Pro/Anti Vaccination

[OrdinaryDO]

Disclaimer: In the past I have had people jump on me about why I make certain posts and what my underlying agenda may be in a particular argument. Well, this is to let all of you critics know that I am doing this for pure debate between the importance (or unimportant aspects) of vaccines.

I am bringing this up here, well, because I am pre-osteopathic and I want to pick the brains of future D.O. hopefuls. It has been brought to my attention here recently that the war between pro and anti-vaccination movements are still alive and well. I am a proponent of vaccinations myself, but I understand that research has shown there to be a very minimal correlation between neurological defects and vaccinations. Most notably, between thimerosal and infants/young children. I don't know about you, but every time I see an anti-vaccination post linked to some BS website I get fired up inside. I mean sometimes I want to knock their heads against the computer screen. A study proposed an published in 1998 had claimed to have proven a direct correlation between the development of autism and the MMR vaccination. What I don't understand is that even though the doctor who published the article had to retract his published study AND lost all credibility to practice medicine in the UK, people still seem to mention this study in modern day anti-vaccination arguments! Not only that, but another article has been retracted after it claimed that a lead scientist from the CDC claimed to have intentionally left out significant statistical data that would prove that African American children have some 450% increased chance of developing autism as a direct cause of the MMR vaccine (http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/22). I am baffled by the arguments posed by the anti-vaccination movements and the lack of scientific knowledge they have, but yet they still push on and somehow gain support through parents and ex-playmates who know absolutely nothing about science.

One more thing before I log off for the night. I love it when people blame autism in children to thimerosal. They fail to realize that the CDC has removed that ingredient from all of the infant/children vaccinations as a proactive method to reduce any harm that could possibly be inflicted upon the child due to some sort of negligence in the scientific studies.
CDC---
"Although no evidence suggests that there are safety concerns with thimerosal, vaccine manufacturers have stopped using it as a precautionary measure.The only vaccine that still includes thimerosal as a preservative is the multi-dose inactivated influenza vaccine. There are other formulations of flu vaccine that do not include thimerosal." (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html#a)

I want to hear the opinions of my fellow peers on this subject matter. Anyone against vaccination feel they have a strong argument against what I have presented in my post?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Yes, vaccines are bad because the aliens in my head said so...

~ antivaxxer logical fallacy

 

[Iridescent]

I don't understand what this has to do with pre-osteo

 

[costales]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/hey-get-a-load-of-this-evil-osteopathic-doctor.1118877/

 

[goldy490]

Anyone with even minimal scientific exposure who is anti-vaccine is an idiot. The problem lies in that people with no scientific education can be deceived by people touting "pretend" science. Its no different than ancient aliens, except in this case, kids catch measles...

 

[spenguin]

thats not entirely true. some scientifically aware people have doubts about vaccines. i dont personally but a phd student in bioinformatics at my UG seemed to think there was a small link. she did have an autistic child tho

 

[goldy490]

I have a good family friend with two autistic children who swears the vaccine caused it...but if I had to guess its more likely that she is just looking for something to blame because that eases the burden of such a terrible diagnosis. Also autism is usually noticed and diagnosed around the time kids get their MMR shot, so I can see how people would assume the shot did it (when in reality thats just the developmental stage when the neurological mechanisms underlying autism kick in and behavioral changes become apparent)

 

[OrdinaryDO]

I don't understand what this has to do with pre-osteo

I want to hear the opinions of my fellow peers on this subject matter. Anyone against vaccination feel they have a strong argument against what I have presented in my post?

I don't understand why people can't just stick to the main topic? It is in pre-osteo, because I am a pre-osteo student and as I stated in the original post I wanted the opinion of my peers. Where else would you have me post this? Pre-Allopathic, MCAT Discussion, Non-Traditional, Re-Applicants, or URM? Because those are my only other choices in the pre-med community...

Yes, vaccines are bad because the aliens in my head said so...

