16 years ago, a doctor published a study, and it made us all sick

[wtbcrna]

"After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything.

In the intervening years, millions have been spent on studying this further to see if there was anything that could connect autism and vaccines. This is what they found."

16 years ago, a doctor published a study. It was completely made up, and it made us all sicker.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

There are no absolutes in science. Dr. Offit said it best about absolutes. "I have tried many times to fly by jumping off of things and flapping my arms as a child, but I never flew" that didn't absolutely prove humans can't fly it just showed again that 100% of the time that people that try to fly by flapping their arms it hasn't worked. To be an absolute it would have to tried on every human being that is alive or has ever lived.

It is the same with vaccines. We talk in certainties about vaccines because most people don't understand what absolute actually means in science. We have shown that 100% of the time vaccines haven't shown a correlation with autism rates in a few million cases.

[Nurseworks, ASN, RN]

So basically some company is going to take on developing and manufacturing a product for which they have financial liability and are not allowed to make a profit from? Do you think anyone would take that offer?

I specifically said "or". If the first part is unappealing (it is), then the second option I suggested should be a requirement. Hell, I'll take it a step further and forget the civic/ethical argument and speak to your capitalistic side; do you think it makes good sense as a buyer to provide your supplier with a continuous revenue stream while not requiring them to assume responsibility for their product? At the very least, wouldn't you be concerned about stagnation (again, trying to avoid the obvious ethical pitfalls here)?

Throw in the mandated part and it makes it a bit more complex (ethically) than what you are putting forth, wouldn't you agree? Similarly (and somewhat simplistically), car seats for children are mandated. The companies who make them are motivated by profit, responsible for R&D, are required to meet certain guidelines put forth by the government and yet they are able to handle the "burden" of being held responsible for their products. Furthermore, they continually are improving on their designs and will voluntarily recall a product should it be discovered there is a flaw, either through injury/death or post-marketing testing. But when someone is injured or killed by a vaccine, the wholly inappropriate mantra of "it's for the greater good" is offered up. Why is that? It's that very minority which we should look to protect, thereby not only ensuring a safer product but also possibly improving it. But no, all I ever hear is the same thing, that nothing is 100% (never asked for that) and that this is necessary (easy to say when you're the safe majority).

Like I said, there are some on here who's minds are made up on this topic, the "science has spoken" crowd who berate anyone that questions their dogmatic stances. Those aren't the people I'm trying to establish a dialogue with; instead I am hoping for a more moderate discussion about the points I've raised. If there's no interest in that, I'll quietly step away and move on to another conversation.

[Nurseworks, ASN, RN]

It is the same with vaccines. We talk in certainties about vaccines because most people don't understand what absolute actually means in science. We have shown that 100% of the time vaccines haven't shown a correlation with autism rates in a few million cases.

That's simply not true.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

I specifically said "or". If the first part is unappealing (it is), then the second option I suggested should be a requirement. Hell, I'll take it a step further and forget the civic/ethical argument and speak to your capitalistic side; do you think it makes good sense as a buyer to provide your supplier with a continuous revenue stream while not requiring them to assume responsibility for their product? At the very least, wouldn't you be concerned about stagnation (again, trying to avoid the obvious ethical pitfalls here)?

There is responsibility for the product, in fact there is a whole court for just that purpose and there is a tax on each vaccine produced for that purpose. This protects manufacturers from baseless litigation. This, in turn, keeps the costs of vaccines low enough that it is cost-effective to vaccinate.

But when someone is injured or killed by a vaccine, the wholly inappropriate mantra of "it's for the greater good" is offered up. Why is that?

Very very few people have ever been killed by a vaccine, and in most cases far more are killed each year by the very disease the vaccine prevents. Few people suffer any serious complications from vaccines, and again, those complications are of little significance compared to the complications of the disease prevented.

Like I said, there are some on here who's minds are made up on this topic, the "science has spoken" crowd who berate anyone that questions their dogmatic stances.

This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific process. It's not a "science has spoken" crowd, rather, its a "science speaks" crowd. Unlike the pseudoscientists, we don't "make up our minds" on a topic; scientists let the data do the speaking. Making up your mind is pseudoscience.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

That's simply not true.

