“The solar eclipse is like a woman breastfeeding in a restaurant. It’s free, it’s beautiful, but under no circumstances should you look at it.”
—Kent Brockman on The Simpsons
Monday, March 30, 2009
I'm Not the Village Mama
"It will be a cold day in hell before I put my son in the hospital so someone else's child doesn't have to."
Lately I've been debating a few people over whether or not our decision not to vaccinate our children truly is a threat to other children.
One person, anonymously of course, said in the comment, "You may choose not to vaccinate but understand that you are contributing to a problem that could hurt other kids. Perhaps you think the tiny chance of complications to your child justifies this. I'm not sure it does."
Bryan and I both read that comment at the same time and then posted our responses at the same time, and we both used the F word, too. It was very romantic.
The above quote was part of my own response. What enrages Bryan and myself is that we are fully aware of our son's health problems, including a dairy allergy, and so there's no "tiny chance" of complications.
In fact, that has been Jenny McCarthy's arguement - she doesn't want to get rid of vaccines; she wants there to be more advanced screening so we can address those children more likely to have a bad reaction. Even the National Vaccine Information Center, a treasure trove of research for both vaccines and their diseases, insists that they are not anti-vaccine so much as against the "one size fits all" approach to the vaccine schedule.
I have decided that, in the end, it doesn't matter how much research I can come up with or anyone else, and don't want to have this arguement anymore, because the bottom line is, I am Connor and Deirdre's mom. I am not mommy to my neighbor's children or the children at the park or at church or in a school. My first priority is the health and well-being of my children, and if I need to choose between keeping them safe and keeping the village children safe, I am going to choose my own children every single time.
It reminds me of a scene in the book I am writing. It is unedited and I feel insecure posting it, but post it I shall.
For background, Dulce is the adopted daughter of Bridget, who has the ability to sense people's emotions. Amando is her brother. They all survived a battle during which religious extremists tried to kidnap the town children and burn everything else down to get rid of the impure people. Dulce has just come from a conversation with someone who, it turns out, has had involvement with the same extremists.
I came home and found Mom dividing raised dough to make braided bread rings, and I took some dough and started rolling it out into equal, snake-like shapes.
“Mom, I have an ethics question for you,” I said.
“I’m all ears.”
“Let’s say you were holding onto Aman and me on the side of a cliff, and you had to let one of us fall to save the other. How would you decide which one of us to choose?”
She eyed me curiously as she connected two ends of a dough ring and began braiding the three thinner pieces I gave her.
“I wouldn’t. I would just keep holding on until both of you fell.” She smiled weakly.
“But, why, when you can save one of us?”
She stopped braiding and looked into my eyes.
“It would be easier to live with the idea that fate had killed both of my children than the idea that I had killed one of them,” she answered. She was probing my emotions, and I normally hated that, but I couldn’t really blame her this time.
I divided another ball of dough into three pieces and began rolling them out. She brushed water on top of the first dough ring to make it sticky and then placed the finished braid on top of it.
“Okay, what if you had to choose between saving me and saving the town?” I asked.
“I’d save you.”
“No hesitation?”
“None, whatsoever.”
“Why?”
“I’m not mother to the whole town.”
“And that makes a difference?”
“Yes.”
“Would you think less of someone who chose the town over their own child?”
“Secretly, yes. Publicly, no.”
And that is my answer to why we do not vaccinate. To why we will be homeschooling rather than putting our children in public schools and trying to fix the system from the inside out. To why we attempted homebirths both times, to why we prefer cloth diapers to "supporting the economy" with excessive use of disposable diapers. To why we don't circumcise, and why I breastfeed my children past the age of three, and why I think Newsweek's insistence that people have to stop "hoarding" their money in savings accounts and start spending and taking risks again is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard, and why I think what's good for business is often bad for my family and the environment and for communities, too.
I am not mother to the whole town. I have to think outside of our small circle, but not at the expense of my own children.
I don't have to listen to "experts" or make tons of purchases or think about all those poor kids in China who would be out of jobs to support their families with if we stop buying Chinese made products. I don't have to put my kids in public school so that they don't miss out on the thousands of dollars they would get for an extra student in already crowded classrooms. I don't have to inject them with allergens because those injections "might" help curb a measles outbreak that seems to happen rather frequently among previously vaccinated people.
My children came from my body. I made them with my own special code mixed with Bryan's special code, fed them with my flesh and blood, had to cut open my body to bring them into the world. I continue to make their bodies with my own milk. My eyes are in their eyes, my smile in their smiles. I am responsible for them. I love them more than my own life.
I make the decisions I make because I believe they are best for my children. C0-sleeping is best for my children. Breastfeeding beyond the first year is best for my children. Saying "yes' more often than I say "no" is best for my children. Forgoing vaccinations is best for my children.
If there is a solution or choice that benefits both my family and the community, GREAT. But I will never do anything or support anything that would come at the EXPENSE of my children, no matter how many people may THEORETICALLY be harmed in their place.
I am not the village mama. I am Connor's and Deirdre's mama.
Lately I've been debating a few people over whether or not our decision not to vaccinate our children truly is a threat to other children.
One person, anonymously of course, said in the comment, "You may choose not to vaccinate but understand that you are contributing to a problem that could hurt other kids. Perhaps you think the tiny chance of complications to your child justifies this. I'm not sure it does."
Bryan and I both read that comment at the same time and then posted our responses at the same time, and we both used the F word, too. It was very romantic.
The above quote was part of my own response. What enrages Bryan and myself is that we are fully aware of our son's health problems, including a dairy allergy, and so there's no "tiny chance" of complications.
In fact, that has been Jenny McCarthy's arguement - she doesn't want to get rid of vaccines; she wants there to be more advanced screening so we can address those children more likely to have a bad reaction. Even the National Vaccine Information Center, a treasure trove of research for both vaccines and their diseases, insists that they are not anti-vaccine so much as against the "one size fits all" approach to the vaccine schedule.
I have decided that, in the end, it doesn't matter how much research I can come up with or anyone else, and don't want to have this arguement anymore, because the bottom line is, I am Connor and Deirdre's mom. I am not mommy to my neighbor's children or the children at the park or at church or in a school. My first priority is the health and well-being of my children, and if I need to choose between keeping them safe and keeping the village children safe, I am going to choose my own children every single time.
It reminds me of a scene in the book I am writing. It is unedited and I feel insecure posting it, but post it I shall.
For background, Dulce is the adopted daughter of Bridget, who has the ability to sense people's emotions. Amando is her brother. They all survived a battle during which religious extremists tried to kidnap the town children and burn everything else down to get rid of the impure people. Dulce has just come from a conversation with someone who, it turns out, has had involvement with the same extremists.
I came home and found Mom dividing raised dough to make braided bread rings, and I took some dough and started rolling it out into equal, snake-like shapes.
“Mom, I have an ethics question for you,” I said.
“I’m all ears.”
“Let’s say you were holding onto Aman and me on the side of a cliff, and you had to let one of us fall to save the other. How would you decide which one of us to choose?”
