To be fair, the Tooth Fairies only provided the quote about how much people sit around. The actual data seems to be from a study by "Dr Waseem Bashir of the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Alberta Hospital", so presumably can be trusted.
This the same BCA who sued a science journalist for pointing out that their claims didn't seem to have scientific proof.
More at the excellent badscience blog:
Why demonize HFCS (over sugar) before science shows any of the conspiracy theorists claims are true? It sounds like the vast majority of anti-HFCS claims have no supporting evidence. As far as obesity is concerned, HFCS and sugar are probably equivalent.
But are they equally prevalent? What if they are equivalent, when all things are equal, but HFCS is deleterious simply because of its cost induced amount and ubiquity?
Yeah, even if HFCS is shown to be no worse than sugar, I'm disturbed by the idea of this country getting fat off of corn subsidies and price protection for domestic sugar.
Water can poison and kill you at a large enough dosage. Oxygen too. Treating cancer with homeopathy is harmless until the cancer kills you. All medicine (supported by science or not) carries some risk, the poison is in the dosage.
Woo practitioners are more than happy to bankrupt their victims, what's the harm?
A Milwaukee girl died of diabetes recently, her parents were trying to cure her with prayer.
There's a difference between things that are generally harmless in their prescribed doses--water, aspirin, homeopathy BS--and the example given in the article, where the patient took the pills as specified and soon lost her kidneys, got cancer, and had a heart attack.
If the Wu practitioners are giving out lethal doses of their medicine, they should be crushed by the FDA.
yet the FDA manages to regulate drugs for safety, regardless of the fact that dropping 10 tons of even the safest drug on your head results in a really nasty headache.
There aren't as many pseudo doctors as there are pseudo scientists. This bit of pseudoscience is not as resilient as intelligent design. I think this dent will quickly kill the movement.
"None of this mattered. Andrew Wakefield still enjoys a cult of personality among the anti-vaccine crowd that no revelation seems able to dislodge, even the revelation that at the time he was both in the pay of trial lawyers and working on his study, Andrew Wakefield was also applying for a patent for a rival measles vaccine. Indeed, the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism bestowed upon him last year its 'Galileo Award' as the 'persecuted' scientist supposedly fighting for truth, justice, and anti-vaccinationism against the pharma-funded or brainwashed minions of the 'Church of the Immaculate Vaccination.' In the meantime, MMR uptake rates in the U.K. have plummeted over the last decade, far below the level needed for herd immunity, to the point where, last year the Health Protection Agency declared measles to be once again endemic in the U.K., 14 years after the local transmission of measles had been halted."
I appreciate your optimism but I fear you haven't been following this very closely. This is not the first time this guy and his work has been completely tossed under a bus. The antivax people have known for a LONG TIME that this guy was being seriously discredited and chalked it up to "big pharma funded" witch hunting.
1. We space vaccines out "just to be safe."
2. We test vaccines exhaustively and have decades of field data about them.
3. Children receive vaccines only against diseases which are very dangerous to children and not impossible to get.
But having a large catalogue of vaccines seems like a good thing! Vaccines are the cheapest way to fight disease: by priming your immune system so you can heal yourself.
Quite frankly, they're more in the style of allopathic miracle than any goofy herb or berry that some quack says balances energies. Think about it: they teach your body how to fight off infections by giving your body an opportunity to practice. This is the future, dude. Vaccines are biological hacking at the personal level.
I don't know... I'm a scientist and I think it might be getting to be a little much too.
RE 1) We space vaccines out not "just to be safe", but to actually be safe. You don't want to use a cocktail of things that has been adequately tested. Also, you space them out so they can be more effective. Let's say that your body has X immune capacity to absorb the benefit from a vaccine. You don't want to throw 20 things at it. About 3 at a time is as much as you want to do.
RE 3) Honestly, the only vaccine that I've questioned is the Chicken pox vaccine. My son got it, but when I was growing up getting the Chicken pox was just part of being a kid. I understand the rationale: if you don't get it until you're older it's pretty bad, there is the economic cost of a parent needing to be home, etc... but polio it isn't. (I know, you don't want your kid to be the 1% that has a severe case... like I said, my kid still got it).
