The merits of Vaccination vs Autism

[CDMan477]

www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/31/autism.main/index.html

A truly sad case in the first link that inspired this thread. My chief concern however is the continued debate of vaccination leading to Autism. More studies continue to point to a disconnect between the two, esspecially with the removal of thimerosal, the one time supposed culprit. However, lawsuits continue, and misinformation continues to spread into the public domain putting everyone at risk. As many know, vaccinations are indeed effective only when universally applied to the population in a given area. You can find various arguments for both sides all over the net if you seek more information.

www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/us/12vaccine.html
www.monheit.com/thimerosal/t_what.shtml

Here: many somewhat comprehensive arguments for both sides of the issue
www.whale.to/vaccines/risk.html

Your thoughts?

[Juvenal]

The failure to resolve this debate is not down to the facts, but rather to the way that humans make decisions.

Gain / Loss Judgements
There is a natural bias in decision making that favours actions that prevent loss over those that give a benefit. In this debate, supporters of the MMR vaccine present it as giving a beneficial effect (reduction of measles, mumps and rubella), while the critics present it as giving a bad effect (causing autism).

The natural human reaction is to sacrifice the "good" effect in order to try to avoid the "bad" effect.

Severity vs Likelihood
The above is compounded by the fact that people view measles, mumps and rubella as being mild illnesses, but autism as being a serious illness.

When judging risks we tend to give greater weight to the seriousness of the possible outcome than to the probability of it occurring. Therefore the benefit of a high probability mild benefit (prevention of measles/mumps/rubella) is outweighed by the very low probability of a serious negative outcome (autism).

Correlation vs Cause
A third aspect of human judgement is that we tend to assume contemporaneous events are likely to be related.

It is unfortunate that autism is normally diagnosed around age 2 to 3 and therefore coincides with MMR vaccination, thus giving a correlation.

Given all of the above, it is hardly surprising that the MMR debate drags on no matter how many studies are published.

[Ältester der Motten]

When judging risks we tend to give greater weight to the seriousness of the possible outcome than to the probability of it occurring. Therefore the benefit of a high probability mild benefit (prevention of measles/mumps/rubella) is outweighed by the very low probability of a serious negative outcome (autism).

The funny thing is, it could just be the Asperger-syndrome, which is not really so much negative and can be treated quite effectively, if I look at my very self. And treatment even only started when I already was in 7th grade or so.
So even though it maybe could possibly influence the brain development in an autism-favouring way a little bit (which appears to be not the case), the outcome might still be okay.

This is just ridiculous.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Vaccinate and be safe. The weak-minded won't vaccinate and - when the storm of all time comes down on their heads as herd-immunity finally fails and they are no longer able to freeload on those who HAVE taken the trouble to vaccinate - they will see their children die. Their choice. The weak perish, the strong continue. Thus is weak-mindedness mercilessly and ineluctably weeded out.

[Redem]

The diseases eradicated by those vaccines killed tens of thousands of children every year in Europe, and cripple many many more.
Even if there can be shown to be a link, the cost is well worth it.


As it happens, there is no correlation between the two, so it's all good.

This "debate" is not based of any scientific merit.

[Exarch]

actually it's not that simple, cluny and redem
sure the chances are 1 in 10,000 about, but what if that one was your kid?

i did an essay on the issue about this a coupla months back; i'll see about uploading it here

[DimondLight]

actually it's not that simple, cluny and redem
sure the chances are 1 in 10,000 about, but what if that one was your kid?

i did an essay on the issue about this a coupla months back; i'll see about uploading it here

You can not have your kid vaccinated, and he wont have the 1 in 10,000 chance of getting Autism, but if he gets Measles, Mumps, or Rubella, he's gonna be in pretty bad shape anyway. I'd take my chances with the vaccine.

[Exarch]

You can have your kid vaccinated, and he wont have the 1 in 10,000 chance of getting Autism, but if he gets Measles, Mumps, or Rubella, he's gonna be in pretty bad shape anyway. I'd take my chances with the vaccine.

it's not the vaccin itself that causes msot of the problesm methinks
jsut the thiomersal

[Trax]

A large number of us would not even be alive without vaccines. Some unproven
side effects should remain irrelavent. Vaccination should be mandatory. Point.

