Studies Show Unvaccinated Children Healthier

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That DNA methylation paper looks interesting–that’s been one of my ongoing areas of interest along with histone acetylation and regulation. How did you enjoy that work?
[/quote]

This was pretty tough, it wasn’t really my wheelhouse (as I said, my background is CVD epi and risk analysis). I took it on because a guy working at my research institute basically just didn’t know ANYTHING about statistics, so it took a little back and forth for us to even understand each other, haha.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Also, what was the impetus for the 93T/G LPL polymorphism paper? Another interesting item.[/quote]

Old samples from a big preeclampsia study. One of the bigwigs here suspected that polymorphism would affect triglyceride metabolism in pregnant women (all women have a rise in TG during pregnancy, but an abnormally high spike is thought to be associated with future CVD risk), so we checked, and it does. Sorta. Lol. This stuff is never as clean as we hope it might be.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I am early career as well, I’ll drop you a line on there later, hopefully. Haven’t completely set up my account even though I’ve been on the site for a while (I’m really bad about online stuff like that)[/quote]

Please do. One thing I’ve definitely found to be true in the broad field of “medical research” is that it’s always good to chat with people, even outside your expertise. Gives you better awareness of the wider field, and exchanging ideas can give you a fresh perspective on things, even if it’s nonspecific to your area.

262

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
I think this whole non-vaccinating trend is hilarious. I work in neurophysiology and regularly see patients with post-polio syndrome. If any parent ever saw a person who had Polio as a child, they would do whatever was in their power to insure that their kids never got it; even if it meant the terrible, horrible, unnatural vaccination.[/quote]

Thanks for chiming in, big guy.

I happen to agree. One of the morbidly humorous things about all of this is that even if there WAS a link between vaccines and a slightly increased risk of cognitive disorders, the risk/benefit ratio is still ENORMOUSLY in favor of vaccination.

As I’ve said earlier in this thread, the reason for this is that, as you noted in your post, most people have never seen a case of these diseases. Vaccines have done their job so well that people now think they’re unnecessary because the disease is so rare, in their minds. If I never see anyone with measles, why should I give my kids the measles vaccine? So the thinking goes.

One thing that may encourage you re: the “non-vaccinating trend” - the friend of mine who works infectious disease epi says that this trend gets a lot more media attention than it really merits, and that’s what gives rise to the impression that there’s a “trend” at all. It’s a very fringe movement.

263

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

One thing that may encourage you re: the “non-vaccinating trend” - the friend of mine who works infectious disease epi says that this trend gets a lot more media attention than it really merits, and that’s what gives rise to the impression that there’s a “trend” at all. It’s a very fringe movement.[/quote]

That’s what my last post was attempting to get at in a general conceptual way. Combine searching for headlines with not understanding the damn science at all in the first place, with trying to give “both sides” a voice even though one of them is rabid and completely unscientific is a recipe for disaster and they’ve done more to harm the public health than most other things.

Thanks for the look on those studies. I will definitely get in touch with you there in a bit.

264

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
I think this whole non-vaccinating trend is hilarious. I work in neurophysiology and regularly see patients with post-polio syndrome. If any parent ever saw a person who had Polio as a child, they would do whatever was in their power to insure that their kids never got it; even if it meant the terrible, horrible, unnatural vaccination.[/quote]

Thanks for chiming in, big guy.

I happen to agree. One of the morbidly humorous things about all of this is that even if there WAS a link between vaccines and a slightly increased risk of cognitive disorders, the risk/benefit ratio is still ENORMOUSLY in favor of vaccination.

As I’ve said earlier in this thread, the reason for this is that, as you noted in your post, most people have never seen a case of these diseases. Vaccines have done their job so well that people now think they’re unnecessary because the disease is so rare, in their minds. If I never see anyone with measles, why should I give my kids the measles vaccine? So the thinking goes.

One thing that may encourage you re: the “non-vaccinating trend” - the friend of mine who works infectious disease epi says that this trend gets a lot more media attention than it really merits, and that’s what gives rise to the impression that there’s a “trend” at all. It’s a very fringe movement.[/quote]

When my wife was pregnant with our youngest child she joined a facebook group called “February Mommies”. It was just a group of women with due dates in the same month and the group is really active. It’s still active and the kids are 2 years old now but there are a large number of women in that group that are not vaccinating their children. Honestly, this shouldn’t bother me because my kids are all as vaccinated as possible because I work in a hospital and I’m sure I bring all kinds of nasty infections home on my scrubs.

I can’t help but feel terrible for those kids though. It’s not their choice to be susceptible to all of these diseases and I’m sure if you asked them if they wanted to be completely impervious to dangerous diseases that they would say yes.

