ABC to air fictional show about vaccines and autism

[obeygiant]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The ABC network said on Monday it will go ahead with plans to air an episode of its new legal drama "Eli Stone" despite objections from pediatricians who say the show may discourage parents from having their children immunized.

The debut episode features the show's title character and hero, a trial lawyer for big corporations who decides to fight for the little guy, convincing a jury that a mercury-based preservative in a vaccine caused a child's autism.

On the show, a jury awards the boy's mother $5.2 million in damages after it is revealed the CEO of the vaccine maker kept his own daughter from getting the company's vaccine because of autism concerns.

The "Eli Stone" plot ventures into a highly charged debate between the U.S. medical establishment and some parents and advocates for autistic children over the safety of vaccines for youngsters.

Critics of childhood immunization have argued that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative formerly used in vaccines, is a primary cause of an autism in young children.

Major health authorities, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), cite numerous studies that rule out any scientific link between autism and vaccines.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, reacting to a synopsis of the "Eli Stone" episode in a recent New York Times article, issued a statement criticizing the show as "leaving audiences with the destructive idea that vaccines do cause autism."

The academy also made public a letter to ABC, a unit of the Walt Disney Co., calling on the network to cancel the show's premiere episode, which is scheduled to air Thursday.

"Many people trust the health information presented on fictional television shows, which influence their decisions about heath care," academy president Dr. Renee Jenkins wrote in a letter to Disney-ABC Television Group President Anne Sweeney.

ABC said it plans to broadcast the episode without changes, but would run a disclaimer at the opening of the show stating the story is fictional. A message at the end will refer viewers to a CDC Web site for information about autism.

The show's two creators, Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim, disputed the notion that their show would frighten parents away from vaccines.

"We actually share the concern of the American Academy of Pediatrics. We believe that children should be vaccinated," Berlanti told Reuters. But he also said, "We hope that people do watch the episode and draw their own conclusions."

Jenkins, in her letter to ABC, said the pediatricians group is "alarmed that this program could lead to a tragic decline in the immunization rate."

"In the United Kingdom, erroneous reports linking the measles vaccine to autism prompted a decline in vaccination and the worst outbreak of measles in two decades, including the deaths of several children," Jenkins wrote.Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2852014120080129?rpc=64&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

Both my kids are immunized and they're fine.

The responsible thing for ABC to do would be to air a documentary immediately following the show concerning the fear they just raised. But I guess fear=ratings.

[themadchemist]

OOOOOOF. This is a big problem. Those vaccine-related autism studies have been totally discredited--this is a myth of the highest order, and a dangerous one at that.

While I'm a big believer in free speech and I think ABC should be able to air whatever it damn well pleases, I think that peddling this nonsense is totally irresponsible. All we're going to do is dredge up old, unsubstantiated fears.

[Xfujinon]

As a physician-in-training, this is disgusting. There is already enough misinformation out there, there need not be any more. I am regularly brought to my knees by the sheer lunacy of many of the disinformation campaigns, especially when I realize that for everyone one of me screaming about how idiotic it is, there are probably seven of them making YouTube crap and posting websites.

The public is impressionable. Period. Do not give people excuses to make poor mistakes, regardless of one's view on personal accountability. Basic premises of epidemiology indicate that it is very risk to the POPULATION to have large numbers of people not vaccinated for certain diseases. Their idiocy endangers us all.

That sounds melodramatic, but it wouldn't take me long to list many latter-day examples.

Bad idea. Bad form, ABC.

[theBB]

All people will remember from this episode is that some vaccines cause autism. Respectable people will criticize the show for making this false impression, which will probably sound like drug companies are trying to bury the evidence for some of the audience. In any case, this is what the new parents remember a few months later: "Yeah, I remember, some months ago there were a series of TV programs that discussed how vaccines cause autism."

[Gelfin]

This is sufficiently irresponsible I think it justifies boycotting of ABC and of any advertiser who books time during this series, which I suppose I hope doesn't include Apple. Free speech only means the government can't shut them up legally. For this, I'm more than happy to hit them where it hurts to the extent I am able.

Besides, what would we be missing? LOST? Darn show hasn't been watchable in over a year anyway. Possibly the most disgusting thing about this move is how much it smacks of desperation and stirring up artificial controversy for the sake of ratings.

Really, though, what this demands is a spin-off series wherein a trial lawyer for big corporations decides to fight for the little guy by bringing a class action against a large television network for airing a misleading fictional show that some viewers mistook for docudrama and thus made ill-advised medical decisions which led directly to the deaths of their children. Man, that'd be great TV.

[Abstract]

They should post a disclaimer at the beginning of the show that says,

"There is belief in the medical community that high doses of ABC television programming may be responsible for mis-education and unwarranted fear."

[Stampyhead]

Those vaccine-related autism studies have been totally discredited--this is a myth of the highest order, and a dangerous one at that.

Sorry, this is not true. As much as doctors would like to believe that all vaccines are safe, it cannot be proven that they are. I'm appalled that you all are such sheep, willing to believe something blindly just because your doctor tells you it is so. People have the right to know that there are potential risks to having their children immunized and they should be able to look at both sides of the issue and make an informed decision.

As far as spreading fear and sensationalism, the AAP is doing their fair share of it as well:
"In the United Kingdom, erroneous reports linking the measles vaccine to autism prompted a decline in vaccination and the worst outbreak of measles in two decades, including the deaths of several children," Jenkins wrote.

[Iscariot]

This is a legal drama, right? Which means that the standard fiction disclaimer about "any similarities to persons living or dead or actual events is purely coincidental" applies, correct?

If that's the case, then isn't it up to the viewer to recognize that this is fictional and that they shouldn't be basing how their lives are lived around the cases of one fictional Eli Stone? It sounds to me that the show is just a third-rate rip-off of Shark, which is just a third-rate rip-off of House M.D. (only with law in place of medicine) anyways, and is destined for the dust bin.

[Evangelion]

I was quite shocked to learn that not immunizing children is quite common (well, maybe not common, but not unheard of either) in USA, because their parents have some crackpot-theories about vaccines...

[GSMiller]

AB-what?...who?

[Abstract]

^^^ ABD. It's ABD, stoopid. Didn't you like never go to school to learn stuff or something?

[Cromulent]

Sorry, this is not true. As much as doctors would like to believe that all vaccines are safe, it cannot be proven that they are. I'm appalled that you all are such sheep, willing to believe something blindly just because your doctor tells you it is so. People have the right to know that there are potential risks to having their children immunized and they should be able to look at both sides of the issue and make an informed decision.

As far as spreading fear and sensationalism, the AAP is doing their fair share of it as well:

Sorry but I would say the reverse is true. It is more sheep like to believe unsubstantiated rumour that has been blown out of proportion by the media than it is to believe scientific studies.

It is absolutely disgusting that the media is able to continue doing things like this without proving any scientific link between their claims. The worst thing is that if parents did not immunise their children the chance of a life threatening illness is much more than the chance of getting autism if they did get them vaccinated. Failure to vaccinate your child against measels is irresponsible and a knee jerk reaction without any basis in fact.

[Xfujinon]

A well-reasoned review of the most recent autism reviews in the literature will reveal that the current rhetoric pins most of the blame on genetic factors, although some environmental factors may be at play.

Mercurial adjuvants used in vaccines being implicated in the cause of autism is weak sauce from a variety of different scientific standpoints, but in order to save my breath, suffice it to say that the literature (and the scientists that contribute to it) have largely abandoned that hypothesis. Especially since you have a much greater chance of getting mercury poisoning from fish these days.

If you want to blame something for autism, how about diethylstilbesterols and the cornucopia of other chemicals that are now ubiquitous in our environment.

[Cromulent]

The really sad thing is - I bet that the majority of the parents who are complaining about vaccines and the possible health effects of them which a) has not been shown to exist and b) even if it did exist would only effect an extremely small number of children (1 in a few hundred thousand maybe) let their kids eat fast food which IS proven to be determental to their health, will cause them to be obese if taken to excess and will cause them to suffer from life threatening illnesses if eaten over a prolonged period of time. Meh, worry about the things that we know will cause harm to your children, not the things that have no scientific basis in fact.

[ziwi]

The really sad thing is - I bet that the majority of the parents who are complaining about vaccines and the possible health effects of them which a) has not been shown to exist and b) even if it did exist would only effect an extremely small number of children (1 in a few hundred thousand maybe) let their kids eat fast food which IS proven to be determental to their health, will cause them to be obese if taken to excess and will cause them to suffer from life threatening illnesses if eaten over a prolonged period of time. Meh, worry about the things that we know will cause harm to your children, not the things that have no scientific basis in fact.

America is the land of the 'extremes'. Studies are often completed and conclude one thing and following that is another that disproves it - it is an endless cycle. I do not know one way or the other if the vaccines cause issues, but if they did then shouldn't everyone be autistic who is immunized with the same vaccines? There has to be other contributing factors outside of the vaccines themselves - perhaps they are just one component or perhaps it is a wild goose chase.