Without addressing your unwanted sarcasm, there are people who have published MANY scientific papers on this subject that side with anti-vaxxers and they all have a very in-depth background in sciences. The difference is they have an agenda or they are usually biased towards their views.

 

[echo87]

"Small link" is such a useless term, especially when it comes to statistics. We're coming to realize that p-value alone is not rigorous enough, let alone these obscure "small links"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444174/

We wouldn't debate global warming due to the variations in data and/or random studies not painting a black and white picture

 

[echo87]

.

 

[md-2020]

If you're not going to vaccinate your kids, please don't have any.

 

[OrdinaryDO]

"Small link" is such a useless term, especially when it comes to statistics. We're coming to realize that p-value alone is not rigorous enough, let alone these obscure "small links"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444174/

We wouldn't debate global warming due to the variations in data and/or random studies not painting a black and white picture

I'm not sure why you linked a study for P-value, but by small linkages these studies are acknowledging the fact that some of the ingredients used in the vaccines are toxic and can be related to some sort of bodily hard in very small amounts of cases. They have a court system set-up just for this process. Just because the link is "small" doesn't mean it is statistically insignificant. I am saying that when you weigh the risks and benefits, vaccines win with ease.

 

[deleted407021]

I'm not sure why you linked a study for P-value, but by small linkages these studies are acknowledging the fact that some of the ingredients used in the vaccines are toxic and can be related to some sort of bodily hard in very small amounts of cases. They have a court system set-up just for this process. Just because the link is "small" doesn't mean it is statistically insignificant. I am saying that when you weigh the risks and benefits, vaccines win with ease.

It kinda does, tho

 

[deleted407021]

This has really been discussed to death, OP.

 

[Goro]

I have had several DO colleagues who were anti-vaccine. One them also had an autistic child and by God, somebody had to be at fault!

Never mind that mental illness ran in her family, she had several autoimmune diseases, and the baby's dad was an older dad, three known risk factors for autism.

It had to have been those vaccines!!!

People can be quite well educated, but still turn off the cognitive functions.

As you will learn when you become clinicians, cognitive dissonance works on more levels than just right-wing Republicans. With the anti-vaxxers, it's a belief system. Logic and reason will shatter the world they've constructed for themselves.

One of my pediatrician colleague simply tries to educate her patient's parents, one family at a time.

thats not entirely true. some scientifically aware people have doubts about vaccines. i dont personally but a phd student in bioinformatics at my UG seemed to think there was a small link. she did have an autistic child tho

 

[Vespasian]

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/yhq2cw/preventable-diseases-on-the-rise

“This anti-vaxx movement has done a lot of things that I love: Star power, science denial, and hipster appeal,” Colbert said. “Cause Penny-farthings and handlebar moustaches are cool, but nothing is more vintage than dying of Rubella”

 

[Ahii]

My parents were anti-vaccination. Now I have to get the last 22 years of vaccinations in the next year before med school starts.

 

[asdf123g]

My parents were anti-vaccination. Now I have to get the last 22 years of vaccinations in the next year before med school starts.

hope you like needles

 

[Ahii]

hope you like needles

I like them more when I'm the one sticking them into other people.

... but don't we all?

 

[IslandStyle808]

Without addressing your unwanted sarcasm, there are people who have published MANY scientific papers on this subject that side with anti-vaxxers and they all have a very in-depth background in sciences. The difference is they have an agenda or they are usually biased towards their views.

Just because an article is published doesn't mean it is correct, hence the reason some of them are retracted. How do we know that they might have fudge the data, thus the logical fallacy? There are journal articles that should not see the light of day yet they do.

 

[Goro]

Like the original Wakefiled paper that MMR causes autism!

Just because an article is published doesn't mean it is correct, hence the reason some of them are retracted. How do we know that they might have fudge the data, thus the logical fallacy? There are journal articles that should not see the light of day yet they do.