She eyed me curiously as she connected two ends of a dough ring and began braiding the three thinner pieces I gave her.
“I wouldn’t. I would just keep holding on until both of you fell.” She smiled weakly.
“But, why, when you can save one of us?”
She stopped braiding and looked into my eyes.
“It would be easier to live with the idea that fate had killed both of my children than the idea that I had killed one of them,” she answered. She was probing my emotions, and I normally hated that, but I couldn’t really blame her this time.
I divided another ball of dough into three pieces and began rolling them out. She brushed water on top of the first dough ring to make it sticky and then placed the finished braid on top of it.
“Okay, what if you had to choose between saving me and saving the town?” I asked.
“I’d save you.”
“No hesitation?”
“None, whatsoever.”
“Why?”
“I’m not mother to the whole town.”
“And that makes a difference?”
“Yes.”
“Would you think less of someone who chose the town over their own child?”
“Secretly, yes. Publicly, no.”
And that is my answer to why we do not vaccinate. To why we will be homeschooling rather than putting our children in public schools and trying to fix the system from the inside out. To why we attempted homebirths both times, to why we prefer cloth diapers to "supporting the economy" with excessive use of disposable diapers. To why we don't circumcise, and why I breastfeed my children past the age of three, and why I think Newsweek's insistence that people have to stop "hoarding" their money in savings accounts and start spending and taking risks again is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard, and why I think what's good for business is often bad for my family and the environment and for communities, too.
I am not mother to the whole town. I have to think outside of our small circle, but not at the expense of my own children.
I don't have to listen to "experts" or make tons of purchases or think about all those poor kids in China who would be out of jobs to support their families with if we stop buying Chinese made products. I don't have to put my kids in public school so that they don't miss out on the thousands of dollars they would get for an extra student in already crowded classrooms. I don't have to inject them with allergens because those injections "might" help curb a measles outbreak that seems to happen rather frequently among previously vaccinated people.
My children came from my body. I made them with my own special code mixed with Bryan's special code, fed them with my flesh and blood, had to cut open my body to bring them into the world. I continue to make their bodies with my own milk. My eyes are in their eyes, my smile in their smiles. I am responsible for them. I love them more than my own life.
I make the decisions I make because I believe they are best for my children. C0-sleeping is best for my children. Breastfeeding beyond the first year is best for my children. Saying "yes' more often than I say "no" is best for my children. Forgoing vaccinations is best for my children.
If there is a solution or choice that benefits both my family and the community, GREAT. But I will never do anything or support anything that would come at the EXPENSE of my children, no matter how many people may THEORETICALLY be harmed in their place.
I am not the village mama. I am Connor's and Deirdre's mama.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Maria Montessori on Education and Peace
"Establishing lasting peace is the work of education; all politics can do is keep us out of war.”
- Maria Montessori
- Maria Montessori
Monday, March 23, 2009
Meanwhile, In Gardasil News...
Note: In the VAERS system mentioned below, 33 deaths have been report in relation to Gardasil, and several hundred reports of loss of consciousness and "temporary paralysis." - Alisa
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2009/03/20/cdc-takes-closer-look-at-gardasil-and-paralysis.html
CDC Takes Closer Look at Gardasil and Paralysis
March 20, 2009 06:08 PM ET Deborah Kotz Permanent Link Print
Phil Tetlock and Barbara Mellers were in a race against time to save their 15-year-old daughter, Jenny. As I reported last summer, Jenny developed a degenerative muscle disease nearly two years ago, soon after being vaccinated against the cervical-cancer-causing HPV. She became nearly completely paralyzed, though her mind was perfectly intact and she could still enjoy her pet parakeet, Hannah Montana, and Twilight.
I've been E-mailing Phil regularly over the past year, and up until our last E-mail, one week ago, he had been holding out hope that they would be able to find a cure for his daughter—or to at least determine if the human papillomavirus vaccine called Gardasil had caused his daughter's illness, most likely a juvenile form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (aka Lou Gehrig's disease). Sadly, the clock ran out last Sunday, and Jenny passed away.
Through their efforts to publicize Jenny's case on their blog, Jenny's parents have connected with two other sets of parents whose daughters developed what appears to be ALS after being injected with Gardasil. One was 22-year-old Whitney Baird, who died last August, just 13 months after receiving Gardasil. Another is Alicia Olund, a 12-year-old who began having trouble walking after getting her third shot last September. She now uses leg braces and a walker at home as her muscles continue to deteriorate. After ruling out other conditions, her specialists at the University of California-San Francisco Medical Center—who also treated Jenny—suspect that Alicia may have the same condition. "They don't know what she has," her mother, Barbara, tells me through tears, "but it's destroying her nerves and muscles, and none of the treatments they've given her are working. Before the vaccine, she was a perfectly healthy child, going for her brown belt in karate." (They're awaiting the results of the ALS test.)
I should point out that juvenile ALS is extremely rare, affecting just 1 in 2 million young people. It's impossible to say at this point whether these girls would have developed the condition regardless of whether they received Gardasil, but government officials—who still strongly maintain that the vaccine is perfectly safe and potentially lifesaving—are now starting to investigate. Scientists from the Food and Drug Administration met recently with Jenny's neurologists at UCSF to discuss whether it's scientifically plausible for a vaccine to trigger ALS. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning to scour its adverse-event database, called VAERS, to see whether other vaccinations have led to reports of ALS or other severe neurological complications.
Turns out, warnings concerning ALS and vaccines have been raised before. John Iskander, the CDC's associate director for immunization safety, tells me the agency previously has received reports of ALS following the anthrax vaccine. This, in addition to the deaths of Jenny and Whitney, "kind of tells us that we need to look more broadly at this issue," he says. He's quick to add that "we're doing just an initial review at this point; we don't have suspicions that these are casually related."
Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, maintains that its vaccine is extremely safe and points out that it could potentially save women from dying of cervical cancer. "There are unusual and rare diseases that occur in girls and women in this age group whether they're vaccinated or not," says Rick Haupt, Merck's head of the clinical program for Gardasil. "These patterns don't indicate any causality." He says no cases of ALS occurred in Merck's clinical trials but also admits that the trials—which included thousands, not millions—weren't large enough to detect such rare diseases.
Barbara Shapiro, an ALS expert and associate professor of neurology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine who was enlisted by a mutual friend to help the Tetlocks do their research, isn't ready to dismiss the cases as pure coincidence. She's pored over the medical records of Jenny, Whitney, and Alicia and sees a striking similarity. "Juvenile ALS tends to progress very slowly over years or even decades, but these girls all seemed to have a more rapid, progressive form." She also has uncovered another VAERS report in the CDC database that could be similar, but since it was filed by a pharmacist, the CDC told her it doesn't have details on the girl's identity. Shapiro worries that there may be more cases out there that the CDC doesn't know about.