Please, cite a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates a causative link between vaccination and autism.

I will cite these:

Dales, L., Hammer, S. J., & Smith, N. J. (2001). Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. Jama, 285(9), 1183-1185.

Madsen, K. M., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., ... & Melbye, M. (2002). A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1477-1482.

Madsen, K. M., Lauritsen, M. B., Pedersen, C. B., Thorsen, P., Plesner, A. M., Andersen, P. H., & Mortensen, P. B. (2003). Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data.Pediatrics, 112(3), 604-606.

Kaye, J. A., del Mar Melero-Montes, M., & Jick, H. (2001). Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis. Bmj, 322(7284), 460-463.

Fombonne, E., & Chakrabarti, S. (2001). No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella–induced autism. Pediatrics, 108(4), e58-e58.

Taylor, B., Miller, E., Farrington, C., Petropoulos, M. C., Favot-Mayaud, I., Li, J., & Waight, P. A. (1999). Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. The Lancet,353(9169), 2026-2029.

Mäkelä, A., Nuorti, J. P., & Peltola, H. (2002). Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Pediatrics, 110(5), 957-963.

Farrington, C. P., Miller, E., & Taylor, B. (2001). MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine, 19(27), 3632-3635.

Wilson, K., Mills, E., Ross, C., McGowan, J., & Jadad, A. (2003). Association of autistic spectrum disorder and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: a systematic review of current epidemiological evidence. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(7), 628-634.

Stratton, K. R., Howe, C. J., & Johnston, R. B. (1994). Adverse events associated with childhood vaccines other than pertussis and rubella: summary of a report from the Institute of Medicine. JAMA, 271(20), 1602-1605.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

Actually, I felt that Dr. Carson had a chance to take a very strong position on the vaccine-autisim myth and instead made a very conservative statement on the topic.

Well, he is very conservative, so ...

No, he made a misinformed statement about the vaccine schedule and that has nothing to do with being conservative. Just not very well-informed. I sent an email to his campaign manager suggesting a chat with Dr. Paul Offit (my hero).

People joke about it. But we have some major financial debt, as well as all this violence. Something needs to be done.

Back to topic... My arm from the flu shot is still sore.

Did you "rub it up" from the time of the injection and then often afterwards like I suggested?

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

I must thank BostonFNP (again) for all the posts with links to REAL research.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Nurseworks vaccines are the only medication that constantly undergo continuous phase 4/post marketing studies to ensure safety and efficacy. Vaccines are the only medication that have its own safety reporting system/VAERS that anyone can report suspected adverse reactions to. Vaccines are also the only medication that has its own system for adverse reaction compensation.

Your belief that pharmaceutical companies need to give away vaccines and be held personally accountable to have safe and effective vaccines simply isn't true as numerous studies have shown.

Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies - Institute of Medicine

[elkpark]

No he made a misinformed statement about the vaccine schedule and that has nothing to do with being conservative. Just not very well-informed. I sent an email to his campaign manager suggesting a chat with Dr. Paul Offit (my hero). [/quote']

I wasn't saying that to excuse or defend his response in the debate -- I meant that, since he's a conservative Republican running for the Republican nomination for president, of course he's not going to say anything that the crackpot right wing base might object to (the really scary thing for me to think about is, does he a) really not know any better (I mean, c'mon, I know he's a neurosurgeon and not a primary care pediatrician, but he is a pediatric neurosurgeon ...) or b) know better but is willing to compromise his professional knowledge and ethics to pander to the base of his party?)

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

I don't think Mr. Carson's "base" are anti-vaxx.

I did mention on another thread that last week in the teacher's lounge I was discussing a student with the school psychologist and a paraprofessional overheard us talk about autism and she piped up and said she thought the increase in autism has coincided with the increased use of epidurals during labor. Women just aren't as brave as they used to be. Oh and she thinks chem trails are real.

I didn't mention "Twilight Sleep" that was common during the time MY own mom was having babies (1950's/early 1960's).

She's a Trump fan.

[Nurseworks, ASN, RN]

There is responsibility for the product, in fact there is a whole court for just that purpose and there is a tax on each vaccine produced for that purpose. This protects manufacturers from baseless litigation. This, in turn, keeps the costs of vaccines low enough that it is cost-effective to vaccinate.