 

[OrdinaryDO]

As you will learn when you become clinicians, cognitive dissonance works on more levels than just right-wing Republicans. With the anti-vaxxers, it's a belief system. Logic and reason will shatter the world they've constructed for themselves.

Exactly, cognitive dissonance is the very reason it is so hard for people to switch sides in this heated debate. I have heard from my professors of social psychology that when people enter into a world with a predisposition or an already established believe, once educated AGAINST their belief, they become even more polarized towards their original views and strengthening their original views. Which, as stated just previously, is caused by cognitive dissonance.

“This anti-vaxx movement has done a lot of things that I love: Star power, science denial, and hipster appeal,” Colbert said. “Cause Penny-farthings and handlebar moustaches are cool, but nothing is more vintage than dying of Rubella”

I watched his video a little while back and I laughed so hard. There are some very funny videos on debated between pro- and anti-vaxxers on Youtube.

Just because an article is published doesn't mean it is correct, hence the reason some of them are retracted. How do we know that they might have fudge the data, thus the logical fallacy? There are journal articles that should not see the light of day yet they do.

I think you are letting go of the fact that we share the same views on this topic. I specifically included the part of two anti-vaccination articles being retracted just for the purpose you are stating here. I am all the way pro-vaccination and I think anyone who isn't for them is just plain irrational. Enough said! haha.

Honestly, I really wanted to get some more info for my peers to hopefully help me to better educate people when this topic comes up. One of the quickest ways to gain information is to debate or pick the brains of other people educated on this matter. Virulogy is probably the subject I find I am most passionate about it biology. So, any bit of information is good. I have written several papers on the subject of anti-vaccination as well as my favorite virus HCV. Just interesting to look at from other's perspectives.

 

[OrdinaryDO]

Like the original Wakefiled paper that MMR causes autism!

Exactly, this was my reference to the 1998 paper being retracted. What and idiot he must have been to think that would float by hit peers with no criticism.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I think you are letting go of the fact that we share the same views on this topic. I specifically included the part of two anti-vaccination articles being retracted just for the purpose you are stating here. I am all the way pro-vaccination and I think anyone who isn't for them is just plain irrational. Enough said! haha.

Honestly, I really wanted to get some more info for my peers to hopefully help me to better educate people when this topic comes up. One of the quickest ways to gain information is to debate or pick the brains of other people educated on this matter. Virulogy is probably the subject I find I am most passionate about it biology. So, any bit of information is good. I have written several papers on the subject of anti-vaccination as well as my favorite virus HCV. Just interesting to look at from other's perspectives.

Trust me I know you stance on the issue. What my point is in both posts is that if you ask an anti-vaxxer why they don't like vaccines, you are going to get an answer that is filled with logical fallacy. There is logic behind it, but riddled with errors. You will go back and forth with this person and nothing gets through.

The key to getting through to people is establishing a bond of trust and being persistent with them. It is not something that can be solved straight up with logic, it takes something more than that.

 

[Vespasian]

Honestly, I really wanted to get some more info for my peers to hopefully help me to better educate people when this topic comes up.

But the uneducated folks (relative to vaccines) and denialists keep epidemiologists and physicians busy...

 

[ZedsDed]

Like the original Wakefiled paper that MMR causes autism!

During junior year, my Professor for Molecular Biology asked the class the following T/F clicker question: "there is significant empirical data showing that vaccines can cause Autism, or exacerbate the condition." In a class of 300+ students, 57% chose T! The Professor was shocked, and genuinely upset lol. I can only imagine how you would've reacted if it were your class Goro!

 

[Goro]

I think we would have failed them all!

During junior year, my Professor for Molecular Biology asked the class the following T/F clicker question: "there is significant empirical data showing that vaccines can cause Autism, or exacerbate the condition." In a class of 300+ students, 57% chose T! The Professor was shocked, and genuinely upset lol. I can only imagine how you would've reacted if it were your class Goro!

