Multiple Vaccinations on Same Day Does Not Raise Autism Risk

  • Share
  • Read Later
Peter Dazeley / Getty Images

Infants now receive several shots at a time, but the latest study says that does not increase their risk of developing autism.

About one-third of parents are concerned about unsubstantiated claims that vaccines can cause autism. And although research, including an analysis by the Institute of Medicine, has not found a causal relationship between vaccines and the developmental disorder, one in 10 parents still delay or refuse to vaccinate their children according to the Center for Disease Control’s childhood immunization schedule.

Intuitively, parents believe that the amount of antigens, or immune-activating agents in the shots, over-burden young babies’ still-developing immune systems, making them more vulnerable to developing autism. So many parents “shot-limit,” or stagger the immunizations their infants receive, spreading them out rather than vaccinating their children at the recommended 2, 4, and 6 month visits. There is no evidence, however, that delaying the various doses of the 14 different vaccinations recommended in the U.S. are safer for kids.

And the latest study investigating the practice, published in the Journal of Pediatrics, continues to show there is no association between autism and receiving “too many shots too soon.”

The researchers reviewed data involving 256 kids with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and 752 without ASDs. By examining their vaccination schedules, the scientists calculated the maximum amount of antigens from the shots each child received during a single doctor’s visit to determine how stimulated the babies’ immune systems were to create antibodies against the diseases for which they were vaccinated. They also calculated the infants’ overall antigen exposure in three different groupings — from birth to three months, from birth to seven months, and from birth to two years, by which time most youngsters should have received the bulk of their childhood immunizations.

(MORE: Vaccine Safety: Why Parents’ Alternative Immunization Schedules May Cause Harm)

For each age grouping, the scientists compared exposure to antibody-producing antigen and risk of ASDs. By age two, most properly vaccinated children should have been exposed to about 315 different antigens from disease-causing agents such as measles, tetanus and pertussis. They could not find any increase in incidence of autism-related diagnoses with increasing exposure to antigens as the children received more immunizations, and concluded that neither the number of vaccines a child gets before age two nor the number of vaccines a child gets in a single day were associated with developing autism.

The researchers acknowledge that children today receive more vaccines than they have before, but that doesn’t mean they are being exposed to more antigens. In the 1990s, for example, infants were exposed to thousands of antigens, rather than the current 315, from their immunizations. That’s because some shots have been redesigned to stimulate antibody production with fewer antigens; the older version of the pertussis, or whooping cough shot that included the whole bacterium, for instance, produces around 3,000 different antibodies while the new vaccine that incorporates only a snippet of the pathogen produces less than six. The scientists also stress that an infant’s immune system can successfully confront a heavy burden of such bacterial or viral stimuli, and that babies are exposed to hundreds of viruses in their environment.

“The concern around vaccines has been a very significant issue. Many parents are now deciding to wait or space out vaccines. There has been a concern that when parents are worried about whether vaccines are associated with autism that they are going to choose not to vaccinate their child,” says Geraldine Dawson, the chief science officer for Autism Speaks. “That’s one of the reasons we see this as very good news, because we hope this will reassure parents that the number of vaccines your child received during the first couple years of life is not associated with a risk in developing autism.” Dawson, who is a professor of psychiatry at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, was not affiliated with the study.

(MORE: Parents Wary of Childhood Vaccines? Here’s How to Persuade Them)

The researchers also found no link between vaccine load and the development of regressive autism–in which a child develops normally and then suddenly loses speech and social skills. The timing of the this regression with the completion of childhood immunizations have been a strong factor keeping concerns about the burden of vaccinations alive in many parents’ minds. “We have been particularly concerned about that subgroup of kids who do have that regression. These are kids who develop normally during the first few years of life and then they lose their skills, usually around their first or second birthday, which is of course right around the time they receive some of their vaccines. This study looked to see if for even this sub group, whether they are more at risk, and again no connection was found,” says Dawson.

While claims about the correlation between vaccines and autism continue to simmer, the body of evidence doesn’t provide any support for the connection. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the British researcher responsible for raising the alarm about immunizations, lost his medical license in 2010 when his claims about the measles, mumps and rubella shot increasing the risk of autism could not be substantiated. The scientific paper in which he described his theory was also retracted after editors determined the findings were “fraudulent.”

MORE: How Safe Are Vaccines?

Dawson understands the concerns and confusion that parents have about the safety of vaccines and autism, especially when so much conflicting information is available on the internet to evaluate. “I think one of the biggest struggles for families is that we still do not understand the causes of autism. We know that there are many different causes and I think that until we conduct more research and understand the causes, parents are going to be drawing connections and having many questions and concerns,” she says. While no vaccine is 100% safe, however, the current study’s results should help to reassure parents that the benefits of protecting children from potentially deadly infectious diseases such as measles and pertussis far outweigh potential risks associated with the shots.