After all, she tells me, both Whitney and Alicia came to the CDC's attention only after their parents discovered Jenny's blog and Phil Tetlock urged them to file a VAERS report. This system of voluntary reporting of adverse events related to vaccines by doctors and patients is notoriously crude. All too often, adverse events go unreported, whereas many reports that are filed turn out not to be related at all to the vaccines. When I point this out to Iskander, he tells me that while VAERS certainly isn't perfect, it's pretty good at catching rare events.
But what if doctors wouldn ' t think to link the onset of ALS with a vaccination? I press him. "Reports in the media, such as the one you're doing, are a good trigger to get doctors to file reports," he responds. In fact, largely because of media attention, reports of adverse events for Gardasil are about five times as high as the overall average for any vaccine, he adds. So I suppose he's hoping that if there are other girls out there who developed severe physical disabilities after receiving Gardasil, they'll soon be entered into the VAERS database.
Still, I'm troubled by the complexities of all of this. How will the CDC ever be able to know whether there's a true connection between Gardasil and ALS if this disease is so rare? And just how much evidence is needed? Iskander tells me he doesn't make that decision but passes on all the information he has to the government's vaccine working group, which makes recommendations about the national immunization schedule. "They are aware of these cases and that we've started discussions with neurologists and immunologists to determine if there are mechanisms that could explain how a vaccine could cause ALS," Iskander says, adding that "I haven't heard a good answer yet from these experts" when it comes to explaining a mechanism.
Shapiro says her suspicions are raised enough that she's decided not to give her own 11-year-old daughter the Gardasil vaccine. "Let's say it causes just one or two cases of ALS every year out of a million doses that are given. What if your daughter is the one?"
I haven't decided yet whether I want to have my own teenage daughter vaccinated. The arguments for Gardasil are compelling: It protects against viruses responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancers, which still kill many women in this country. Since the vaccine is so new, until more evidence emerges I think it may be prudent for concerned parents to consider holding off until their daughters reach the verge of sexual activity.
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2009/03/20/cdc-takes-closer-look-at-gardasil-and-paralysis.html
CDC Takes Closer Look at Gardasil and Paralysis
March 20, 2009 06:08 PM ET Deborah Kotz Permanent Link Print
Phil Tetlock and Barbara Mellers were in a race against time to save their 15-year-old daughter, Jenny. As I reported last summer, Jenny developed a degenerative muscle disease nearly two years ago, soon after being vaccinated against the cervical-cancer-causing HPV. She became nearly completely paralyzed, though her mind was perfectly intact and she could still enjoy her pet parakeet, Hannah Montana, and Twilight.
I've been E-mailing Phil regularly over the past year, and up until our last E-mail, one week ago, he had been holding out hope that they would be able to find a cure for his daughter—or to at least determine if the human papillomavirus vaccine called Gardasil had caused his daughter's illness, most likely a juvenile form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (aka Lou Gehrig's disease). Sadly, the clock ran out last Sunday, and Jenny passed away.
Through their efforts to publicize Jenny's case on their blog, Jenny's parents have connected with two other sets of parents whose daughters developed what appears to be ALS after being injected with Gardasil. One was 22-year-old Whitney Baird, who died last August, just 13 months after receiving Gardasil. Another is Alicia Olund, a 12-year-old who began having trouble walking after getting her third shot last September. She now uses leg braces and a walker at home as her muscles continue to deteriorate. After ruling out other conditions, her specialists at the University of California-San Francisco Medical Center—who also treated Jenny—suspect that Alicia may have the same condition. "They don't know what she has," her mother, Barbara, tells me through tears, "but it's destroying her nerves and muscles, and none of the treatments they've given her are working. Before the vaccine, she was a perfectly healthy child, going for her brown belt in karate." (They're awaiting the results of the ALS test.)
I should point out that juvenile ALS is extremely rare, affecting just 1 in 2 million young people. It's impossible to say at this point whether these girls would have developed the condition regardless of whether they received Gardasil, but government officials—who still strongly maintain that the vaccine is perfectly safe and potentially lifesaving—are now starting to investigate. Scientists from the Food and Drug Administration met recently with Jenny's neurologists at UCSF to discuss whether it's scientifically plausible for a vaccine to trigger ALS. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning to scour its adverse-event database, called VAERS, to see whether other vaccinations have led to reports of ALS or other severe neurological complications.
Turns out, warnings concerning ALS and vaccines have been raised before. John Iskander, the CDC's associate director for immunization safety, tells me the agency previously has received reports of ALS following the anthrax vaccine. This, in addition to the deaths of Jenny and Whitney, "kind of tells us that we need to look more broadly at this issue," he says. He's quick to add that "we're doing just an initial review at this point; we don't have suspicions that these are casually related."
Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, maintains that its vaccine is extremely safe and points out that it could potentially save women from dying of cervical cancer. "There are unusual and rare diseases that occur in girls and women in this age group whether they're vaccinated or not," says Rick Haupt, Merck's head of the clinical program for Gardasil. "These patterns don't indicate any causality." He says no cases of ALS occurred in Merck's clinical trials but also admits that the trials—which included thousands, not millions—weren't large enough to detect such rare diseases.
Barbara Shapiro, an ALS expert and associate professor of neurology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine who was enlisted by a mutual friend to help the Tetlocks do their research, isn't ready to dismiss the cases as pure coincidence. She's pored over the medical records of Jenny, Whitney, and Alicia and sees a striking similarity. "Juvenile ALS tends to progress very slowly over years or even decades, but these girls all seemed to have a more rapid, progressive form." She also has uncovered another VAERS report in the CDC database that could be similar, but since it was filed by a pharmacist, the CDC told her it doesn't have details on the girl's identity. Shapiro worries that there may be more cases out there that the CDC doesn't know about.
After all, she tells me, both Whitney and Alicia came to the CDC's attention only after their parents discovered Jenny's blog and Phil Tetlock urged them to file a VAERS report. This system of voluntary reporting of adverse events related to vaccines by doctors and patients is notoriously crude. All too often, adverse events go unreported, whereas many reports that are filed turn out not to be related at all to the vaccines. When I point this out to Iskander, he tells me that while VAERS certainly isn't perfect, it's pretty good at catching rare events.
But what if doctors wouldn ' t think to link the onset of ALS with a vaccination? I press him. "Reports in the media, such as the one you're doing, are a good trigger to get doctors to file reports," he responds. In fact, largely because of media attention, reports of adverse events for Gardasil are about five times as high as the overall average for any vaccine, he adds. So I suppose he's hoping that if there are other girls out there who developed severe physical disabilities after receiving Gardasil, they'll soon be entered into the VAERS database.
Still, I'm troubled by the complexities of all of this. How will the CDC ever be able to know whether there's a true connection between Gardasil and ALS if this disease is so rare? And just how much evidence is needed? Iskander tells me he doesn't make that decision but passes on all the information he has to the government's vaccine working group, which makes recommendations about the national immunization schedule. "They are aware of these cases and that we've started discussions with neurologists and immunologists to determine if there are mechanisms that could explain how a vaccine could cause ALS," Iskander says, adding that "I haven't heard a good answer yet from these experts" when it comes to explaining a mechanism.
