guide public policy.
But to dismiss vaccination; despite its recognised side effects and bad outcomes; will open up a flood of cases with much worse outcomes overall.
And I have seen the consequences of not vaccinating. And it is heart breaking. At an individual level, just as heart breaking as those who have had significant vaccine related side effects. But at population levels, it will be so much worse.
Please do not trivialise this issue. And read the title of the op.
[cross posts]
[ 25. April 2013, 03:51: Message edited by: Patdys ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I was in a viscous circle once. Sigh. College.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Evidence based medicine is based on the prevailing philosophy of medicine at the time. The questions you ask and the questions you do not ask will dictate the evidence you collect or the evidence you ignore.
The "scientific endeavor" is based on noticing correlations ( x happened then y happened so perhaps they are related) and investigating them for evidence.
Correlation certainly does not prove causation but neither does it rule it out altogether.
Only without bias can the "truth" be investigated and "evidence" for that found.
But we are human beings......we do not exist without bias.
So all those dingbats (like the New Atheists) that say they believe only "the evidence" are not registering the fact that a bias is already implicit in "the evidence".
The questions you ask determine the answers you get.
But if you don't ask questions you never get anywhere.
So life is really just a viscous hermeneutical circle.
( I think that covers my philosophical musings quota for the day )
If this is an attempt to dismiss the scientific method altogether, including the very necessary large scale epidemiological studies that Patsy is talking about, I have to point out that it is a spectacular failure.
Your logic isn't great here, ES. If the risks associated with not vaccinating are greater than the risks associated with vaccinating, than we should vaccinate. They are, so we should.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Patdys Mr Wayne.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I can't believe that anyone can say that measles isn't a scary disease. It's one of the big killers of children, worldwide. This is so irresponsible.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ah, postmodern scepticism at work. ..................It's a consistent form of incoherence, hard to argue anyone out of.
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
— Jonathan Swift
Or a woman. But I like the quote.
The problem in this case is not that Evensong lacks the power to reason. The problem is the penchant for minority viewpoints arising out of some strange sense of balance.
In general, I'm much in favour of sticking up for minorities and even more in favour of avoiding automatic thinking.
There's some value in testing ideas against the obdurate thinker, as those of us who had long experience of Myrrh and climate change debate here can testify. But it gets a bit wearing after a while.
Evensong, here's a bit of news, You've already lost an argument you could not possibly win.
And a plea.
Please give it a rest. Please find some other minority viewpoint to defend - one which has less potential for real harm. There are plenty of options around.
There's a point at which continuing obstinacy just becomes plain stupid.
[ 25. April 2013, 08:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Patdys Mr Wayne.
I know. But 'Patsy' makes me giggle.
I mean calling you Patsy makes me giggle. I had an Aunt Patsy. Strange woman. Not funny strange. May she rest in peace.
But since you put it so politely, I will call you whatever you want.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Referring to minority views above, I think also amongst yuppies in the UK, there has been a kind of skepticism about science in recent years. I'm not quite sure where this comes from, but the Wakefield stuff tapped right into this. Interesting that Private Eye did some weird articles seeming to doubt MMR, but then PE is a kind of radical middle class magazine.
But we can now see the deadly consequences of such folly. Childhood deaths from measles used to be counted in the millions world-wide, but it is now falling because of vaccination.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Referring to minority views above, I think also amongst yuppies in the UK, there has been a kind of skepticism about science in recent years. I'm not quite sure where this comes from
A populist take on Lyotard and Foucault? Amongst others.
There's a nice quote at the end of the Foucault article, which seems to work here.
quote:
Roger Scruton argued that Foucault was a "fraud" because he exploited known difficulties of philosophy in order to "disguise unexamined premises as hard-won conclusions"
While at the same time debunking hard-won conclusions based on well-examined premises. There's certainly been a fair bit of the latter going on.
[ 25. April 2013, 10:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's really not that much different from the "scientists don't know everything, they're biassed and alternative viewpoints are shouted down" nonsense you get from creationists, conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers and other assorted fruitcakes really.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Barnabas 62
Referring to minority views above, I think also amongst yuppies in the UK, there has been a kind of skepticism about science in recent years. I'm not quite sure where this comes from
Easy - school!
1. To be good at, never mind enjoy, either maths or science makes you a geek or nerd; and geeks and nerds are invariably subjected to bullying, especially in our back-to-the-jungle state schools.