358 comments
zoerachel44
zoerachel44

Basketball isn't going to simply have to be just rule licensed play when using indoor wood made court. You can get many unique variations within the game of which bring basketball into a whole completely new level. Variety is amongst the things which enables basketball a really popular hobby. http://www.scorespro.com/basketball/

MichelleWigtilGirard
MichelleWigtilGirard

1. This study (or this article) references the schedule of vaccines at 2 , 4 , and 6 months. It is conspicuously silent regarding the magic 18 month shots, which is when people who believe there is a connection think the problem is. It corresponds to the earliest believed on-set of Autism in isolation to congenital diseases that include Autism-like symptoms and thus currently is defined as Autism (e.g., Fragile X syndrome, the leading cause of cognitive impairment, is a genetic condition, is present from birth and despite similar behaviors is not Autism--the majority of Autism cases present from birth or earlier than a year are also diagnoses with a congenital disorder or a birth injury, or a documented TBI--if you are investigating a link between Autism and any external causative agent, the cases absolutely have to be "pure" Autism, cases that there are not contributing genetic or injury co-existing conditions).  

2.  This is not a "study" as the general public understands it. It is an analysis of current data with no normative sample, no control sample, no special populations sample. Yes, an analysis of existing data is called a study in research fields, the connotation of the term outside those fields is different. Given the available data out there, there is no reason they could not have compared like numbers rather than almost 3 times no ASD sample. Is that the number they needed to skew the results.

3.  This study does not indicate that there is any danger in staggering, so given the option, I would stagger.

4. I may have missed it, but I did not see who financially supported this study. Was it the NIH/M? A public grant? A private grant (and if so, from whom)? There is a reason they say there are lies, darned lies, and statistics. If this is the full scope of the article and not abbreviated for the internet, then shame on Time for not either including all this information if they have it or for failing to look deeper.

IvelissePacheco
IvelissePacheco

I believe vaccines + pollutants + a genetic predisposition (immune system), is the cause of autism. It is just too much going on that is attacking our bodies. Some kids luckily can overcome the huge attack of contaminants and don't get affected with the last droop that spills the glass of water ( the multiple vaccines ). I have a 18 yrs old boy diagnosed with autism- in his case I follow the recommended vaccines schedule. He got a lot better with dietary and nutricional intervention. Ten years after I have another boy who I did not followed the vaccines schedule. I skip the first set completely and the 3rt, he also just got only one vaccine of hepatitis. The results, my son has ADHD and some really milds characteristics of asperger.! I'm wondering if my kids has some predisposition that get shoot with the vaccines. The fact that I did not let my younger boy to get all the vaccines may has something to be with him having a lot less form of the condition.

I'm sorry if my grammar is not the best, but English is my second language and I still learning. But my level of English grammar will not stop me on posting my personal opinion about this.

ErinDrake
ErinDrake

This is a big fat lie. There is NO testing being done pertaining to autism from the medical community except for hand-fulls of real doctors who have evidence autism is caused by vaccines. Drug companies are buying off our doctors and our congress to make parents afraid of their own shadows and to believe anything they tell you. Your kids are NOT safe having poison put into their bodies and everyone who isn't an idiot knows the outbreaks are either faked or caused by the live viruses in these vaccines.

dess
dess

the concern shouldn't be about multiple vaccinations on same day but in general vaccines can cause illnesses because I myself read manufacturers own leaflet saying that there can be a case of polio one in a million or so taking polio vaccine. I read one site talking on these things in detail  http://t.co/6mIMBWy2jp

Bi-Winner
Bi-Winner

Big Pharma wants you to think there is a link between MMR and Autism. Measles, Mumps and Rubella all can be eradicated. It is much more profitable for them to vaccinate MOST people forever then vaccinating ALL people once and for all.  By listening to Big Pharma's lies, the conspirators have compromised the health of all the world's people.

Vulcanthunder
Vulcanthunder

Those anti-vaccine people out there may actually be increasing the rate of autism with their unscientific thinking.  Recent studies have shown that women who get influenza during pregnancy are more likely to have an autistic child. So by making women scared to get their yearly flu shot they are to blame for some of the increase we are seeing.  

NinPhan
NinPhan

Isabella Thomas
Statement from parent of two boys in the Lancet study

I, as a parent of two children in the Lancet study, have had to speak out about the vicious attacks on Dr. Andrew Wakefield by his own government, the US government and the media blaming him for the measles outbreak in Wales. The Lancet study was not paid for by the Legal Services Commission and our children were referred to the Royal Free Hospital because they were very sick and would still have had investigations done even if they were not part of the Lancet research as many more children have done after the Lancet study by other consultants at the Royal Free and other hospitals in London.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield listened to the concerns of many parents about their sick children suffering with bowel conditions and a form of Autism, a bowel condition and brain damage that was ignored by other professionals. These parents were demonstrably ‘black listed’ for saying their children became ill after the MMR vaccine.

Parents were speaking about this situation years before Dr. Wakefield came on the scene and our government also knew about these concerns years before the Lancet study yet they did nothing to investigate, leaving hundreds of other children at risk of side effects. Our government did not listen to parents but accused them of making the symptoms up and threatening to take their children away if they did not stop making a connection with MMR vaccine. As a result, these children and young adults live in a great deal of pain to this day (one doctor saying to my son ‘we believe you believe you are in pain’).