 

[Giovanotto]

I, for one, seem to follow even crazier theories

Seems to me that glysophates and numerous other agricultural sprays are to blame for the rise in autism and other autoimmune related disorders. Wish I could comment on the vaccine subject, but I've kept my nose out of that debate. Too many debates to pick from anyway.

What I dislike the most though, is those with no knowledge on the subject, or unrelated knowledge, that have an opinion. It is NOT common sense that vaccines cause or don't cause autism. I think it is great that people are skeptical and do their do diligence. Nobody is going to care about your health but you.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Welcome to why Pediatrics fell off my list even before Day 1.

 

[costales]

To play devil's advocate here. Wakefield's study simply called for more research. It did not state that vaccines caused autism. Furthermore, the hypothesis, (gut health is linked to neurological disorders and vaccines can effect gut health) was solid. There have been recent studies that further prove this. I believe the latest study to hit the news was in regards to high sugar levels effecting gut bacteria.

A lot has been said about anti-vaxxers being anti-science. This isn't entirely accurate. There is solid science pointing to risks. Some people put more weight on those risks than the risk of disease. That's not anti-science even if you disagree with it.

You ignored the fraud Wakefield committed against science.

 

[GUH]

I support vaccination in general. There are a couple of points that I've noticed often get lost in the pro-vaccination echo chamber, though, when it comes to real or proposed/hypothetical legislation on the matter.

1) It is not ethical to force medical care against a mentally competent patient's will (or the parents' will in the case of children), particularly when such care would be unlikely to actually prevent death in any individual case. Measles, for example, is not usually fatal.

2) They fail to consider or mention the very real consequences of turning a health issue into a legal one. Is it really better to have a 100% chance that a child is not allowed to attend school or worse yet, be removed from his family (as I've seen some argue) compared to a much smaller chance that the child will be exposed to a vaccine-preventable disease that probably wouldn't be fatal? I would argue not.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I support vaccination in general. There are a couple of points that I've noticed often get lost in the pro-vaccination echo chamber, though, when it comes to real or proposed/hypothetical legislation on the matter.

1) It is not ethical to force medical care against a mentally competent patient's will (or the parents' will in the case of children), particularly when such care would be unlikely to actually prevent death in any individual case. Measles, for example, is not usually fatal.

2) They fail to consider or mention the very real consequences of turning a health issue into a legal one. Is it really better to have a 100% chance that a child is not allowed to attend school or worse yet, be removed from his family (as I've seen some argue) compared to a much smaller chance that the child will be exposed to a vaccine-preventable disease that probably wouldn't be fatal? I would argue not.

Number 1) suffers from the notion that as physicians we should work to reduce suffering. A child who gets whooping cough is going to suffer extraordinarily for example.
Likewise, vaccination goes beyond just the classical ethics of medical practice. I.e body autonomy and the like. And enters the realm of almost a societal exception for maintaining herd immunity.

In either case no one will ever be able to violate body autonomy and enforce mandatory vaccination in the US. But we should push both to protect kids in public schools and to push vaccine and science education.

 

[deleted407021]

I don't think I'd have a problem with mandatory vaccination. Perhaps not totally mandatory on the federal/state level, but we can make it hella hard for anti-vaxxers, such as make it illegal for their kids to attend day cares or schools. When they concede, they can go get the vaccines free of charge at their local health dept.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I don't think I'd have a problem with mandatory vaccination. Perhaps not totally mandatory on the federal/state level, but we can make it hella hard for anti-vaxxers, such as make it illegal for their kids to attend day cares or schools. When they concede, they can go get the vaccines free of charge at their local health dept.

That's essentially what's happening in most states with the exception of more hardcore states like CA. Though again, the issue with CA is that you're going to have anti-vax parents choose to let their kids die in their beds instead of taking them to a hospital when they get really sick to avoid the risk of vaccination.