Shapiro says her suspicions are raised enough that she's decided not to give her own 11-year-old daughter the Gardasil vaccine. "Let's say it causes just one or two cases of ALS every year out of a million doses that are given. What if your daughter is the one?"
I haven't decided yet whether I want to have my own teenage daughter vaccinated. The arguments for Gardasil are compelling: It protects against viruses responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancers, which still kill many women in this country. Since the vaccine is so new, until more evidence emerges I think it may be prudent for concerned parents to consider holding off until their daughters reach the verge of sexual activity.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
UPDATED: Some Problem Studies Concerning the MMR and Autism
It's a good thing my kids are sick today, and don't feel like doing much, because it's been a good day to spend lots of time online.
Some studies that allegedly prove no link between vaccines and autism have come to my attention and I'd like to address them.
Obviously vaccines don't cause all cases of autism. I know autistic children who have never received vaccines. However, I believe vaccines are the tipping point for children already susceptible to the condition.
I also believe that vaccines cause a host of other problems, and so autism is not the deciding factor in our choice not to vaccinate out children. So you can argue for or against an connection all day long and it won't change our minds.
However, for kicks and giggles, here's my response to a few of these studies:
First, this one:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/19/1477
The researchers looked at every single child born in Denmark born between 1991 and 1998 and found no correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism. Splendid! Except that it doesn't compare vaccinated children to non vaccinated children. They don't say if the 15% of children who never received the MMR had any other vaccines prior to the study.
UPDATE: http://safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/20040518_AutismAuthorsNetwork.pdf
Apparently, 6 of the 17 authors of this study are on the payroll of a vaccine company. Hmmmm...
Again, this study in Japan has the same problem.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118735419/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The mumps part of the MMR was considered no longer effective, so they separated the MMR into single shots. There was no reduction in rates of autism, but also no reduction in the amount of vaccinations children were receiving.
This review is a review of studies instead of a study of actual evidence.
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004407.html
I hate studies of studies. Nevertheless, there seems to be a love affair of saying "the MMR combined vaccine doesn't cause autism, therefore no vaccines cause autism." That's your science? This was my favorite part, though"
"MMR was associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, and similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo. The vaccine was likely to be associated with benign thrombocytopenic purpura, parotitis, joint and limb complaints, febrile convulsions within two weeks of vaccination and aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Urabe strain-containing MMR). Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR). We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been largely demonstrated."
So you won't get Autism from this vaccine alone, but you may get aseptic meningitis, or MUMPS! Also, parotitis, an inflammation of the salivary glands typically caused by MUMPS, the disease you are vaccinating yourself against. Excellent!
I reviewed more of the links but they're a lot of the same: The combo MMR vaccine does not by itself cause autism, therefore vaccines do not cause autism.
My 3 year old uses clearer logic than that.
Some studies that allegedly prove no link between vaccines and autism have come to my attention and I'd like to address them.
Obviously vaccines don't cause all cases of autism. I know autistic children who have never received vaccines. However, I believe vaccines are the tipping point for children already susceptible to the condition.
I also believe that vaccines cause a host of other problems, and so autism is not the deciding factor in our choice not to vaccinate out children. So you can argue for or against an connection all day long and it won't change our minds.
However, for kicks and giggles, here's my response to a few of these studies:
First, this one:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/19/1477
The researchers looked at every single child born in Denmark born between 1991 and 1998 and found no correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism. Splendid! Except that it doesn't compare vaccinated children to non vaccinated children. They don't say if the 15% of children who never received the MMR had any other vaccines prior to the study.
UPDATE: http://safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/20040518_AutismAuthorsNetwork.pdf
Apparently, 6 of the 17 authors of this study are on the payroll of a vaccine company. Hmmmm...
Again, this study in Japan has the same problem.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118735419/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The mumps part of the MMR was considered no longer effective, so they separated the MMR into single shots. There was no reduction in rates of autism, but also no reduction in the amount of vaccinations children were receiving.
This review is a review of studies instead of a study of actual evidence.
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004407.html
I hate studies of studies. Nevertheless, there seems to be a love affair of saying "the MMR combined vaccine doesn't cause autism, therefore no vaccines cause autism." That's your science? This was my favorite part, though"
"MMR was associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, and similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo. The vaccine was likely to be associated with benign thrombocytopenic purpura, parotitis, joint and limb complaints, febrile convulsions within two weeks of vaccination and aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Urabe strain-containing MMR). Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR). We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been largely demonstrated."
So you won't get Autism from this vaccine alone, but you may get aseptic meningitis, or MUMPS! Also, parotitis, an inflammation of the salivary glands typically caused by MUMPS, the disease you are vaccinating yourself against. Excellent!
I reviewed more of the links but they're a lot of the same: The combo MMR vaccine does not by itself cause autism, therefore vaccines do not cause autism.
My 3 year old uses clearer logic than that.
Charts That Make You Go Hmmmmm....
I'm just sayin'.....A note about this graph - it does not match similar graphs you will find on the CDC because the CDC uses worldwide numbers, not US numbers, and usually shows rates of infection, not deaths. This addresses mortality rates and is taken from US Vital Statistics.
Vaccines - Don't Just Take My Word For It
Rep Burton confronts scientists and government officials about the vaccine/Autism connection. Only 8 minutes and thoroughly enlightening.
My decision to not vaccinate my children has recently come under question.
If you look under my tag "vaccines" you will see that both Bryan and I did not take this decision lightly, nor were we simply following the crowd or acting just on things we heard from the news.
I will summarize some of what we found here, and I recommend checking out my links and doing your own research. Don't take my word for it, but don't just take the CDC's word for it, either, and certainly not Paul Offit's, since he is highly invested in them. Do your own reading. REALLY DO IT.
One useful website is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, maintained by the US government. It is estimated that only 10% of reactions ever get reported here. And yet, the numbers are still staggering. Not only can you search by year, vaccine, or disease, you can search by reaction, including death.
Another important area of research is the package inserts of the vaccines themselves. There's a lot to get through, but the main parts are the first section which lists ingredients, the studies for effectiveness (usually just two done on small populations and done by the makers themselves without outside review), contraindications (who shouldn't be taking the vaccine), and reported side effects.
An important thing to note: every single package insert includes language stating that the vaccine has not been studied for the ability to cause cancer or infertility. The government exempted vaccine companies from doing the studies and made them immune to law suits if it turns out they do cause cancer or infertility. Otherwise, the vaccine manufacturers considered making vaccines too risky and wouldn't do it.
A third great resource is PubMed, a database for searching for abstracts of pretty much every scientific study done on earth and made public. When someone cites a study, go here. Make note of whether it's done by an American team.
Do vaccines contribute to autism? Do vaccines contribute to the rising number of childhood cancers? Why won't the US find out and do their own studies instead of studying other people's studies? Some studies say yes, some studies say no. Why am I a parasitic parent causing my child harm if I decide I want to know definitively before injecting my children with something like aluminum which is considered toxic in every other circumstance, to the point where we should be careful about food in aluminum cans?