There is much more I could say about the experience of my family and others but I want to make it clear that the children’s claims in relation to MMR were supported by many other experts in several disciplines all of whom provided reports for the court. I attach a list of them. These experts would all have given evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice on behalf of hundreds of children we claim were damaged by the MMR vaccine had the cases been allowed to continue. In addition the solicitors representing the claimants were in touch with and drawing on the expertise from many more than these, but many did not want to be formal experts. I don't know how much the experts listed were paid, but they were all paid fees just as Dr. Wakefield was in the normal way that experts are paid in litigation cases (and probably much less than the defendants’ experts were paid!).

The court case was not heard and parents did not lose. Legal Aid decided to pull their funds for the sick children at the last minute. Legal Aid is government run and the government took out an indemnity to protect the drug companies from parents suing and we as parents had no idea that the litigation case was set up to fail right from the start. The government could not afford for the children to win and thus they could not afford for the statements from the experts to be read out in court. I have these reports and am told they are sealed and I am not allowed to produce them here however tempted. Below is a ‘summing up by Justice Keith when a few of us parents tried to continue the case without the support of Legal Aid and spoke in front of a room full of drug company representatives about our sick children. At the Royal Courts of Justice. I was very proud to be part of that group.

lilady
lilady

The causes of chronic liver failure and acute liver failure are listed here.  Note that cases of chronic liver and some cases of acute liver failure associated with infection with the hepatitis B virus can be avoided by immunization at birth with the hepatitis B vaccine.  

Overuse (overdosing) with Tylenol (or any OTC or prescribed medication) that is metabolized in the liver can be the cause of acute liver failure:

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/digestive-diseases-liver-failure



PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

Big Pharma is business for profit. Health and Safety are secondary considerations. The Medical Establishment is also a business for profit and the FDA, staffed by doctors some of whom have been discredited, receive the majority of its funding from Big Pharma. When I grew up, all immunizations were singular...not combinations. The process of immunizing against disease started and continued for well over a century as a "singular" and not a "combined solution". Parents observe their children when they receive immunizations and can readily tell if a particular immunization is causing unnecessary distress. The Government and the Medical Community need to listen to parents on this matter. No child of mine will ever receive multiple immunizations to accommodate the "health care for profit" system. As a matter of parental responsibility, we will "err" on the side of caution and continue to defy the trend of coercion to maximize convenience and profit at the expense of safety.

Thalidomide, diethystilbestrol, and a hundred other formerly tested, approved and prescribed drugs have been removed from the market because of the HARM that they did. Acetaminophen is still sold over the counter in spite of being responsible for 80% of the liver failures that occur. Anything proposed by Big Pharma, the Medical Establishment or the FDA should be approached with great caution...their track record is horrible! Skepticism and doubt, not complicity, is the appropriate response in a system where we have to advocate for our sick relatives to protect them from harm. Pharmaceuticals drugs should be prohibited from advertising on television just like tobacco and alcohol and immunizations should be available for children in the form that satisfies parents concerns about safety. After all, THEY are the ones paying for it.

NinPhan
NinPhan

By the way, did anyone actually download and read the pre-pub of the IOM's report? Seems glaringly different from what the lamestream media are reporting. They actually stated that they did not look at multiple vaccines given at once nor at the schedule in its entirety, but rather at each vaccine individually and then made a bizarre leap of logic. If swallowing one razor blade doesn't kill me, swalling six shouldn't either.

Not surprisingly the IOM's reports are once again misinterpreted like in 2011 when we heard that the new IOM report once again proclaimed how safe vaccines were. At least that's how I read it in several media online publications. When I looked at the report I found that in the majority of cases - 135 out of 158 examined – the committee couldn’t reach any conclusions about connections between vaccines and serious health conditions, saying there was insufficient evidence

For example, the committee said it did not try to determine how often such serious vaccine-caused adverse events occur.

In the report, the committee noted that many of the adverse events it examined are “exceedingly rare in the population overall,” and most often occur without being preceded by vaccination.

But in the briefing, Clayton and other committee members could not put a number on “rare.”

Without numbers, it’s impossible to compare the risk of an adverse event to the risk that an unvaccinated child might get seriously ill from a disease.

The committee also said it was not asked to answer the question “Are vaccines safe?” Nor did it have data to address the concern by many parents about multiple vaccines given at one time.

Policy decisions about vaccines, the committee said, require a “balancing of risks and benefits.”

The vaccine that racked up the highest number of problems was the varicella vaccine, given to prevent chickenpox. In some patients – most of whom had compromised immune systems – the vaccine caused brain swelling, pneumonia, hepatitis, meningitis, shingles and chickenpox itself. Brain swelling? Hmm, prolonged brain swelling can cause autism right? As long as it's not from a vaccine though of course. There's logic.