As far as putting something on TV that is erroneous - bah - isn't that what TV is? Even the news pumps up the facts to make people tune in...Television causes more problems than it can solve...

[yellow]

This very same issue was aired as a reoccurring subplot theme in The Shield.

[themadchemist]

Sorry, this is not true. As much as doctors would like to believe that all vaccines are safe, it cannot be proven that they are. I'm appalled that you all are such sheep, willing to believe something blindly just because your doctor tells you it is so. People have the right to know that there are potential risks to having their children immunized and they should be able to look at both sides of the issue and make an informed decision.



I hate the use of the word "prove" in science...As for evidence:

B Taylor et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet. 1999.

A Hviid et al. Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism. JAMA. 2003.

JA Kaye et al. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis. BMJ. 2001.

CP Farrington et al. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine. 2001.

E Fombonne and S Chakrabarti. No Evidence for A New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism. Pediatrics. 2001.

I recognize that there are some studies that appeared to show a link. But I believe that the strong, strong consensus in medicine now is that MMR poses no threat, or at worst, a very marginal threat, of increasing risk of autism.


America is the land of the 'extremes'. Studies are often completed and conclude one thing and following that is another that disproves it - it is an endless cycle. I do not know one way or the other if the vaccines cause issues, but if they did then shouldn't everyone be autistic who is immunized with the same vaccines? There has to be other contributing factors outside of the vaccines themselves - perhaps they are just one component or perhaps it is a wild goose chase.


This has nothing to do with extremes. There was a scientific debate, and for the most part, the issue seems to be resolved. If there are further studies that show something different, those would be worthy of consideration.

But if the vaccines did cause issues in some people, it is a fallacy to expect them to cause autism in everyone. The human biological response is highly complex and differences in genotype, environmentally-induced protein expression, and incidental prevalence of various cell types, can all influence the body's response to any given insult. Moreover, there are "chance" events, like the local distribution of a drug or a particular set of cells' level of sensitivity at any given time. There are so many factors here that it would be folly to assume complete penetrance of any given effect. The ability to cause illness in everyone exposed is really only the province of the most devastating diseases and insults. In fact, as a comparison, note that even HIV infection spares some people from ever developing symptoms. There are individuals who are chronically infected but have never experienced an exceptionally high viral load or an exceptionally low CD4 count. This is just one of the complexities of medicine.

[GSMiller]

^^^ ABD. It's ABD, stoopid. Didn't you like never go to school to learn stuff or something?

Yea ABD that's it.....Or is it E? Hmm :confused:

:)

[Xfujinon]

Well said, themadchemist.

I don't have my literatures handy, since my EndNote is on my computer at home...

But well said. I talked with my adviser this morning (world-renowned epidemiologist), he says the matter is closed.

[themadchemist]

^^^ ABD. It's ABD, stoopid. Didn't you like never go to school to learn stuff or something?

It took me so long to get this joke. I kept thinking, "All But Dissertation," hmm...What's he getting at? :o

[RugoseCone]

The really sad thing is - I bet that the majority of the parents who are complaining about vaccines and the possible health effects of them… let their kids eat fast food…

Actually most of the parents I've encountered that are against vaccines are of the hippy-crunchy variety. Therefore they abhor fast food places.

My wife purchased an interesting book by Doctor Robert Sears, The Vaccine Book (http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/) and he seems to be mostly concerned about the levels of aluminum in modern vaccines. Our pediatrician said the biggest reason the MMR vac is anecdotally tied to autism is due to it being administered around the same time the child is developing language skills. This is typically when autism is first noticed as a possible diagnosis.

[DanBUK]

Our pediatrician said the biggest reason the MMR vac is anecdotally tied to autism is due to it being administered around the same time the child is developing language skills.

Exactly, this is the nub of the issue.

Madchemist- Great to see referencing of medical/scientific literature in the forum.

You (and others) may enjoy visiting Badscience.net a great UK based blog by a doctor/journalist who writes weekly in The Guardian newspaper (the best we have over here). He draws attention to the most irresponsible and ludicrous reporting of science/medicine in the media. It is a great weekly read. (I have no affiliation btw). He used to sell t-shirts with "MMR is safe, tell your friends" on the front.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot- Isn't big Stevo the largest shareholder of Disney who in turn own ABD (or something)- can't we club together and ask him to wade in on our behalf?:rolleyes:

[Cromulent]

Actually most of the parents I've encountered that are against vaccines are of the hippy-crunchy variety. Therefore they abhor fast food places.

In that case I bet they are into detox diets and the like which are also damaging to your health and other unsubstantiated rubbish that the media seem to bandy about.

[themadchemist]

Actually most of the parents I've encountered that are against vaccines are of the hippy-crunchy variety. Therefore they abhor fast food places.



Well, when their kids get measles and spread it around, I guess they'll be so glad they dodged the bullet. :mad:

[Gelfin]

This is a legal drama, right? Which means that the standard fiction disclaimer about "any similarities to persons living or dead or actual events is purely coincidental" applies, correct?

Yes, in principle, but it isn't that simple.

Take CSI. The show is science fiction, but it's close enough to real that it shapes people's ideas of how crimes are investigated and solved. This has made prosecutors' jobs much more difficult because they now face juries who expect a standard of forensic evidence that practically never occurs in a real courtroom. These aren't nutso people who cannot tell fantasy from reality. They're normal people who have been told a good story.

The show in question here is especially bad. If you simply tell people it's fiction, forget it. That just tells people the specific events didn't happen. You'll get as many people coming away with the idea vaccines are unsafe as you would without any disclaimer at all.

If you put up notices specifically regarding the safety and advisability of vaccination, then you'd be posting the same sorts of statements the show's protagonist will be attempting to discredit as part of a horrible conspiracy to give kids autism. And still, given a five-second viewing of a disclaimer followed by a good story, it's human nature to remember the story.

If you positively bombard the audience with the overwhelming evidence for the importance of vaccination, then you're revealing the protagonist is on a fool's errand. A properly informed audience would be rooting against the hero, and that's no good for ratings. ABC would have to scuttle their own show to do the right thing here.

To the extent they do not do so, it will ultimately be possible to use ratings figures to determine the precise dollar value ABC executives assign to the life of a child.

Frankly, I think if ABC's lawyers are advising them that crying "fiction" is going to completely protect them from liability here, they need a second opinion quick.

[themadchemist]

To the extent they do not do so, it will ultimately be possible to use ratings figures to determine the precise dollar value ABC executives assign to the life of a child.



Now this would be a fascinating exercise. I'd love to work with you on it, if you're actually interested in figuring it out.

[ErikCLDR]

Sorry, this is not true. As much as doctors would like to believe that all vaccines are safe, it cannot be proven that they are. I'm appalled that you all are such sheep, willing to believe something blindly just because your doctor tells you it is so. People have the right to know that there are potential risks to having their children immunized and they should be able to look at both sides of the issue and make an informed decision.

As far as spreading fear and sensationalism, the AAP is doing their fair share of it as well:

Sheep?

I hate when people give into the media's new scares. Don't people understand thats how they make money? Pork causes cancer! Popcorn causes cancer! Advil causes cancer! I mean seriously if they have nothing better to talk about they just say _____ causes cancer. Every week a new thing causes cancer and its forgotten shortly after.

The fact is that its better off to get a vaccine because by not getting vaccinated you have the ability to get a life threatening disease. Diseases die out if no one gets them. Not getting vaccinated will destroy years of progress. Allowing a disease to thrive only increases the risk of mutation. There are people in the world that pray that they could get the vaccinations we do.

I think a more logical explanation are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC's) found in plastics and other manufactured items we use daily. Think about how often you eat something that has been stored in plastic. Think about all the plastic utensils and saran wrap you've used. Think about all the pesticides and preservatives in your food. Maybe even the cosmetic products you use. Your toothbrush. It's all chemicals. It makes a lot more sense to me then vaccines.

[jimN]

The saddest part of all this I'd that there are parts of the third world where they would kill to have access to the vaccination program that we have in the west. However, over here it is taken for granted and parents start picking and choosing what they will and won't have based on their own personal assessment of risk. I have encountered these parents time and time again and their answers are always the same and usually along the lines of, "I want to read more." what have they done to achieve this, sweet ***** all.

As for the AAP sensationalizing the UK problem. We had one confirmed measles death in 2006 and numerous hospital admissions. This is from a disease that hadn't killed anyone in twenty years. It is a tragedy if anyone dies or preventable, infectious disease in this day and age.

[Vster]

As a physician in training, we should always believe whatever the medical community tells us. Riiiiiiight.

Also you should read about the side effects of certain vaccines. A lot of the side effects out weight the benefits. Also, (this is for some) you have a greater chance of contracting the illness you are trying to prevent from the vaccine than the public.

Just think about who funds these "studies".

just my 2 pennies ;)

[RugoseCone]

In that case I bet they are into detox diets and the like which are also damaging to your health and other unsubstantiated rubbish that the media seem to bandy about.

You really enjoy broad generalizations, don't you?

Well, when their kids get measles and spread it around, I guess they'll be so glad they dodged the bullet. :mad:

Because of course it's a sure thing they'll get measles. Besides, how could they spread it around if everyone else is vaccinated? Vaccines do work, right?