"........a newborn who gets a Hepatitis B injection on day one of life would receive 250 mcg of aluminum. This would be repeated at one month with the next Hep B shot. When, at two months, a baby gets its first big round of shots, the total dose of aluminum could vary from 295 mcg (if a non-aluminum HIB and the lowest-aluminum brand of DTaP are used) to a whopping 1,225 mcg (if the Hep B vaccine is given along with the brands with the highest aluminum contents). If the Pentacel combo vaccine is given along with the Hep B and Pneumococcus vaccines, the total aluminum dose could be as high as 1,875 mcg. These doses are repeated at four and six months. With most subsequent rounds of shots, a child would continue to get some aluminum throughout the first two years.
But the FDA recommends that premature babies, and anyone with impaired kidney function, receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at any one time.
As a medical doctor, my first instinct was to worry that these aluminum levels far exceed what may be safe for babies. My second instinct was to assume that the issue had been properly researched, and that studies had been done on healthy infants to determine their ability to rapidly excrete aluminum. My third instinct was to search for these studies. So far, I have found none.......
I can find no references in FDA documents that show that using aluminum in vaccines has been tested and found to be safe..........The toxic threshold of aluminum in the bloodstream may be lower than 100 mcg per liter. The buildup of aluminum in tissues has been seen even in patients with healthy kidneys who receive IV solutions containing aluminum over extended periods." [2008] Is Aluminum the New Thimerosal? By Robert W. Sears
Exactly. My choice to vaccinate my children could cause them serious, irreversible harm, and when I see the low numbers of deaths and hospitalizations of these diseases compared to the higher numbers of reactions, my choice is to risk the diseases because I believe they will do less harm. It is my God-given right to protect my child from harm.
And if your baby, unable to receive the measles vaccine, is in a high risk group for serious reactions to measles, then they shouldn't be out in public in the first place. A baby with low immunity is at risk for far more than just measles, most likely to be acquired from someone already vaccinated against it. The MMR does not contain mercury because it is a LIVE VIRUS vaccine, so your baby's greatest risk is from children or adults who have received the vaccine within the last few weeks. Look it up on the package insert.
UPDATE: I just discovered that the live virus Measles vaccine is no longer available, which I assume is because people finally realized that the words "atypical measles" on the package insert meant that the measles vaccine was giving people measles. However, rubella is still live, and the insert says that it has the potential to shed onto others withing the first few weeks of receiving the shot, including through breastmilk or to the unborn child, which is why it always stuns me that pregnant and nursing moms are still told to get it.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Breastfeeding, Keeping Women Down For Millenia
One mother wrote an article about her case against breastfeeding, how the research supporting it is spurious and inconclusive, and how breastfeeding is as repressive as 1950's housework.
"In Betty Friedan’s day, feminists felt shackled to domesticity by the unreasonably high bar for housework, the endless dusting and shopping and pushing the Hoover around—a vacuum cleaner being the obligatory prop for the “happy housewife heroine,” as Friedan sardonically called her. When I looked at the picture on the cover of Sears’s Breastfeeding Book—a lady lying down, gently smiling at her baby and still in her robe, although the sun is well up—the scales fell from my eyes: it was not the vacuum that was keeping me and my 21st-century sisters down, but another sucking sound."
My friend Emily wrote a well-researched rebuttal to this woman's mysoginist diatribe (to call a breastfeeding mother shackled is anti-mother and anti-women, because it rejects the natural purpose of my breasts and devalues my mothering). The comments are numerous and mostly gibberish with no research or backing, just moms who have to formula feed getting unnecessarily defensive - hey, moms, this article isn't about you!
But the age-old arguement of breastmilk vs formula (why are we still arguing over this??) isn't the damaging part of this article. The damage is the image of the mother who takes time to breastfeed her child as the repressed woman.
"And in this prison I would have stayed," she says, if not for her lucky sighting of a study that said studies showing the benefits of breastfeeding are "inconsistent."
Men, and now women, are forever trying to create things that replace mothers and undermine our contribution as anything but circumstantial. "Mothers don't matter" or "mothers can be approximated" or "mothers aren't any better than (fill in blank with BS)" are all cruel, anti-women messages.
I don't care what you say - daycare will never do as good a job as I do, formula will never do as good a job as I do, a stuffed bear with a fake heartbeat will never replace me. Nor do I want them to. I like being a mom.
This is the comment I left on Emily's blog:
Emily - thanks for the laugh. I love how defensive formula-by-choice mothers get. "Stop judging me for my opinion while I stand here and judge you about yours!"
The worst part about this article is the equation of breastfeeding to shackles. People who bottle feed because they want to "have a life" or "get more fulfillment at work" don't get it. They aren't parenting right if they feel that way about their kids.
Children aren't inconveniences to be managed or "putting your life on hold." These are little human beings, designed to imprint on the adults in their lives in order to learn how to become adults themselves. These are the future, and their importance cannot be overestimated.
To feel bored with spending your days with them, or constantly needing time away from them to feel refreshed, or not wanting to breastfeed because it's anti-feminist or archaic, shows that you do not yet understand how miraculous and important your children are.
Parenting isn't "life on hold." It's an amazing, sacred and essential life!
And if you don't feel that way, you aren't doing it right. You aren't valuing your children the way they should be valued. You aren't valuing motherhood the way it should be valued.
This mom doesn't know who her children truly are and how important her job is, or spending time breastfeeding a child would be as fulfilling as climbing a mountain or running a company. She is in the presence of deity and doesn't know it or believe it.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Assault on Freedom of Conscience
The Assault on Freedom of Conscience
Issue 152 - January/February 2009
by Peggy O'Mara, Editor and Publisher
As a new reader of Mothering in 1977, I was especially interested in the letters about circumcision and vaccinations. In fact, one of the first things I did when I bought the magazine in 1980 was to arrange the letters under specific headings so that readers could more easily follow the ongoing dialogues.
As the editor of Mothering, I see circumcision and vaccination as two of many issues that fall under the broader umbrella of informed consent or freedom of conscience. Sometimes people will characterize the magazine as pro-homebirth or anti-vaccine because of our frequent coverage of these issues. In fact, we are pro-informed consent; we publish both sides of the story so that parents can be aware of all angles before they make a decision.
It was in this spirit of informed consent that I first became interested in covering HIV and AIDS. In 1996, I received a letter from Michael Ellner of Health, Education, AIDS Liaison (HEAL) in New York City. Michael asked Mothering to look into the new recommendation that all mothers and newborns be tested for HIV. In the Summer 1997 issue of Mothering, I reported that universal HIV testing, like universal prenatal testing, is controversial because AIDS is rare among women of childbearing age and among newborns.
Not only is universal HIV testing for pregnant women and newborns controversial, but also are the medications prescribed for HIV and the recommendations regarding breastfeeding. Up until 1997, the World Health Organization (WHO) left the infant-feeding choice up to the HIV mother herself. By 1998, the recommendation had changed and WHO recommended safe alternatives to breastfeeding. As a retired La Leche League Leader, I was dismayed that breastfeeding was contraindicated in HIV because up until then, only one disease—untreated, active tuberculosis—contraindicated breastfeeding.