AngelNondefeated
AngelNondefeated

@ErinDrake YES YOU ARE SO RIGHT,MY SON AS SOON AS HE WAS BORN AND HE RECIEVED HIS SHOTS WE NOTICED THAT HE WAS LOSING HIS ABILITY TO HOLD HIS BOTTLE HE WAS SAYING MAMA AND DADA AND ALL OF THAT STOPPED WE CAUGHT IT VERY EARLY, I TOLD HIS PEDIATRICIAN THAT THE SHOTS IS DOING SOMETHING WIERD TO MY BABY AND HE WILL NOT BE TAKING THEM ANYMORE SHE HAD THE NERVE TO TELL ME THAT ITS NOT THE DAMN SHOTS LIKE AS IF I DON'T KNOW MY OWN CHILD!....LONG STORY SHORT WE PARENTS THAT HAVE CHILDREN WITH AUTISM WE KNOW THE DAMN TRUTH BUT THEY HIDE IT AND MAKE MONEY OFF OF OUR KIDS EVERYTHING IS HAND AND HAND  NO ONE CARES AND NO ONE WILL TAKE THE BLAME FOR WHAT IS IN THOSE VACCINES....

lilady
lilady

@ErinDrake That testing for safety is done both before and after each vaccine is licensed and available.  If you read prior comments on this old thread, you would have realized that.

Stop calling posters here liars, when you haven't read the comments and get your information from conspiracy websites.

(Immunology 101 and Epidemiology 101)



NinPhan
NinPhan

MMR Claimant Experts (who produced reports that were served)

Professor M B Abou- Donia
professor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology and a professor of Neurobiology Duke University medical centre
Pharmacology and neurobiology

Dr Kenneth Aitken
K.Aitken Consultancy, Independent Consultant
Child Clinical Neuropsychologist,

Professor William Banks Professor in the Department of Pharmacology & Physiology, both departments at Saint Louis University School of Medicine
Pharmacology and physiology

Dr. Edward Bilsky Associate Professor of Pharmacology University of New England College of Medicine
Pharmacology

James Jeffrey Bradstreet, MD, Fellow, AAFP
International Child Development Resource Center Adjunct Professor of Neurosciences Department of Psychology Stetson University Celebration, Florida
Child development

Vera S. Byers, M.D., Ph.D
President of Immunology, Inc Immunologist

Professor Neal Castagnoli, Jr.
Peters Professor of Chemistry Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA
Chemistry

Dr A Peter Fletcher MB BS PhD FFPM (Dist)
Former regulator Industry expert

Professor Noam Harpaz Associate Attending Pathologist, The Mount Sinai Hospital, Director, Division of Gastrointestinal Pathology, The Mount Sinai Hospital, and Associate Professor of Pathology, The Mount Sinai School of Medicine,
Pathologist
New York.

Professor Ronald C. Kennedy, Ph.D
Professor and Chairman of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center located in Lubbock, Texas
Immunologist

Marcel Kinsbourne, D.M. (OXON), M.R.C.P. (LOND).
Research Professor of Cognitive Studies at Tufts University and Professor of Psychology at the New School University in New York
Neurologist

Arthur Krigsman MD New York University Hospital Pediatric Gastroenterologist

Dr John March Head of Mycoplasmology at the Moredun Research Institute (MRI), Edinburgh Vaccine development; molecular biologist

Professor John J Marchalonis Professor and Chairman Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine Tucson, Arizona Microbiologist and immunologist

Professor Johnjoe McFadden Professor of Molecular Genetics at the School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford Genetics

John H. Menkes, M.D Professor Emeritus of Neurology and Pediatrics University of California, Los Angeles Director Emeritus of Pediatric Neurology Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Neurologist

Dr Scott M Montgomery Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden Epidemiologist

Professor John J. O’Leary, MD, DPhil, MSc, BSc, FRCPath, FFPathRCPI Professor of Pathology at Trinity College Dublin and Consultant Histopathologist, St. James’s Hospital Dublin and the Coombe Women’s Hospital Pathologist

Professor Samuel Shapiro MB, FRCP(E). Visiting Professor of Epidemiology. Mailman School of School of Public Health. Columbia University. Emeritus Director. Slone Epidemiology Center. Boston University School of Public Health. Epidemiologist

Dr Orla Sheils Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology University of Dublin, Trinity College (TCD).
Molecular pathologist

Dr Fiona Scott BSc (Hons) PhD C.Psychol
Chartered Psychologist University of Cambridge

Dr Carol Stott BSc (Hons) PhD (CANTAB) C.Psychol
Chartered Psychologist University of Cambridge

Professor SAMY SUISSA
Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics McGill University and Royal Victoria Hospital Montreal, Canada
Statistician

Professor Richard Tedder
Head of the Joint Department of Virology, University College London. Also Clinical Lead for the UCLH NHS Trust Department of Virology and Clinical Head of Microbiology Services UCLH NHS Trust
Virologist

Professor Edward J Thompson Doctor of Medicine (MD, FRCP,FRCPath) and a Doctor of Science (DSc,PhD)
Head of the Department of Neuroimmunology at the National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery
Neuroimmunologist

Professor John Walker- Smith
Emeritus Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology in the University of London
Paediatric gastroenterologist

Dr. Troy D. Wood Associate Professor in Chemistry and Adjunct Faculty in Structural Biology at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA
Chemistry and structural biology

