“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[TordelBack]

I don't think the Shark is trolling, I think he just believes that every consensus should be questioned. The problem here is that this one has been thoroughly questioned, and has answered. There is simply no evidence that links vaccination and autism, none, to the extent that people have had to make some up to peddle their lies. And employing the argument that vaccination should be 100% safe or not be used is ridiculous from any standpoint: no single thing we do can be 100% safe, yet we assess the risks and we do them every day, and by going ahead with vaccination we know that we are saving uncountable lives, and by not doing it we risk those lives. I just don't see what is at issue.

[The Legendary Shark]

Z - you'll have to be more specific. Which abstract are you talking about and which aspect of the conversation? What did you think of the NY Times article I linked to in Reply #1636?
.
Prof C - I do not argue that vaccination is, on the whole, a good thing. The Devil, of course, is in the detail. For example, are we simply swapping mumps for meningitis? There are several strains of mumps and several strains of mumps vaccination. Vaccine strain Urabe AM 9 has a seropositivity (long-lasting immunity) rate of 85 - 97% and an efficacy rate of ~75.8%  whilst the Jeryl-Lynn strain has a sr of 81 - 90% and an efficacy rate of ~64.7% (source*. There are other strains.
.
The Urabe strain was withdrawn in 1992, on the advice of lawyers, after evidence that it caused aseptic meningitis, which had been indicated since the early 80s and confirmed in 1989, was finally accepted and acted upon. The JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) spent three years playing down the findings before recommending the removal of the urabe strain on, it is worth repeating, the advice of lawyers.
.
The subject of vaccinations is, as I am continuing to discover, very complex. To say that all vaccinations are good is as incorrect as saying all vaccinations are bad. Some vaccines have been proven to cause chronic side-effects and have been (eventually) withdrawn. We cannot close our minds to this fact.
.
* Another interesting topic from this site is the phenomena of vaccine failure. A vaccination against one form of mumps or measles does not imply a full immunity to either disease. The site gives several examples, including one study of a Texas high school (by Cheek, et al) where, of 54 students who contracted mumps, 53 had been vaccinated against mumps at least once. The strain of vaccination used is important and should be factored in to local conditions but the fact is that the United States tends to use the Jeryl-Lynn strain because it is manufactured there and Europeans tend to use the Rubini strain because it is manufactured in Switzerland. Neither strain is wholly effective against wild mumps.
.
Now, I really must go to work! I'll try and address some more of your points and questions later on. Toodles!

[Grugz]

I don't think the Shark is trolling,

this, nor does he resort to name calling . if you don't like what is said on the thread either disagree like grown ups and gentlemen or move along.

[ZenArcade]

He's an obstinate fellow, but an utter gentleman thats for sure. As I've said before if I needed someone to hold at the postern gate, it'd be Shark. Z

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

We've played this game before with Shark, but in this case it's really very simple:

There's no link between vaccinations and autism and there's a clearly proven link between children not being vaccinated and children dying.

I hope that, whilst respecting Shark's right to say what he likes, no parent (current or future) is actually influenced by his posts on this topic.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I hope that, whilst respecting Shark's right to say what he likes, no parent (current or future) is actually influenced by his posts on this topic.

This.

[TordelBack]

I hope that, whilst respecting Shark's right to say what he likes, no parent (current or future) is actually influenced by his posts on this topic.

This.

Yes, while I have the greatest respect for Shark and enjoy his polite, eloquent, argumentative, stubborn ways, that's my problem with this particular topic in a nutshell.  It's not just idle chit-chat, it's talk that can have real effects on people's lives, and not just those of the potentially-influenced parents and their own children, but on humanity as a whole. 

What parent wants to risk injecting their child with a solution that may (rumour has it) permanently affect them mentally and physically? Not everyone takes the time to research away their nagging doubts, and how much easier so not to take the risk. So in this instance, baseless rumours can have terrible and wide-ranging real world effects.

[Old Tankie]

I really don't understand the point of Sharkey's posts on this subject.  I would hate to think that somebody out there could be put off vaccinating their child based on what Sharkey is saying.  If there was a vaccination for the life-changing condition that I have, I would be dragging my grandchildren down the doctors.  Vaccination saves lives.  End of.

This type of discussion is beyond banter.