In September 1998, Mothering published the article, "AZT Roulette: The Impossible Choices Facing HIV-Positive Mothers." It is about the dilemma of women who test positive for HIV—but have no risk factors or symptoms of illness—and are coerced into taking drugs (such as AZT) that can cause premature birth, birth defects, cancer, and death. These women are accused of potentially risking the lives of their children when they question taking these drugs, and yet they are, in fact, actually risking the lives of their children when they do take them. One of the things that most concerned me in this article was the high rate of complications among babies whose mothers take AZT. In one study, for example, the rate of birth defects was 13 percent, nearly six times the normal rate. Another study was halted because of the high rate of premature births. If this weren't bad enough, pregnancy is one of the conditions listed by the manufacturer of the HIV test that can result in a false positive for the virus.
One of our readers whose life was dramatically affected by HIV is Kathleen Tyson, whose story appears in our May/June 1999 issue. In September 1998, Kathleen's midwife called to ask her to come in to talk about her prenatal tests. She and her husband were worried as they drove to the midwife's office, but they never expected it to be the HIV test. Kathleen had tested positive. As a vegetarian who danced, practiced yoga, and ran 10 to 16 miles a week, Kathleen felt she was in the best shape of her life. She was in a long-term monogamous relationship and had no risk factors for AIDS. Still she wanted to do the right thing, so she began taking AZT. Six weeks into the regimen, however, she stopped because she felt sick every time she took the drug and was worried about its effect on her baby. She planned to birth at home and to breastfeed, but two weeks before her baby's due date, she had an emergency cesarean because of a prolapsed cord. After she awoke from the anesthesia, she nursed her son Felix. But before the day was out she was ordered by her pediatrician to stop breastfeeding and served a summons to appear in court two days later. There she was court-ordered to cease breastfeeding her newborn baby and to give him AZT every six hours around the clock for six weeks.
The bitter irony of Kathleen's experience is that the WHO recommendation regarding HIV and breastfeeding changed again because research since 1999 has shown that exclusive breastfeeding is actually a protection against HIV. The choices facing mothers who question mandatory medication for HIV are not unlike those faced by parents who choose to give birth at home in a country where 99 percent of births take place in the hospital, or parents who decide not to circumcise their son, even though the majority of their peers are doing so. These choices are not unlike those made by parents who wonder if they can delay childhood vaccines, select some but not all of them, or forego them altogether.
These parents exercise their freedom of conscience—a right supported by US courts for more than 100 years. Freedom of conscience is protected under the doctrine of informed consent, which specifically protects the right to decline. For informed consent to be valid, a decision must not be coerced.
Parents' freedom of conscience has been demonized of late. A new book, Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure by Paul A. Offit, MD (Columbia University Press, 2008), patronizes suffering parents of autistic children and dismisses them as part of a hysterical conspiracy of alarmists. The tragic death of John Travolta and Kelly Preston's son was cruelly sensationalized by suggestions that perhaps the Scientologist couple hadn't done enough to care for their son, who, in fact, had 24/7 supervision. On October 28, 2008, in its fifth episode of the season, the television show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit vilified Christine Maggiore, one of the mothers featured in our September 1998 article, in which a daughter and mother both die of AIDS.
On January 8, 2009, the television show Private Practice aired an episode about a child who brings measles into a medical clinic and the widespread panic that ensues. Parents who don't vaccinate are called child abusers and portrayed as pariahs. Measles is depicted as a life-threatening disease instead of the mild illness that my friends and I all had as children. In the Private Practice episode, the child dies from measles, an occurrence that is so rare that, based on the current incidence levels (42 in 2007), a death from measles would happen once every 119 years. Even if the incidence of measles were to quadruple, we would not see a death for 30 years. The current death rate from measles is 1 in 5,000, yet it is portrayed in the show as though it happens frequently.
In this episode, a doctor forcibly vaccinates the sick child's brother for measles as his mother stands by protesting helplessly. While the actors who play the doctors in the show are all ridiculously good-looking and remarkably fit, the non-vaccinators appear dowdy and dangerous. One wears no makeup, is slightly overweight, and occasionally hysterical. The other is a sometimes drug addict who forgets to vaccinate.
The incidence of measles cases has risen dramatically from 2007 to 2008 and is at its highest level in more than a decade. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 63 of the 131 new cases of measles from January to July 2008 were among those unvaccinated. The majority of the cases (68), however, were among those vaccinated. Interestingly, according to the CDC, 89 percent of the 131 new measles cases were "imported from or associated with importations from other countries, particularly countries in Europe, where several outbreaks are ongoing."1 In the face of this evidence, why is it the conscientious objectors who are scapegoated? The growing propaganda that unvaccinated kids put vaccinated kids at risk is not supported by the evidence and just doesn't make sense as long as the vaccines themselves are effective.
Now even parents who sleep with their babies are being portrayed as dangerous kooks. On January 25, 2009, our local paper, the Santa Fe New Mexican, reprinted on the front page an article from the Washington Post titled, "Infant Deaths Rekindle Bed-share Debate." The article reports on a study to be published in the February 2009 issue of the journal Pediatrics, showing an increase in deaths attributed to accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed (ASSB) from 2.8 to 12.5 per 100,000 between 1984 and 2004.2
While the Washington Post article suggests that this increase is due to more parents sleeping with their children in order to facilitate breasteeding, the research suggests otherwise. In the first place, black male infants in the study were disproportionately affected by accidental suffocation—and yet breastfeeding rates among African-American women are significantly lower than rates among other women. Secondly, the researchers themselves attribute the rise to several possible causes, one being the shift in classifying deaths that previously would have been attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
In 1996, the CDC began to classify SIDS deaths under the larger category Sudden Unexplained Infant Deaths (SUID), and added ASSB for the first time under this new category. According to the CDC, "?CDC research has found that the decline in SIDS since 1999 can be explained by increasing SUID rates (e.g., deaths attributed to overlaying, suffocation, and wedging). This change in reporting or classification of SUID can be explained by changes in how investigations are conducted and how diagnoses of SUID are made. For example, more deaths may be attributed to accidental suffocation than to SIDS."3
The Pediatrics research was based on epidemiological analysis of infant mortality data. Without a detailed death-scene investigation, an autopsy, and a review of the medical records, it is doubtful that infant deaths are correctly classified on death certificates. Even when there is an autopsy, it is impossible to tell the difference between a death from strangulation and a death from a physiological cause, such as a heart defect.
A dangerously vicious intolerance for parents' freedom of conscience is growing and is breeding an atmosphere of distrust among families. It's especially important now for parents to clearly differentiate between the personal and the political. If you exercise your freedom of conscience and make a decision that is held by only a small minority, be reassured by the knowledge that the Constitution of the United States was written specifically to protect minority opinions. If you have made a responsible and well-informed decision, you can dismiss the propaganda when an issue is demonized in the press, because its coverage may be influenced by political, that is, financial, motives. Parents are the only ones who will live with the consequences of their actions, so they must be the ones who make the final decisions. Anything else is tyranny.