265

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

One thing that may encourage you re: the “non-vaccinating trend” - the friend of mine who works infectious disease epi says that this trend gets a lot more media attention than it really merits, and that’s what gives rise to the impression that there’s a “trend” at all. It’s a very fringe movement.[/quote]

That’s what my last post was attempting to get at in a general conceptual way. Combine searching for headlines with not understanding the damn science at all in the first place, with trying to give “both sides” a voice even though one of them is rabid and completely unscientific is a recipe for disaster and they’ve done more to harm the public health than most other things.

Thanks for the look on those studies. I will definitely get in touch with you there in a bit.[/quote]

“rabid and completely unscientific”

This is a perfect description.

266

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
I can’t help but feel terrible for those kids though. It’s not their choice to be susceptible to all of these diseases and I’m sure if you asked them if they wanted to be completely impervious to dangerous diseases that they would say yes.
[/quote]

Incidentally, I’ve worked with a graduate student that gave questionnaires to a bunch of would-be mothers on a different topic (basically, early genetic testing for potential diseases). It was fascinating: they would answer “Yes” to questions like “If there was a way to know that my child had a high probability of a certain disorder, I would do anything to know about it” but then answer “No” to anything that hinted at what they would actually have to DO for the testing.

Same is true of this stuff. Ask them “Would you like to guarantee that your child does not get potentially devastating and crippling diseases?” and they’ll say Yes. Ask them “Will you vaccinate your children?” and they’ll say “I heard that vaccines make your kids autistic.”

267

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You are not safe, however, relying on buzzfeed or Time or any other major media outlet to report for you vicariously. There are a few reasons for this, but the most pertinent are:

  1. They don’t understand the science.

  2. They’re after headlines, and that does not lend well to nuanced approach to writing

  3. They have this thing about trying to present “both sides” of the story, and while that is incredibly important for political issues it is not appropriate in hard science to give quacks a voice that even pretends to take them seriously–that’s like saying Benghazi was a “random attack started by a youtube video”, or like giving Fred Phelps a free voice on major news networks.
    [/quote]

Ironically, I just read a really good little item on #3 here…

…calling it the “false balance” - presenting “both sides” of an issue as though this is still a legitimate debate, not something that 99 percent of physicians agree on and a handful of chiropractors and whack-jobs are out there disagree with.

It should also be noted that for all the accusations of vaccine research being funded by Big Pharma and therefore untrustworty, many of the most prominent anti-vaxxers make a shitload of money out of being the “heroes” of the anti-vax movement, selling books, speaking at rallies, and that Andrew Wakefield accepted a fuckload of money from a law firm that wanted to bring a suit against vaccine manufacturers in exchange for publishing his made-up study. So it’s extremely hypocritical to accuse Big Pharma of being money-hungry and untrustworthy while letting the anti-vax heroes skate for doing the same thing.

268

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
That’s actually the furthest thing from dumb and quite logical in my opinion. Also while gut feelings or what I call intuition may hold very little water in science, most great ideas started with a gut feeling via curiosity and discovery.[/quote]

… Making CONCLUSIONS based on gut feeling is dumb. Starting a hypothesis based on gut feeling and trying out various things is ok.

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
I also still think there is more unveiled substance here that will potentially be revealed as time moves forward.[/quote]

Wiki states that the current MMR vaccination has been given since 1971, and some 500 million people worldwide have been given the current version since then.

500 MILLION PEOPLE. FOR 45 YEARS.

WHERE IS THE FUCKING EVIDENCE?

269

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
That’s actually the furthest thing from dumb and quite logical in my opinion. Also while gut feelings or what I call intuition may hold very little water in science, most great ideas started with a gut feeling via curiosity and discovery.[/quote]

… Making CONCLUSIONS based on gut feeling is dumb. Starting a hypothesis based on gut feeling and trying out various things is ok.

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
I also still think there is more unveiled substance here that will potentially be revealed as time moves forward.[/quote]

Wiki states that the current MMR vaccination has been given since 1971, and some 500 million people worldwide have been given the current version since then.

500 MILLION PEOPLE. FOR 45 YEARS.

WHERE IS THE FUCKING EVIDENCE?[/quote]

Your first comment, magick, is a superb point. Gut feelings can create a hypothesis, that we then collect data and test…leading to the second point:

“Where is the evidence?” is the great circular discussion we’re having here.

The anti-vax community (or even more reasonable “concerned parents” like on edge) is either misinterpreting or just plain ignoring a very, very large body of evidence that vaccines are the most studied and, in all probability, safest drugs that we give.

Millions and millions of dollars have been spent studying vaccines. As I said, the furor over Wakefield’s first paper made people go back and reexamine every. fucking. thing. possible. about vaccines.