2. Science in primary schools is either not taught at all (regardless of national curriculum) or is done badly. At secondary school we don't do too well either - "elf 'n' safetee".
3. Basic maths skills are deficient: on the one end of the scale sound arithmetic is not taught on the grounds that everyone can access a calculator. Further up the maths scale, probability is covered as an abstract concept, rather than relating it to risk assessment - the easiest way of getting this across without boring the pants of children: result is many adults struggle with percentages, with interpreting statistics and with assessing risk.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it's a general cult of the irrational. Although I think this is a problem, since the irrational and non-rational have to find a place somewhere, well, I would argue that. I think Feyerabend argued (maybe tongue in cheek) that schools should teach astrology, rain-dancing and voodoo. Well, maybe teach about.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
That is really unfair to Foucault, B62. People apply some of his approaches to the sciences in a way he was much more cautious about.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Barnabas 62
Referring to minority views above, I think also amongst yuppies in the UK, there has been a kind of skepticism about science in recent years. I'm not quite sure where this comes from
Easy - school!
1. To be good at, never mind enjoy, either maths or science makes you a geek or nerd; and geeks and nerds are invariably subjected to bullying, especially in our back-to-the-jungle state schools.
2. Science in primary schools is either not taught at all (regardless of national curriculum) or is done badly. At secondary school we don't do too well either - "elf 'n' safetee".
3. Basic maths skills are deficient: on the one end of the scale sound arithmetic is not taught on the grounds that everyone can access a calculator. Further up the maths scale, probability is covered as an abstract concept, rather than relating it to risk assessment - the easiest way of getting this across without boring the pants of children: result is many adults struggle with percentages, with interpreting statistics and with assessing risk.
*cough* http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/nov09.htm *cough*
I don't think the schools are the root of the problem; society as a whole has a negative view of scientists. The word "boffin" is a pretty good guide to a source perpetuating a negative view, IME.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, it's a general cult of the irrational. Although I think this is a problem, since the irrational and non-rational have to find a place somewhere, well, I would argue that. I think Feyerabend argued (maybe tongue in cheek) that schools should teach astrology, rain-dancing and voodoo. Well, maybe teach about.
"Now children, there are nutters who think..."
I like this range of T-shirts here: http://controversy.wearscience.com/
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Karl and quetzalcoatl
... only we Brits could have the expression "too clever by half"...!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'd say there's a whole episode of QI in this thread, only they've already debunked the "health and safety gone mad" before.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
That is really unfair to Foucault, B62. People apply some of his approaches to the sciences in a way he was much more cautious about.
The problem was that he classified science as an ideology, and knowledge as inescapably linked to power. Here's the classic quote from "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison" (pp27-8)
quote:
Power and knowledge directly imply one another ... In short it is not the activity of the subject of knowledge that produces a corpus of knowledge, useful or resistant to power, but power-knowledge ...that determines the forms and possible domains of knowledge.
As a result, endeavours such as historical and scientific research must not be thought of as "value free". Powerful people, groups, folks with axes to grind, use these processes for their own power-purposes.
Basically he denied that an objective body of knowledge existed or could be uncovered.
As others have pointed out, his thinking in this respect is a perfect bookend to Lyotard's "incredulity towards all meta-narratives".
Of course there is much benefit to be derived from considering the social context of scientific and historical research, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should descend to that level of cynicism. Research methodologies contain checks and balances against misuses of processes. YMMV, but that's where I'm coming from.
And orfeo Sioni or comet will tell us to get out of Hell if we want to continue this!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And orfeo Sioni or comet will tell us to get out of Hell if we want to continue this!
Not me. I don't know where you got the idea I give a shit.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here's the classic quote from "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison" (pp27-8)
quote:
Power and knowledge directly imply one another ... In short it is not the activity of the subject of knowledge that produces a corpus of knowledge, useful or resistant to power, but power-knowledge ...that determines the forms and possible domains of knowledge.
As a result, endeavours such as historical and scientific research must not be thought of as "value free". Powerful people, groups, folks with axes to grind, use these processes for their own power-purposes.
On this point, I was recently sent a link to this article that claims to point out faults in the scientific shibboleth that is the peer review process. I'm deeply sceptical about the article as a whole, but there is a point lurking within it, isn't there, that science does not happen in glorious isolation from cultural norms and powerful people's self-interest.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
If this is an attempt to dismiss the scientific method altogether, including the very necessary large scale epidemiological studies that Patsy is talking about, I have to point out that it is a spectacular failure.