I'm very familiar with the existence of the VICP and the process. What that has to do with the analogous example I put forth I cannot see; in fact it flies in the face of it. Additionally, the goal of administering vaccines should first and foremost be that it is done in a safe and effective manner, not to protect the bottom line of those who are profiting from its use. From what I remember, vaccines have an extremely high ROI. But to entertain your point, for decades manufacturers have used multi-dose vials for administration so as to cut costs, with the by-product having been the inclusion of thimerosal. Now they use it sparingly, huzzah. Was that a good idea? Probably not, but the science isn't completely in on just how harmful thimerosal can be. Want to say it doesn't cause autism? Go right ahead. Just remember that some of the studies that have been put forth declaring its safety lean heavily on some dubious research.

So in summation, your position is that you're ok with manufacturers not being fiscally liable for a for-profit product that is endorsed/mandated by the government so long as taxpayers pick up the bill when something goes sideways for some unfortunate person or family, right?

Very very few people have ever been killed by a vaccine, and in most cases far more are killed each year by the very disease the vaccine prevents. Few people suffer any serious complications from vaccines, and again, those complications are of little significance compared to the complications of the disease prevented.

People die from vaccine-preventable illnesses every year, some of whom were previously vaccinated. People are killed, maimed or injured by vaccines every year. That you are apparently comfortable with that against the benefits to the majority answers my question without you having to say it. I get why that can make someone feel icky, but the truth of the matter is that is the argument consistently put forth, that it's for the greater good. Funny how when that's put up against a minority that doesn't involve vaccines, like say peanut allergies, then that gets all turned around. Like I was saying, it's a ethically challenged position to say "everyone must get vaccinated", especially with caveats about manufacturer's profits or litgation.

This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific process. It's not a "science has spoken" crowd, rather, its a "science speaks" crowd. Unlike the pseudoscientists, we don't "make up our minds" on a topic; scientists let the data do the speaking. Making up your mind is pseudoscience.

Umm, if you hold the stance that you do and can e-tell me with a straight face that "the science has spoken" or "the question has been asked and answered" isn't a bell-cow quote for Offit, IFLS, Orac, Seth Mnookin, Forbes, etc, then we can just stop the conversation now.

Please, cite a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates a causative link between vaccination and autism.

I will cite these...

All but one was about MMR?

The assertion was that vaccines (all) have 100% of the time been shown to have no correlation to autism. I contend that is a false statement. Without diving too much into the semantics, if someone suffers a table injury which results in a diagnosis of autism, that's a correlation. Is it causative? Who knows, no one is really looking.

Also, just how many of those MMR studies relied on data obtained from the DeStefano paper? Surely that there is a question over the procedural methods utilized in that study we can agree there may be some concerns in its continued citing?

Nurseworks vaccines are the only medication that constantly undergo continuous phase 4/post marketing studies to ensure safety and efficacy. Vaccines are the only medication that have its own safety reporting system/VAERS that anyone can report suspected adverse reactions to. Vaccines are also the only medication that has its own system for adverse reaction compensation.

Your belief that pharmaceutical companies need to give away vaccines and be held personally accountable to have safe and effective vaccines simply isn't true as numerous studies have shown.

Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies - Institute of Medicine

VAERS is a voluntary reporting system, not a mandated one, whose underutilization has been covered before.

That vaccines have their own system for adverse reaction compensation is precisely my point.

As for my belief, it was OR, not AND. Second time in this thread I've had to point out that distinction. But yea, let's critique my understanding, that's more fun.

Again, if you guys would rather not discuss (not debate, not fight, just talk) about the points and concerns I made and instead brow-beat me with studies and talking points, just let me know and I'll just drop the whole thing, seriously.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

I'm very familiar with the existence of the VICP and the process. What that has to do with analogous argument I put forth I cannot see; in fact it flies in the face of it. Additionally, the goal of administering vaccines should first and foremost be that it is done in a safe and effective manner, not to protect the bottom line of those who are profiting from its use. From what I remember, vaccines have an extremely high ROI. But to entertain your point, for decades manufacturers have used multi-dose vials for administration so as to cut costs, with the by-product having been the inclusion of thimerosal. Now they use it sparingly, huzzah. Was that a good idea? Probably not, but the science isn't completely in on just how harmful thimerosal can be. Want to say it doesn't cause autism? Go right ahead. Just remember that some of the studies that have been put forth declaring its safety lean heavily on some dubious research.

Vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe and effective more times than studies I am willing to take the time to cite. The safety and efficacy of vaccines has never been in question to anyone that reads and understands the current data.

Vaccines make up little more than a rounding error in the pharmaceutical market. If you are talking about ROI being high, that's the ROI of employers vaccinating workers to avoid lost productivity.

Thimerosal has been demonstrated a myriad of times to be of no significant risk at the doses used. This, again, is well documented. It contains ethylmercury which is cleared by the body far faster than the methylmercury found in the diet.

So in summation, your position is that you're ok with manufacturers not being fiscally liable for a for-profit product that is endorsed/mandated by the government so long as taxpayers pick up the bill when something goes sideways for some poor family, right?

The "taxpayers" are only the people being vaccinated. They pay a small set tax to provide financial support for any adverse effect. This is a much smaller cost than the pharmaceutical industry would tack on to the cost of vaccines if there were no system in place. So yes, I am ok with limiting the cost of vaccines while providing financial support if applicable.

People are killed and maimed by vaccines every year. That you are comfortable with that against the benefits to the majority answers my question without you having to say it. I get why that can make someone feel icky, but the truth of the matter is that is the argument consistently put forth, that it's for the greater good. Funny how when that's put up against a minority that doesn't involve vaccines, like say peanut allergies, then that gets all turned around. Like I was saying, it's a ethically challenged position to say "everyone must get vaccinated", especially with caveats about manufacturer's profits or litgation.

Show me some numbers of confirmed serious adverse effects linked to vaccines. Please, enlighten us with the hard numbers.

The truth of the matter is the risk of a serious adverse effect, while present, is very small on the range of

The truth is an individual is far more likely to die of have a serious complication from a preventable illness than from the vaccine for that illness. If you disagree, please share your data.

Umm, if you hold the stance that you do and can e-tell me with a straight face that "the science has spoken" or "the question has been asked and answered" isn't a bell-cow quote for Offit, IFLS, Orac, Seth Mnookin, Forbes, etc, then we can just stop the conversation now. You're already shucking and jiving a bit too much for me given my previous thoughtful commentary.

Yes I am waiting for my shill bucks to come in. The elegant response of the pseudoscientist: everyone involved in any data against your preconceived notion is a shill.

Post some data to support your position.

All but one was about MMR.

MMR was the only vaccine to ever be questioned as it relates to austim. Please cite some sources otherwise.

The assertion was that vaccines (all) have 100% of the time been shown to have no correlation to autism. I contend that is a false statement. Without diving too much into the semantics, if someone suffers a table injury which results in a diagnosis of autism, that's a correlation. Is it causative? Who knows, no one is really looking.

wtbcrna likely misspoke there. There is no causal relationship demonstrated by the science. There is a correlation, just like there is a correlation to drinking water, the sales of organic foods, the membership of allnurses, to increased autism diagnosis.

Also, just how many of those MMR studies relied on data obtained from the DeStefano paper? Surely that there is a question over the procedural methods utilized in that study we can agree there may be some concerns in its continued citing?

Cite your concerns. Show us some peer-reviewed studies to support your statements. The listed studies were independent studies save for 2 meta-analysis studies.

VAERS is a voluntary reporting system, not a mandated one, whose underutilization has been covered before.

You think a free and easily accessible system that results in only 3% valid claims is underutilized?

That vaccines have their own system for adverse reaction compensation is precisely my point.

They have their own system out of an abundance of caution, which one would think you'd support.

As for my belief, it was OR, not AND. Second time in this thread I've had to point out that distinction. But yea, let's critique my understanding, that's more fun.

Again, if you guys would rather not discuss (not debate, not fight, just talk) about the points and concerns I made and instead brow-beat me with studies and talking points, just let me know and I'll just drop the whole thing, seriously.

Please, discuss. Share your data. Cite your sources. Let's discuss.