[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by elkpark

Okay, then -- let's turn the question around and look at it from a different perspective. How much research, how many studies on this specific question would be enough to be considered convincing? Or is it just a matter of continuing to repeat the studies until one finally produces the results the "pro-link" (between vaccines and autism, I mean) people want to hear?

It is one of the great "true-isms" of research that "you can't prove a negative." There is never going to be definitive proof that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. But how many more studies have to be done that find no connection before people will be willing to accept that?

I'm not trying to be flippant or sarcastic, I'm asking seriously.

These studies are directed more towards finding the safest and most effective vaccine delivery schedule and finding out how to determine which children might be more vulnerable to the typical schedule than they are at proving or disproving a link. As to how much research is enough, I don't fund or direct any study and I, for one, don't presume to speak for what other people think. In my opinion, it will be enough when children are no longer injured by vaccines. As to when funders will say "enough", I have no idea.

It doesn't really matter if a vaccine reaction causes autism like symptoms or actual autism. The effects are real and worth understanding. I understand that many of you don't agree with that, and it is fine. To claim that there is no further interest in this topic in the mainstream medical community, however, isn't true.

[rph3664]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

So, who are you? Laura Schlesinger or Peter Singer?

For many families, it isn't about how they benefit from raising a child with severe autism in the home. It is about how the child benefits. That's what being a parent is about. I don't judge a parent who makes a decision to place a child in out of home placement, because I know it is heartbreaking and usually done with the safety of siblings in mind. I do judge off the cuff remarks about institutionalization. Olmstead v U.S.

I'm very aware that the decision to place a family member in a care facility is a very personal and painful one. It was very hard for my dad to place Grandma in a nursing home; I just can't imagine how wrenching that decision must be for a parent, whether to keep a young child or teenager at home. My point is that there are some people whose prognosis is hopeless; no, I don't understand and hope I never do.

Time magazine recently did a story about such a child, a teenager whose parents had successfully sued the school district to pay for the only "educational" facility that would take him - $135,000 a year. He was completely uneducable and was the type who spent every waking moment screaming and of course smeared his own waste all over every object he found. In case you were wondering, yes, his father is a physician. There are no easy answers in a situation like this.

Just yesterday on another board, a woman who has a son profoundly disabled by meningitis he contracted as a baby said he lived the first 2 years in a care facility. Out of the 88 children there, he was among the less than 10 whose parents showed ANY interest in them. Most of them were like her son and were normal at birth. Some had parents who COULD NOT visit because they were in prison for trying to kill the child, who survived and was left disabled.

I'm glad we no longer live in a society where disabled people are considered a disgrace, to be "put away".

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by rph3664

I'm very aware that the decision to place a family member in a care facility is a very personal and painful one. It was very hard for my dad to place Grandma in a nursing home; I just can't imagine how wrenching that decision must be for a parent, whether to keep a young child or teenager at home. My point is that there are some people whose prognosis is hopeless; no, I don't understand and hope I never do.

Time magazine recently did a story about such a child, a teenager whose parents had successfully sued the school district to pay for the only "educational" facility that would take him - $135,000 a year. He was completely uneducable and was the type who spent every waking moment screaming and of course smeared his own waste all over every object he found. In case you were wondering, yes, his father is a physician. There are no easy answers in a situation like this.

Just yesterday on another board, a woman who has a son profoundly disabled by meningitis he contracted as a baby said he lived the first 2 years in a care facility. Out of the 88 children there, he was among the less than 10 whose parents showed ANY interest in them. Most of them were like her son and were normal at birth. Some had parents who COULD NOT visit because they were in prison for trying to kill the child, who survived and was left disabled.

I'm glad we no longer live in a society where disabled people are considered a disgrace, to be "put away".

Given that every child is entitled, by law, to a free and appropriate public education and given your own proclamation that this was the only facility that would accept him, why shouldn't the school district pay? They don't have the luxury of denying any education to this child. It's black letter law.

This woman who claimed that only 10 kids had parents who cared about them has no way of gauging the interest level of other parents, only their involvement level. There are many things that factor into that. And I don't believe for an instant that "most" of the other parents had tried to kill their children. I'm sure whatever grain of truth there is to that story was grossly exaggerated by this woman.

[wtbcrna]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

These studies are directed more towards finding the safest and most effective vaccine delivery schedule and finding out how to determine which children might be more vulnerable to the typical schedule than they are at proving or disproving a link. As to how much research is enough, I don't fund or direct any study and I, for one, don't presume to speak for what other people think. In my opinion, it will be enough when children are no longer injured by vaccines. As to when funders will say "enough", I have no idea.

It doesn't really matter if a vaccine reaction causes autism like symptoms or actual autism. The effects are real and worth understanding. I understand that many of you don't agree with that, and it is fine. To claim that there is no further interest in this topic in the mainstream medical community, however, isn't true.