I'm not advocating not vaccinating, as I fully intend to vaccinate my son, and I realize you guys are passionate about this. Sarcasm (myself included) and angry faces don't convince anyone of anything. Whether you like it or not, the lay-person needs to be handled with kid gloves and respected, no matter what their opinion. Not brow-beat and have assumptions made about how they live their lives.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, nor is any of this directed solely at you. Please just try to see things from the other perspective. People try to make an informed choice about this topic and yes there is bad information out there. Not everyone discovers the "truth". That's no reason to go all fundamentalist on them. Use your knowledge and share it in a helpful manner, because as they say, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

[iBlue]

Every parent does what they think is best for their kids. It's not entirely fair to scold either side of the debate.
Yes, this information can be rather toxic, especially to the more 'non-thinker/non-researcher' sorts. However it might make some others aware of what I think is a somewhat overbulked vaccination routine. A newborn baby is given a Hep B vaccine when they have like zero risk for it. Why? If mum or pop doesn't have it and baby doesn't go out having sex or sharing needles, I think they're going to be OK, for a few years, at least. :-P
It seems vaccines are pushed rather hard and fast in the US and it really can cause some damage. Many kids have had very high fevers and problems that they did not have prior to their vaccines. It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.
I'm not saying don't vaccinate but it's wise to read up before just blindly believing what anyone (doctors included) tell you.

[themadchemist]

You really enjoy broad generalizations, don't you?


If you had read the rest of my posts, you wouldn't be making a broad generalization about me. I said it only for effect--it is clearly a rhetorical device.


Because of course it's a sure thing they'll get measles. Besides, how could they spread it around if everyone else is vaccinated? Vaccines do work, right?


Obviously, they aren't all going to get measles (but their risk is going to be increased considerably). And if everyone else is getting vaccinated, then most of those people should be OK. There are always going to be the people for whom the vaccine doesn't take, the immunocompromised, and the others who don't take the vaccine. It's a safe guess to suggest that on this last point, those who don't choose taking the vaccine tend to be closer-than-average to someone else who doesn't choose taking the vaccine, with respect to social networks.

Thus, by creating susceptible vectors by avoiding vaccination, we are creating a pool for the propagation of this virus. And remember, considering the low fidelity replication mechanisms that viruses use, the more chances a virus gets to reproduce, the more opportunities for mutation. It is possible (though, I'll admit, of low likelihood) that strains rendering the vaccine ineffective could develop.

And on the immunocompromised point, this is important...Immunocompromised patients have a high mortality from, say, measles. What's more, if a patient gets measles and goes to a hospital, there is a reasonable chance of spreading it to others in the hospital, considering that there is now a captive audience of very sick (and likely immunocompromised) patients.

Is that specific enough for you?


I'm not advocating not vaccinating, as I fully intend to vaccinate my son, and I realize you guys are passionate about this. Sarcasm (myself included) and angry faces don't convince anyone of anything. Whether you like it or not, the lay-person needs to be handled with kid gloves and respected, no matter what their opinion. Not brow-beat and have assumptions made about how they live their lives.


Again, it is obvious that you did not read my previous posts, which approached the issue systematically. We are all subject to a line of sarcasm, I think, as the first line of your own post reflects.

[jimN]

A newborn baby is given a Hep B vaccine when they have like zero risk for it. Why? If mum or pop doesn't have it and baby doesn't go out having sex or sharing needles, I think they're going to be OK, for a few years, at least. :-P


It appears that you live in the UK but unless there's been a big change in our vaccination schedule overnight I'm afraid that you are wrong on this front. The only children who receive Hep B at birth are those born to Hep B positive mothers. All mums are screened in pregnancy for a variety of infections and specific Hep B antibodies and antigens. These results allow uninfected, low infectivity risk and high infectivity risk mums to be identified and babies born to mothers with evidence of the disease will be vaccinated. In certain cases children receive an immunoglobulin if the mother's disease is 'high infectivity risk'. This is not a routine immunisation at birth.

MANY children will receive the BCG vaccine at birth (for TB), this decision is based on the prevalence of the condition in the local population. In other areas it will be optional. In London this generally affects central and northern health authorities and does, to an extent, reflect the ethnic make-up of the local population.

To RugoseCose, vaccinations aren't 100% effective and therefore claiming that it is unselfish to decide not to immunise your own child is just plain wrong. We rely on a high uptake rate to achieve 'herd' immunity and thus minimise the number of cases of these preventable diseases in our population. Before widespread vaccination almost all children would get measles and almost all of them would be absolutely fine. However, some would get encephalitis, others would get pneumonia, a very small number would get SSPE (dire) and a couple would die. Death from preventable disease is frankly unacceptable. The other diseases that the MMR prevents against, Mumps and Rubella, cause their own problems. Mumps can lead to subfertility in males and in-utero infection with Rubella causes a very nasty congenital infection in the infant. Having looking after children born to parents from Eastern Europe with this condition I claim a little insight into this.

As it stands the vaccination program in the UK (and likely the states, although we differ slightly on the use of the chicken pox vaccine) is not derived from some cynical ploy to sell medicines or track children. It is a genuine attempt to improve the medical well-being of an entire population and prevent needless deaths. To suggest that the medical community willfully harms children with untested/unproven vaccinations is just farcical and paranoid. And I'm afraid that this really isn't a private matter, failing to protect your own child against illness is as negligent as letting him play in the street or be left home alone. As a paediatrician I believe that the rights of the child are paramount and they should not be used as a showground for a parent to parade their own ill-informed beliefs. Parents who believe that medicines harm their children shout about it, but there are those who refuse medicines and their children die - unfortunately you don't hear from them afterwards.

[steeler]

Every parent does what they think is best for their kids. It's not entirely fair to scold either side of the debate.
Yes, this information can be rather toxic, especially to the more 'non-thinker/non-researcher' sorts. However it might make some others aware of what I think is a somewhat overbulked vaccination routine. A newborn baby is given a Hep B vaccine when they have like zero risk for it. Why? If mum or pop doesn't have it and baby doesn't go out having sex or sharing needles, I think they're going to be OK, for a few years, at least. :-P
It seems vaccines are pushed rather hard and fast in the US and it really can cause some damage. Many kids have had very high fevers and problems that they did not have prior to their vaccines. It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.
I'm not saying don't vaccinate but it's wise to read up before just blindly believing what anyone (doctors included) tell you.

Lots of good stuff iBlue. We did research before our first child was born and ultimately decided to do a delayed, more staggered vaccination schedule. We delayed Hep B until 3 years old and all others started on a staggered schedule (1 or 2 each month) at 4 months (vs. the suggested 2 months). Based on our research, this provided the vaccines in a timely fashion, allowed for the infant to grow and adjust a little more to the world, and didn't dump 3 or 4 shots on our baby all in one day. When 3 or 4 shots are all given at the same time, if a severe reaction occurs, how do you know which vaccine caused it? Often the symptoms of reactions are the same or very similar.

Our first child is now 4 and doing fine. He might have been fine with the standard schedule, but we felt much better doing it the way we did. It's easy to say that only 1 in 100,000 (or whatever) have a problem with the vaccines, but I don't want that to be my child if I can avoid it.

[jimN]

Lots of good stuff iBlue. We did research before our first child was born and ultimately decided to do a delayed, more staggered vaccination schedule. We delayed Hep B until 3 years old and all others started on a staggered schedule (1 or 2 each month) at 4 months (vs. the suggested 2 months). Based on our research, this provided the vaccines in a timely fashion, allowed for the infant to grow and adjust a little more to the world, and didn't dump 3 or 4 shots on our baby all in one day. When 3 or 4 shots are all given at the same time, if a severe reaction occurs, how do you know which vaccine caused it? Often the symptoms of reactions are the same or very similar.


Would love to know where you did this research!

[RugoseCone]

If you had read the rest of my posts, you wouldn't be making a broad generalization about me. I said it only for effect--it is clearly a rhetorical device.

Whoa there buddy. Talk about reading posts, that comment was directed at Cromulent, NOT you. So don't get up on the high-horse please.

Is that specific enough for you?

I never asked for specifics. I asked that EVERYONE try to not talk down to people that might think there is a link between autism and vaccines. Which you seem intent on doing. I asked you to be less sarcastic and tried to make it a bit tongue and cheek with some sarcasm of my own and you seem to be taking it as a personal attack.


Again, it is obvious that you did not read my previous posts, which approached the issue systematically. We are all subject to a line of sarcasm, I think, as the first line of your own post reflects.

And again you don't seem to be reading MY post. I responded to you, but clearly stated "nor is this directed solely at you". I'm sorry if I have mistakenly lumped you in with some of the other reactions, but your posts gave me the impression you don't want to respect the other arguments from people that don't have the luxury of your knowledge. I think your knee-jerk reaction to my comment for Cromulent supports that impression.

Besides, don't get all worked up. I AGREE WITH YOU on vaccinations. So let's not bicker. I think you've provided good information and I made a mistake of quoting you when asking for some civility. I'd guess from your name this issue has an impact on your career in some fashion, so I understand your passion.