[The Legendary Shark]

Thanks, chaps. I'll admit, it is often difficult to refrain from joining in the name-calling and I'm ashamed to say I don't always succeed. As soon as I start down that road the argument is essentially lost.
.
I would like to make the same deal with everyone who comes to this thread as I made with one of you via email: the next time we meet in person, especially if it's in a pub, NO POLITICS! What happens on the board stays on the board.
.
Now then, where was I?
.
Prof C - there are comparable methodological flaws in "pro-vax" studies. Take, for instance, one of the most respected and widely referenced studies, A Population-Based study of Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccination and Autism by K.M. Madsen M.D. et al. The study examined the links between children vaccinated with the MMR jab and instances of autism between January 1 1991 to December 31 1998.
.
The study does not differentiate between vaccinations with MMR and other vaccinations, meaning that children who had not received the MMR vaccine but may have received other vaccinations (including measles, mumps and rubella individual vaccinations) were placed in the "unvaccinated" group. This in itself represents a flaw in the methodology, for if vaccines other than MMR caused autism the results would essentially hide that fact by mis-labelling subjects receiving vaccinations other than MMR as "unvaccinated."
.
A second flaw in this study is the cut-off point of December 1998. The average age of autism diagnosis is 4.6 years (though it can be between 2 to 8 years), which means that any child vaccinated before the cut-off date and developing autism afterwards would be counted as vaccinated without developing autism. The only thing this study indicates is the MMR vaccine is no more likely to cause autism than any other vaccine - and even then the flaws in the study make this indication generally unsound.
.
Sorry, Prof C, but the evidence is not quite so conclusive as generally believed.
.
IP - Which vaccines would I cut? The dangerous ones, and not necessarily cut altogether. For instance, taking part of my previous post as an example, let's say that Vaccine Strain A (VSA) is the most efficacious but the most dangerous and Vaccine Strain B (VSB) is the least efficacious but also the safest. Why not use VSB on infants, risking infection but avoiding other complications, and providing a booster of VSA at age ~12 when the body is more likely to resist or repair damage?
.
Vaccination is all about the odds. We're stacking the deck in our favour using this technology but still the risk/benefit analysis must be done. Do we risk infection or risk side-effects? That's where the cold reality of the numbers game comes in; does one risk an X% chance of contracting mumps (eg.) or a Y% chance of suffering meningitis (eg.), and who should make that decision?
.
To suggest abandoning all vaccinations because some are dangerous is, as you point out, stupid. If all vaccines are found to be equally risky (which is, I think, highly unlikely), then the same question arises - which risk is most acceptable? If the choice was between 1,000,000 people contracting possibly fatal diseases and a similar number suffering possibly fatal side-effects, which would we choose?
.
EP - You are correct; the MMR vaccine does not contain mercury any more, it has been replaced with aluminium salts. Many vaccines do still contain mercury, though. And to state that substances like mercury and aluminium effect everyone equally ("giving each and every one of us breast cancer") really is disingenuous, I think. Mercury and aluminium are dangerous, especially cumutively, so should we really be introducing these substances to the body and brain of developing infants?
.
Prof C- I hope the above, and my Reply #1651, demonstrates that there is some evidence linking certain vaccines to autism-spectrum disorders and other things such as meningitis.
.
I will end with a concession. Refusing to use something because it is not 100% safe is foolish. That does not mean we should fail to strive for a 100% safe, 100% efficacious vaccination program. At the moment, we haven't got that. In time, though, we will - but only if we can get past the emotion, which is hard where children are concerned.

[Famous Mortimer]

Z - you'll have to be more specific. Which abstract are you talking about and which aspect of the conversation? What did you think of the NY Times article I linked to in Reply #1636?

To anyone who's spent any time on the internet, these sort of replies, while entirely polite, are also trolling. Please give me ever more specific information while I stick to my vague suppositions! Waste more of your time debating me, when my position will never, ever change!

If I'm misrepresenting how you're actually behaving, Shark, I apologise. But I don't think I am.

[The Legendary Shark]

Mistake 1 - the cut-off point (follow-up) of the study I quoted above was December 1999. December 1998 was the cut-off point for recording new births.
.
Mistake 2: I inferred in my comment to Prof C that the same study above demonstrated a link between MMR and autism, which it clearly does not. The study provides no evidence whatsoever as to whether vaccinations, of any type, do or do not cause autism.
.
Sorry about that.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

This thread isn't as entertaining when you're sober

[The Legendary Shark]

Tell me about it.

[ZenArcade]

Rigbt, then you lot are off the sauce for lent. Z

[The Legendary Shark]

Glad you're here, Z. I hope you don't think I was trolling you when I asked you which abstract you were referring to in your question (as I was accused of). I honestly didn't know which abstract you meant and in what context. I suppose I could have guessed but that would be kind of dishonest, I think. If you want to continue with that conversation, I'm up for it - if not, that's fine too.