 

[GUH]

I don't think I'd have a problem with mandatory vaccination. Perhaps not totally mandatory on the federal/state level, but we can make it hella hard for anti-vaxxers, such as make it illegal for their kids to attend day cares or schools. When they concede, they can go get the vaccines free of charge at their local health dept.

Why not mandate all other forms of medical care then? Why give patients and their families a right to refuse any form of medical care or treatment when it is more likely to improve their health than a vaccine is? What punishment do you think is fair for a mother who sends her child to daycare without vaccination, or for the daycare worker who cares for children regardless of vaccination status?

 

[deleted407021]

Why not mandate all other forms of medical care then? Why give patients and their families a right to refuse any form of medical care or treatment when it is more likely to improve their health than a vaccine is? What punishment do you think is fair for a mother who sends her child to daycare without vaccination, or for the daycare worker who cares for children regardless of vaccination status?

Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

 

[GUH]

Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

Right...

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Why not mandate all other forms of medical care then? Why give patients and their families a right to refuse any form of medical care or treatment when it is more likely to improve their health than a vaccine is? What punishment do you think is fair for a mother who sends her child to daycare without vaccination, or for the daycare worker who cares for children regardless of vaccination status?

Rejection.

And yes, in some cases experts should be able to take authority over parents in medical issues. I.e if a Christian Scientist family is rejection treatment for their kids, and they die they are accessories to murder. A doctor should have the capacity to intervene and provide treatment regardless of a person's views.

 

[Vespasian]

And you're using that alleged fraud and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If he lied about his methodology it still doesn't negate the science.

Alleged fraud?

He didn't just lie about his methodology, he falsified and fabricated data. (http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347)

Also-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/:
"Wakefield had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies)"

"Wakefield et al.[1] were held guilty of ethical violations (they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances) and scientific misrepresentation (they reported that their sampling was consecutive when, in fact, it was selective). "

"The final episode in the saga is the revelation that Wakefield et al.[1] were guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts).[9] The British Medical Journal has published a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which appears to have taken place for financial gain."

Then there's the shoddy labwork... ( http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/26/the-autism-omnibus-the-difference-betwee/ )

I'd say Wakefield definitely committed a significant fraud against science. Not only that but his greed and avarice have contributed to the death and disability of thousands. The fact that Wakefield's pseudo-study happened to brush up against something scientifically tangible doesn't make his pseudo-study scientific. After all, alchemy isn't science just because it was the forefather of chemistry.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

And you're using that alleged fraud and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If he lied about his methodology it still doesn't negate the science. Vaccines and viruses do interfere with gut bacteria >> Gut bacteria do have a link to neurological diseases >>> More investigation should be done.

You can't just throw all of that out. It is being proven time and time again.

When a person cant tell reality from fantasy, that is normally called psychosis. In the US it's called being an anti-vaxxer.

 

[IslandStyle808]

And you're using that alleged fraud and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If he lied about his methodology it still doesn't negate the science. Vaccines and viruses do interfere with gut bacteria >> Gut bacteria do have a link to neurological diseases >>> More investigation should be done.

You can't just throw all of that out. It is being proven time and time again.

Science is based on evidence. If all published papers lied or manipulated the data, then the science is corrupted.

You gotta judge the paper at face value. He lied about the data and thus made the paper null and void. It is as good as saying his paper didn't show anything.

 

[deleted407021]

So you throw out that one specific paper, you don't throw out the entire concept. If a known liar tells you the sky is blue you don't argue that that's not true because the liar said it.

That's exactly what people are doing with the vaccine arguments. They say "Andrew Wakefield said this could happen, but he is a liar, so it is impossible for that to happen. My proof that it can't happen is that Andrew Wakefield said it and he is a liar".

While doing this they throw out valid evidence that suggests vaccines can affect the brain.

It has no such effect. He's a fraud and there is no evidence suggesting that vaccines are anything but safe and effective. The jury is not still out on this matter.