To RugoseCose, vaccinations aren't 100% effective and therefore claiming that it is unselfish to decide not to immunise your own child is just plain wrong.

I didn't claim that.

Would love to know where you did this research!

The Dr. Robert Sears book I linked to in my first post has a delayed vaccination schedule. It spreads some out and eliminates some of the newer ones. Replaces the MMR with a blood test at ten years old, etc. I haven't studied it much myself, but that's one source for some info.

[jimN]

I didn't claim that.

The Dr. Robert Sears book I linked to in my first post has a delayed vaccination schedule. It spreads some out and eliminates some of the newer ones. Replaces the MMR with a blood test at ten years old, etc. I haven't studied it much myself, but that's one source for some info.

Sounds like the guy is a quack. There's a reason that the immunisations are administered as early as possible. 'Research' based on one book sounds hopelessly flawed, especially given that the book's author is obviously pushing a personal agenda.

You made a sarcastic comment about children definitely getting measles and then made another about the efficacy of immunisations:
"Because of course it's a sure thing they'll get measles. Besides, how could they spread it around if everyone else is vaccinated? Vaccines do work, right? "
Vaccines work through individual protection and herd immunity. Your children are protected by the selflessness of others. This holds true in your delayed schedule as outlined above. I doubt that you've ever had to watch a child die, or cared for a child left permanently disabled by meningitis (another disease on the vaccination schedule). Perhaps you wouldn't be so dismissive of the risks of illnesses if you hadn't grown up in a country that has already benefitted from vaccinations for tens of years.

[RugoseCone]

Sounds like the guy is a quack.

Actually he's one of the most highly regarded pediatricians from what I've found in talking to doctors in the States. I'm also not the person you directed your question to, I was just suggesting it as one possible source. And by delayed it's not years, but delayed in the sense that the vacs are spread out over several visits. Every month a shot is administered, instead of several shots every few months. Ultimately it results in more trips to the doctor.

You made a sarcastic comment about children definitely getting measles and then made another about the efficacy of immunisations: Vaccines work through individual protection and herd immunity. Your children are protected by the selflessness of others. This holds true in your delayed schedule as outlined above. I doubt that you've ever had to watch a child die, or cared for a child left permanently disabled by meningitis (another disease on the vaccination schedule). Perhaps you wouldn't be so dismissive of the risks of illnesses if you hadn't grown up in a country that has already benefitted from vaccinations for tens of years.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear with that. I was trying to make a point about Themadchemist's sarcasm. You've misinterpreted my intention. And please don't make assumptions about what I have or have not had to witness in my life. It's a bit arrogant and to be honest, hurtful.

Last but not least. I'm not being dismissive about the risks of illnesses. I AM ASKING THAT THE PEOPLE RANTING AND RAVING ABOUT THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN VACS=AUTISM ACT MORE CIVILY. Instead of knee-jerk reactions about them being dumb or crazy detox dieters, etc. All the "experts" here have provided great info, but some of it has come in a condescending fashion and that turns the people that need to hear it, off. It doesn't matter if you're right if they won't listen to you.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I AGREE WITH VACCINATIONS!

[crackpip]

It appears that you live in the UK but unless there's been a big change in our vaccination schedule overnight I'm afraid that you are wrong on this front.

In the U.S. HEPB is part of the regular immunization schedule for young children and babies.

To RugoseCose, vaccinations aren't 100% effective and therefore claiming that it is unselfish to decide not to immunise your own child is just plain wrong.

At the same time, the ideas that 1) vaccines are 100% safe and 2) that vaccinations should be all or nothing are also incorrect. Sure, vaccinate for the serious, life-threatening diseases, but why vaccinate for less serious ones? Take the chicken pox vaccine. I'm still checking references in J o AMA, but it appears that deaths of healthy children related to Chicken pox just before the vaccination was introduced was about 50-100 of 4 million cases per year or 1.25-2.5 per 100,000. The FDA's statistics on investigated reports of adverse reactions (mostly redness or soreness at the site) was about 65.7 per 100,000. Of these approximately 4% were severe (such as death or long-term disability) or 2.6 per 100,000. Detractors say this number is much higher because of the CDC's admission that it based the calculations on projected numbers of doses sold rather than on actual numbers of doses given, which is not tracked. In the CDC;s favor, these cases may also include symptoms that were caused by somethng unrelated to the vaccine. In either case, it seems these numbers are not very far apart. What's more is that, statistically speaking, natural infection provides lifetime immunity. Whereas the vaccine only lasts between 10-20 years, leaving adults at a substantial risk of contracting it. The adult mortality rate seems to be as high as 10%.

Another question that enters my mind involves the documented increase in allergies in children. This would seem to increase the risk of adverse reactions from a vaccine. I'm glad that the link between autism and vaccines is being put down. I always considered it tenuous, but I'm not convinced that all vaccines are 100% safe, and that parents should blindly follow the government guidelines, which in the case of Hep B, is driven by a "herd"-type health policy for drug users and prostitutes.

crackpip

[Virgil-TB2]

Sorry but I would say the reverse is true. ...I think if you look into it you will find that the autism link has been completely disproved, but the poster you are replying to has a point about "blind trust" in doctors and vaccination in general.

There have been many cases over the years where a disease (like non-hodgkins lymphoma for one), has been proven to have a poorly prepared and unwisely promoted mass vaccination as it's root cause. It does happen, and it is generally "covered up" by the medical profession in general for the exact kind of PR related issues we are discussing on this thread.

[atszyman]

A newborn baby is given a Hep B vaccine when they have like zero risk for it. Why? If mum or pop doesn't have it and baby doesn't go out having sex or sharing needles, I think they're going to be OK, for a few years, at least. :-P

Well this is all well and good if one of the parents is home at all times with the children and you rarely deal with other people. Unfortunately many families these days practically require both parents to be working (in our case it has a lot to do with 2 daughters and a mother who can't say no to cute girl clothes and a father (me) who is a bit of a pushover), which leads to nannies and/or day care for the kids starting at a young age. Within your immediate family acquaintances and home the risk may be low, but now you're putting them into a classroom with 2-5 adults watching 12-15 kids through the course of the day. Not knowing much about these adults and other kids (other than they passed the hiring and admissions process/criteria for that facility) I'd rather have my kids vaccinated.

So far both of our children are doing spectacularly well. Our 3 year old often gets complemented on her clarity of speech and vocabulary, while our 9 month old is working daily on her balance so she can walk and chase her big sister as soon as possible.

Of course I had heard about the supposed vaccination/autism link but a very quick Google search quickly led me to find that there wasn't much credibility to the claims.

[njmac]

Infants are given Hep B vaccines because the vaccine is so effective and the disease is really pretty terrible. There are no side effects for that vaccine like fever etc. and many children today are in day care settings where they may come in contact with someone infected.

My kids were vaccinated and they are fine but I hate, with a passion, people saying "my kid did it and he's fine" argument. I was fine without a car seat when I was a baby, I lived through lawn darts, and I didn't eat lead paint chips but some kids weren't so lucky. Try telling those parents that have lost a child in a car accident that your kids were fine without a car seat and maybe they should just get over themselves. They will tell a different story.

I can see why some parents see a link between autism and vaccines. My neighbors son was a perfectly, 100% normal 2 year old. Talked, played and socialized. About a week after his vaccination, his speech dropped to only a few words and he started waving his arms around and acting strange. He was diagnosed with Aspergers, a form of autism and his parents swear it was the vaccine.

This happened about 2 months before my daughter's 2nd birthday where she was scheduled to get her immunizations. Although her older brother was fine through his shots, it did make me hesitate but really, I believe that it was just a terrible coincidence and I got my daughter vaccinated. I think people who don't vaccinate their children are doing them more harm than good.

[themadchemist]

Whoa there buddy. Talk about reading posts, that comment was directed at Cromulent, NOT you. So don't get up on the high-horse please.


I apologize. I woke up in the morning and in my semi-groggy, dreamt-about-hepatitis-B-all-night state misread. I'll need a towel to wipe the egg of my face. :o


And again you don't seem to be reading MY post. I responded to you, but clearly stated "nor is this directed solely at you". I'm sorry if I have mistakenly lumped you in with some of the other reactions, but your posts gave me the impression you don't want to respect the other arguments from people that don't have the luxury of your knowledge. I think your knee-jerk reaction to my comment for Cromulent supports that impression.


I appreciate that. In your original post, singling out my comment without the context seemed to misinterpret what I was trying to say. I was responding to your comment about hippy granola-eating something or another :p, and my point was simply that while it was all great for these parents to be feeding these kids in a healthy way (based on the premise of that person's assertion), they were dramatically increasing their kids' risk of getting some nasty infections. My annoyance came from the idea that these were hyper-vigilant parents who probably presume a fair bit of knowledge, but nevertheless, in the sea of misinformation, could still get swept up. In all reality, I understand that it's not their fault, but again, we are all apt to level a bit of sarcasm at folks from time to time.