[sephodwyrm]

but what if that one was your kid?

A very common tactic.
Appeal to emotion and selfish interest.
I agree with Trax. Vaccinations should be mandatory.

[Exarch]

A very common tactic.
Appeal to emotion and selfish interest.
I agree with Trax. Vaccinations should be mandatory.

i disagree but not because of the vaccinations, as i myself am a beneficiary of vaccination; i disagree on the part of them being mandatory, as it violates several key ethical principles, namely autonomy.

btw, how was my point an 'appeal to emotion and selfish interest'?
have u ever met anyone who's suffered side effects from vaccination?
i know a girl who's blind now because of the MMR vaccine.

EDIT: it just seemed like u were making an ad hominem

[Cluny the Scourge]

i disagree but not because of the vaccinations, as i myself am a beneficiary of vaccination; i disagree on the part of them being mandatory, as it violates several key ethical principles, namely autonomy.

Autonomy is inapplicable to matters of public health. Individual choice cannot be permitted to undermine and attack the public as a whole.

Suppose someone wants to keep his grandfather's corpse in his apartment and let it rot and liquefy there - that's his choice isn't it? What business does the government have interfering? This business - that if everyone did it then contagion would spread.

How is it any different with your immune-system? Maintenance of herd-immunity is essential in any group-vaccination system.

Now please supply concrete empirical evidence of anyone ever being blinded by the MMR.

[Exarch]

Autonomy is inapplicable to matters of public health. Individual choice cannot be permitted to undermine and attack the public as a whole. .How is it any different with your immune-system? Maintenance of herd-immunity is essential in any group-vaccination system.

First of all, jsut so i'm clear on this: we are arguing about the pros and cons of mandatory vaccination arent we?
i support vaccination; i just dont believe people should be forced to do so by the state, and btw, your assertion regarding herd immunity doesnt hold water as an unvaccinated child should pose no danger to children already vaccinated against the disease itself, and should themselves be safe against immunised children.
in schools across australia, they wont allow children who havent been immunised; i believe that's a civil rights violation ie discrimination.

Suppose someone wants to keep his grandfather's corpse in his apartment and let it rot and liquefy there - that's his choice isn't it? What business does the government have interfering? This business - that if everyone did it then contagion would spread.

horrible analogy and i dont think i need to even call 'strawman' on this one. First of all, parents of children who oppose mandatory vaccination are only opposed to the traditional vaccines themselves ie MMR vaccine, DPT vaccine-they have no problem with immunising their kids, they just prefer that their children will develop natural immunity against the diseases the state wishes to enforce vaccination upon.

i remember an incident last yr, 2007 when they first came out with Gardasil, the HPV vaccine; great news and all, considering the statistics for women in australia with an HPV infection (often genital herpes) is as high as 1 in 4 (dont quote me on this). This was also extremely good news for these women as HPV infection can also lead to cervical cancer, but about a coupla months after it was announced, the Texas governor, Rick Perry decided to mandate Gardasil for all schoolgirls.
LINK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093/

Now never mind the fact that Governor Perry sidelined parental consent and individual autonomy over this issue; never mind the fact that Merck, the main manufacturer/supplier of Gardasil was a major sponsor towards Rick Perry's candidacy for governorship, and thus having the most to profit from such a mandate; the fact that this vaccine being relatively new on the market, (having not undergone human testing, despite in-vitro and in-vivo testing) was rushed and quite literally forced upon these peoples' children is still something i find unsettling to this day.

i might also like to point out that in the case of Gardasil, HPV infection is not the only way a woman can get cervical cancer; mandating Gardasil will not prevent these women from getting cervical cancer via chlamydia, smoking, hormonal contraception, or HIV.

oh, and btw most of these ppl with adverse reactions to vaccination react thus, mainly due to the preservatives and metals within the composition of the vaccine, rather than the vaccine itself.

[Simetrical]

actually it's not that simple, cluny and redem
sure the chances are 1 in 10,000 about, but what if that one was your kid?

