Unsure about vaccinations? Try reading "Deadly Choices"

[arkestra]

I got Whooping Cough recently at age 43, what fun. Apparently vaccine immunity for WC wears off after a few decades. It was as ill as I have ever been and I was pretty much out of action for 3 months. There has been an increase of WC cases recently in the SW of England, where I live. I could rant at anti -vaccine campaigners, but what would be the point? I am more concerned that the people who are unsure have access to a clear statement of the pro-vaccine position.

So can I suggest that anyone who is unsure about vaccination reads "Deadly Choices" on the pro-vaccine front even if they read nothing else?

I just had my early summer ruined. But babies get killed by this kind of thing. I totally get why people find vaccines icky and unsettling, there are hard wired ways we intuitively think about our bodies that foster that kind of reaction. So just read this book if you're on the fence OK? It would be nice if lots of other 40-somethings don't irritate everyone else with their wheezing and self-pity

(Gets back off soapbox)

Crumbled: no one - including Paul Offit - has ever thought that giving a baby 10k vaccines is sensible. I have no idea what would happen. I doubt it would be good. Offit himself has said it was not a helpful way to formulate his point, which is that the theoretical safety limit is miles above what multiple vaccines impose.

I have done my best to explain the difference between an approximate upper safety limit and something you'd actually want to do on real life. An upper safety limit derived from theoretical concerns is necessarily not the same thing as a theory that should be scientifically tested, particularly if the testing would involve putting people at risk.

Characterising Offit as someone who thinks it is OK to stick 10,000 needles into a baby is - well - it is what it is. I think it doesn't help address anything. Why not directly take on the contention around whether multiple vaccines interact?

hogwash, Crumbled, you just want to derail the discussion, because our experts are better than yours

BC - do you know what the IOM cites Fisher's book for? For the history of their own organisation. Of course they are not wrong to cite her for that, but they did not use her book for scientific evidence. NVIC may just have forgotten to mention that in their blurb.

I'm afraid that isn't the case.

The IOM refers to Coulter and Fisher's work in its 1991 report Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines just as stated by Fisher in the link I gave above.

Anyone can search the report in google books and check.

I see no reason for humour here Catherina: you are caught out. Embarrassingly so.

"no one - including Paul Offit - has ever thought that giving a baby 10k vaccines is sensible."

He didn't say that did he? Did he qualify it by saying "Of course you couldn't give a baby 10,000 vaccines - it just goes to show how lab work can be misleading where vaccines are concerned".

Of course he didn't. He was trying to minimise and even ridicule parents fears.

You both know the answer is no, they couldn't survive, and Paul Offit's theory is wrong.

CatherinaJTV: the engineer gives up engineering because of all the arguments. He wants to find a career where everyone respects him. He goes for vaccine research. I must draw a discreet veil over what follows...

Anyway I think I'm done for the evening. At least I gave it a shot!

BC - I did check and I checked what they cited them for, too. Their uses of that book do not lend it any scientific credibility.

Not even in his comments does he say his claim that a baby could handled 10,000 vaccines is wrong. He is not naive. He is a calculating egotist who realised that what he'd said was quite insane.

arkestra - you are far more patient than myself. I am glad Paul Offit is doing his work and writing his fabulous books :)

Catherina: you really have nothing to be patient over. Unless it's waiting for people to roll over and say that what's patently wrong is right, and the black is indeed white, which is not going to happen.

He's a power-hungry crazy driven by egotism rather than science and patient care, Catherina, and the fact that you agree with him says a lot.

CatherinaJTV: it's not been exactly a meeting of minds but overall people have been way nicer to each other given their differences than I've seen in forums elsewhere. Things like the JABS site - whoah. Lots of people flaring up but some info too. Gotta love MN.

At this point I will detach from the thread. Can't think of anything else to say really.

Think my Wakefield book arrives tomorrow....

& thanks to you Crumbled - easy to be nice when one agrees with people, a lot tougher otherwise. Hopefully next time we meet it will be something inconsequential on AIBU

So where are we at then? Has anyone admitted that Offit's theory of giving 10,000 vaccines to a child is a bullshit theory?

Perhaps the platform analogy can be of use.

Let's imagine Offit is an engineer and he states that in theory it would be safe for 10,000 children to stand on a platform he has made. But a) the platform is too small to hold 10,000 children and b) the platform is obviously not up to bearing the weight of 10,000 children and it is clear that children would be hurt and killed if Offit's theory were to be put to physical test.

Would his theory be of any practical relevance or use to platform safety? No, of course it wouldn't.

HTH

I think it's enough to know that in their hearts they know he's wrong

Arf at

I think I have got my head round it. They agree with the theory but not with the theory in practice. Or something.

He's a power-hungry crazy driven by egotism rather than science and patient care,

Nothing in his achievements and behaviour supports that notion, really.

But Catherina you support his theory that a baby could cope with 10,000 vaccines at once. So your judgement is... flawed in this respect.

Well, I have read MUCH more written by Paul Offit than you have, so I will claim much better knowledge than you have.

Well, I have read MUCH more written by Paul Offit than you have, so I will claim much better knowledge than you have.

Really?

Without knowledge of what others have read I don't see how you can make that claim. Has anyone here listed what they have read of Offit's?

go on then - what have you read of his works?

Catherina, you agree with Offit's theory that a baby could have 10,000 vaccines at once. To even posit that, as a theory, is so ludicrous, and the motive is so wicked, that to agree with it means that your judgement on what you've read is obviously deeply flawed. I'm sorry, but there it is.

go on then - what have you read of his works?

Unfortunately to me this sounds like the sort of response a six year old in the playground would make.

You are stating that you know MUCH more that anyone else. You can't know whether you do or not. I am not making that claim.

I think this is one of the problems - sometimes it's quite hard to recognise egotism when you literally do believe that you know more than anyone else, and therefore must always right and cannot possibly entertain another point of view, or even acknowledge when you are plainly bang out wrong. It's hard to recognise egotism in others you admire, and it's very hard to see it in yourself.

Can we see how far we can pee next?

Offit's motive is child health. It is also to alleviate parents' fears (and I admit he may be clumsy at that at times). He is an active pediatrician, successful researcher, teacher, activist and author. A good man, all around. And I know that because I have read his books, taken one of his courses, read some of his papers, several of his interviews. You don't know this, so I am guessing you have not done any of that.