NinPhan
NinPhan

" It is important for the claimants’ litigation friends to understand why their children’s claims are not being allowed to proceed. It is not because the court thinks that the claims have no merit. Although this litigation has been going on for very many years, the question whether the claims have merit has never been addressed by the court. The reason why the claims have not been allowed to proceed is because everyone has realistically recognised for some time that it is just not practicable for the claims to proceed without public funding. With no realistic prospect of public funding being restored for any of the claims save for the two which are now to proceed as unitary actions, the dissolution of the litigation became inevitable.
Before leaving the litigation, I wish to express my thanks to the defendants’ legal teams for the assistance they have given the court. Although at all times advancing the interests of their clients as is to be expected in adversarial litigation, they recognised the needs of the claimants’ litigation friends, and provided them with all the information they needed, as well as affording them the occasional indulgence. The assembly of the various bundles of documents, and the preparation of the skeleton arguments, were of an exceptionally high order. But my final words must go to the claimants’ litigation friends. As I said in an earlier judgement, no-one can fail to have enormous sympathy for the parents of the children to whom this litigation has related. They have spoken eloquently and with great feeling of the tragedies which befell them when their children became ill. They blame the vaccines produced by the defendants for damaging their children, and they are bitter over their inability to proceed with their claims. But when they came to court, they always expressed themselves in a measured and moderate tone, despite their disenchantment with the Legal Services Commission which they believe has let them down, and at all times they treated the court with courtesy and respect. They made my difficult task less wearing that it might otherwise have been. I am grateful to them for that." Justice Keith.

Dr Andrew Wakefield made front page news in some of the national papers prompting an immediate reaction that it is lunacy to give him space, and that what he says is "balderdash". What is highly questionable (and vindictive) is to blame him for all the ills of MMR vaccine because he published a paper in the Lancet 15 years ago (which has neither been "discredited" nor did it claim that MMR causes autism) and because he suggested that children should be given the single measles vaccine.

The association between autism and MMR was never assessed by the UK courts because of the withdrawal of legal aid. In the USA and Italy the courts have awarded compensation for MMR vaccine damage. The USA also has an expert committee for assessing claims of vaccine damage and they have compensated other parents for damage caused by MMR which did not then need to go through the full legal process.

How long does it take the UK government to learn that cover-up is invariably a more serious matter than the original crime or mistake? It's time the spotlight was turned on Dr Salisbury, who had little or no background in immunisation and had only been in post a short time when he reassured his committee that they did not need to worry about the adverse effects of Pluserix despite its withdrawal in Canada and serious reports from Japan? It's time to turn the spotlight on the process by which was Brian Deer recruited by the DOH to help rescue their MMR programme. It is, of course ,easy to conjecture and it needs a full enquiry which must come sooner or later, the results of which demand full media attention.

I am aware that in 1992 two of the three brands of MMR were withdrawn overnight on the safety ground that they caused viral meningitis and that when MMR was first introduced the Department of Health stated that the single vaccine would continue to be available. For their own reasons they changed their minds later. Had they not done so, those who had concerns could have continued to protect their children from measles and this outbreak would not be happening.

I know that it is officially denied that there is any link between the vaccine and any form of autism (even though American and Italian courts appear to have accepted the link). What is not denied is that the rate of autism had increased substantially since the 1990s (from about one in 2500 to as many as one in 50). Instead of blaming Andrew Wakefield every time there is a measles outbreak why does the Government not put funding into finding the cause of this distressing condition? If it can be shown that the cause of the increase in autism has absolutely nothing to do with vaccines, then that will remove the suspicion that it does and you can all forget that Andrew Wakefield ever existed.

Governments should be putting huge resources into finding out what is causing this disabling condition which is putting an immense strain on families and draining the welfare resources of this and other countries, not attacking doctors and parents of lies. This I call child abuse.

Professor John Walker Smith who was part of the Lancet team was exonerated in the Autism MMR GMC Case. The GMC stated afterwards ‘Mr Justice Mitting has made a number of criticisms about the inadequacy of the reasons given by the panel for the decisions they made on the charges facing Professor Walker-Smith. The panel of medical and non-medical members, having heard all the evidence, were required to set out very clearly why they reached the decisions they did. They failed to do that in relation to key questions, including whether Professor Walker-Smith’s actions were undertaken for the purpose of medical practice or medical research and whether procedures performed on the children were clinically necessary. These were important points that needed to be addressed by the panel in the determination and the failure to do so was the major cause of Mr Justice Mitting allowing the appeal. This also stands for Dr. Wakefield who did not have the funds to challenge the GMC as Professor Walker Smith did.

Isabella Thomas.

Parent of two boys who were part of the Lancet study.

lilady
lilady

@PeterBRutkiewicz Whoa there.  you've made unsubstantiated libelous allegations against the government, researchers, scientists doctors and nurses...who, in your conspiracy filled mind are part of an international cabal of money-grabbing unethical licensed people who damage children with vaccinations.  You of course, have proof for all your statements?

Thalidomide was tested, approved and prescribed?  Really?  When was it tested, approved and prescribed in the United States? 