It was no such attempt.
My philosophical meanderings and musings apply to all and any school of thought: theology included (- which is, of course, the highest school of thought).
(But it's best not to tell others that. They're under the mistaken impression that if you question something you're a rabid anti-vacciner. You know, the classic logical fallacy - the false dichotomy. It happens often with sacred cows. Can't really avoid it. It's a bit like questioning the church five hundred years ago. It's just not done.)
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
L'organist: quote:
2. Science in primary schools is either not taught at all (regardless of national curriculum) or is done badly.
What's your evidence for this? My daughter's school teaches science very well indeed, with the result that at the age of 9 she has a fairly good grasp of the scientific method and has covered a number of topics that I only studied at secondary school (laws of motion, astronomy, biological processes, ecology, the water cycle, electrical circuits, visible light spectrum... there's probably more but that's what I can remember off the top of my head). And her school was only rated 'Good' in their last OFSTED inspection. I don't know what they have to do to get 'Outstanding' - teach their pupils to walk on water, probably.
It's fashionable to blame schools for all the problems in society, but they have far less influence on popular culture than the media. And media types love stirring up controversy. If they can't find a real controversy they're happy to manufacture one, however irresponsible it might be to do so.
[ 25. April 2013, 12:56: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm deeply sceptical about the article as a whole, but there is a point lurking within it, isn't there, that science does not happen in glorious isolation from cultural norms and powerful people's self-interest.
Oh gosh! How terribly heretical of you to say so!
You must wish the death of innocent children! You must be a rabid anti-vaccinator!
BURN HIM, BURN HIM, BURN HIM!!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Evensong, you trivialised serious diseases. Until you address that issue, all of your clever posturing looks to me like so much evading the issue.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
For what it is worth, Foucault is never consistent. Therefore to create a TULIP version of Foucault is to get him wrong. That is partly due to where he is coming from. I use him a lot in my thesis, but that is because he gives a lot of tools that are useful for analysing the social world not because my thesis is Foucauldian. I use plenty of other theorists as well.
Firstly there is a tight relationship between power and knowledge. You do not need to go to Foucault for that, "knowledge is power", "the power to know" are phrases in common use. Also that which can not be talked about has a real sense of unreality about it. I know that from personal experience. Actually although Foucault never uses it, the experience of translating is often the best way to learn about the way the language we use around a topic actually shapes our understanding of it. Another interesting one is the way computers have transformed mathematics. They have given us tools to think about mathematical problems that were just too difficult for previous generations.
Really what is under attack is not knowledge itself but the idea of the neutral observer. He wants to draw attention to the way that our thought is shaped by the culture we are in and the way it creates power dynamics. We are thus taking up pre scripted roles but through those roles exercise power. Yes Foucault the prime individualist is also Foucault the totalitarian.
Second Foucault is also French, and follows the French predilection for grandiose over arching themes and aims. The French have meta narratives in ways that no pragmatic anglo ever does. Not our style, we tend to work with the immediate and the practical. We work up, the French work down. One is not better than the other but they do have a different feel. Yes this is caricature but there is more than a grain of truth in it.
The mistake happens when you leap from that to thinking that the tools we think with can take any form at all or that there might not be a basic form that underlies experience. It is false in mathematics; it is false in the rest of life. Our brain only grasps and manipulates it through tools, but that does not mean it depends on the tools to experience it. As Mauss pointed out the French and English may need different styles of spade in order to dig, however it does not follow that you could therefore make an effective spade out of jelly.
Jengie
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
The following
quote:
but that does not mean it depends on the tools to experience it.
should read something like
quote:
but that does not mean it depends on the tools to exist. However we can only experience it through the tools
Jengie
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Questioning everything is good. Having the only things you ever say be idiotic or even loathsome... less good. Especially in front of habitually pattern-seeking creatures.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
My philosophical meanderings and musings apply to all and any school of thought: theology included (- which is, of course, the highest school of thought).
High school of thought? Evensong, put the drugs down and back away and you might save your remaining braincells. It's not as if you have any to spare.
quote:
[i] (But it's best not to tell others that. They're under the mistaken impression that if you question something you're a rabid anti-vacciner.
