Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You wanna know what boggles my mind? People like you that ASSume.
Never said it was from vaccines. You just took off calling me an idiot.
I have no idea who you think you are and what makes you think someone's personal observations are stupid or idiotic.
Seems to me you are the one mistaken, not me.
Jerseyt, I think you are confused. I was not addressing you.
Nor did I state someone's personal observations are stupid or idiotic. Not even sure what "it" you are referring to.
Why the Social Responsibility Argument is Nonsense
The guilt trip method is a common vaccine marketing technique. If a parent is concerned, say about the ingredients in the shot for their child, they are told that they 'have to' vaccinate for the good of all other children to prevent the spread of disease in the community. This concept is flawed for a variety of reasons that I will explore here:
I do not believe the better diagnosis crap the medical community is telling us.
We did not have nearly the amount of kids that we do now even having something wrong with them. Something is causing this.
I moved and changed school districts six times growing up. I did not see this at all!! I did see one child that was "hyperactive" and 3 total downs syndrome.
I have also been a substitute teacher for almost 7 years now. I see less downs and a boatload of autism. Something is causing this.
I now work in a school that has 500 kids in 3 grades. There are 50 kids classified as autistic. That's 10%.
Science needs to look at how these kids get this and not simply pass it off as better diagnosis.
It's very sad.
You did not see autistic kids when you were growing up because the most severely affected were in institutions and the moderately affected went to separate schools, if they were not just kept in a back room at home. They were called "retarded" or "slow" or sometimes "schizophrenic", not autistic. People with Asperger's were "shy" or just socially awkward.
The prevalence of Down syndrome in the US has actually increased, due in large measure to women waiting until they are older to have children. So why are you seeing less? There is not less of it. Hint: your sample size may be too small.
How many of the autistic children in your current school receive extra services?
Forty years ago, how many "retarded" children were mainstreamed into general classrooms and received special services there? Hint: none.
What reason would there have been forty years ago to try to label these children with a specific diagnosis? The only reasons would have been research oriented, because not much was available in the way of treatment.
So what has happened in the arena of diagnosis.
1911: Eugen Beuler uses "autism" to refer to a group of symptoms of schizophrenia. Note that there was no one diagnosed with "autism" before that, because the label did not exist. That does not mean that there were no people with autism.
1940s: Kanner uses autism to describe some children with withdrawn behavior, as does Asperger. So now we can label children with Asperger's syndrome. Does that mean Asperger's syndrome did not exist before the 1940s? Obviously not.
1960s: Understanding of the differences between schizophrenia and autism. Some people who formerly wore the label "schizophrenic" now wear the label "autistic."
1960s forward: evolution of treatment methods. Mainstreaming of disabled children.
What happens as treatment becomes available? Parents seek treatment for their children. As resources become available, more children receive the label "autistic" in order to qualify for those services and receive financial assistance in obtaining them.
In addition diagnostic criteria become more standardized:
Genetic testing becomes available, leading to the diagnosis of things like Fragile X syndrome.
Once you have diagnostic criteria, then making the diagnosis is facilitated. Awareness of the diagnosis increases the likelihood of finding it.
Result: The "retarded" kid who never went to school at all now has a diagnosis and is no longer kept in the back room at home because the family is ashamed of him. He attends the same school all those "normal" kids go to.
The mind does indeed boggle. Your confusion about diagnostics or apparent analysis is noteworthy. Your response of simply withholding a repeat of the same vaccine if someone had a reaction is most amazing.
If you have an adverse reaction to any drug, you do not take it again. I took an antibiotic. It gave me a rash. I wll not take it again. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Quote:
Maybe you need to take reading comprehension. No one said that an allergic reaction was the result of a non-functioning immune system. Where was this said? I think it was established that an allergic reaction was the result of an immune reaction.
The issue isn't about vaccine administration either, for the second time.
You keep moving the goalposts on this one, so let us not discuss it any more. You were the one that brought it up, not me.
Quote:
The last statement may be your statement of facts or for that matter an organizations, however, that does not make it true, as it is highly speculative.
It is a fact. It is the reason that you have never seen a child in this country with polio. There is nothing speculative about it.
Since all reputable (i.e., non-fraudulent) studies prove that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism, how could one be caused by the other?
While I agree that there is no credible evidence that points to vaccines causing autism, I wouldn't say vaccines are not without their problems. It's still a medical procedure and as with all medical procedures they carry a risk. The good thing though is that companies don't deny the possibility of side effects, but since severe side effects are rare the benefits out-weight the risk and for that reason they are still used.
I'm not sure if doctors inform their patients of possible side effects as I haven't been to a doctor in years (and don't recall doctors ever telling me about side effects), but I do know that pharmacists in Walgreens provide such information. This past summer I had to get a meningitis vaccine since I was returning to the University; decided to go to Walgreens since I didn't want to pay for a doctor's visit (I have no insurance). Before I got the shot, the pharmacist informed me that the most common side effects included fever, headache or pain at the site of inoculation. She also said that in rare cases there could be severe allergic reaction and for that reason she asked me to stay 20 minutes after the injection so that I could be observed (as these reactions usually present themselves immediately). I think doctors should take the same approach; doctors should be well informed on this and be able to answer the questions of their patients.
No one denies that vaccines can have side effects. Serious adverse reactions are so rare, however, that the risk of getting very sick, dying, or having long term disabilities from the diseases they prevent is many, many times higher. Since many people have never seen anyone with measles, for example, they are unaware that measles can and does kill. In my genealogy research, I have found numbers of relatives who died from measles. Read the mortality schedules that go with the US census and the number of deaths from infectious diseases we no longer see in this country is staggering. Go to a cemetery that has graves from the eighteenth century and earlier and look at all the infant graves. Many died from infectious diseases.
Every vaccine is accompanied by an information sheet. There is absolutely no way anyone can claim lack of informed consent for a vaccine unless he cannot read and hides that fact from the person giving the vaccine. Doctors do counsel patients about vaccines.. They are just as well informed as your pharmacist, if not more so. There are nurses here on CD who have given tens of thousands of vaccines and never seen a serious reaction.
Here is the Walgreens info on the meningitis vaccine:
You wanna know what boggles my mind? People like you that ASSume.
Never said it was from vaccines. You just took off calling me an idiot.
I have no idea who you think you are and what makes you think someone's personal observations are stupid or idiotic.
Seems to me you are the one mistaken, not me.
Idiot - An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. i.e. someone who puts their childs life in danger by refusing advised vacinations
Stupidity - is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or sense. In this case, it is someone who is undisciplined in thinking critically. Arguing using human fallacy and observational errors, without even attempting to learn why such illogic is a bad thing.
Since all reputable (i.e., non-fraudulent) studies prove that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism, how could one be caused by the other?
Basic critical thinking folks.
You can not argue with idelogology, faith, and religion
Science is an enemy, not a friend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