Besides, don't get all worked up. I AGREE WITH YOU on vaccinations. So let's not bicker. I think you've provided good information and I made a mistake of quoting you when asking for some civility. I'd guess from your name this issue has an impact on your career in some fashion, so I understand your passion.


I'm glad you agree. It will have an impact on my career once I have a career ;) but the main thing is that it has an impact on all of us. I understand that there are people whose belief system prohibits them from receiving vaccinations, and while it saddens me, I respect it. But when people are led to believe with great passion that these vaccines are bad on a *medical* level, it's a real tragedy. There are so many things we don't know how to fix; for the ones that we can, we should all do our best to keep society and each kid as healthy as possible. I know you agree.


The Dr. Robert Sears book I linked to in my first post has a delayed vaccination schedule. It spreads some out and eliminates some of the newer ones. Replaces the MMR with a blood test at ten years old, etc. I haven't studied it much myself, but that's one source for some info.

I'll try to check it out. At the risk of commenting on something improperly before I've read it...I tried to find the alternative vaccination schedule on his site, but didn't see it. My sense is that a lot of these are childhood illnesses so if you delay getting these vaccinations, you're just putting your kid (and by extension, other kids) at risk. A blood test, which I imagine would just check to see if your kid has a latent infection or has built up antibodies, isn't going to do much good for a person who gets sick. But like you said, you just provided a taste of it, and I'm responding to that taste of it; it might make a lot more sense than I'm giving it credit. He seemed to have a lot of good info on the site.

[RugoseCone]

I apologize.

Ah, water under the bridge, but I apologize too. I don't want bad blood with a fellow Chicagoan. Especially since I generally enjoy your comments (I'm more of a registered lurker than a poster).

Anyways the delayed schedule is more of a spread schedule. Delayed is a bit of a misnomer in this case. The shots are at two months, three, four, five, etc. instead of big clusters at two, four, six (or whatever the typical schedule is).

You must be having a rough year already if you're dreaming about Hep-B!

Well I've far exceeded my post quota for the day. I need to protect that .14 posts per day average!

[themadchemist]

Ah, water under the bridge, but I apologize too. I don't want bad blood with a fellow Chicagoan. Especially since I generally enjoy your comments (I'm more of a registered lurker than a poster).

Anyways the delayed schedule is more of a spread schedule. Delayed is a bit of a misnomer in this case. The shots are at two months, three, four, five, etc. instead of big clusters at two, four, six (or whatever the typical schedule is).


Well, thank you, and despite my bit of arguing with you in this thread, I really have enjoyed the information you provided. As I said, I'm not sure what to make of it yet, but the spread schedule seems interesting, at least, and from an apparently credible source. And no, we Chicagoans can't fight. Having just stepped in from outside a few minutes ago--it's the cold we need to be fighting.


You must be having a rough year already if you're dreaming about Hep-B!


That's the price I get for reading our viral hepatitis lecture notes right before going to bed. Speaking of Hep B, another important vaccine, to be sure.

[.Andy]

However it might make some others aware of what I think is a somewhat overbulked vaccination routine.
Vaccination schedules aren't just made up. They are constructed on rigorous clinical trials and research determining the maximum efficiency of vaccines (which usually declines with age) vs the risk of the burden of disease. Not what someone 'thinks'. It might sound reasonable to reach this middle road to stretch out vaccinations, but it's contrary to the scientific evidence. Doing so places children at risk of lifelong, life threatening, and debilitating disease.

A newborn baby is given a Hep B vaccine when they have like zero risk for it. Why? If mum or pop doesn't have it and baby doesn't go out having sex or sharing needles, I think they're going to be OK, for a few years, at least. :-P
HBV is and important thing to be vaccinated against as early as possible. It is highly transmissible in blood but other body fluids can pass it on as well. It can remain infective outside the body for up to 7 days. About 1/3 of infections are thought to be from child to child at childcare, schools etc. Many more are through vertical transmission from mother to child. In patients that get a chronic infection it results in liver cirrhosis and liver failure. Up to 80% of hepatocellular carcinoma is due to HBV infection. About half of people infected with HBV will be completely asymptomatic and will not know they have HBV, and it has a burden of about 350 million people worldwide. About 30% of people (that's everyone) have serological evidence of HBV exposure. It's really common, and not just amongst sexually active of IDUs.

Being vaccinated at birth decreases chances of a chronic infection. A unvaccinated infant infected (from any source) between birth and 6 months has between a 100% to 80% chance of acquiring a lifelong chronic infection (and associated increase in liver cancer, liver cirrhosis, and liver failure). At 12 months the child will have approx a 50% chance of lifelong infection, whereas at 5 years the chance will be about 10%. So the earlier we can convey that protection by vaccination the better. The vaccination is also long lasting, so that early vaccination schedule will likely protect the individual from birth right through their childhood, teens, and early adulthood.

It seems vaccines are pushed rather hard and fast in the US and it really can cause some damage. Many kids have had very high fevers and problems that they did not have prior to their vaccines. It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.
I'd expect more from you than this. Children get fevers and have always got 'very high fevers'. It is a coincidence in most cases although vaccinations can rarely cause side effects depending on the vaccine. Mostly it will be a localised skin reaction but in very rare cases fever and anaphylaxis can result. However that is weighed up against the disease risks- What do you think the risk of polio, being born retarded from rubella infection etc was before vaccination?

I'm not saying don't vaccinate but it's wise to read up before just blindly believing what anyone (doctors included) tell you. But please read informative sources - and you should ask your doctor for these sources, they will have free pamphlets and material that outlines all the founded benefits and rare side effects from vaccines. Someone who's opinion relies on 'think', 'seem' or 'doesn't seem like a coincidence' is certainly an unreliable and uneducated source.

[Virgil-TB2]

... Take CSI. The show is science fiction, but it's close enough to real that it shapes people's ideas of how crimes are investigated and solved. This has made prosecutors' jobs much more difficult because they now face juries who expect a standard of forensic evidence that practically never occurs in a real courtroom. These aren't nutso people who cannot tell fantasy from reality. They're normal people who have been told a good story. ... Frankly, I think if ABC's lawyers are advising them that crying "fiction" is going to completely protect them from liability here, they need a second opinion quick.I'd like to point out that you might be forgetting the other side of the coin here.

Shows like CSI (as well as many other shows), are purposeful propaganda as much as they are entertainment. The producers of the CSI show in particular are known for making the cop characters do a whole boat-load of completely illegal things in the show because they happen to think that the cops *should* have those powers (even though they actually do not.) This is nothing new, the old Dragnet show did this very blatantly in the 1960's. Similar to Dragnet, these shows end up convincing the average dullard that they are "reality" and encourage them to act accordingly the next time they meet a cop.

It makes no sense to me to deny a writer or producer of a show the freedom to write in as many wacky conspiracy theories as they want when we are allowing "CSI Miami" to claim that it's alright to use fascist tactics on suspects, or for characters on the "24" show to murder people at will for the good old USA.

What's sauce for the goose etc... :)

Every show has it's messages and embedded meanings. Every show has an inescapable point of view as projected by the writers and producers regardless of whether they are even conscious of it. Nowadays, these messages tend to be very literal, obvious and the execution of them rather clumsy at best.

Finally, the idea you put forward at the end of your post that somehow the ABC show could be legally liable for putting this show on the air is just ludicrous.

I would laugh, except that it's exactly those kind of statements that have a decidedly chilling effect on freedom of speech. If enough people start saying things like that and if ABC gets scared then you have effectively censored the show before it even gets on the air, and there is far too much censorship already don't you think?

IMO if people are really stupid enough to believe whatever they see on the latest legal drama, then they deserve whatever twisted fantasies that result. The darwin effect will ensure that these people reproduce in fewer numbers than the rest of us and solve the problem that way.

[themadchemist]

80% of hepatocellular carcinoma is due to HBV infection.


Great post! Not to be picky, but I will be, anyway, haha. While the role that HBV can play in promoting cirrhosis and ultimately carcinoma should not be discounted, this number is probably quite high for the percentage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) attributable to HBV. Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is associated with 30% or more of HCC cases, though causality is probably hard to establish. (AM Di Bisceglie, 1997 in Hepatology) Hep B has a lower rate of chronicity than Hep C, so it's probably less likely to cause HCC, since it's the chronic inflammation coupled with continued viral interference with host DNA that is probably the mechanism for carcinogenesis in viral cases.

Nevertheless, the HBV vaccine is incredibly important, without a doubt. I just thought, since I've been reading about this stuff lately, I'd clarify a bit of the data. :p Sorry for being a bother.

[jessica.]

This is sufficiently irresponsible I think it justifies boycotting of ABC and of any advertiser who books time during this series, which I suppose I hope doesn't include Apple. Free speech only means the government can't shut them up legally. For this, I'm more than happy to hit them where it hurts to the extent I am able.

Besides, what would we be missing? LOST? Darn show hasn't been watchable in over a year anyway. Possibly the most disgusting thing about this move is how much it smacks of desperation and stirring up artificial controversy for the sake of ratings.