"Many people are not aware that before a vaccine was available approximately 10,600 persons were hospitalized and 100 to 150 died as a result of chickenpox in the U.S. every year."
I'm curious as to how many of those were elementary school-aged children (lets say under 10). From the same article it looks like about 50 children and 50 adults (all w/o other complications).
I wonder what the results would be if the standard was to give a vaccination at age 10 if the hadn't already contracted the virus normally. Then again, this would probably have a detrimental effect on 'herd' immunity, so it's probably worth it for just that reason.
If we can prevent children from having a potentially dangerous disease with an intervention that is both inexpensive and safer than the disease itself, why wouldn't we? It's much less expensive on a personal and societal level to use vaccines.
But science (not intuitition) has shown that the immune system can handle many such "onslaughts" at once with only positive results. Many, many.
the only vaccine that I've questioned is the Chicken pox vaccine. My son got it, but when I was growing up getting the Chicken pox was just part of being a kid.
So if you got it then everyone should be at risk of getting it? It's not better if we can prevent it altogether by teaching the immune system to fight it off? Chicken Pox is not necessarily harmless; do a Google search for "shingles".
The immune system is not limitless. You only throw so many things at it at a time because that's all that works to A) provides the immunization coverage you need and B) not have a severe effect on the life of the individual. The point isn't to battle the vaccine, it's to prime the pump (so to speak). If you introduce too much at a time you risk weakening the overall effect. This isn't intuition.
My point is that vaccines are spread out for good reason and the distribution has been widely studied and that changing the mix needs to handled carefully.
> everyone should be at risk of getting it?
I'm quite aware of shingles... it's horrible and I'd wish it on no one. Any adult that hasn't already had chickenpox should definitely get the vaccination.
My hesitation was that I'm not sure how the immunity conferred by the vaccine differs from that conferred by the live virus. It is probably just as good, but what if it isn't? That's my question. Since chickenpox itself is not that dangerous to a large percentage of the child population, I wonder if it would be better to have them acquire the resistance naturally (get the disease). This is the original form of vaccination remember...
Bear in mind this is all from the point of view of the individual. From the point of view of population / herd immunity it's probably far better to just have everyone vaccinated so it's over and done with. I mean, a kid at my son's daycare recently got chickenpox. I wouldn't like dealing with a toddler that has the chickenpox, so all in all, I'm happy with the decision to get him vaccinated for it, regardless of my initial hesitation.
It's not limitless, but scientific testing has shown it can handle much more than you are imagining.
I'm not sure how the immunity conferred by the vaccine differs from that conferred by the live virus. It is probably just as good, but what if it isn't?
It doesn't differ at all. All vaccines are made of live-but-weakened or dead versions of viruses. Your immune system doesn't realize that, and reacts as though it's being attacked. The "hard" part for it is concocting antibodies for the virus it's discovered. And that, naturally, is the beneficial effect of the vaccine, because the immune system doesn't easily forget how to make that kind of antibody. Vaccines work because the immune system reacts the same way to a weak or dead virus that it does to a live, strong one.
You don't know what I'm imagining. I think that a load of approx. 3 different antigens per inoculation with a buffer of at least 6-12 weeks in between them is adequate for coverage of most vaccines. All I was saying is that the current regiment of spread out vaccines is done for a reason. The original (parent/parent/...) poster said that it was done "to be safe". My point is that it is done that way for more than one reason... chief among them efficacy. You want the antibodies that you create to last.
I know the way vaccines work.
The part that you don't get with a stock vaccine is immunity when dealing with new strains or mutations that aren't accounted for by the stock vaccine. The antigenic make up of the new strain may be different. This is why we get different flu shots every year. With something as simple as chicken pox, I don't think that there are many strains (I could only find 2 while quickly Googling), so one shot and you're covered.
But in the case of something like H1N1, someone may get the vaccine and assume they are covered. They then may get lax about standard precautions, thinking that they are covered. And then when a new strain rolls around, you're susceptible.
> 2. We test vaccines exhaustively and have decades of field data about them.
Other medicines are also tested. The problem with vaccines are that they are incredibly widely used (millions of kids get them). Thalidomide also managed to get to the market in the past (and was deemed safe) – and severely affected thousands of people.