Notes1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Update: Measles—United States, January-July 2008," MMWR Weekly 57, no. 33 (22 August 2008): 893?896; www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm. 2. Carrie K. Shapiro-Mendoza et al., "'US Infant Mortality Trends Attributable to Accidental Suffocation and Strangulation in Bed from 1984 through 2004: Are Rates Increasing?," Pediatrics 123, no. 2 (February 2009): 533?539; http://http//pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/2/533?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=shapiro+mendoza&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=123&issue=2&resourcetype=HWCIT 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID): Sudden, Unexpected Infant Death (SUID) Initiative," (24 October 2008): www.cdc.gov/sids/suid.htm. Go to http://www.mothering.com/guest_editors/quiet_place/www.mothering.com/links for websites that have additional information on informed consent.
Issue 152 - January/February 2009
by Peggy O'Mara, Editor and Publisher
As a new reader of Mothering in 1977, I was especially interested in the letters about circumcision and vaccinations. In fact, one of the first things I did when I bought the magazine in 1980 was to arrange the letters under specific headings so that readers could more easily follow the ongoing dialogues.
As the editor of Mothering, I see circumcision and vaccination as two of many issues that fall under the broader umbrella of informed consent or freedom of conscience. Sometimes people will characterize the magazine as pro-homebirth or anti-vaccine because of our frequent coverage of these issues. In fact, we are pro-informed consent; we publish both sides of the story so that parents can be aware of all angles before they make a decision.
It was in this spirit of informed consent that I first became interested in covering HIV and AIDS. In 1996, I received a letter from Michael Ellner of Health, Education, AIDS Liaison (HEAL) in New York City. Michael asked Mothering to look into the new recommendation that all mothers and newborns be tested for HIV. In the Summer 1997 issue of Mothering, I reported that universal HIV testing, like universal prenatal testing, is controversial because AIDS is rare among women of childbearing age and among newborns.
Not only is universal HIV testing for pregnant women and newborns controversial, but also are the medications prescribed for HIV and the recommendations regarding breastfeeding. Up until 1997, the World Health Organization (WHO) left the infant-feeding choice up to the HIV mother herself. By 1998, the recommendation had changed and WHO recommended safe alternatives to breastfeeding. As a retired La Leche League Leader, I was dismayed that breastfeeding was contraindicated in HIV because up until then, only one disease—untreated, active tuberculosis—contraindicated breastfeeding.
In September 1998, Mothering published the article, "AZT Roulette: The Impossible Choices Facing HIV-Positive Mothers." It is about the dilemma of women who test positive for HIV—but have no risk factors or symptoms of illness—and are coerced into taking drugs (such as AZT) that can cause premature birth, birth defects, cancer, and death. These women are accused of potentially risking the lives of their children when they question taking these drugs, and yet they are, in fact, actually risking the lives of their children when they do take them. One of the things that most concerned me in this article was the high rate of complications among babies whose mothers take AZT. In one study, for example, the rate of birth defects was 13 percent, nearly six times the normal rate. Another study was halted because of the high rate of premature births. If this weren't bad enough, pregnancy is one of the conditions listed by the manufacturer of the HIV test that can result in a false positive for the virus.
One of our readers whose life was dramatically affected by HIV is Kathleen Tyson, whose story appears in our May/June 1999 issue. In September 1998, Kathleen's midwife called to ask her to come in to talk about her prenatal tests. She and her husband were worried as they drove to the midwife's office, but they never expected it to be the HIV test. Kathleen had tested positive. As a vegetarian who danced, practiced yoga, and ran 10 to 16 miles a week, Kathleen felt she was in the best shape of her life. She was in a long-term monogamous relationship and had no risk factors for AIDS. Still she wanted to do the right thing, so she began taking AZT. Six weeks into the regimen, however, she stopped because she felt sick every time she took the drug and was worried about its effect on her baby. She planned to birth at home and to breastfeed, but two weeks before her baby's due date, she had an emergency cesarean because of a prolapsed cord. After she awoke from the anesthesia, she nursed her son Felix. But before the day was out she was ordered by her pediatrician to stop breastfeeding and served a summons to appear in court two days later. There she was court-ordered to cease breastfeeding her newborn baby and to give him AZT every six hours around the clock for six weeks.
The bitter irony of Kathleen's experience is that the WHO recommendation regarding HIV and breastfeeding changed again because research since 1999 has shown that exclusive breastfeeding is actually a protection against HIV. The choices facing mothers who question mandatory medication for HIV are not unlike those faced by parents who choose to give birth at home in a country where 99 percent of births take place in the hospital, or parents who decide not to circumcise their son, even though the majority of their peers are doing so. These choices are not unlike those made by parents who wonder if they can delay childhood vaccines, select some but not all of them, or forego them altogether.
These parents exercise their freedom of conscience—a right supported by US courts for more than 100 years. Freedom of conscience is protected under the doctrine of informed consent, which specifically protects the right to decline. For informed consent to be valid, a decision must not be coerced.
Parents' freedom of conscience has been demonized of late. A new book, Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure by Paul A. Offit, MD (Columbia University Press, 2008), patronizes suffering parents of autistic children and dismisses them as part of a hysterical conspiracy of alarmists. The tragic death of John Travolta and Kelly Preston's son was cruelly sensationalized by suggestions that perhaps the Scientologist couple hadn't done enough to care for their son, who, in fact, had 24/7 supervision. On October 28, 2008, in its fifth episode of the season, the television show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit vilified Christine Maggiore, one of the mothers featured in our September 1998 article, in which a daughter and mother both die of AIDS.
On January 8, 2009, the television show Private Practice aired an episode about a child who brings measles into a medical clinic and the widespread panic that ensues. Parents who don't vaccinate are called child abusers and portrayed as pariahs. Measles is depicted as a life-threatening disease instead of the mild illness that my friends and I all had as children. In the Private Practice episode, the child dies from measles, an occurrence that is so rare that, based on the current incidence levels (42 in 2007), a death from measles would happen once every 119 years. Even if the incidence of measles were to quadruple, we would not see a death for 30 years. The current death rate from measles is 1 in 5,000, yet it is portrayed in the show as though it happens frequently.
In this episode, a doctor forcibly vaccinates the sick child's brother for measles as his mother stands by protesting helplessly. While the actors who play the doctors in the show are all ridiculously good-looking and remarkably fit, the non-vaccinators appear dowdy and dangerous. One wears no makeup, is slightly overweight, and occasionally hysterical. The other is a sometimes drug addict who forgets to vaccinate.