Really, though, what this demands is a spin-off series wherein a trial lawyer for big corporations decides to fight for the little guy by bringing a class action against a large television network for airing a misleading fictional show that some viewers mistook for docudrama and thus made ill-advised medical decisions which led directly to the deaths of their children. Man, that'd be great TV.They're posting a disclaimer.

They should post a disclaimer at the beginning of the show that says,

"There is belief in the medical community that high doses of ABC television programming may be responsible for mis-education and unwarranted fear."

See. :)
But still I get the point but if you deal with your child's medical issues based on a TV show you have bigger issues.

[themadchemist]

I would laugh, except that it's exactly those kind of statements that have a decidedly chilling effect on freedom of speech. If enough people start saying things like that and if ABC gets scared then you have effectively censored the show before it even gets on the air, and there is far too much censorship already don't you think?



As long as it's people and not the government, then it's really not quite as chilling. The best counter to bad speech, like this ABC garbage, is more speech, but if that additional speech is able to make ABC back down, then that's a victory for the freedom of expression, not a defeat. Of course, this is colored by my own biases on this particular issue, and I could very well feel up in arms about the public suppressing some topic that I favored.

I'm with you, though, that this is not a legal matter, and that it would be troubling if the government began regulating the sorts of narratives that a fictional show was allowed to portray.

[.Andy]

At the same time, the ideas that 1) vaccines are 100% safe and 2) that vaccinations should be all or nothing are also incorrect. Sure, vaccinate for the serious, life-threatening diseases, but why vaccinate for less serious ones? Take the chicken pox vaccine. I'm still checking references in J o AMA, but it appears that deaths of healthy children related to Chicken pox just before the vaccination was introduced was about 50-100 of 4 million cases per year or 1.25-2.5 per 100,000. The FDA's statistics on investigated reports of adverse reactions (mostly redness or soreness at the site) was about 65.7 per 100,000. Of these approximately 4% were severe (such as death or long-term disability) or 2.6 per 100,000. Detractors say this number is much higher because of the CDC's admission that it based the calculations on projected numbers of doses sold rather than on actual numbers of doses given, which is not tracked. In the CDC;s favor, these cases may also include symptoms that were caused by somethng unrelated to the vaccine. In either case, it seems these numbers are not very far apart. What's more is that, statistically speaking, natural infection provides lifetime immunity. Whereas the vaccine only lasts between 10-20 years, leaving adults at a substantial risk of contracting it. The adult mortality rate seems to be as high as 10%.
You have to remember that kids are the largest reservoir for chickenpox infection for adults and the morbidity and mortality associated. Also chicken pox infection at any time in life leads to a latent infection in the nervous system. The virus can remain dormant there for a long time, although commonly it can be reactivated to shingles. Shingles itself is pathologically very like chicken pox, although a common side effect in Postherpetic Neuralgia. PHN is a really debilitating chronic pain (although can be mild in some) that lasts longer than a month and up to years. It can affect up to 50% of people over the age of 70 who get shingles. More serious side effects of shingles infection is Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Ramsay Hunt Syndrome, and loss of eyesight. So it's not really the case of a mild disease causing mild symptoms that we should just let run its course naturally. In reality things are far more complicated.

Great post! Not to be picky, but I will be, anyway, haha. While the role that HBV can play in promoting cirrhosis and ultimately carcinoma should not be discounted, this number is probably quite high for the percentage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) attributable to HBV. Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is associated with 30% or more of HCC cases, though causality is probably hard to establish. (AM Di Bisceglie, 1997 in Hepatology) Hep B has a lower rate of chronicity than Hep C, so it's probably less likely to cause HCC, since it's the chronic inflammation coupled with continued viral interference with host DNA that is probably the mechanism for carcinogenesis in viral cases.

Nevertheless, the HBV vaccine is incredibly important, without a doubt. I just thought, since I've been reading about this stuff lately, I'd clarify a bit of the data. Sorry for being a bother.
No problem being a bother madchemist! I'll edit the original for clarity as I should have said up to. I got the 80% figure from one of my lectures last year (from a gastro prof that does HCV and HCC research) who used this reference (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/26/1906). Both our references are from '97 so they're long in the tooth however (but mine is NEJM so I've got trumps :p). I'm sure there's some more up to date data available....


Edit: I'm not sure if people are interested or not but these are the vaccinations that i required for admittance to med school (as well as ongoing surveillance for my titres and TB status). The majority I had as a child but the a few I had to get boosters. Imagine how pissed you'd be if your child (or you) got an infection from your doctor because they didn't believe in vaccination :D!
Tetanus
Diptheria
Polio
Measles
Mumps
Rubella (german measles)
HepB
Meningitis (recommended)
Tuberculosis skin test as well as chest X-rays.
Varicella (chicken Pox)
Influenza
Pertussis (Whooping Cough)

[crackpip]

Also chicken pox infection at any time in life leads to a latent infection in the nervous system. The virus can remain dormant there for a long time, although commonly it can be reactivated to shingles.

This is also true of the vaccine.

crackpip

[.Andy]

This is also true of the vaccine.

crackpip
As it's a live vaccine this is true, but at this stage the risk is appears much lower than having a full blown systemic case of wild-type chicken pox. However as the vaccine has only been around for a couple of decades it's going to be a while before we can categorically assess the impact on shingles and PHN. But we've at least got a shingles vaccine now which appears to work quite well at preventing PHN, but is only a few years old so again we'll have to wait for the long term stats.

[Gelfin]

Now this would be a fascinating exercise. I'd love to work with you on it, if you're actually interested in figuring it out.

Admittedly, I didn't really anticipate this response. :) It made me stop and consider what would really go into this. It's doable, but a big project to do respectably, and it might be years before all the relevant data are available, absent a credible estimation of the relationship between failure to vaccinate and resultant mortality rates in first world nations. I've given it some serious thought, and I have a notion of how I would approach it, but I am a dilettante at best, and would probably embarrass myself in the attempt.

I'm with you, though, that this is not a legal matter, and that it would be troubling if the government began regulating the sorts of narratives that a fictional show was allowed to portray.

It is important to draw the distinction here between government regulation and private civil action. Anyone can bring a civil suit for any reason, and I cannot conclude for certain that ABC would prevail in such a case. This series could be interpreted in a "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" context. In so doing, one certainly opens oneself up to a wrongful death suit on behalf of anyone who is trampled to death as a result. Understand, neither have I concluded ABC would lose such a case, but I question whether a "this is fiction" disclaimer would be sufficient to absolve them of any possible liability.

[steeler]

Would love to know where you did this research!

The Dr. Sears book that's been mentioned previously and this one:
"What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccinations" by Stephanie Cave and Deborah Mitchell

Those were our primary sources. They seemed more objective and didn't really take a hard stance on either the pro or anti vaccine angles. They just presented information about the risks and benefits. In the end we felt pretty good about our decision.

IMO, vaccines are fine (for the most part), but the schedule for infants and babies is terrible. It's built for convenience of the parents and healthcare providers (fewer trips to a doctor's office to get immunizations), not for the health of the child. Just my opinion though.

[.Andy]

IMO, vaccines are fine (for the most part), but the schedule for infants and babies is terrible. It's built for convenience of the parents and healthcare providers (fewer trips to a doctor's office to get immunizations), not for the health of the child. Just my opinion though.
As a healthcare provider how is it a convenience for me to have your child come on fewer occasions? If I didn't care about the health of your child surely I'd just want to do as little work per visit and make you come back more often. That way I'd get far more money as there would be more scheduled visits, and I'd have to do less work per visit.

[jimN]

IMO, vaccines are fine (for the most part), but the schedule for infants and babies is terrible. It's built for convenience of the parents and healthcare providers (fewer trips to a doctor's office to get immunizations), not for the health of the child. Just my opinion though.

It's very generous of you to acknowledge that one of the greatest public health advances of the last fifty years is 'fine'. You are right that convenience is one consideration - a close schedule means parents are more likely to comply and discomfort to the child is minimised. In addition to this it means we can assume that children of a given age should be so far through their schedule. From a medical stand point we have to consider that live vaccines must be spaced out, that as the immune system matures it can better respond to certain vaccine types so there is no point giving them earlier and that we want protection conferred as early as possible. But you're right, we are lazy, we hate treating sick children and we're trying to avoid that.

The problem with people today is that they live in a pampered society without natural predators. Therefore they seem to need to find something else that's out to get us, well it isn't public health campaigning. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but an informed one is so much more welcome.

[iBlue]

It appears that you live in the UK but unless there's been a big change in our vaccination schedule overnight I'm afraid that you are wrong on this front.. I was referring to the US, where that is true.


I'm afraid I cannot reply with such gusto to this as the lot of you. Debate away amongst yourselves.

[themadchemist]

But you're right, we are lazy, we hate treating sick children and we're trying to avoid that.


aaand


The problem with people today is that they live in a pampered society without natural predators. Therefore they seem to need to find something else that's out to get us, well it isn't public health campaigning. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but an informed one is so much more welcome.

BRAVO! Hilarious.

[Iscariot]

aaand
BRAVO! Hilarious.