So, the barrier of safety for vaccines should be much higher than general medicine.
> 3. Children receive vaccines only against diseases which are very dangerous to children and not impossible to get.
The problem is the long vaccination schedule in the USA. It is much larger than most other first world countries. This vaccination schedule still doesn’t include the extra shit that is pawned off by private doctors.
A good example in the adult schedule with which I am familiar is Hepatitis A. In most sensible countries, only health workers are immunised for HepA (you need periodic booster shots, etc…). Yet it is on the USA’s vaccination schedule. Hepatitis A is rarely fatal (only in people with reduced immune systems).
Another example is chicken pox – the symptoms are mild (especially in children) and you get immunity from one instance. I had chicken pox and it wasn’t that big a deal.
Now, another problem I have is that every time a person with a baby goes to a doctor, he tries to pawn off vaccines – some of which are not on the schedule and most of which are not necessary. This is BS.
So, to make my point clear:
1. Vaccines are extremely valuable and necessary and are a modern day miracle
2. Vaccines should not be used to remove any diseases which may cause discomfort – vaccines should not be on the schedule if the disease is not life threatening.
3. It is the parent’s choice and obligation to check its vaccines. Don’t trust a doctor that says “trust me” or wants to pawn of this season’s newest (and most expensive) vaccine. Parents should take charge of their children’s health care.
4. Since vaccines are widely used (all small children) the bar for new vaccines should be higher. New vaccines should not be mandatory or on the list.
> Another example is chicken pox – the symptoms are mild (especially in children) and you get immunity from one instance. I had chicken pox and it wasn’t that big a deal.
Not big of a deal, until someone who is pregnant, immunocompromised, or of adult age with lowered/no immunity to chicken pox gets infected from a child that wasn't vaccinated. It's not mild, it's severe and possibly life threatening at that point.
So okay, I can understand a parent's concern over all the vaccines out there, but it is quite selfish to think it's only about the child in question. It affects public health overall no matter what you want to think of it, unless you're suggesting that people should just not interact with anyone in-person ever.
> 4. Since vaccines are widely used (all small children) the bar for new vaccines should be higher. New vaccines should not be mandatory or on the list.
This I'm torn over, because the newest vaccines to make the schedule for teens in the US and some other countries are Gardasil and Cervarix (the HPV vaccines), which are very new vaccines that were fast tracked for approval because they were just so effective. I only have a gripe over the unknowns like how long immunity will last. But parents will take that as an excuse to not vaccinate their kids until their kids have probably had sex, at which point it might be of reduced use as your kid might already have been exposed. Is that really something that should be acceptable?
> Not big of a deal, until someone who is pregnant, immunocompromised, or of adult age with lowered/no immunity to chicken pox gets
Immunocompromised and old people (and high risk people such as doctors and nurses) should be vaccinated if they did not have Chicken Pox as a child. The same goes for yearly flu vaccines (which are only given to people that are immunocompromised or old).
But there is no reason to immunize everyone else.
> but it is quite selfish to think it's only about the child in question.
That is an extremely bad argument (and usually used to justify the removal of a parent's responsibility over his child).
> But parents will take that as an excuse to not vaccinate their kids until their kids have probably had sex, at which point it might be of reduced use as your kid might already have been exposed. Is that really something that should be acceptable?
A parent is a child’s guardian until the child is of age. You mentioned HPV. Yet that is a perfectly preventable disease. Why not let the parent’s decide for their children – and then let the child decide for him/herself when they are of age.
Btw, the phenomenon of teenagers having unprotected sex with multiple partners is a consequence of dysfunctional American culture. In many other countries it does not happen this way. I recently read a story about a school in Oregon (if I recall correctly) that gave out condoms to 13 year old children. This is fairly shocking.
The amount of vaccines are not a problem. If a kid puts a dirty toy in their mouth (something kids will do all the fucking time) they will be exposed to many more pathogens than the standard schedule of vaccines.
If anything we should be celebrating the fact that we have lots of vaccines available and hence the capability to control lots of maladies.
The problem isn't with that goalpost. It's with this new one I'm busy building over here. And when you get to it the problem will really turn out to be another goalpost way down the field from where we are now...