The chances of acquiring autism from MMR vaccines are, as far as has been firmly established, zero. Or rather, they're unknown. The logic makes no sense anyway. It's a question of cost versus benefit, not looking at cost and ignoring benefit. The prevention of measles, mumps, and rubella by MMR vaccines is demonstrated. The link with autism is not. Unless the latter becomes more firmly established, we have approximately zero in the "cost" column, and some non-zero quantity in the "benefits" column.

i disagree but not because of the vaccinations, as i myself am a beneficiary of vaccination; i disagree on the part of them being mandatory, as it violates several key ethical principles, namely autonomy.

If you want to be a hermit, you don't have to be vaccinated. Otherwise, by failing to be vaccinated you're imposing an unwarranted burden on others, which is a key reason for restricting autonomy in all cases. You cannot have autonomy if you aren't in fact totally isolated from all other people: you always need to take their needs into account.

have u ever met anyone who's suffered side effects from vaccination?
i know a girl who's blind now because of the MMR vaccine.

Wrong. You know a girl who is blind, and who blames it on the MMR vaccine. It it incorrect to conclude that her claim (or her doctor's, or whoever's) is right without systematic evidence. Personal experience is completely irrelevant here. The plural of anecdote is not data.

A list of eye-related adverse side effects from MMR vaccines, from Merck, is: Retinitis; optic neuritis; papillitis; retrobulbar neuritis; conjunctivitis. According to Wikipedia, at least, optic neuritis can cause blindness in some cases. However, such side-effects are rare, and justified by the public health needs.

First of all, jsut so i'm clear on this: we are arguing about the pros and cons of mandatory vaccination arent we?

Whether MMR vaccines are linked to autism is relevant to both mandatory and voluntary vaccination.

i support vaccination; i just dont believe people should be forced to do so by the state, and btw, your assertion regarding herd immunity doesnt hold water as an unvaccinated child should pose no danger to children already vaccinated against the disease itself, and should themselves be safe against immunised children.

Wrong. Number one, vaccines are not completely effective. Vaccinated individuals are at a much lower risk of contracting the disease if those around them are infected, but the risk is not zero. Number two, significant numbers of infected people put a strain on various social services such as hospitals, which can decrease the availability of treatment for a wide variety of other things as resources are tied up by treating outbreaks.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly in a global sense at least, the goal of MMR vaccination is to completely eradicate the diseases, as smallpox has been eradicated and polio almost eradicated. This would be of great benefit to public health, because it would avoid outbreaks even in very poor places where vaccines might not be as readily accessible; it would provide better protection than vaccination; and vaccines would no longer have to be administered, reducing side effects. This is not possible without total cooperation. If any significant number of holdouts refuse to get vaccinated, they jeopardize the entire project, harming the public health of the entire world. The only way to guarantee elimination of this possibility is mandatory vaccination.

horrible analogy and i dont think i need to even call 'strawman' on this one.

Yes, you do. What's wrong with the analogy? It's entirely correct. Autonomy is not an acceptable justification for harming public health.

First of all, parents of children who oppose mandatory vaccination are only opposed to the traditional vaccines themselves ie MMR vaccine, DPT vaccine-they have no problem with immunising their kids, they just prefer that their children will develop natural immunity against the diseases the state wishes to enforce vaccination upon.

Ridiculous. You only get "natural immunity" against these diseases by being infected, which defeats the point. There is no alternative to vaccination that provides the same benefits.

Now never mind the fact that Governor Perry sidelined parental consent and individual autonomy over this issue

Fine by me.

never mind the fact that Merck, the main manufacturer/supplier of Gardasil was a major sponsor towards Rick Perry's candidacy for governorship, and thus having the most to profit from such a mandate

Corruption as always. Doesn't have any bearing on the merits of the decision, though.

the fact that this vaccine being relatively new on the market, (having not undergone human testing, despite in-vitro and in-vivo testing) was rushed and quite literally forced upon these peoples' children is still something i find unsettling to this day.