MikeStevens1
MikeStevens1

@lilady Good overview and explanation. Pity the die hard antivaxers will be impervious to logic and rationality.

PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

@NinPhan Balancing of risks and benefits? Oh, so the authorities have already recognized the risks, have accepted them, and can no longer be bothered with people who question their decisions. Whatever happened to "Do No Harm". Sounds like there is a lot of ego in the way of any change in policy or course of action.

That is some list of diseases caused by the chickenpox vaccine. The disease generally isn't as bad. That's some statement "...most of whom had compromised immune systems" but not all with compromised immune systems!!!  More fuel for those adverse to forced immunizations.

Many years ago I was immunized twice in different years for specific influenza outbreaks. Those winters were the sickest winters I had in my entire life. Haven't gotten a flu shot for the past 20 years and I haven't been sick at all. Coincidence? Not based upon my experience. Never again and with very good reason.

MikeStevens1
MikeStevens1

@NinPhan Is it so strange that if a vaccine reaction is so rare that it is seldom encountered that one may not be able to "put a number" on its incidence?

Also, do you have a link to where varicella vaccine is meant to have caused those problems please?

lilady
lilady

@ErinDrake @Vulcanthunder  

It makes perfect sense to me and other readers, who have a basic education in immunology and epidemiology.

 

MikeStevens1
MikeStevens1

@lilady @PeterBRutkiewicz  Pretty much the usual conspiracy filled rant we come to expect. The content is not even close to being correct, but insinuation and guilt by association are rife.

People always mention thalidomide (60 years ago and counting...?) and Vioxx. They can seldom come up with other drugs which have had significant impacts in the same fashion.

 Acetaminophen? This is an example of exploitation by bigpharma? Go on, show us the profit on this drug, which sells for pennies a dozen.

And the nonsense about vaccination is  well, just nonsense.

PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

@lilady @PeterBRutkiewicz  Thalidomide was introduced in the late 1950's  and was withdrawn from the market in 1962. It is still prescribed today under a different name (Thalidomid) for the treatment of  multiple myeloma (a blood cancer) and relief from symptoms of HIV . I know someone born with no forearms and no hands or fingers because their pregnant mother was prescribed Thalidomide to alleviate morning sickness, here, in the United States, filled by prescription in the United States. Do you have any idea what a tragedy like that does to a family at a time when they are expecting joy? There isn't an "international conspiracy" of money-grabbing unethical licensed people...that particular distinction, if it were even partially true, would apply first to the United States since it is here that we pay the most for health care while having inferior mortality rates for newborns and shorter lifespans for men and women. Health Care and a profit motive do not mix well.

Made no allegations against any particular field, but made a generalized criticism that major aspects of the health care system (Pharmaceutical, FDA, Hospitals, Physicians and Medical Insurers) needs to clean up its act. I bet you actually believe that "millions of Americans suffer from acid reflux disease". That isn't a disease...its a symptom of overeating at the wrong time of day with the wrong foods and laying down or reclining after a heavy meal. Big Pharma has been actively selling the idea that it is a disease of epidemic proportions and there are ads on television every day to sell the "cure" for ...God's mistake? There are people with real esophageal disease, but there are not 20 millions of them as indicated in an April 2013 Associated Press article dealing with the subject.

My salient point is that citizens, not the Government, FDA, Pharmaceutical Industry, Doctors or Nurses are paying for the immunizations and they should be in a form that is acceptable to parents who take their role too seriously to believe everything they are told. They are justified in their skepticism and they see it as their responsibility to protect their children against a system of forced requirements.

To date, the CDC and the FDA have made no studies of isolated groups of individuals such as the Amish or Jehovah Witness to determine if the rates of autism is significantly lower than that of mainstream children being immunized for public school. Why is that? Too expensive? An F22 costs $150,000,000. Build one less F22 and fund thorough studies. We might actually save more money than it costs by improving the health of young children and bring down the high rates of autism that are now at 2% of school age children (1 out of 50...another economic burden like that of Alzheimer's disease!). That was in another press article on the CDC in April 2013.

Next time you have to deal with a parent who questions the wisdom of multiple immunizations given simultaneously, what is your degree of responsibility if there is a negative outcome? Anaphylaxis is real. Is there no chance that there is an association? Can there be another pathway whereby the immune system producing antibodies causes problems as young brains develop? We don't know enough about the human brain to be able to answer that with certainty. Too many parents, too many autistic children, too many unanswered questions to ignore their concerns. And, they are the one's paying for the health care. It is time the issue be put to bed with hard evidence and the "professionals" leave their ego out of the discourse.  "Do No Harm"


MikeStevens1
MikeStevens1

@PeterBRutkiewicz @NinPhan I get it - you have the experience of n=1. That outweighs hundreds of trials on tens of thousands of patients and the other anecdotal experience of millions. But yes, you must be right, because it happened to you.

Where is the data I asked you for on the reactions to the varicella vaccine please? Have you conveniently forgotten to reply to me, hoping your lies will be accepted by people without your providing the evidence for what you say?

lilady
lilady

@PeterBRutkiewicz @NinPhan The seasonal influenza shot is a killed virus vaccine.  The illnesses you report are not associated with seasonal flu shots.