 

[IslandStyle808]

So you throw out that one specific paper, you don't throw out the entire concept. If a known liar tells you the sky is blue you don't argue that that's not true because the liar said it.

That's exactly what people are doing with the vaccine arguments. They say "Andrew Wakefield said this could happen, but he is a liar, so it is impossible for that to happen. My proof that it can't happen is that Andrew Wakefield said it and he is a liar".

While doing this they throw out valid evidence that suggests vaccines can affect the brain.

Let me guess "the absence of proof is not the proof of absence" argument.

Okay science works by rejecting hypotheses and not proving them. Yes this is true.

We haven't rejected the hypothesis, but the Wake field study doesn't support it either. You could say the same for all falsified studies or legit studies that had their hypotheses rejected! He didn't destroy the concept, yet he didn't contributed anything to it.

 

[Stagg737]

During junior year, my Professor for Molecular Biology asked the class the following T/F clicker question: "there is significant empirical data showing that vaccines can cause Autism, or exacerbate the condition." In a class of 300+ students, 57% chose T! The Professor was shocked, and genuinely upset lol. I can only imagine how you would've reacted if it were your class Goro!

That may be one of the more painful stories I've read on here in a long time...

Why not mandate all other forms of medical care then? Why give patients and their families a right to refuse any form of medical care or treatment when it is more likely to improve their health than a vaccine is? What punishment do you think is fair for a mother who sends her child to daycare without vaccination, or for the daycare worker who cares for children regardless of vaccination status?

Because allowing those children to not be vaccinated not only affects those children and their families, it can affect the general public as well. The first person to die of measles in 12 years was an immunocompromised woman in Washington state who had been vaccinated. This was a case that was 100% preventable if the patients she had encountered in the hospital where she contracted the disease had been vaccinated. So do you charge those people with reckless homicide? Because if they had been vaccinated it is extremely likely they never would have contracted the disease in the first place meaning the woman would have never been exposed to it and died. Essentially their autonomy killed that woman.

I'll say this is one of the very few cases that I have wrestled with in terms of my personal beliefs, possibly the only situation, where an individuals autonomy may need to come second to the greater needs of society.

Rejection.

And yes, in some cases experts should be able to take authority over parents in medical issues. I.e if a Christian Scientist family is rejection treatment for their kids, and they die they are accessories to murder. A doctor should have the capacity to intervene and provide treatment regardless of a person's views.

I can already tell you're going to love your bioethics course...

So you throw out that one specific paper, you don't throw out the entire concept. If a known liar tells you the sky is blue you don't argue that that's not true because the liar said it.

That's exactly what people are doing with the vaccine arguments. They say "Andrew Wakefield said this could happen, but he is a liar, so it is impossible for that to happen. My proof that it can't happen is that Andrew Wakefield said it and he is a liar".

While doing this they throw out valid evidence that suggests vaccines can affect the brain.

Right, throw that paper out and look at the literally hundreds of other papers that show exactly ZERO correlation between vaccinations and autism. The only legitimate correlation that has even been suggested was linked to oral polio vaccines that were given in the 60's, and even that data is highly questionable.

You also have to look at what is being said. I don't think anyone here will argue that in some individuals certain vaccines may lead to adverse affects, possibly ones which can affect the brain or the nervous system. That's a vastly different statement than "vaccines might cause autism". The fact of the matter is we don't even fully understand what causes autism or how it develops, but there have been no legitimate studies performed, as far as I have seen in numerous neurology courses, that suggest current vaccines or anything in them cause or even show correlations with autism.

 

[GiveMeThatMD]

So you throw out that one specific paper, you don't throw out the entire concept.

Absolutely you do. Scientists attempted to recreate his findings to no avail. Wakefield fudged his research so badly that they threw out his paper, his topical research, and the cherry on top, his whole medical license.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Exactly. But everyone acts as if his fraud disproves the entire concept, which isn't entirely true.

