Autism isn't fatal. Not vaccinating your child might be.

Post Reply New Topic

Psychology Today-Vaccines and Autism

In the midst of a parental debate/conversation on Facebook, I started a new page--Autism isn't fatal. Not vaccinating your child might be.

Facebook Page-Autism isn't fatal. Not vaccinating your child might be.

I had not thought this through before, but logically..

if parents would not vaccinate their child to save them from autism, they are basically saying that autism is a "fate worse than death." Scary, huh? WTF?

I'd rather be alive and autistic, than an abortion statistic.

Also vaccination has nothing to do with autism. So quit whining and get your kids vaccinated already people.

No, they're not. No more than if you refuse to spend a lot of money preparing for a nuclear holocaust, you're saying you think life in a bomb shelter is worse than death by nuke.

They consider the probability of catching the diseases you get vaccinated for very low (and bear in mind that you're surrounded by immune people), and the chance of recovery from those diseases greater than the chance of no longer being autistic if you are to begin with (which is certainly correct). I've even heard the theory that vaccines don't really work anyway. (To be fair, I heard this theory from someone who got vaxed for one of those diseases you only get once, who then proceeded to get it three times. Or at least, I think that's what it was. My memory's a little spotty for that.)

It's a cost-benefit analysis. You think there's a certain chance that having your child vaccinated will cause them to develop autism. I've heard as high a figure for that chance as 100%, which is obviously ridiculous, but suppose you're not an utter idiot, and put the chance at a more reasonable level. And you think there's a certain additional risk in not vaccinating. Given that you can still benefit from herd immunity (unless you think vaccines don't work, in which case there is no risk in not being vaccinated), this chance is relatively low. Then there's the chance that you'll recover with no lasting ill effects.

So you adjust it so that the possible outcomes are weighted correctly. I don't even have the numbers, let alone the technical skill to run them, but let me give an unrelated example. If you're on Deal or No Deal and the only two cases that haven't been opened are the million and the zero (to those unfamiliar with the show, there are a finite amount of cases, each of which contains one of a list of possible amounts of money; you pick one, open others and sometimes get calls asking you to sell your case for a certain amount), how much does the banker need to offer you for you to part with your case? The answer works out like this.

You could get a million or zero, and the probability of each is about equal. That means that your case currently contains half a million Schroedinger's dollars, essentially. So, the banker has to offer you at least half a million for it to be a good deal. If he does, you should take it, even though you could theoretically get more.

Maybe at some point I'll run these numbers to see just how bad autism would have to be in these parents' minds. But probably not.

I agree with you. Vaccinations have saved millions of individuals from contracting illnesses that would have very likely left them blind, deaf, blind and deaf, brain damaged, or even dead.

A very small percentage of individuals WILL have a bad reaction to a vaccination, and may even have a fatal reaction, however this is less than 1% of the population. Overall, vaccinations have reduced the child mortality rate in the world significantly.

I would not doubt that vaccinations have caused brain damage which expresses as autistic symptoms in a small number of individuals, however I do doubt that most, or even a large number of cases of autism were caused by vaccination injury.

People still think vaccines cause autism?

Yes. It's via the argument based on statistics made up on the spur of the moment.

Even after it's been discredited and proven false multiple times?

If you ever needed proof of the defender of an idea mentality, this has to be it

Hey, gullible people, your house is about to kill you unless you buy my magic rock!

I think the discussion regarding childhood vaccines needs to have a little more intelligent nuance. In America the vaccine schedule requires children to receive a cumulative total of 30 doses of vaccines before they reach 2 years of age. No other industrialized nation requires this many doses of vaccine for their children before the age of 2. Furthermore in America this dosing schedule is a "one size fits all" schedule. No allowances are made for the health of the child at the time the vaccine is due according to the schedule, nor for the size or weight of the child, or known risk factors for that child. So for instance, babies are routinely given a vaccine for Hepatitis B, even if there are no risk factors for the baby in question.