NinPhan
NinPhan

@MikeStevens1 @NinPhan Yes, that's pretty strange when you look at the millions upon millions of dollars that VICP has awarded over the years. Not strange to someone with blinders on I imagine, but definitely strange to any rational person.

PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

@MikeStevens1 @lilady @PeterBRutkiewicz  With the increases in autism, ADD and ADHD the current conspiracy, if there is one, is to ignore the growing problem and continue to promote widespread drug distribution rather than look for the causes.

First, we should remove all drug ads off the television, just like booze and cigarettes. We are talking about prescription medication here, which neither tobacco or liquor required.

Prescriptions kill more people than alcohol or tobacco.

Second, Prilosec and Nexium should be removed from the market since they behave in an addictive fashion by punishing those that stop taking them with a burst of excess acid into the stomach.

Third, since acetaminophen has such a low profit, then it should be available only by prescription since it is the leading cause of liver failure...greater than that of booze. It is not safe to be distributed to the unsuspecting public and the inadequate warnings on the packages do not say "If you double up on this medication, you will poison you liver and death may ensue."

PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

@lilady @PeterBRutkiewicz Don't do conspiracy websites but I do access both sides of political discourse from far right to the far left (wise to be fully informed). Have had all and more than you listed...science major in college. 

Supplements are safer than prescriptions. Very few side effects with dietary supplements. In fact, food has more negative side effects than most dietary supplements, depending upon your sensitivities and your genes. 

For example, do you know what you can use to block alpha receptors for fat deposition while throwing the genetic switches that inhibit deep fat metabolism in order to effectively lose weight fast in the areas of the body that are truculently resistant to everything except fasting,? Without a prescription? A 3 month supply will cost under $20.00. Not recommended to be used longer than 3 months which can be stretched out to six months with an alternating monthly treatment. Knowledge is power. :) I bet some celebrities don't "fast" and go zero carbs like they say before they step on the Red Carpet in designer gowns.

 The best science is on the Internet...the books haven't even been written about a lot of new discoveries and most physicians, so busy with their practices, are not able to keep up with it except for a few cutting edge mavericks that have broken away from the pack.  (Oz, Amen, Thurman and several others).

Offhand, common sense tells me that although the benefits of immunizations are touted as being so great, there is a nasty discovery yet to be made and a sudden reversal of policy is likely to result. It will probably involve the brain, endocrine and immune system. Its long overdue. Just as it was necessary to remove trans fat from the mainstream market place (but not from public school lunches because we just couldn't let a little thing like childhood obesity affect the profits and operation of school lunch providers) there will be something regarding immunizations. Why? Because nothing is as perfect as those who benefit from immunization economics would like us to believe.

Since the FDA see fit to remove the majority of trans fat from the mainstream food supply (its still there in virtually all packaged foods but in much reduced quantity. You see the "new math" of the FDA allows manufacturers to list  zero trans fat even though the product still has trans fat in it), they did not elect to protect school children from its effects. So we are now supposed to trust the FDA when they have already made it clear that they don't give a rat's ass about the health of school children? Not likely. "Ye shall know them by their deeds."

Illness is productive to filling appointment calendars , hospital beds and increasing the throughput of money through the health care system. Healthy people have very little need for a doctor or a prescription. Who influences FDA decisions in a health care for profit system? Those who profit from illness. Thats is not conspiracy theory. That is a fact of the current reality.

You would do well to visit some conspiracy websites. It may give you a new perspective. I find swinging back and forth between the Dems, GOP and Tea Party is all the time I have besides an occasional blog. I point out the inconsistencies and some people call that a "conspiracy theory". It always comes from someone who gets money from the status quo.

lilady
lilady

@PeterBRutkiewicz @lilady You would do well to stay away from those conspiracy websites and stop touting supplements on a science blog.  A few college courses in basic biology, organic/inorganic chemistry and immunology might "assist" you before you even attempt to discuss this study.

PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

@lilady@PeterBRutkiewiczEach person has to make the decision for themself based upon their knowledge and their experience. I won't. for instance, ever accept another flu shot. Been there, done that, bad outcomes both times. As far as children are concerned, its their parents decision until the children get a little older and can decide for themselves. Immunizing a high percentage of a population effectively makes transference very unlikely. Its not the province of those in the medical profession to make decisions for children. That authority resides with the parents.

There are better ways to prevent disease than vaccinating for every viral mutation that comes down the pike. How would you vaccinate against Noravirus with its 28 or so possible mutations as it jumps from person to person?

My stand makes "proof" and "citations" unnecessary. I am not trying to convince you. You can read and convince yourself in whatever manner you prefer. My stand is that the decision is up to each person to make, or their parents, not the medical system, not the FDA, not the schools, and not the Government.

The alternative to this has a name. Its called "Fascism". Here is one of its characteristics: Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

@lilady @PeterBRutkiewicz Those who choose to be vaccinated would be protected from those who chose not to be vaccinated. Therfore, there exists no reason to force vaccinations onto people who are concerned about them.

