Rand Paul one-ups Christie's moronic statement

[downtoearth]

Feb 2, 2015 20:19:21 GMT -5 epphd said:

I know this was covered to an extent in the earlier thread, but I feel like this deserves some special attention.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/rand-paul-vaccines-can-lead-mental-disorders-n298821


In an interview with the network Monday, Paul said that vaccines are "a good thing" but that parents "should have some input" into whether or not their children must get them.

And he gave credence to the idea - disputed by the majority of the scientific community - that vaccination can lead to mental disabilities.

"I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," he said. ...And I am a living example!


*****************

FTFY.

[Deleted]

Remember as kids when there were those horrible dead baby jokes going around?

Since the anti-vaxxers cannot be swayed by facts or truth perhaps we can just tell them dead baby jokes all the time?

[downtoearth]

Feb 3, 2015 12:21:38 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Feb 3, 2015 7:16:25 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Michelle, wut? There is no scientific or medical basis whatsoever for a delayed schedule. None. In fact, the delay of some vaccines actually increases the risk for seizures. It leaves children at risk longer for preventable diseases. Kids on delayed schedules are more likely to not get fully vaxxed. And there is no such thing as "overload" of vaccines. That is a myth and a foolish one. The schedule was made through research. You are supporting mythology in your above post. Are you sure you want to do so based in an anecdote about your dog?  :?

I'm just saying I'm not going to get up in arms about someone choosing to do that or asking for that choice, IF they are committed to going the full vaccination route. And that Rand Paul, who normally is an asshat, answered the question (mostly) fine when you watch the video in its entirety - except for providing soundbytes that could get latched onto by the right and indoctrinated into rightwingers' thoughts (persuading a switch from vaccination as a standard).

Everyone has an anecdote that makes them paranoid about one thing or another. That happened to be mine when all these needles came into the room to be stabbed into my preshus.

I think all Pedi's should push the schedule as the standard. And they have to take into account their patient's needs that may have clinical or psychological reasons for modified schedules. For example, a kid comes in with a high fever, you have to delay the shot/schedule because of that - clinically supported. My pedi also said, "you can modify things like Hep B that are low risk but I'm telling you, and I'm the one with the license and degree, that my very strong recommendation is X." I think all Pedi's should be like her, and for the most part DD was vaccinated according to: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf except for Hep B which slid out on the calendar a bit.

 

I have to agree with Michelle.  I mean I spent the entirety of my first pregnancy avoiding things (mercury in fish, ecoli in lunch meat, soy b/c it acts as estrogen, etc.) and eating organic to grow the best baby you can... then you get your first kid and take it into the doctor to inject a bunch of viruses into a sweet little thing that you are protecting.  It's hard mentally, to feel like multiple live and dead viruses at once = the best thing. I think for us, or doctors, to totally ignore the human emotion side is going to cause problems.  If your doctor is willing to listen to your concerns without wholly discounting them and then discuss the science behind the decision reasonably (I'm an optimist), then the trust will be there and you are more likely to go with the schedule and scientific evidence.

Also, I think the IOM extensive study on the vaccination schedule didn't even come out until late 2013 and it does find no adverse concerns with the current schedule, but it also refuses to study another schedule (alternatives) because it won't put kids at risk for longer for diseases that do have vaccines, so it hasn't studied any one alternative schedule, but they can't b/c it's an ethics issue for them and doctors can explain that.  I think the only other study I know was a 2010 or 2011 one that looked at vaccine schedules for kids 0-12 months and if they were administered on schedule and then did neuro tests with those kids 10 years later.  It found that the kids with missing vaccines or delayed vaccines from 0-12 months did not fare better on neuro tests. What I'm saying is this is all really new.  I mean doctors couldn't quote studies until about 5 years ago that showed that there weren't issues with the current schedule.   There have been studies since the early 90's on no links between vaccines and autism, but only recently were the studies published about the schedule.  If these had been out in 2005, I might not have delayed my first kids shots either. I mean we were in the doctor for shot visits like every 3 weeks for several months. 