Most people are familliar with the concept (if not the term) of JAQing off. Which is what most people "Just asking questions" are doing. Especially those who ask questions where the answer is well known (as you are), raise Points Refuted A Thousand Times (such as any autism/vaccination link or the idea that childhood diseases aren't dangerous), and display willful ignorance (here you appear too vapid to be willful).
Now if you're going to JAQ off, please be a good girl and close the door. No one really wants to watch you spray your ignorance all over everything. Especially not things that save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
A refreshing and helpful perspective...
quote:
I wasn't a completely barefoot do-gooding type by any stretch of the imagination, but I breastfed, and read a lot of alternative health forums online that left me convinced we had become too over-protective. It was good for children to catch diseases naturally and fight them off by themselves. My baby would build up a strong immune system all of her own, not have it interfered with by some paranoid government programme that seemed to involve pumping metals into her blood.
That was, until she caught pertussis – which turns out to mean whooping cough. Which turns out to mean months of pain. It is a highly contagious disease that comes in stages, but that horrible, hacking cough that kept her up all night went on for so many weeks that she was prescribed an inhaler. She was past her first birthday, so unlikely to die of it, like newborns can, but it's disgusting to watch your child needlessly suffer like that. My parents had to come to help us, and then we grownups all succumbed to the revolting condition too. Of course, having wanted to avoid filling her body with chemicals, I ended up giving her all the medicines I could find.
AFZ
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The irony is that when Evensong said that measles is not a scary disease, this itself is unthinking and unquestioning. It is an unfounded and dangerous statement, if unchallenged. Fortunately, it has been challenged.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Foucault probably deserves his own hell thread. For being a contrary bastard.
I like Jengie's reading. As usual, she has given me a lot to think about.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, you trivialised serious diseases. Until you address that issue, all of your clever posturing looks to me like so much evading the issue.
I keep coming back to this. I would like to hear a coherent statement of your argument, ES.
The comparison between science and theology is apt, as both were (well, science still is) dominant discourses of particular time periods. And if you want to argue that science is never completely objective (whatever that means), or that it has limits which should be respected, you will find no stauncher ally than me. And I certainly agree that parents should be informed of the potential risks of vaccination, as I was when both my daughters were vaccinated.
The thing is, here medical science has provided us with the best solution we can currently offer to the problem of some (potentially very serious) diseases, over a wide section of the population. It is mass vaccination.
What is the alternative to this you are proposing? That if we started with a different set of assumptions when conducting the epidemiological testing my friend Patdys has talked about, we would come up with significantly different results? Do you seriously believe that? I don't.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You must wish the death of innocent children! You must be a rabid anti-vaccinator!
Walk, swim, quack, duck.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Dark Knight
Yes, I liked Jengie's reading. And don't get me wrong, I wasn't arguing that Foucault was consistent or that his writings are without merit. Simply that scepticism over objectivity in research work has entered the world of popular thought. This quote had me nodding my head.
quote:
The mistake happens when you leap from that to thinking that the tools we think with can take any form at all or that there might not be a basic form that underlies experience. It is false in mathematics; it is false in the rest of life.
South Coast Kevin, Evensong
The issue is not the social context within which peer reviews take place. It is that mainstream opinion flows from many different research programmes and peer reviews. That's why it's mainstream.
The fact that Wakefield's credibility is shot doesn't make mainstream opinion correct of course. But Dark Knight has it spot on here in his question to Evensong.
quote:
The thing is, here medical science has provided us with the best solution we can currently offer to the problem of some (potentially very serious) diseases, over a wide section of the population. It is mass vaccination.
What is the alternative to this you are proposing?
That is a good question.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
She caught pertussis – which turns out to mean whooping cough. Which turns out to mean months of pain. It is a highly contagious disease that comes in stages, but that horrible, hacking cough that kept her up all night went on for so many weeks that she was prescribed an inhaler. She was past her first birthday, so unlikely to die of it, like newborns can, but it's disgusting to watch your child needlessly suffer like that.
Poor kid. Our son was born in West Africa and got immunisations at an early age through a wonderful UNICEF clinic. Some of them, I think, were ones that are no longer given in Britain but were necessary there.
At an early age he caught Whooping Cough. But the immunisation reduced the illness to a manageable level. He still had the "whoop" and was in moderate discomfort for a week or so, but that was all. No worse than a mild bout of 'flu (which itself can be nasty). That proved the value of immunisation to us, not that we needed convincing.
