This past year the United States witnessed a measles epidemic that was the largest in more than a decade. About 135 people, mostly children, were infected with measles; some of those children were hospitalized with severe dehydration and others with pneumonia caused by the virus.
Why did this happen? The answer can be found in a study published in December 2008 in the American Journal of Epidemiology that received little attention from the media. The authors, epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, examined school children in Michigan whose parents had chosen not to vaccinate them. They compared clusters of unvaccinated children with clusters of documented whooping cough (pertussis) outbreaks. Not surprisingly, the clusters overlapped. The authors concluded: "Geographic pockets of vaccine exemptors pose a risk to the whole community."
This is exactly what had happened during the measles epidemic in 2008. Almost all of the children who caught and transmitted measles were unvaccinated. The authors of this study had provided an insight into the obvious. If parents choose not to vaccinate their children, not only do they put their own children at risk, they put others at risk. Because no vaccine is 100 percent effective, some vaccinated children can still get pertussis. Others at even greater risk include children who haven't completed the entire series of pertussis vaccines or those who can't get vaccines because they are receiving steroids for asthma or chemotherapy for cancer.
The findings of the Hopkins researchers would have been somewhat more tolerable if the choice not to vaccinate was because of legitimate problems with vaccines. But the reason that some parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children is based on the mistaken notion that vaccines cause autism; or that vaccines cause diabetes or multiple sclerosis or asthma or allergies; or that vaccines weaken or overwhelm the immune system; or that vaccines have not been adequately tested. Many studies have addressed these concerns and should have reassured parents. But there appears to be a rift between studies that exonerate vaccines and the public's knowledge of those studies.
This latest study is not the first piece of evidence that a choice not to vaccinate is not a risk-free choice. In 2005, a 17-year old unvaccinated girl visited Romania, caught measles, returned to her home in Indiana, and proceeded to infect at least 34 more people, most of whom were also unvaccinated.
These outbreaks have not, apparently, been sobering. If anything, the number of parents choosing to delay or withhold or separate vaccines is increasing. So what will it take? Certainly, as more and more children contract measles and pertussis, deaths from these diseases will follow. And it's not a leap to believe that we could see other deadly diseases, like polio and diphtheria; both of which still occur commonly in some areas of the world; and both of which are only a plane ride away from causing outbreaks in relatively unvaccinated communities in the United States.
We can only hope that parents have not been lulled into a false sense of security by the success of vaccines -- or that our inattention to history will not cause us to relive it.
Paul A. Offit, MD is Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the author of Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure.
I have witnessed the consequences of not vaccinating a child. The diseases can be horrific. Although there may be problems with vaccines, and I whole-heatedly accept that fact, the number of people I have seen who had negative event because of a vaccination are minuscule (none in my experience) compared to the number hurt by not being vaccinated (a few in my experience).
It is a parent's choice. It is a child's life. Figure out which risk is higher. I know of no study that has ever concluded that the risk of vaccination is higher than its benefit, or the risk of not vaccinating. Have you? Everyone talks about anecdotal stories. But, he prevalence of these disease have markedly decreased with our vaccination programs. And, the damage done to our children by these diseases before vaccinations outweighs the negative events that occur by vaccines in our children today.
I agree, proper studies should be performed with new and old vaccines to evaluate and re-evaluate their risk to benefit ratio. As in any intervention, there are risks and benefits for vaccination. But, their are risks and benefits in doing nothing.
It is a child's life, so it is a hard decision. But, be careful of ideologues on both sides of the spectrum.
The Hypocrates creed recited by most doctors worldwide says: "first, do not harm". Applying this creed, the question for certain susceptible individuals should be "Don't risk getting vaccinated". This applies to about 1 of 200 people who are born mild mitochondrial dysfunction, in which case the risk is pretty high that they will develop autism if they are vaccinated with multiple shots given simultaneously. Just read the settlement on Hanna Poling's vaccine court case. No fabrication of flawed statistics can hide the truth in there: it is happening and the list of similar cases awaiting verdict by vaccine court is in the thousands. That's what's behind the efforts of people like this author to try to confuse public opinion: the legal issue.
Encourage your elected officials to press for the development of a standard test to screen for mito dysfunctions on newborns before vaccination, to determine if they should be vaccinated at all. Herd immunity does not require 100% compliance, so we can certainly afford to not vaccinate those 0.5% of babies that we know may be affected by vaccines because of having the potential to develop mito dysfunctions.