Also VAERS is only recently being mentioned to the public - I mean, it's been around a since the 90's (right?), but until this past year, I hadn't heard of it and I hear about it hered.  I've never had a doctor ever tell me to go on there to report an adverse effect and our post-vaccine handouts only mention coming back to the doctor if you have concerns.  So I believe it was probably mostly a tool for doctors offices to report effects previously, right? I believe that will provide more insight and reassurance that the majority of the effects reported are mild like fever.

[NewOrleans]

ok, so we're back at square 1. Mom's instincts know best, and that is the same as a degree, and I DO WHAT I FEEL. ::throws up hands::

[heyjude]

Feb 3, 2015 12:56:29 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Feb 3, 2015 12:21:38 GMT -5 Michelle said:

I'm just saying I'm not going to get up in arms about someone choosing to do that or asking for that choice, IF they are committed to going the full vaccination route. And that Rand Paul, who normally is an asshat, answered the question (mostly) fine when you watch the video in its entirety - except for providing soundbytes that could get latched onto by the right and indoctrinated into rightwingers' thoughts (persuading a switch from vaccination as a standard).

Everyone has an anecdote that makes them paranoid about one thing or another. That happened to be mine when all these needles came into the room to be stabbed into my preshus.

I think all Pedi's should push the schedule as the standard. And they have to take into account their patient's needs that may have clinical or psychological reasons for modified schedules. For example, a kid comes in with a high fever, you have to delay the shot/schedule because of that - clinically supported. My pedi also said, "you can modify things like Hep B that are low risk but I'm telling you, and I'm the one with the license and degree, that my very strong recommendation is X." I think all Pedi's should be like her, and for the most part DD was vaccinated according to: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf except for Hep B which slid out on the calendar a bit.

 

I have to agree with Michelle.  I mean I spent the entirety of my first pregnancy avoiding things (mercury in fish, ecoli in lunch meat, soy b/c it acts as estrogen, etc.) and eating organic to grow the best baby you can... then you get your first kid and take it into the doctor to inject a bunch of viruses into a sweet little thing that you are protecting.  It's hard mentally, to feel like multiple live and dead viruses at once = the best thing. I think for us, or doctors, to totally ignore the human emotion side is going to cause problems.  If your doctor is willing to listen to your concerns without wholly discounting them and then discuss the science behind the decision reasonably (I'm an optimist), then the trust will be there and you are more likely to go with the schedule and scientific evidence.

Also, I think the IOM extensive study on the vaccination schedule didn't even come out until late 2013 and it does find no adverse concerns with the current schedule, but it also refuses to study another schedule (alternatives) because it won't put kids at risk for longer for diseases that do have vaccines, so it hasn't studied any one alternative schedule, but they can't b/c it's an ethics issue for them and doctors can explain that.  I think the only other study I know was a 2010 or 2011 one that looked at vaccine schedules for kids 0-12 months and if they were administered on schedule and then did neuro tests with those kids 10 years later.  It found that the kids with missing vaccines or delayed vaccines from 0-12 months did not fare better on neuro tests. What I'm saying is this is all really new.  I mean doctors couldn't quote studies until about 5 years ago that showed that there weren't issues with the current schedule.   There have been studies since the early 90's on no links between vaccines and autism, but only recently were the studies published about the schedule.  If these had been out in 2005, I might not have delayed my first kids shots either. I mean we were in the doctor for shot visits like every 3 weeks for several months. 

Also VAERS is only recently being mentioned to the public - I mean, it's been around a since the 90's (right?), but until this past year, I hadn't heard of it and I hear about it hered.  I've never had a doctor ever tell me to go on there to report an adverse effect and our post-vaccine handouts only mention coming back to the doctor if you have concerns.  So I believe it was probably mostly a tool for doctors offices to report effects previously, right? I believe that will provide more insight and reassurance that the majority of the effects reported are mild like fever.