I think you are missing an obvious thing about vaccines. They are medications every medication has its side effects. The one pharmacology instructor that we had asked us to think of every medication as a poison and from there determine if the risks outweigh the benefits. The majority of the scientific/medical community has long ago determined that the benefits outweigh the risks with vaccinations. The areas left for vaccine safety research are in these rare individuals that previous undocumented reactions happen. We need to determine if we can prevent &/or predict that these type of severe reactions will happen again. In my opinion it is wasteful and takes away precious research dollars to keep validating the same research over and over again. Research dollars are very scarce, and are hard to come by.

By the way we are the funders of the majority of this type of research. We as taxpayers pay for this type of research through the NIH/CDC grants etc.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by wtbcrna

I think you are missing an obvious thing about vaccines. They are medications every medication has its side effects. The one pharmacology instructor that we had asked us to think of every medication as a poison and from there determine if the risks outweigh the benefits. The majority of the scientific/medical community has long ago determined that the benefits outweigh the risks with vaccinations. The areas left for vaccine safety research are in these rare individuals that previous undocumented reactions happen. We need to determine if we can prevent &/or predict that these type of severe reactions will happen again. In my opinion it is wasteful and takes away precious research dollars to keep validating the same research over and over again. Research dollars are very scarce, and are hard to come by.

By the way we are the funders of the majority of this type of research. We as taxpayers pay for this type of research through the NIH/CDC grants etc.

Yes, taxpayers do fund a lot of the research. Which belies the claim that this question is settled.

I'm not "missing" anything. Thanks all the same for the primer on risk-benefit analysis.

[wtbcrna]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Yes, taxpayers do fund a lot of the research. Which belies the claim that this question is settled.

I'm not "missing" anything. Thanks all the same for the primer on risk-benefit analysis.

I am perfectly happy saying that we all have our own opinions. We will just agree to disagree, and I am happy with that. We need people on both sides of an issue like this or it won't be properly addressed.


Have a good day! Back to studying for me.


Capt E.

[TiredMD]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Apparently, I am not making myself clear. There are plenty of us in the mainstream medical community that take a more moderate view towards this topic.

No, there are researchers out there who continue to attempt to discredit the whole ridiculous notion of vaccines causing autism. They repeat the same studies over and over again, and come to the same conclusion: no link. They do not do these studies because they take the theory seriously; they do it to try to convince laypeople who have been swayed by conspiracy theorists and parents with autistic children who see coincidence as causation.

[rph3664]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Given that every child is entitled, by law, to a free and appropriate public education and given your own proclamation that this was the only facility that would accept him, why shouldn't the school district pay? They don't have the luxury of denying any education to this child. It's black letter law.

This woman who claimed that only 10 kids had parents who cared about them has no way of gauging the interest level of other parents, only their involvement level. There are many things that factor into that. And I don't believe for an instant that "most" of the other parents had tried to kill their children. I'm sure whatever grain of truth there is to that story was grossly exaggerated by this woman.

You're right about the education thing. Wish I had a link; this article was from a few months ago.

Where did I say that most of the kids in that care facility were there because their parents tried to kill them? I didn't. I said she said a few of them were. This is a woman whose son has profound MR, seizures, and must be tube-fed so she knows how much work they are. She did say that most of them had parents who didn't even call to see how they were.

[BabyRN2Be]

Originally Posted by rph3664

How old is your daughter, and how old was she when she experienced this effect? I too would be reluctant to bomb her with, say, 9 vaccines in one day after this experience.

I'm sorry that I left this thread but I did want to answer your question to clarify something. My daughter was 12 weeks old when this happened. The doctor wanted to give her 5 vaccines that day. I got her down to 2. Then she had that reaction. Now, I'm really concerned about what might happen next. When you watch your baby go from healthy, happy, bright and alert to the other extreme in the span of less than a day, that, too, is scary and not something I want to repeat.

To answer your other question: I'm not in a part of the country with a large third world population, and there aren't really any large Amish populations in this general area. The few that are here are outside of the city. However, we do have a large church in this suburb who does not believe in immunizations and therefore my pediatrician thinks that some might be necessary. This will be an ongoing process and we will determine what's best for my baby.

I do agree that I'm afraid of pertussis and she will get the DTaP. My pediatrician agrees that polio is not necessary and that's how that decision came to be made. Ideally, I would like to spread out her vaccines and wait until she's closer to five to give her brain time to develop.

For me, there are a lot of unknowns out there as far as vaccines go, and this is why I want to delay.

I'm saying this as respectfully as I can as I do not want a flame war to come of this. As I said, these decisions are being made in consultation with my baby's pediatrician.

[bollweevil]

Originally Posted by wtbcrna

"As the brother of an autistic person and a brain scientist, I have been hoping that the increased focus on autism in the news would lead to a greater public understanding of this disorder. Instead, I am angry that this coverage is spreading dangerous myths."

"A link that isn't there


Recently, celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy and other activists have taken to the airwaves to repeat the myth that autism is linked to vaccination. Although peer-reviewed scientific evidence overwhelmingly opposes their views, they have attracted attention. In a recent discussion on Larry King Live, three pediatricians invited to make the case for science were no match for McCarthy's star power. Situations like this could mistakenly persuade parents to leave their children unvaccinated and vulnerable to contagious diseases."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...ismmythliveson

Isn't the jury still out on this matter? I'm truly sorry about your brother but he is blessed to have you.