He's 29 now, by the way!
[ 25. April 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
L'organist: quote:
2. Science in primary schools is either not taught at all (regardless of national curriculum) or is done badly.
What's your evidence for this? My daughter's school teaches science very well indeed, with the result that at the age of 9 she has a fairly good grasp of the scientific method and has covered a number of topics that I only studied at secondary school (laws of motion, astronomy, biological processes, ecology, the water cycle, electrical circuits, visible light spectrum... there's probably more but that's what I can remember off the top of my head). And her school was only rated 'Good' in their last OFSTED inspection. I don't know what they have to do to get 'Outstanding' - teach their pupils to walk on water, probably.
It's fashionable to blame schools for all the problems in society, but they have far less influence on popular culture than the media. And media types love stirring up controversy. If they can't find a real controversy they're happy to manufacture one, however irresponsible it might be to do so.
Hear, hear. I'm hugely impressed by the work of the two primary schools I know closely in helping children think about ideas like fair tests, and putting them into practice. Similarly with maths where I see children gaining an understanding of how numbers function which underpins their use of numbers in calculations, learning tables etc., and the extent to which children then enjoy 'playing' with numbers. Streets away from the unexplained 'carry one and take away' by rote approach which was my childhood introduction to maths, and which I hated because I had no idea of why we were doing it.
I can place exactly the time when I started to enjoy maths to when our teacher began with us to use for the first time "Pattern and power of mathematics' a course running up to 'O' level where the focus was on learning by understanding.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You must wish the death of innocent children! You must be a rabid anti-vaccinator!
Walk, swim, quack, duck.
The thing is this, heart transplants and intensive care get all the headlines. People think what I do (paediatric surgery) is pretty amazing but if you want to talk about medical advances; nothing comes close to vaccines.
In terms of lives saved and lives improved the most important thing over the past 150 years or whatever is access to clean water. In terms of saving lives in the future and improving lives then making clean water available to all is vital.
Next on the list and way ahead of anything else is vaccines. Nothing comes close.
Diseases that we used to fear and now not ever heard of.
I trained in Bristol and have worked there a lot. A few years ago I heard Prof Finn (see OP) give a talk on the natural cycle of vaccine scares. He noted how when vaccines come out, uptake is really high because knowledge of the disease is widespread. As vaccine uptake grows, the disease burden reduces and (if we're lucky) the disease all but disappears. And then people stop fearing the disease giving room for vaccine scares.
He also noted that vaccine scares have no correlation to actual level of risk. Until about 10 years ago in the UK we used the oral polio vaccine. We don't any more in part because the injected vaccine is much safer. All cases of polio in the UK in the past 30 years have been vaccine related. Often in grandparents of children being vaccinated. Yet there has never been fears about polio vaccination.
What's particularly malevolent about Wakefield is not that he did some research that asked a question. It is that he conducted unethical and fraudulent research. It is that he held a press-conference when the paper came out and stirred up public anxiety. It is that he has made a lot of money by selling false hope to Autism parents. It is that he is responsible (with the help of certain sectors of the press) for the current problems. And it is that that he seeks to blame others.
He is really beneath contempt.
AFZ
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, you trivialised serious diseases. Until you address that issue, all of your clever posturing looks to me like so much evading the issue.
I keep coming back to this. I would like to hear a coherent statement of your argument, ES.
I did not trivialise serious diseases. I pointed out that when I was a child, Measles, mumps and Rubella were not diseases that people were afraid of because that was not our experience. L'organist said she had a similiar experience.
Odd that nobody jumped on her.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The comparison between science and theology is apt, as both were (well, science still is) dominant discourses of particular time periods. And if you want to argue that science is never completely objective (whatever that means), or that it has limits which should be respected, you will find no stauncher ally than me. And I certainly agree that parents should be informed of the potential risks of vaccination, as I was when both my daughters were vaccinated.
HALLEFUCKINLUJAH! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
That's all I was trying to say.
I myself was not informed of the risks or of the fact that vaccination was not an exact science (even if its the best we have). I'm glad you were.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
What is the alternative to this you are proposing?
Besides being adequately informed, my alternative would be to hurry the fuck up with developing edible vaccines.
Nasal vaccines for airbourne infectious diseases like measles would be my preferred option too.