No. On just all of this.

[heyjude]

www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-delayed-doses-20150202-story.html

Tl; dr: delayed vaccines can be just as deadly.

[downtoearth]

Feb 3, 2015 13:16:18 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Feb 3, 2015 12:56:29 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I have to agree with Michelle.  I mean I spent the entirety of my first pregnancy avoiding things (mercury in fish, ecoli in lunch meat, soy b/c it acts as estrogen, etc.) and eating organic to grow the best baby you can... then you get your first kid and take it into the doctor to inject a bunch of viruses into a sweet little thing that you are protecting.  It's hard mentally, to feel like multiple live and dead viruses at once = the best thing. I think for us, or doctors, to totally ignore the human emotion side is going to cause problems.  If your doctor is willing to listen to your concerns without wholly discounting them and then discuss the science behind the decision reasonably (I'm an optimist), then the trust will be there and you are more likely to go with the schedule and scientific evidence.

Also, I think the IOM extensive study on the vaccination schedule didn't even come out until late 2013 and it does find no adverse concerns with the current schedule, but it also refuses to study another schedule (alternatives) because it won't put kids at risk for longer for diseases that do have vaccines, so it hasn't studied any one alternative schedule, but they can't b/c it's an ethics issue for them and doctors can explain that.  I think the only other study I know was a 2010 or 2011 one that looked at vaccine schedules for kids 0-12 months and if they were administered on schedule and then did neuro tests with those kids 10 years later.  It found that the kids with missing vaccines or delayed vaccines from 0-12 months did not fare better on neuro tests. What I'm saying is this is all really new.  I mean doctors couldn't quote studies until about 5 years ago that showed that there weren't issues with the current schedule.   There have been studies since the early 90's on no links between vaccines and autism, but only recently were the studies published about the schedule.  If these had been out in 2005, I might not have delayed my first kids shots either. I mean we were in the doctor for shot visits like every 3 weeks for several months. 

Also VAERS is only recently being mentioned to the public - I mean, it's been around a since the 90's (right?), but until this past year, I hadn't heard of it and I hear about it hered.  I've never had a doctor ever tell me to go on there to report an adverse effect and our post-vaccine handouts only mention coming back to the doctor if you have concerns.  So I believe it was probably mostly a tool for doctors offices to report effects previously, right? I believe that will provide more insight and reassurance that the majority of the effects reported are mild like fever.

No. On just all of this.

I already know you don't agree, but I think we do need a little compassion when people who are open to the science, but worried need to be drawn closer.  I told you in the other thread, the doctors I saw with my first were pro-vaccination, but didn't try to give me any basis for why not to delay.  I think they need to use this new research to do that b/c it does now show that the normal schedule is safe.

ETA: And why to no to all of this?  The studies I quoted show that the current schedule IS safe and there weren't published until the last 5 years, so these weren't around a decade ago.

[heyjude]

Feb 3, 2015 13:20:16 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Feb 3, 2015 13:16:18 GMT -5 heyjude said:

No. On just all of this.

I already know you don't agree, but I think we do need a little compassion when people who are open to the science, but worried need to be drawn closer.  I told you in the other thread, the doctors I saw with my first were pro-vaccination, but didn't try to give me any basis for why not to delay.  I think they need to use this new research to do that b/c it does now show that the normal schedule is safe.

You also said you would do the same thing again. So to me it sounds like you are pretty entrenched.

I had more compassion before we had a measles outbreak because of unvaxxed kids. Now I'm just livid. In fact the side that needs to engage in more empathy is the side that is not vaccinating or under vaccinating. The rest of us have just been sitting here too quietly while a minority plays God. Enough.