Wouldn't this genetic predisposition be a contraindication for live virus vaccination? Why are immunodeficient individuals not supposed to have these vaccines?
One only has to do a quick search of PubMed for the studies. For decades, immunodeficiency has been implicated in autism, and now genetic studies are proving this to be factual. Much of what is being found shows that the genetic disposition would cause malfunctioning T Cell response.
Why is it so hard to believe that live virus vaccination can be implicated in a child's autistic regression, considering the propensity these vaccines have to cause brain damage in immunodeficient children?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/01/more_disease_and_death_among_the_unvaccinated.php
Here's what you do. Run to your bathroom. There is a window in there, a magic window, and someone will be looking back out at you. Don't be alarmed! I'll explain why in a moment.
Now, start ranting at this person...you know, like you do with anyone who disagrees with you. Tell him all about it. It will look like he's yelling back at you. Again, don't be alarmed.
You see, the magic window is called a mirror. In it will be something called a reflection. The blame rests on the person, and the people like that person, who dismiss, ridicule, berate, belittle, condescend, antagonize, bully, brow-beat, and insult any parent who has concerns over the vaccine program. Maybe it will make you feel better to know that it is you who caused the above outbreak. Good job!
He started strange hand flapping and "toe walking, which he does now 98% of the time, potty training came to a halt when he had already mastered it, diminished speech and eye contact and more. Prior to 34 months, he met all the early developmental milestones right along with his twin brother. Shortly after the twins turned 4 years old, our dr admitted our one twin son has Autism. He REGRESSED, he was not born with this.
20 years ago, my daughter received NINE vaccines by the time she reached 5 years old - all went fine for her. However, our twin boys, born July 2003 (born 4 weeks early and given their first bout of 7 vaccines at two months old and without regard to that they were born premature!) received THIRTY FIVE (35) vaccines by the time they FOUR years old. Now they don't need another vaccine until they are 11 years old!
It is TOO MANY TOO SOON and by the time you realize something is going terribly wrong, it's too late!
VACCINES are NOT one size fits all!
It seems it's all NOT for our safety any more, but more for profit and at our expense. Just some pay more dearly for it than others.
Maybe CDC should look into WHY the rise in Autism. Or why are parents are harassed into getting ALL these cocktail mixed vaccines in such a short time or else approach, just as we were chastised recently for refusing to give our twins the Flu vaccine. Or may have more research done like this one:
Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior
http://www.safeminds.org/research/pediatric-vaccines-influence-primat-behavior.html
I had no influence on the folks down in Ashland - I don't have a blog and do not know anyone in Ashland but I certainly don't blame them. Nowadays, and at this rate, if you haven't been touched by Autism yet, one way or another... you soon will be.
Simultaneous use of multiple vaccinations has never been tested for safety -- only the vaccines themselves have been tested. These studies are designed with IRB-approved inclusion criteria that filter out those predisposed to an unfavorable outcome. Whereas the study group is screened, the everyday child…infant…pregnant woman…is not. True safety is impossible to accurately determine in an uncontrolled setting in an expanded population.
At the very least, children deserve the same type of screening as these study groups. And honestly, the vaccine program deserves a spokesperson that doesn’t share your very large conflict of interest.
I have a lady I work with who, like me, is pro-vaccine. Unlike me, however, she feels that vaccines are completely safe and there is no reason to question the schedule or their safety. We've had some interesting discussions, be we have come to the conclusion that we will agree to disagree.
Yesterday, she saw me posting on this board. I asked her to read the comments, and then I decided to do a little experiment. Instead of bringing her to AoA and some of the boards I frequent, I brought her to some of the "science-based" sites like Orac's site and a few others. I informed her that these are supposed to be doctors and scientists and let her read.
She came back an hour later and was completely appalled. She apologized to me extensively, and then said, "I see why you fight. I would too if I was attacked like that."
So, keep it up all of you Oracs and ThugJ's and ANB's and everyone that claims to be "science-based." You are shooting yourselves in the foot. Pretty soon, you will put yourselves out of business.