That NEJM study was about as comprehensive as you could possibly get without a study that would cost BILLIONS of dollars.

And yet these folks go on about how they’re not convinced vaccines are safe and/or necessary. As though we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of researching them, rather than exhaustively studying every possible thing we can about their safety.

270

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
I can’t help but feel terrible for those kids though. It’s not their choice to be susceptible to all of these diseases and I’m sure if you asked them if they wanted to be completely impervious to dangerous diseases that they would say yes.
[/quote]

Incidentally, I’ve worked with a graduate student that gave questionnaires to a bunch of would-be mothers on a different topic (basically, early genetic testing for potential diseases). It was fascinating: they would answer “Yes” to questions like “If there was a way to know that my child had a high probability of a certain disorder, I would do anything to know about it” but then answer “No” to anything that hinted at what they would actually have to DO for the testing.

Same is true of this stuff. Ask them “Would you like to guarantee that your child does not get potentially devastating and crippling diseases?” and they’ll say Yes. Ask them “Will you vaccinate your children?” and they’ll say “I heard that vaccines make your kids autistic.”
[/quote]

I don’t even know what to say about this kind of stupidity…

271

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
I think this whole non-vaccinating trend is hilarious. I work in neurophysiology and regularly see patients with post-polio syndrome. If any parent ever saw a person who had Polio as a child, they would do whatever was in their power to insure that their kids never got it; even if it meant the terrible, horrible, unnatural vaccination.[/quote]

Ya, I can imagine. I wrote this a couple of pages back,

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I will fucking drink a non-toxic dose of mercury to avoid polio. Hell I might drink a toxic dose to avoid polio… [/quote]

272

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
That’s actually the furthest thing from dumb and quite logical in my opinion. Also while gut feelings or what I call intuition may hold very little water in science, most great ideas started with a gut feeling via curiosity and discovery.[/quote]

… Making CONCLUSIONS based on gut feeling is dumb. Starting a hypothesis based on gut feeling and trying out various things is ok.

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
I also still think there is more unveiled substance here that will potentially be revealed as time moves forward.[/quote]

Wiki states that the current MMR vaccination has been given since 1971, and some 500 million people worldwide have been given the current version since then.

500 MILLION PEOPLE. FOR 45 YEARS.

WHERE IS THE FUCKING EVIDENCE?[/quote]

Hi magick, welcome to the cursing angry guy club!! :slight_smile:

273

FUCKING SWEARING IN CAPS MAKES MY FUCKING POINT HEARD GOD DAMNIT! FRUSTRATING UNEDUCATED FUCKS WHO DARE CHALLENGE THE FACTS WITHOUT EVIDENCE!

I wrote a very nebulous statement; simply that more information is typically gathered over time and you like most people, immediately jump to conclusions and assume you know what I’m referring to. Based on your above response, it’s safe to say that you do not.

I’ve stated previously that I know and believe that vaccines have saved countless lives over the course of history. My problem is highlighted in the quote below by Bertrand Russell.

?The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.?

274

^I assume this comment refers to some other post, but did you read my response(s) to on edge?

Because I’ve said, several times, that this sort of discussion is healthy. It’s good to ask questions and try to understand the evidence that has been compiled. That’s why I’m trying to be a good sport and, instead of saying “you’re an idiot and you’re wrong” to the questioners in this thread - I am doing the best I can to explain and/or debunk incorrect statements.

What’s NOT good is someone drawing their own conclusion from a study they are not qualified to interpret (notice the pitfalls that on edge has fallen into in his well-intentioned attempts to read the NEJM paper, which I’ve explained to the best of my ability; that really ought to stand out as an example of why a layperson shouldn’t read a study and say “Nope, I don’t buy this NEJM paper because I reviewed the data MYSELF” but should ask someone capable of reading and interpreting properly).

So I guess the problem I see with the “wise people stay full of doubts” application in this situation is that it’s the justification guys like on edge and his fellow “concerned parents” to paralyze themselves into INACTION because they can’t be CERTAIN that vaccines are safe, despite a heavy body of scientific evidence showing that they are safe (again, one of the things that really bothers me is the insinuation throughout this thread that vaccine safety hasn’t been researched well enough; this isn’t some fringe promising new medication with one study behind it, but something that’s been used for decades on hundreds of millions of people).

275

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
I wrote a very nebulous statement; simply that more information is typically gathered over time and you like most people, immediately jump to conclusions and assume you know what I’m referring to. Based on your above response, it’s safe to say that you do not.
[/quote]

500 million people. Over 45 years.

How is it possible to gather more information? Do you need a sample size of one billion and a century of seeing its effects?