[downtoearth]

Feb 3, 2015 13:26:05 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Feb 3, 2015 13:20:16 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I already know you don't agree, but I think we do need a little compassion when people who are open to the science, but worried need to be drawn closer.  I told you in the other thread, the doctors I saw with my first were pro-vaccination, but didn't try to give me any basis for why not to delay.  I think they need to use this new research to do that b/c it does now show that the normal schedule is safe.

You also said you would do the same thing again. So to me it sounds like you are pretty entrenched.

I had more compassion before we had a measles outbreak because of unvaxxed kids. Now I'm just livid. In fact the side that needs to engage in more empathy is the side that is not vaccinating or under vaccinating. The rest of us have just been sitting here too quietly while a minority plays God. Enough.

Yeah, I'd do the same thing again in 2005 with the same info I had then. You didn't ask me if I had my first kid today what I would do - FTR I would not delay if I had my first kid today and with the pediatricians I have now.  

[heyjude]

Feb 3, 2015 13:28:27 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Feb 3, 2015 13:26:05 GMT -5 heyjude said:

You also said you would do the same thing again. So to me it sounds like you are pretty entrenched.

I had more compassion before we had a measles outbreak because of unvaxxed kids. Now I'm just livid. In fact the side that needs to engage in more empathy is the side that is not vaccinating or under vaccinating. The rest of us have just been sitting here too quietly while a minority plays God. Enough.

Yeah, I'd do the same thing again in 2005 with the same info I had then. You didn't ask me if I had my first kid today what I would do - FTR I would not delay if I had my first kid today and with the pediatricians I have now.  

Okay. Fair enough.

[heyjude]

Who posted the study about the more shots you give a kid, rather then bundling them in larger doses, the more stress hormones you inflict on your kid? asdfjkl?

[jinjer]

I've been visiting a lot of anti-vax blogs lately, they are on the major defensive and it doesn't look like any of them will ever back down. Vaccine denial is like a religion.

[epphd]

To me, delaying vaccination because of feelings is quite akin to, say... only washing your hands every third time because the soap dries out the skin. Or like (to use an analogy that got me in trouble before) only brushing your teeth on alternating days because the internet said fluoride is toxic.

Vaccinating on time is DEMONSTRATED to be safe and effective.
Delayed schedules are not MORE beneficial and MIGHT BE detrimental.

Sometimes you have to mind (evidence) over matter (gut instinct) and trust that reason will see the day. It's like getting on a plane. Nothing about that seems logical to me and I couldn't explain the physics of it if I had to. But I trust that the engineers at Boeing know more about that I do, so I climb aboard.

[penguingrrl]

I'll step in here and admit that my kids only get 2 shots per visit. We go frequently because I won't risk them being behind.

That said, I never even entertained that thought until my oldest had a high fever (103) that didn't respond to tylenol for close to a week after both of her first two rounds of shots. Our pediatrician then asked me to slow them down so we could watch to try to figure out what vaccine was causing that reaction. We never got an answer as she hasn't had a reaction since we slowed way down.

That said, after she was hospitalized for RSV/asthma at 2.5 her pulmonologist (a very well respected and well published Dr. at NYU) said that whatever trigger was going on with her shots was related to her RSV and that for whatever reason her immune system is more vulnerable to viral issues than others. It's a delicate balancing act (well, it was, now she's 7 and not due for any boosters for a while) because she needed the protection from vaccines even more than average since she has a strong reaction to viral triggers, but she also does actual show adverse reactions to vaccines.

Her siblings have always been on the "delayed" schedule but never more than a month behind because of her history. My middle one has done fine and eventually moved over to 4 shots per visit. My son gets fevers and has also had multiple bouts of wheezing when he gets colds, so our pulmonologist has said to keep him on the slower schedule just in case.

Had we not had it recommended by a ped for a very specific situation it never would have occurred to me to question the schedule. Since two different MDs have recommended it, one associated with a research hopsital, I am willing to go with it in our family's specific situation.