Nonsense. No drug is allowed on the market until it's tested on humans. The study was not required to wait for results on cervical cancer incidence; however, Gardasil has been demonstrated in human studies to prevent transmission of HPV, which is believed to cause cervical cancer.

i might also like to point out that in the case of Gardasil, HPV infection is not the only way a woman can get cervical cancer; mandating Gardasil will not prevent these women from getting cervical cancer via chlamydia, smoking, hormonal contraception, or HIV.

Irrelevant. The question is whether it reduces the risk. It doesn't have to eliminate it to be worthwhile. HPV is the most important risk factor.

[Trax]

Most people are stupid as hell in things concerning the medicine, acquiring their information from some websites made by lunatics for lunatics, why should the children suffer for their parents ignorance? A population must have a certain number of immune members to avoid an outbreak of epidemy, we can't let such a crucial matter depend on the good will of the dumb mass.

[Bokks]

The prospect that such vaccines produce autism is ludicrous to me, but the prospect that it does, despite test and test that show it doesn't, gains steam, mostly, from the age old "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy, which means "after this, therefore because of this", which is what Juvenal was excellently talking about in his third point, the correlation vs cause belief.
It is entirely natural, and in some ways entirely logical, to assume that because something follows something then therefore that which preceded it is what caused it. In this case, however, and in many cases which makes the post hoc hypothesis a fallacy, or lie, is that simply because something seems correlated does not mean that it is related.

Historically the reason behind the belief that vaccines lead to autism is because when the vaccines were first produced and given, health care as a whole was becoming much more exact and developed. A logical phenomena. What happened, though, was that because of this increasing understanding of medicine in general and (as it turned out) mental illnesses in particular, certain cases that were previously misdiagnosed as mental retardation or other illnesses were diagnosed properly as autism. To the common person they woke up one day and saw that these vaccines were being given out, and then they saw a lot more children being diagnosed as autistic. alot more children. What they didn't see was at the same time children diagnosed with some other mental illness had plummeted, since logically if you take one from one group and add it to another, that first group is smaller. As it turns out the percentage difference matched, and for good reason, because they were inherently related. People didn't see or even listen to that, though, they wanted a tangible reason why more children were diagnosed as autistic, even though realistically while the diagnoses increased the cases remained the same. That outside, tangible reason that they could find was the vaccine, and it has been under attack ever since.

Now, morally, making vaccination mandatory is wrong and impossible. First off, it's expensive, and yeah, maybe someday there will be universal health re for every person on earth but right now there isn't. Secondly, people do believe that vaccines are dangerous. Sure, it's wrong, but if we punished everyone for being wrong then there wouldn't be very many people left. There couldbe something said for the childs harm due to the parents ignorance, but parents are responcible for their children... and as horrible as it is, that's just tough. All the facts should be presented, and then the people should have the freedom to decide what they want to do with that. Though that's not perfect, a person won't die because his neighbor didn't get vaccinated. A person may die because his neighbor didn't get vaccinated and the disease had the host to mutate and become immune to the antibodies made by the vaccine, yes... but that's a different discussion (not really, but I can't think of a counter to that right now...)

[Simetrical]

The prospect that such vaccines produce autism is ludicrous to me, but the prospect that it does, despite test and test that show it doesn't, gains steam

Correct me if I'm wrong. My impression is that there is no solid evidence either for or against MMR vaccines causing autism.

Now, morally, making vaccination mandatory is wrong and impossible. First off, it's expensive

Only some vaccines are expensive. The MMR vaccine is cheap. Vaccines for smallpox, HPV, and a variety of others are cheap as well. All of these could be funded by the state for a net gain, since it won't have to pay to handle outbreaks. It's quite economical. The end of smallpox and (almost) polio through global vaccination belies your statement by itself.

Secondly, people do believe that vaccines are dangerous. Sure, it's wrong, but if we punished everyone for being wrong then there wouldn't be very many people left.

We don't have to punish them. We just have to forcibly administer the vaccine.

Though that's not perfect, a person won't die because his neighbor didn't get vaccinated.