Posted by mertide (# 4500) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I myself was not informed of the risks or of the fact that vaccination was not an exact science (even if its the best we have). I'm glad you were.
Evensong, you've said your husband is a doctor. Why didn't you ask him for information and his opinion? Surely he had input into whether his kids were vaccinated too?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Because she's a fucking liar.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong earlier (Part 1):
Me and my mates in Indonesia had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and most normal childhood diseases. They were not scary diseases.
The stats people come up with these days for diseases like measles are most likely based on hospitalised cases rather than normal cases. Hence they are skewed
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The comparison between science and theology is apt, as both were (well, science still is) dominant discourses of particular time periods. And if you want to argue that science is never completely objective (whatever that means), or that it has limits which should be respected, you will find no stauncher ally than me. And I certainly agree that parents should be informed of the potential risks of vaccination, as I was when both my daughters were vaccinated.
HALLEFUCKINLUJAH!
That's all I was trying to say.
You have a convenient memory. What Dark Knight said was not all you were trying to say. You were rubbishing mainstream opinion and statistics about childhood ailments in favour of your own experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong earlier (Part 2):
And since we're sharing rare anecdotes, my son reacted badly to two vaccines.
It was the first time I thought to think twice.
My GP new fuck all about possible side effects.
I was never warned my son might end up significantly disabled from a vaccine (regardless of how rare it might be).
That's just so, so, so, so wrong.
I believe laws have changed more recently tho. I think parents are legally obliged to be warned now.
Better late than never.
Yes, you did say that. But it's not balanced, is it?
From the first part of your post, quoted above, you airily discount medical information about the risk of non-vaccination.
From the second part you demand information about the risk of vaccination. Both sets of information come from statistical evidence you discount as equivalent to lies.
That's just indignant pouting.
"I've got a right to know".
Well, now you've got that. But you'd rather trust your own experience than lies, damn lies and statistics, wouldn't you. That's the consistent thread in your earlier post.
Wise up. Your arguments are pure crap.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I myself was not informed of the risks or of the fact that vaccination was not an exact science (even if its the best we have). I'm glad you were.
Evensong, you've said your husband is a doctor. Why didn't you ask him for information and his opinion? Surely he had input into whether his kids were vaccinated too?
He was a software engineer when our children were born.
He retrained in medicine in his late twenties.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I don't think you're a liar. But as B62 points out, you seem to be quite inconsistent about this. Now it seems you are advocating for vaccination, albeit different types of vaccinations. So I am not sure what you are trying to say. If all you are trying to say is that parents should be better informed, than that would be difficult to disagree with. In fact, if I read the OP correctly, one of the issues many have with Wakefield is that he is misinforming people.
And people did jump on l'organist, or whatever his or her name is. Well ... people disagreed with his or her points. When I read his/her posts, I noted that he/she seemed not to understand what the word 'anecdote' meant, and thought my time was better spent engaging other points and posters.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
Inform people in full. Inform them of the likelihood of risks from vaccination, and the likelihood of risks from not being vaccinated. With graphs. Do both at once to make the comparison.
('Likelihood of risks' here should encompass both frequency and severity of risks.)
Bonus points if herd immunity is also mentioned. If any anecdotes are used on either side of the debate, one must be used for the other side too (so for every "My daughter came down with a fever after having the MMR", there needs to be a "My son is allergic to egg so couldn't have his jabs, and since we hadn't reached herd immunity he got measles and spent months in hospital").
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I did not trivialise serious diseases. I pointed out that when I was a child, Measles, mumps and Rubella were not diseases that people were afraid of because that was not our experience. L'organist said she had a similiar experience.
That you were ignorant when you were a six year old has what precisely to do with anything? I was ignorant as a six year old. I don't consider that to reflect very much other than that I was a six year old - and I have made efforts to educate myself since.
As for l'Organist, you and she were making fundamentally different arguments from the same premise. l'Organist was talking about how we need better communication and that we should vaccinate and talk more about the actual impacts of childhood diseases. You were saying that it was "so, so, so, so wrong" to lower someone's chance of braindamage by a factor of a thousand and not go into all the details - including that you'd only lowered it from a bit over one in a thousand to the neighbourhood of one in a million. Rather than it's so, so, so wrong to expose someone to a one in a thousand risk of brain damage (as measles has).
quote:
I myself was not informed of the risks or of the fact that vaccination was not an exact science (even if its the best we have). I'm glad you were.