"No natural predators" is just what our natural predators want you to think.

Yes, in principle, but it isn't that simple.

Take CSI. The show is science fiction, but it's close enough to real that it shapes people's ideas of how crimes are investigated and solved. This has made prosecutors' jobs much more difficult because they now face juries who expect a standard of forensic evidence that practically never occurs in a real courtroom. These aren't nutso people who cannot tell fantasy from reality. They're normal people who have been told a good story.


But is that the responsibility of the broadcasters or producers of this particular show? If we are really that susceptable to fiction -- no matter how realistic or convincing it may be -- then the problem is with the whole of the medium, or those who willingly take it in.

[RedTomato]

At the same time, the ideas that 1) vaccines are 100% safe and 2) that vaccinations should be all or nothing are also incorrect. Sure, vaccinate for the serious, life-threatening diseases, but why vaccinate for less serious ones?

Take the chicken pox vaccine. I'm still checking references in J o AMA, but it appears that deaths of healthy children related to Chicken pox just before the vaccination was introduced was about 50-100 of 4 million cases per year or 1.25-2.5 per 100,000. The FDA's statistics on investigated reports of adverse reactions (mostly redness or soreness at the site) was about 65.7 per 100,000. Of these approximately 4% were severe (such as death or long-term disability) or 2.6 per 100,000.
...
it seems these numbers are not very far apart. What's more is that, statistically speaking, natural infection provides lifetime immunity. Whereas the vaccine only lasts between 10-20 years, leaving adults at a substantial risk of contracting it. The adult mortality rate seems to be as high as 10%.


Yes, there are many strange statistics about vaccines. I spoke to one doctor who told me that he was suspicious of these 'before and after' statistics about the impact of the introduction of vaccines.

Apparently, when some of the original vaccines were introduced, infection rates fell, which was taken as a triumph, but if you look closer, they had already been falling for several years BEFORE the introduction of the vaccine. Why? Improved hygiene, more indoor flushing toilets, the spread of piped running water, better sewage systems, a general increase in living standards and standards of cleanness.

His advice is if you are in or associate with a medium-to-high risk group, or live somewhere with a low quality of life or where staying clean is difficult, then by all means have the vaccine. Otherwise, don't regard it as mandatory.

I also add that in the UK, doctors receive huge bonuses for achieving vaccine targets e.g. 95-99% of all children of the right age in their area being vaccinated in that year. With such a high target, it only takes a few parents to refuse for the doctor to lose their bonus.

The people here who are hardcore vaccine advocates will no doubt say that is the way it should be, to promote herd immunity. Others here may feel this bonus system leads to over-enthusiastic promotion of vaccines by doctors who should be trusted to be impartial.

[themadchemist]

"No natural predators" is just what our natural predators want you to think.



Our natural predators have genomes too small to think!

[monkeydo_jb]

Did any of you actually watch the show?

They had a disclaimer at the end. Something like:

Show not based on actual events. For more info about Autism go to www.site.com, blah blah.


People need to chill and quit looking for every way they feel wronged...

*Edit: Here it is - "The following story is fictional and does not portray any actual persons, companies, products or events."

[themadchemist]

Did any of you actually watch the show?

They had a disclaimer at the end. Something like:

Show not based on actual events. For more info about Autism go to www.site.com, blah blah.


People need to chill and quit looking for every way they feel wronged...

*Edit: Here it is - "The following story is fictional and does not portray any actual persons, companies, products or events."

Saying the story is fictional and doesn't portray actual individuals or events does nothing, I repeat nothing, to convey what a distortion of reality the show is. It's just a standard disclaimer and it doesn't divorce itself from the suggestion--intentional or not--that the general arguments and controversy of the plot are real.

And I don't feel wronged--I've got my MMR vaccine. I just don't want to see kids shortchanged by this sort of misinformation. And if you don't think it's a big deal, go look up childhood mortality statistics before the advent of vaccinations.

[monkeydo_jb]

And I don't feel wronged--I've got my MMR vaccine. I just don't want to see kids shortchanged by this sort of misinformation. And if you don't think it's a big deal, go look up childhood mortality statistics before the advent of vaccinations.

Again, did you watch the show? It was about the Flu vaccine, chief.

[Mechcozmo]

I can see why some parents see a link between autism and vaccines. My neighbors son was a perfectly, 100% normal 2 year old. Talked, played and socialized. About a week after his vaccination, his speech dropped to only a few words and he started waving his arms around and acting strange. He was diagnosed with Aspergers, a form of autism and his parents swear it was the vaccine.

I know a few people who have Aspergers, and unless they told you you wouldn't know. So, one of my friends had to delay getting a driver's license a bit, but only for a few months. Although Aspergers is autism, there are support groups and exercises and other things they can do with their son to minimize the effect on his life. Getting the rest of his vaccinations, for college, is a good start at least...

[yellow]

Oh that show was HORRIBLE.


I found it very amusing that ABC put a (the only?) disclaimer at the end of the show.

[monkeydo_jb]

I really enjoyed the show. I guess I didn't hold contempt for it going in, though.

So does every show need a disclaimer now?

"This episode of Lost is not based on actual events. Please do not drive your Camaro through piles of fruit. For more information about highway safety, go to www.www.nhtsa.dot.gov. Please wash fruit before consuming"

[yellow]

Oh, I didn't think it was horrible for it's episodical plot content.

I thought it was horrible because I'm an atheist who hates George Michael and thinks dancing on TV shows is ridiculous.

Faith. :rolleyes:

[monkeydo_jb]

Oh, I didn't think it was horrible for it's episodical plot content.

I thought it was horrible because I'm an atheist who hates George Michael and thinks dancing on TV shows is ridiculous.

Faith. :rolleyes:

And you didn't gather from the previews for the show that it would have divine overtones, and dancing, and George Michael?

Atheism. :rolleyes:

[yellow]

And you didn't gather from the previews for the show that it would have divine overtones, and dancing, and George Michael?

Well, no. Because I don't watch TV, particularly ABC. It seems to me that a lot of ABC shows have a religious bent. But I wanted to try and keep an open mind.

I was just watching TV to watch Lost. During the commercials (and sometimes during Lost) I was more focused on playing Total War. :o

I've always thought there was a direct correlation between how terrible a movie/show will be and how often it's advertised. There were a s***load of commercials for Eli Stone. Since I planned on continuing playing TW, I figured I'd tune into Eli Stone, particularly since this thread had preceded it.

That's 60 minutes of my life I'll never have back.

Though, I can see how this would be a good followup for Gray's Anatomy. ;)

[monkeydo_jb]

Though, I can see how this would be a good followup for Gray's Anatomy. ;)

Ouch, hehe!

[yellow]

They might have sold me on it with less George Michael! (MUCH less)

[monkeydo_jb]

They might have sold me on it with less George Michael! (MUCH less)

Unfortunately he appeared in the preview for next week's episode. Hopefully GM and that song won't be in every episode.

[Eric Piercey]

Sorry but I would say the reverse is true. It is more sheep like to believe unsubstantiated rumour that has been blown out of proportion by the media than it is to believe scientific studies.

It is absolutely disgusting that the media is able to continue doing things like this without proving any scientific link between their claims. The worst thing is that if parents did not immunise their children the chance of a life threatening illness is much more than the chance of getting autism if they did get them vaccinated. Failure to vaccinate your child against measels is irresponsible and a knee jerk reaction without any basis in fact.

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? Basically it states that one may as well believe in God just in case he does actually exist.

If you have kids you'll understand the paranoia. Imagine yourself in the doctors office with your firstborn child. They're about to stick a needle into the child and inject them with a cocktail of god-knows-what, a bunch of supposedly non-toxic but never the less active virus material which is held in a solution that may...just possibly... cause autism.

As a parent it comes naturally to protect your kids. It's genetic. This is especially true of them when they're young, pure, and unaffected. Furthermore.. we live in a culture in which the media is dominated by corporate interest. 100% true. We've been lied to by our own president again and again. The pharmaceutical companies have enormous influence on information as well as doctors in their pockets.

Is it any wonder parents would be hesitant, even un-trusting of their doctor with his line of "9 out of 10 studies proove.." which we hear 9000 times a year on television selling everything from toothpaste to ass cream. We live in a culture of mistrust, and rightfully so. Combined with natural parenting instincts it makes it less of an easy choice inoculating your kids than you'd imagine. This fundamental untrust will only worsen until people via the government start putting the big corps back in check by seriously punishing a few back to the stone age.

[Gelfin]

I know a few people who have Aspergers, and unless they told you you wouldn't know. So, one of my friends had to delay getting a driver's license a bit, but only for a few months. Although Aspergers is autism, there are support groups and exercises and other things they can do with their son to minimize the effect on his life. Getting the rest of his vaccinations, for college, is a good start at least...

Pardon my reflexive cringe here. Asperger's is a real condition, but it is also the most faddish self-diagnosed (or lay-diagnosed) condition since ADHD. I don't know for certain if this is just Americans or western culture generally, but we have developed an unfortunate penchant for attributing personal shortcomings to some disease or syndrome that is ill understood and difficult to diagnose accurately.