Outbreaks can occur if vaccination rates are not high enough, putting a strain on hospital systems. Allowing people to opt out also hinders the wholesale elimination of the disease, which would incidentally make the vaccine unnecessary in any case. In both cases it might be that voluntary vaccination rates would be high enough to make mandatory vaccination unnecessary, but then again, it might not. In the latter case, a few people's ignorance or stubbornness cannot be allowed to jeopardize public health.

[Bokks]

Thiomersal! Thanks Exarch, I know all about that preservative but I can never remember its name. The reason why people believe tha such vaccines cause autism is because tis preservative is made from mercury, which as we all know is a highly poisonous metallic material that can cause intense brain damage... if it were the right kind. The issue is that thiomersal (or is it themorisal? come to think of it thiomersal sounds kind wierd... I know that it's "th" anyway...) is not made out of your old, fun thermometer mercury, but a second kind that apparently doesn't affect the human body, and most importantly the developing human brain, in the same way. And, as Kiljan quite correctly stated, that woudn't even cause the genetic mutation that causes autism anyway, but it would cause mental retardation. Since this is not an issue for retardation, however, then it's likely (or rather postively) unrelated.

Correct me if I'm wrong. My impression is that there is no solid evidence either for or against MMR vaccines causing autism.

I suppose if you over look the point I made earlier, that the numbers of other forms of mental disease or illness have decreased at the same timethat the autism cases have increased, I suppose so. You are right that there are no black and white, yes and no answers, but I would attribute that to the fact that the nature and nset of autism itself is not an exact science. We do know what the preservative, which is what has gone under fire, does do, and it's not what is required to generate an autistic gene.

Only some vaccines are expensive. The MMR vaccine is cheap. Vaccines for smallpox, HPV, and a variety of others are cheap as well. All of these could be funded by the state for a net gain, since it won't have to pay to handle outbreaks. It's quite economical. The end of smallpox and (almost) polio through global vaccination belies your statement by itself.

I wouldn't really call smallpox vaccine cheap, but your point is well taken. That would require a different government system, however, at least in the US, and whatever your views are about the current administration are one point you can't argue is that we're not a free healthcare world right now.

We don't have to punish them. We just have to forcibly administer the vaccine.

Many people would call that punishment. I think that there should be some kind of public system, so that people know who has and who has not had a vaccine, so that should something spread because some parent didn't allowtheir child to be properly medicated, but then again that would create a system of pandemonium where that family's well being could be put in danger. Bottom line, however, is that the government is not allowed to interfere in someones decision to take a vaccine, it's unconstitutional. While it could be defined as protecting everyone else, or the child whose decision and choice cannot be heard, and therefore protecting their life and right to pursue happiness, that individuals libertywould be infringed upon. It may seem trivial but whenever a government repeals such a right for anything it can have the precedense to repeal it for others. I'm not saying that a forced vaccination leads to Nazi Germany... but then again maybe I am.
We are a commercial republic though, and there could be in place monetary incentives for those who take the vaccines, or perhaps more practical, an additional tax for those who have chosen not to. That tax could also be put to hospitals in an effort to revamp them as well as provide additional, more expensive vaccines to the public. :hmmm:That actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

Outbreaks can occur if vaccination rates are not high enough, putting a strain on hospital systems. Allowing people to opt out also hinders the wholesale elimination of the disease, which would incidentally make the vaccine unnecessary in any case. In both cases it might be that voluntary vaccination rates would be high enough to make mandatory vaccination unnecessary, but then again, it might not. In the latter case, a few people's ignorance or stubbornness cannot be allowed to jeopardize public health.

I do agree, I see that such ignorance is putting the rest of the public at risk. But that is no excuse for a federally facilitated intervention. It would ndo, in the long run more harm than good.

.... you know, Thiomersal sound like a really cool name for someone here. If I do ever get an alt, or more likely, change this name, that'd be what I change it to!

[Trax]

There couldbe something said for the childs harm due to the parents ignorance, but parents are responcible for their children...

Yes, they are responsible for the well being of their children, if they fail to do so then the state must force them and punish if necessary.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Thats that Autism and autism "disorders" are caused by vaccinations their caused by genes. I would know considering I have Asperger's syndrome.