Regarding Bertrand Russell’s quote- I’ve thought on this for a while and decided that the issue with the concept behind the quote is simple- If you doubt everything and are always second-guessing your beliefs, then you can never do anything with conviction and will. If the concept is taken seriously, then it becomes impossible to actually do anything.

The solution I came up with- Have genuine, clearly defined and “easily” sourced, reasons for your opinions. Be willing to defend said opinion with conviction and strength. Also attempt with all your might to listen to everyone who challenges your opinion and analyze their rationales for challenging your opinion critically.

276

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
I think this whole non-vaccinating trend is hilarious. I work in neurophysiology and regularly see patients with post-polio syndrome. If any parent ever saw a person who had Polio as a child, they would do whatever was in their power to insure that their kids never got it; even if it meant the terrible, horrible, unnatural vaccination.[/quote]

Loft, what country are you in?

This is an excerpt from cdc.org on Polio in the United States:

Is polio still a disease seen in the United States?
The last cases of naturally occurring paralytic polio in the United States were in 1979, when an outbreak occurred among the Amish in several Midwestern states. From 1980 through 1999, there were 162 confirmed cases of paralytic polio cases reported. Of the 162 cases, eight cases were acquired outside the United States and imported. The last imported case caused by wild poliovirus into the United States was reported in 1993. The remaining 154 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

Not that I want to continue stirring the shit, but please note the last sentence.

277

I want to clear up my comment about my kids being in a low risk demographic because you guys all interpreted that the wrong way. Riding the coattails of vaxers is not at all where my mind was at with that statement.

My kids aren’t out poking around in abandoned old broken down buildings and railroad tracks like I did as a kid (I could tell you some stories…). I’m also confident that if any of them do get a cut or puncture wound I will know about it and am able to assess the situation and decide if they need medical attention or not. Therefore (here you go Magic) I don’t feel the tetanus vaccine is warranted for them.

We don’t live in a ghetto or housing project and I’m confident my kids will never be drug users so I don’t think the hep vaccine is necessary.

All three of my kids have had rotavirus. It’s a very mild illness, I think they’ve all had worse colds. If a kid is in school or daycare I think the vaccine would be in order since it’s not cool to spread stuff. My kids all stay home, as I mentioned they home school.

MMR. My memory is hazy since this was 14 years ago we were discussing and deciding upon vaccination so I don’t remember my conclusions on these very clearly. I do remember Rubella sounded like just a rash that could be dangerous to babies but for anyone else it’s just a rash. I remember having Mumps as a kid and it wasn’t that bad. I think for Measles it just wasn’t prevalent enough for me to take seriously. If the recent outbreak expands, I will rethink this. As I said, I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep about vaccinating my kids.

I can’t remember what I concluded about Pertussis and some of the others. I do remember giving the meningitis vaccine serious consideration. That’s some nasty shit. I didn’t know him at the time but I now have a neighbor who is completely deaf due to childhood meningitis. What someone said above about being paralyzed into inaction may be somewhat true regarding some of these diseases I do consider more warranted. I do tend to get in a “bullshit” frame of mind because I think these vaccine schedules should be tailored to the individual, not a one plan fits all. I do realize this would be a political correctness nightmare.

278

Activities Guy, regarding our study, is it your expert opinion that this study wouldn’t be any better if they used subjects all from a similar demographic so they don’t have to handicap the data to account for such a wide range in socio economic status? Would it not be better if they omitted kids on ADHD medications?

279

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You don’t take your nutrition advice from them do you? No.

[/quote]

Not really relevant but funny to me because I have a degree in nutrition and I’ve said, maybe even on this very site, I know there are high school dropout housewives who know more about nutrition than I do. Granted, I didn’t make it my career.

280

[quote]on edge wrote:
Activities Guy, regarding our study, is it your expert opinion that this study wouldn’t be any better if they used subjects all from a similar demographic so they don’t have to handicap the data to account for such a wide range in socio economic status? Would it not be better if they omitted kids on ADHD medications?[/quote]

Not at my computer now so I can’t pull the reference and look up details of the recruitment strategy. I’ll get back to you on this.

Re: the ADHD medications, if they had omitted kids on ADHD medications that would have weakened the study’s chances of finding a relationship between mercury and cognitive function (if one existed) because it would throw out the “strongest” cases. Does that make sense? Since kids on ADHD meds are presumably those who actually are struggling from the worst cognitive function, removing then from the study would leave less of a range of cognitive function among the subjects.

You’re asking some interesting questions. I hope this discussion is useful for you in understanding study design. Choice of the “right” study population is important - if you pick the wrong PEOPLE to examine a relationship between exposure and outcome, you can either overestimate or underestimate the true magnitude of that relationship.