Asperger's is a dream "condition" for nerds. The most facile description of its symptoms is "smarter than most, but bad in social situations." Who wouldn't want a "disease" that labels them smarter than most people, especially if it also explains away a pre-existing social awkwardness? "No, it's not my fault I never practiced talking to girls, it's my disease, but at least that means I'm smarter than you."

Frankly, I think the incidence of people declaring themselves "on the spectrum" and bragging about it is something of an insult to all the parents who have to raise a genuinely autistic child.

I don't know your friends. I cannot say for certain that any one of them does not have Asperger's, so do not take this as a specific attack. However, the most generous estimate of the frequency is under five in a thousand. The more conservative estimate is three in ten thousand. Chances of knowing "a few" people with the syndrome are fairly slim.

[theLimit]

I can't believe a television show is causing this much controversy. My dad has only a sixth grade education, and even he was smart enough to teach me that TV isn't real.

That said, I have a friend who comes from a family of five children, all of which were immunized. Three of her siblings are autistic, so it's pretty safe to assume that her bloodline carries a predisposition for autism. She decided against having her daughter immunized. She also does not eat fish, and avoids any possible ingestion of mercury in any way she can.

On the other hand, my wife and I were both immunized and we also immunized our daughter. We're currently trying for another child and there is no question that he (wishful thinking :)) will receive his immunizations as well.

[mkrishnan]

Asperger's is a dream "condition" for nerds. The most facile description of its symptoms is "smarter than most, but bad in social situations."

For what it's worth... that's not really supported by the data.... I'm not aware of any study that's shown that Asperger patients are particularly smarter (in the IQ sense or in any general neuropsychological sense) than healthy controls. I know one adult study that gave IQs smack in the normal range (106 VIQ, 104 PIQ) (ref (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17088272?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)) as well as another follow-up study on typically 20-somethings with similar results -- FSIQ of 103 on average (ref (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17340200)). A Japanese study had a group AS average IQ of about 98 (ref (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17239046)).

Given the study draw populations, that's all pretty much within normal limits.

Anyway, I DVR'd the episode, but was only able to glue myself to the TV long enough to see Lost. So it will have to wait until this weekend. :o

[Gelfin]

For what it's worth... that's not really supported by the data.... I'm not aware of any study that's shown that Asperger patients are particularly smarter (in the IQ sense or in any general neuropsychological sense) than healthy controls.

That's really interesting to know. The popular understanding among the self-diagnosed "Aspie" crowd tends not to agree, mostly because IIRC "smarter than most" was part of the description in the newsmagazine article that kick-started the fad. Probably they'd be glad to yell at you about it, you know, since their "innate lack of social aptitude" means you're not allowed to criticize them for being rude.

[mkrishnan]

Yeah, I guess. Probably there are multiple things going on. I personally don't think that it's reasonable to interpret the existing data purely as fad overdiagnosis (or even more accurate real diagnosis of people who would've been dismissed as eccentric in the past), although I do think some of that happens -- I think there really does seem to be more of this pathology now than there was in the past. The data on mercury or any other toxic cause isn't there either, though. And then there are some people who just have managed to develop problematic personalities and look for a neurobiological cause they may or may not ever find, usually in a self-aggrandizing manner. :p That happens too.

Anyway, though, I just saw it, and I don't see what the big deal was. The show never really makes any inaccurate claims about the data on mercury and vaccines. There have been parents who've claimed a rapid decline from normal development to autistic-like symptoms, although that's not the "way" spectrum disorders or neurodevelopment at that age are really supposed to work. Nonetheless, a scenario like the one in the show could certainly happen just with the data that exists today and jury reaction to focal cases and circumstantial evidence.

But God, it's good to have a legal show back on the air with gratuitous 80s pop singers appearing in hallucinations. If they can somehow incorporate that Linda Ronstadt song again, I'll be thrilled. :D

[Pani]

Boy, I really don't get you guys. As far as the health risks of immunizations, I have never done any research so I have no opinion. (Other than not trusting anyone who works for Pharma as far as I could spit.) I just find it interesting that the media covered up the evidence of global warming for years! The media is trying to convince us obesity is our biggest health crisis! This I have researched and it exaggerated beyond all reason to sell risky products from Pharma. And lets not even talk about the fact there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Or video news releases that are commericals within newscasts, delivered sometimes by anchors, and it is getting impossible to tell the difference. Yet, THIS fictional show is what gets people to want to boycott media? I don't think we live on the same planet!

[Iscariot]

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? Basically it states that one may as well believe in God just in case he does actually exist.


Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed because it assumes a) Gods reward belief over actions b) Gods reward posthumous belief and conversion.

[dwsolberg]

It seems that injections containing mercury are not sufficiently harmful to cause autism, but I think the link *was* worth pursuing. However, just because injections containing mercury don't directly cause a horrible, debilitating problem is not sufficient reason to call them safe.

Also, it is fairly difficult for science to find solid evidence that something is dangerous. With an population incidence of less than 1 in a thousand, you would also need a very large random sample. It's not exactly ethical to randomly give some children injections and some not injections. Without a random sample, so many environmental factors can confound the results.

[jimN]

I also add that in the UK, doctors receive huge bonuses for achieving vaccine targets e.g. 95-99% of all children of the right age in their area being vaccinated in that year. With such a high target, it only takes a few parents to refuse for the doctor to lose their bonus.

You're right, GPs are paid a bonus for achieving a very high vaccination rates, and for good reason. For one thing these levels are necessary and hard to achieve because some people are generally apathetic, but also because they have to spend extra time convincing ill informed idiots to consent to their children having a procedure that is undoubtably in their best interest.

Have no idea which doctor advised that keeping your children clean would prevent against infectious illness, but it sounds like 'Dr' Gilliam McKeith. Are you also supposed to stop them socialising entirely? Give a little thought to the common vector for these diseases - it's other bloody children! Aside from preventing your child ever stepping on a rusty nail (tetanus) you won't be able to protect against other illnesses without vaccination. Unless you rely on the herd immunity that these evil GPs are being paid to go out of their way to promote.

Statistics clearly show that we have reduced the rates of epiglotitis and meningitis secondary to HiB, pneumococcus and Men C, in addition to measles, mumps and rubella. If you want to afflict your child with these thinsg why not ring social services up now and have them take the little buggers off your hands as they are clearly already taxing your ability to care for them.

Competing interests: Works as a paediatrician and believes that whilst no-one has a right to be a parent, every child has a right to good parents.

[Gelfin]

Boy, I really don't get you guys. As far as the health risks of immunizations, I have never done any research so I have no opinion. (Other than not trusting anyone who works for Pharma as far as I could spit.) I just find it interesting that the media covered up the evidence of global warming for years! The media is trying to convince us obesity is our biggest health crisis! This I have researched and it exaggerated beyond all reason to sell risky products from Pharma. And lets not even talk about the fact there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Or video news releases that are commericals within newscasts, delivered sometimes by anchors, and it is getting impossible to tell the difference. Yet, THIS fictional show is what gets people to want to boycott media? I don't think we live on the same planet!

What makes you think that any given participant in this thread is not interested in any of the alternate issues you mention?

Still, the question, "why this issue," is a valid one, and I think it deserves a response. The main problem with the vaccination issue is that the paranoia already existed and that the producers of this show decided to capitalize upon it after the link between vaccines and autism had already been shown to be spurious. Some issues have two sides. This is not one of them. If you try to frame this as an issue with sides, you end up with one "side" that's got people who know what they're talking about and another "side" that's got people who are concerned that, because they don't know what they're talking about, they wouldn't know if the people who know what they are talking about were lying to them. They are scared solely on the basis of what they don't understand. That is irrational fear, which is by some accounts the provence of parenthood, but it still must be quelled wherever possible.

By way of comparison, let us examine the global warming issue. As quoted above, Pani is concerned that "the media" do not acknowledge global warming. Suppose that, beyond that, one of the major networks produced a show the major premise of which is that global warming is a lie, perhaps a series adaptation of Michael Crichton's insipid State of Fear. That is the difference we are talking about here. We find ourselves in a situation where the science is in and contradicts the conspiracy theorists, but a network has nonetheless decided to foster a discredited lie for the sake of its own profits. This is unconscionable, no matter what the issue. A series of this sort can have as a part of its bible "in this show, global warming is not happening" in the same way that J. K. Rowling can simply declare that magic exists by authorial fiat. No rational person seriously believes in Hogwarts-style magic, but when the effect of a fictional conceit is to reinforce a popular and unquestionably misguided delusion, response is demanded.

[Iscariot]

... I just find it interesting that the media covered up the evidence of global warming for years! The media is trying to convince us obesity is our biggest health crisis!

The two are not as disconnected as you'd like to purport here and in your signature. One of the major contributors to global warming is the massive excess of the agricultural industry, specifically the meat industry. Our livestock is dumping 73 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere each year, deforestation is rampant in no small part to create grazing land for cattle, and the care, slaughter and transportation of livestock pours tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Just by examining what's on your fork and where it comes from, one can make a massive difference.