So you weren't informed about the risks either of vaccination or of diseases. Is there anything you were informed about? Have you ever even thought about educating yourself about any layer of medicine? The information is all out there.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I did not trivialise serious diseases. I pointed out that when I was a child, Measles, mumps and Rubella were not diseases that people were afraid of because that was not our experience. L'organist said she had a similiar experience.
That you were ignorant when you were a six year old has what precisely to do with anything? I was ignorant as a six year old. I don't consider that to reflect very much other than that I was a six year old - and I have made efforts to educate myself since.
As for l'Organist, you and she were making fundamentally different arguments from the same premise. l'Organist was talking about how we need better communication and that we should vaccinate and talk more about the actual impacts of childhood diseases. You were saying that it was "so, so, so, so wrong" to lower someone's chance of braindamage by a factor of a thousand and not go into all the details - including that you'd only lowered it from a bit over one in a thousand to the neighbourhood of one in a million. Rather than it's so, so, so wrong to expose someone to a one in a thousand risk of brain damage (as measles has).
quote:
I myself was not informed of the risks or of the fact that vaccination was not an exact science (even if its the best we have). I'm glad you were.
So you weren't informed about the risks either of vaccination or of diseases. Is there anything you were informed about? Have you ever even thought about educating yourself about any layer of medicine? The information is all out there.
And of course there was no one to ask. GPs don't answer questions about stuff, the Heath Visitor tells you nothing and there wasn't anything on the Internet ... But why on earth should anyone be expected to educate themselves?! It should all be handed to you on a plate. Asking is for wimps.
Tubbs
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
To be fair, if your source evaluation skills are poor the internet is a really, really bad place to get information on health matters.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
Inform people in full. Inform them of the likelihood of risks from vaccination, and the likelihood of risks from not being vaccinated. With graphs. Do both at once to make the comparison.
('Likelihood of risks' here should encompass both frequency and severity of risks.)
Bonus points if herd immunity is also mentioned. If any anecdotes are used on either side of the debate, one must be used for the other side too (so for every "My daughter came down with a fever after having the MMR", there needs to be a "My son is allergic to egg so couldn't have his jabs, and since we hadn't reached herd immunity he got measles and spent months in hospital").
Actually, a more effective real world approach is to invite the patient to state how much information they wish and provide that. Everyone gets* a broad outline of risks and the safety net, the things to look out for, the reasons when to seek medical help, but not everyone wants the graphs.
* it's nice being optimistically idealistic. It's a happy place to live.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I think some of these comments are unfair. ES probably had an expectation that her doctor would alert her to the fact that there were risks involved in the vaccination process. I don't think that is unreasonable. And this would have been before all the information (and misinformation) we currently have available on the internet.
As far as I am concerned, her current position is open to critique. But her actions as a young parent who put a level of trust in her doctor may be naive, but pretty understandable.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Ah, "fairness". What level of tapdancing equivocation should we tolerate from Evensong as she ever-so-slowly realizes that she's totally fucking wrong and hopes to levitate out of the mud via the uplifting power of prevarication and denial?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair, if your source evaluation skills are poor the internet is a really, really bad place to get information on health matters.
What?! No!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I should never have posted on this thread. I'm sorry. I am stupidity incarnate.
If I post on another such one in the future, please feel free to shoot me and tell me to go away in no uncertain terms.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
That'll do for me.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
Inform people in full. Inform them of the likelihood of risks from vaccination, and the likelihood of risks from not being vaccinated. With graphs. Do both at once to make the comparison.
Do you mean something like this?
AFZ
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm sorry.
Well, fuck me. The best possible move. Well played.
I am sorry that I let my generalized ire of anti-vax focus on you so specifically. That well is deep, and over-nourishes my usual misanthropy.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I am sorry
Well fuck.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Rook, are you feeling alright?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
AFZ
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Hell just froze over.
In a couple of ways. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'd close the thread, but initially it was about yelling at people external to the Ship.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Don't sweat it. They come around more often than lent or gin threads.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I should never have posted on this thread. I'm sorry. I am stupidity incarnate.
If I post on another such one in the future, please feel free to shoot me and tell me to go away in no uncertain terms.
Of course she'll complain later if you don't tell what she later wants to know about the risks of shooting.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0