Vaccines provide a necessary public health benefit, and should be regarded as one tool in an arsenal to fight childhood disease. They are not the only tool however, and like any tool, can be overused to the point of being a determent to the health of some genetically vulnerable babies.

Rather than an all or nothing approach to vaccinating our children, it seems a more pragmatic and balanced approach would better serve the littlest members of our society. I think this approach is best summarized in the following article, by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: http://tinyurl.com/y2kqsu4

I would like to see parents and pediatricians work together to find the dosing schedule for each child that will render the greatest benefit, with the least risk of possible harm to the baby.

I have a friend with an Autistic daughter who is convinced vaccines and/or other environmental factors are the cause. I side step the issue with him these days, because he's a good friend, and so totally convinced it isn't worth it.

I've actually seen the study that sparked this entire debate, and used it for a final paper in a college statistics course. I basically picked it apart and demonstrated why I felt the study was flawed in serious ways. The paper got me an A+.

The class was actually more focused on ethics in statistical studies, but it did include a lot of mathematical understanding too. The real point of the class was to learn how improper sampling methods and interpretation could render the math completely useless, and how to avoid making the mistakes so many studies make, as well as how to identify when those mistakes had been made.

The vaccine study was fatally flawed, and proved absolutely no connection whatever between vaccines and Autism, but it also didn't prove there was no connection.

For me, what did prove it, is the fact that they haven't used mercury in vaccines for many years now, yet Autism in children born since then is still on the rise.

catlady has expressed my own viewpoint perfectly.

I would like to do away with a one-size-fits-all approach to vaccinations.

Because of these parents idiotic behaviour, measles, mumphs, and whooping cough are all ON THE RISE.
Diseases we really haven't seen much in 50 years, are coming back.

And yet, Autism is also "on the rise" (many different theories why of course) and since parents started doing this, there has been NO DECREASE IN AUTISM.

The only difference is more sick and dead babies from diseases we basically CURED already!

They think its totally okay to not vaccinate their kid, but expect other parents to do it so these nasty diseases don't come back.
Idiots. Don't they realize what a mess they would make if ALL parents thought like that?!

nice rhyme.

that should be made into a pro-vaccination slogan somewheres

Our doctor told us that of all the cases in our county (King County, Seattle) of whooping cough--my personal worst fear as T has asthma-- all of the children had been vaccinated for it. The pertussis vaccine is about 86% effective.

Sorry, there's no guarantee... even with vaccines. So the idea that they've wiped out all diseases is a fallacy.

Of course not, but you're still generally safer with a higher level of immunity, and there's no way in hell a vaccine will ever cause autism.

But on the subject of MMR, the Daily Mail says we've all been brainwashed to believe that it dosen't really cause autism! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ccine.html

I highly doubt you will find a study that supports this statement. Contrary to popular beliefs, coincidences DO exist.

A far more popular theory, that actually is supported by studies is that vaccinations tend to kill of all but the strongest viruses, thus causing the genetic development of "super viruses" that possess higher levels of immunity to the vaccines. This doesn't explain all increases, but it does explain some returns of viruses once thought to be [effectively] wiped out, but now resistant to the original vaccines.

("Vaccine resistant," I know is really a misconception, since the vaccine actually IS the virus, and it is the increased strength of the immune systems they are actually becoming resistant to. "Resistant to vaccine" has though, become a common way to refer to the problem)

There seems to me to be good arguments on both sides of this fence. The one most important, in my opinion is whether society has the right to tell parents what the best decisions are for their own kids, or even for themselves for that matter. So far, thankfully, we have erred on the sight of freedom of personal choice. I know, whatever my decisions, I don't want the government or anyone else deciding for me what I should or should not do.

I suspect almost everyone feels the same when it comes to their own choices. It's pretty easy to agree with the majority when you already do. It's easy to feel that everyone should agree to have their kids vaccinated when the majority already do it. What if the tables were turned though?

What if the majority felt that vaccines were dangerous and should be stopped? Would you want the majority dictating to you that your children shouldn't have access to them if you wanted them to have them?