"The other part of the reason I’m so scathing is because I’ve become frustrated at the tenacity with which antivaccinationists cling to pseudoscience and sometimes am of the mind that it’s just not worth the effort to be “nice” about it anymore. I used to be less sarcastic when I first started blogging, but over time I have realized that the targets of my criticism are virtually ineducable and therefore their message must simply be countered. As Thomas Jefferson once said:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…""
--Taken from the ANB blog post comments on Expelled!--
Therefore according to his scientific and professional doctor logic:
* Your tenacity is frustrating
* Your proposition must be unintelligible
* You fit into a stereotype (anti-vaccinationist)
* You cling to Pseudoscience
* You are virtually ineducable
You and everyone else who doesn't agree with him. But it's all OK to infer these things about you because:
"Oh, one other thing. No matter how sarcastic I become, I never make fun of a person’s appearance,..."
Maybe you're just good looking...
In Medicine with all the complex interactions? That sounds like an opinion by someone with a very simplified view of health science.
Lastly, I would like to know why, when the vaccine-makers' OWN LITERATURE says not to give vaccinations to people with immune risks and disorders, children UNDER TWO YEARS OLD are given these injections with no screening whatsoever?
As a child I had measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough and every other disease going. Temporary discomfort is preferable to a lifetime of brain damage.
All of these kids are not developing autism and other neurological disorders for no reason. One of my friend had the most beautiful, intelligent little boy who had his first word at ten months and was talking by the time he was 18months. He had a reaction to the MMR and his vocabularly started to disappear along with his sociability. He is now a non verbal, non functioning six year old in need of constant care and he will likely never lead an independent life.
Funny how so many normal children lose these abilities immediately after the MMR? Same story, a thousand times over, and over, and over......
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2007/09/simple-selection-bias-model-explains.html
Really? Perhaps they can, but I've had two of those, and literally every adult I know over 40 has had at least one of those childhood illnesses -- and NOT ONE of us is brain damaged. NOT ONE.
*Something* is causing this epidemic, and it's not just genetic. Science says: You can't have an epidemic of a *genetic* disorder. Science (UC Davis, among others) ALSO now says that the exponential increase in autism is NOT the result of "better diagnosis" and "better tracking". Something, or things, in the environment are causing our children's immune systems to become severely, chronically damaged! Save the vaccinations for the deadly illnesses. I'd rather accept the obviously small risk of brain damage from a case of measles then have my child end up with a permanently inflamed brain, bleeding gut and chronic diarrhea, candidiasis, multiple food and chemical sensitivities, and myriad other health problems that he didn't have prior to his MMR vaccination.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445737?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: the results of a parent survey.Schultz ST, Klonoff-Cohen HS, Wingard DL, Akshoomoff NA, Macera CA, Ji M.
University of California San Diego, USA. Stephen.schultz@med.navy.mil
The present study was performed to determine whether acetaminophen (paracetamol) use after the measles-mumps-rubella vaccination could be associated with autistic disorder. This case-control study used the results of an online parental survey conducted from 16 July 2005 to 30 January 2006, consisting of 83 children with autistic disorder and 80 control children. Acetaminophen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was significantly associated with autistic disorder when considering children 5 years of age or less (OR 6.11, 95% CI 1.42-26.3), after limiting cases to children with regression in development (OR 3.97, 95% CI 1.11-14.3), and when considering only children who had post-vaccination sequelae (OR 8.23, 95% CI 1.56-43.3), adjusting for age, gender, mother's ethnicity, and the presence of illness concurrent with measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Ibuprofen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was not associated with autistic disorder. This preliminary study found that acetaminophen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was associated with autistic disorder.
PMID: 18445737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
When our son was 2 we charted his language at around 60 words.
Within a year it had fallen to what has remained his vocabulary for the last 13 years:
buggy (nickname), no, meanie, mommy, daddy,
he has learned to sign just a little and use a picture exchange system.
To oversimplify he is a 5'11, 250 lb 18 month old.
Choosing to have more children .. choosing not to vaccinate them .. two very difficult decisions .. I am glad we made them ..
I cannot understand:
why financial and liability conflicts of interest that would get laughed out of any other area of academia are accepted practice in the medical industry ..
how it can be denied that autism likely has environmental components when if one identical twin has autism the likelihood of the other twin having the disorder is only 60%
how the federal vaccine injury compensation program can compensate a family for "autism-like symptoms" .. but emphasize not autism .. when by definition autism is defined purely by its symptoms ..
You fail to understand that the "rift" is not from the public's lack of knowledge of these studies but from the public's eroded trust in the medical community.
I would hope that answers .. not the spreading of fear and venom .. will be the true