By the way the Wakefield et al. 1998 (ret.) paper doesn't tie MMR to autism anyway. All it does is discuss a correlation and a hypothesis that requires further investigation (according to the authors). The only "false" part of the paper is some of the evidence that the authors used which was clearly fraudulent - which is why the authors are now disgraced and distrusted by everyone - especially Wakefield. Autism does have a proven correlation with autoimmune disease, and many researchers do believe that autism is triggered by the onset of one of these diseases. The same is true for diabetes - it's long been known that diabetes is a an autoimmune disease, however as yet no one has definitively identified how it is caused and which disease in particular causes it. In the future it could be possible to prevent autoimmune diabetes (aka type 1 or previously juvenile-onset) in at-risk patients. The same is true for autism if it is indeed triggered by an autoimmune problem.
So the fact that we know that autism may well be triggered by an autoimmune disease means of course vaccinations should be studied for their possible effect in triggering an autoimmune disease in an at-risk patient. So I hope that clears up the Wakefield (ret.) paper - there was nothing wrong with his hypothesis, but the data has vetted the MMR vaccine from being involved in triggering an autoimmune disease causing autism. Had the data the was used in the paper been valid and not falsified then it would have shown the hypothesis should be rejected - and that would have been that.
So now I've gone through that you can see why people could have a justified fear that a vaccination could be involved in triggering non-communicable autoimmune diseases. Once we know exactly how type-1 diabetes is triggered it would probably be easy to design a vaccination that would trigger it!
My point isn't that people who fear vaccinations have a strong reason not to vaccinate due to fear of autoimmune disease. My point is that the science is on their side if they decide their side is "vaccinations have the potential to cause autoimmune diseases". If 100% of the population is receiving a vaccination imagine how difficult it would be for researchers to ever definitively prove or disprove a causation-link. Now the other side of the argument is that "everyone who is genetically predisposed to having an autoimmune disease will eventually get it - that's why hardly any adults get type-1 diabetes - and therefore it doesn't matter if a vaccination triggers it instead of an environmental infection". The issue with that argument is that it doesn't give people the opportunity to live more of their life free from the burden of that disease. There is evidence that Alzheimer's disease is an autoimmune disease - do you really want to be giving Alzheimer's to people much earlier than they would naturally get if from the environment (if it is an autoimmune disease)?
The argument is much more complicated than you guys seem to think. And I think I've provided in this post a valid reason why we don't necessarily want more than 95% of the population vaccinated - how are we going to research potentially long-term adverse effects if 100% of people are vaccinated?
Personally I think it's healthy to have a debate. The empirical data show overwhelmingly that vaccinations do far more good than harm. Some vaccinations are certainly more needed in terms of risk of childhood mortality than others. It's very unlikely for example that in a first world country that measles will kill a child (and assuming they receive proper medical care it's virtually impossible that someone would die from measles alone). However they could get another disease at the same time and that could increase the risk of death. Whooping cough - also not a great risk of death, but significantly higher than measles.
By the way I see no one tacked the question of why do only 55% of at-risk women have annual breast-cancer screenings? If you are diagnosed with breast cancer you have at least a 10% risk of death from that cancer - that's something like 100 times the risk of death from measles. It's clearly a far more important and needed health service than the measles vaccine. So explain to me why we have a 93% vaccination rate, but only a 55% breast screening rate?
So the fact that we know that autism may well be triggered by an autoimmune disease means of course vaccinations should be studied for their possible effect in triggering an autoimmune disease in an at-risk patient. So I hope that clears up the Wakefield (ret.) paper - there was nothing wrong with his hypothesis, but the data has vetted the MMR vaccine from being involved in triggering an autoimmune disease causing autism. Had the data the was used in the paper been valid and not falsified then it would have shown the hypothesis should be rejected - and that would have been that.
So now I've gone through that you can see why people could have a justified fear that a vaccination could be involved in triggering non-communicable autoimmune diseases. Once we know exactly how type-1 diabetes is triggered it would probably be easy to design a vaccination that would trigger it!
My point isn't that people who fear vaccinations have a strong reason not to vaccinate due to fear of autoimmune disease. My point is that the science is on their side if they decide their side is "vaccinations have the potential to cause autoimmune diseases". If 100% of the population is receiving a vaccination imagine how difficult it would be for researchers to ever definitively prove or disprove a causation-link. Now the other side of the argument is that "everyone who is genetically predisposed to having an autoimmune disease will eventually get it - that's why hardly any adults get type-1 diabetes - and therefore it doesn't matter if a vaccination triggers it instead of an environmental infection". The issue with that argument is that it doesn't give people the opportunity to live more of their life free from the burden of that disease. There is evidence that Alzheimer's disease is an autoimmune disease - do you really want to be giving Alzheimer's to people much earlier than they would naturally get if from the environment (if it is an autoimmune disease)?
The argument is much more complicated than you guys seem to think. And I think I've provided in this post a valid reason why we don't necessarily want more than 95% of the population vaccinated - how are we going to research potentially long-term adverse effects if 100% of people are vaccinated?
Personally I think it's healthy to have a debate. The empirical data show overwhelmingly that vaccinations do far more good than harm. Some vaccinations are certainly more needed in terms of risk of childhood mortality than others. It's very unlikely for example that in a first world country that measles will kill a child (and assuming they receive proper medical care it's virtually impossible that someone would die from measles alone). However they could get another disease at the same time and that could increase the risk of death. Whooping cough - also not a great risk of death, but significantly higher than measles.
By the way I see no one tacked the question of why do only 55% of at-risk women have annual breast-cancer screenings? If you are diagnosed with breast cancer you have at least a 10% risk of death from that cancer - that's something like 100 times the risk of death from measles. It's clearly a far more important and needed health service than the measles vaccine. So explain to me why we have a 93% vaccination rate, but only a 55% breast screening rate?
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