If vaccinations were safe, there would be no need for disclaimers, no need for granting permission, no Vaccine Court, no lawsuits and little skepticism to overcome.

I seriously doubt that any compensation for harming a child is any comfort to the parent who allows the treatment to occur. They live for their families and not for the money.

Although I fully understand that you are just "doing your job", protecting your license does not protect the patient. It should, but it doesn't. Your position is understandable considering what you have to do. No one signs a consent form expecting that there is any need for concern..."its just a formality" or "we're required to give you this" are typical comments upon presentation.

Deep down inside, you know that it is sometimes a matter of too much, too soon. If you do not believe that, then you are probably in denial because it is difficult to accept those situations any other way and you have to do your job.

You should try SAM-e. Check out the comments on the product on Amazon.com. You are under a lot of stress and it will help in a very natural way without any side effects. I do respect your point of view and the difficulty of your day to day duties. Thank you for the links you posted. I will read them.

lilady
lilady

@PeterBRutkiewicz @lilady So you're not against immunizations, eh?  Seems to me that you are substituting you uninformed *opinions* about the dangers of vaccines for children and adults with some dodgy arguments against childhood vaccines.

Care to provide citations that back up your statements.  Compare and contrast the exceedingly rare serious adverse events associated with vaccines-versus-the real consequences of acquiring the diseases that vaccines prevent.

Please use reliable sources; Age of Autism, the NVIC and whale.to are NOT reliable sources.



lilady
lilady

@PeterBRutkiewicz@lilady 

Thalidomide was never licensed in the United States, thanks to the efforts of Dr. Kelsey at the FDA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

You are correct that an analogue of Thalidomide is prescribed for treatment of multiple myeloma...a blood cancer and is undergoing clinical trials for treatment of other diseases.

What do you mean that autism prevalence among Amish has not been studied?  Have you only read the Amish (drive-by) study conducted by Dan Olmsted at Age of Autism?  It is a joke.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/06/29/underimmunization-in-ohios-amish-parental-fears-are-a-greater-obstacle-than-access-to-care/

Are you accusing me of not screening patients before I administered a vaccine..or multiple vaccines for preexisting medical conditions and prior serious adverse reactions to a vaccine, a component in a vaccine (adjuvants, preservatives, culture media)?  Why would I put my nursing license "on the line" by not screening patients?  Why would I violate nursing practice standards and leave myself open to a civil lawsuit?  I also provided each patient/parent a copy of each VIS (Vaccine Information Statement) that is a requirement under Federal and State law to be given at the time of vaccination.

Of course anaphylaxis is real...anytime a patient receives a vaccine or, anytime a patient is provided any medicine.  Children and adults have been awarded damages from the Vaccine Court, if anaphylaxis results in encephalitis/encephalopathy.

What if we didn't vaccinate, because we ceded our responsibility for ensuring the health of individual patients and the public at large...to Dan Olmsted and the other *journalists* at Age of Autism?

http://www.pkids.org/immunization/consequences_not_vaccinating.html


 

 

 

PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

@lilady @PeterBRutkiewicz  By the way. I'm not against immunizations but I am against forced immunizations and multiple immunizations in young children. Patients suffering from multiple simultaneous infections often have very poor outcomes with kidney, heart, liver failure or coma. If adult immune systems cannot tolerate the onslaught, common sense dictates that young children are even more susceptible to serious problems due to a cross-fire of pathogens. We are expecting the immature immune systems of young children to be Triathletes while doing nothing to assure their immune system is capable of withstanding the assault, and we don't know what it can do to their developing brains. Immunizations put pathogens inside of children years before they are likely to come into contact with them in a normal environment.

PeterBRutkiewicz
PeterBRutkiewicz

@MikeStevens1 @PeterBRutkiewicz @NinPhan Mike, I do not really care what you believe. Believe whatever you want. And, please do your own research which is influenced by those who economically benefit from "rules" and "laws" that favor the Pharmaceutical Industry, the Medical Insurance Industry, Hospitals, and the Medical Profession. My salient point is not against immunizations. The point is that since the citizens are paying for healthcare out of their own pockets, then they are and should remain the final determinators of what treatment they submit to...not the FDA, not the Government, not the school systems, not the Pharmaceutical Industry, not the Hospitals and not physicians.

As consumers, we will operate on a "buyer beware" policy and look for proof, not hearsay in all matters medical for ourselves and our children. You want immunizations? Then have yourself immunized and keep your personal opinions out of the laws.

It is the fundamental right of all citizens to refuse treatment whenever they see fit. It doesn't matter what you think. It can even be argued that the "right to bear arms" is an extension of each person's fundamental right to protect themselves from ALL manner of harm, not just from other guns. Its that basic and if you think otherwise, then you do not support the Constitution that the President is sworn to uphold. That means you are not patriotic and it means you are "something else" disguised as an American. If you think imposing your beliefs on others against their will is OK, we are definitely on different pages and will never agree. I'm really curious as to what role models you really admire...that would be a telling revelation. Be careful with that or you are likely to lose a lot of credibility.