The possibility will always exist, but the point being is that there is no strong support for it. Until you can show strong support that vaccines causes autism, then it is as good as believing that there is no correlation or causation. This is the point that everyone is trying to get across.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

That is exactly what people are arguing. They are arguing that not only do vaccines not cause autism, but they don't cause any neurological disorders.

Yes, some vaccines can cause very very very rare neurological disorders which are usually inherently genetic. I.e you're already a ticking time bomb from the get go.

The possibility has been proven for other problems and continues to be strong for several others. With this being the case each individual should have the right to determine which risk they want to face.

Do they want to face the risk of getting measles OR do they want to risk developing a neurodegenerative disorder?

Let me rephrase and inject some sanity into this post. Do you want to get measles and actually have a risk for inflammation of the brain or do you want to get 3 doses of a shot that has no utterly no risk of damage?

And again, there's no evidence what so ever. And yes, sorry that some bleeding heart doesn't want to embrace the reality that they waited too long to have children and because of the recombination that naturally occurs your child was born with autism. But that doesn't change the safety and functionality of vaccines.

 

[Stagg737]

That is exactly what people are arguing. They are arguing that not only do vaccines not cause autism, but they don't cause any neurological disorders.

No, they aren't, you're reading into things that aren't there. Go back and re-read the thread.

Also, I'd love it if you could link me any piece of research that confirms theres a significant correlation between vaccines and neurodegenerative disorders. Other than the hundreds (thousands?) which have shown that polio vaccines prevent polio, of course.

Edit: Oh look, already found it for you. Notice that all of the highly recommended/mandated vaccines such as MMR or TDaP have severe side effects that occur in fewer than 1 in a million people. Compared to the number of people who were permanently disabled/disfigured or died from those diseases before vaccines, those numbers are a miracle.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

That may be one of the more painful stories I've read on here in a long time...



Because allowing those children to not be vaccinated not only affects those children and their families, it can affect the general public as well. The first person to die of measles in 12 years was an immunocompromised woman in Washington state who had been vaccinated. This was a case that was 100% preventable if the patients she had encountered in the hospital where she contracted the disease had been vaccinated. So do you charge those people with reckless homicide? Because if they had been vaccinated it is extremely likely they never would have contracted the disease in the first place meaning the woman would have never been exposed to it and died. Essentially their autonomy killed that woman.

I'll say this is one of the very few cases that I have wrestled with in terms of my personal beliefs, possibly the only situation, where an individuals autonomy may need to come second to the greater needs of society.



I can already tell you're going to love your bioethics course...



Right, throw that paper out and look at the literally hundreds of other papers that show exactly ZERO correlation between vaccinations and autism. The only legitimate correlation that has even been suggested was linked to oral polio vaccines that were given in the 60's, and even that data is highly questionable.

You also have to look at what is being said. I don't think anyone here will argue that in some individuals certain vaccines may lead to adverse affects, possibly ones which can affect the brain or the nervous system. That's a vastly different statement than "vaccines might cause autism". The fact of the matter is we don't even fully understand what causes autism or how it develops, but there have been no legitimate studies performed, as far as I have seen in numerous neurology courses, that suggest current vaccines or anything in them cause or even show correlations with autism.

Honestly only one set of readings in bioethics has already taught me that professional ethics in medicine is in contradiction with the fundamental orientation of helping people.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

That statement is utterly and completely false. There are risks. Sure, they are low, but they do exist. Even the CDC lists "severe brain damage" on the list of side effects. It is up to the individual to make the decision as to what risk they are willing to accept.

Akin to how riding a car is about a million times more deadly than riding an airplane.

But regardless, I really don't care. If you're against vaccines then you need to find a different career. You will not be allowed to work in any hospital or attend medical school without being on schedule and because of the negligence risk you pose to your future patients by failing to advocate for vaccines.