The incidence of measles cases has risen dramatically from 2007 to 2008 and is at its highest level in more than a decade. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 63 of the 131 new cases of measles from January to July 2008 were among those unvaccinated. The majority of the cases (68), however, were among those vaccinated. Interestingly, according to the CDC, 89 percent of the 131 new measles cases were "imported from or associated with importations from other countries, particularly countries in Europe, where several outbreaks are ongoing."1 In the face of this evidence, why is it the conscientious objectors who are scapegoated? The growing propaganda that unvaccinated kids put vaccinated kids at risk is not supported by the evidence and just doesn't make sense as long as the vaccines themselves are effective.
Now even parents who sleep with their babies are being portrayed as dangerous kooks. On January 25, 2009, our local paper, the Santa Fe New Mexican, reprinted on the front page an article from the Washington Post titled, "Infant Deaths Rekindle Bed-share Debate." The article reports on a study to be published in the February 2009 issue of the journal Pediatrics, showing an increase in deaths attributed to accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed (ASSB) from 2.8 to 12.5 per 100,000 between 1984 and 2004.2
While the Washington Post article suggests that this increase is due to more parents sleeping with their children in order to facilitate breasteeding, the research suggests otherwise. In the first place, black male infants in the study were disproportionately affected by accidental suffocation—and yet breastfeeding rates among African-American women are significantly lower than rates among other women. Secondly, the researchers themselves attribute the rise to several possible causes, one being the shift in classifying deaths that previously would have been attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
In 1996, the CDC began to classify SIDS deaths under the larger category Sudden Unexplained Infant Deaths (SUID), and added ASSB for the first time under this new category. According to the CDC, "?CDC research has found that the decline in SIDS since 1999 can be explained by increasing SUID rates (e.g., deaths attributed to overlaying, suffocation, and wedging). This change in reporting or classification of SUID can be explained by changes in how investigations are conducted and how diagnoses of SUID are made. For example, more deaths may be attributed to accidental suffocation than to SIDS."3
The Pediatrics research was based on epidemiological analysis of infant mortality data. Without a detailed death-scene investigation, an autopsy, and a review of the medical records, it is doubtful that infant deaths are correctly classified on death certificates. Even when there is an autopsy, it is impossible to tell the difference between a death from strangulation and a death from a physiological cause, such as a heart defect.
A dangerously vicious intolerance for parents' freedom of conscience is growing and is breeding an atmosphere of distrust among families. It's especially important now for parents to clearly differentiate between the personal and the political. If you exercise your freedom of conscience and make a decision that is held by only a small minority, be reassured by the knowledge that the Constitution of the United States was written specifically to protect minority opinions. If you have made a responsible and well-informed decision, you can dismiss the propaganda when an issue is demonized in the press, because its coverage may be influenced by political, that is, financial, motives. Parents are the only ones who will live with the consequences of their actions, so they must be the ones who make the final decisions. Anything else is tyranny.
Notes1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Update: Measles—United States, January-July 2008," MMWR Weekly 57, no. 33 (22 August 2008): 893?896; www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm. 2. Carrie K. Shapiro-Mendoza et al., "'US Infant Mortality Trends Attributable to Accidental Suffocation and Strangulation in Bed from 1984 through 2004: Are Rates Increasing?," Pediatrics 123, no. 2 (February 2009): 533?539; http://http//pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/2/533?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=shapiro+mendoza&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=123&issue=2&resourcetype=HWCIT 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID): Sudden, Unexpected Infant Death (SUID) Initiative," (24 October 2008): www.cdc.gov/sids/suid.htm. Go to http://www.mothering.com/guest_editors/quiet_place/www.mothering.com/links for websites that have additional information on informed consent.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Five Mistakes We Make When Talking About Rihanna and Chris
I recently read about a poll of 200 teenagers in Boston, and 46% of them believed the beating was Rihanna's fault, and over half of them believed that arguing in relationships is normal. A friend led me to this next article, and I want to shout it from the rooftops. - AlisaDomestic Abuse Myths
Five mistakes we make when we talk about Rihanna and Chris Brown's relationship.
Raina Kelley
Five mistakes we make when we talk about Rihanna and Chris Brown's relationship.
Raina Kelley
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Last week, R&B singer Chris Brown was formally charged with two felonies, assault and making criminal threats, in connection with the alleged beating of his pop-star girlfriend Rihanna on Feb. 8. Though we will never know exactly what happened that night, many of us have seen Rihanna's bruised and bloodied face on the front pages and read horrific details of the alleged attack from the affidavit of a LAPD detective in which he describes contusions on the singer's body. At same time, rumors are that the 21-year-old singer is back in a relationship with Brown, whom she has accused, according to the affidavit, of biting, choking and punching her until her mouth filled with blood.
While we can argue about how much of all that is true, it really doesn't matter. This sad story doesn't have to be verifiable for it to potentially warp how Rihanna's hundreds of thousands of tween fans think about intimate relationships. We've all heard that this should be a "teachable moment"—a chance to talk about domestic violence with our kids. But children and teens aren't just listening to your lectures, they're listening to the way you speculate about the case with other adults; they're absorbing how the media describes it; they're reading gossip Web sites. When you tune into to all the talk about Rihanna and Chris Brown, it's scary how the same persistent domestic-violence myths continue to be perpetuated. Celebrity scandals may have a short shelf life, but what we teach kids about domestic violence will last forever.
So rather than "raise awareness," here are five myths that anyone with a child should take time to debunk:
Myth No. 1: It was a domestic argument, and she provoked him
We need to remember that any discussion of domestic violence should not revolve around what the couple may have been arguing about, or as one CNN anchor put it: "the incident that sparked the fight." Nor should we be using the word "provoked" when describing this case, as in the Associated Press account that said the "argument" was "provoked" by Rihanna's "discovery of a text message from another woman." Domestic violence has to do with, well, physical violence, not arguments. There isn't a verbal argument that should "spark" or "provoke" an attack of the kind that leaves one person with wounds that require medical attention.
Cable news has to stop referring to this incident as a "violent fight." A "fight" involves two people hitting each other, not—as is alleged in this case—a woman cowering in a car while a man punches and bites her. If Rihanna had called the police beaten and bloodied and alleging an attack of this nature by a stranger, no one would be calling it a "fight." They'd say that a man was being accused of severely beating and choking a young woman half his size.
Myth No. 2: Evolution makes us do it
Steven Stosny, a counselor and founder of an organization that treats anger-management issues believes that the tragic tendency of women to return to the men who hurt them (battered-woman syndrome) is a product of evolution. Stosny was quoted on CNN.com as saying "To leave an attachment relationship—a relationship where there's an emotional bond—meant certain death by starvation or saber-tooth tiger."
Apologies to Mr. Stosny, but that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is the kind of argument that really boils my blood because it seems to naturalize the torture of women. Very little is known about the emotional attachments of early humans. And trust me, after 50,000 years, our fear of saber-tooth tigers has abated. In most domestic-abuse cases, we're talking about a situation where one person is wielding power over an individual through pain, fear and domination. It's not about being scared to leave because of the dangers that await you in the world, it's about being too scared of what's at home to leave.
Myth No. 3: People make mistakes. Give the guy a break
When singer Kanye West talked about the Rihanna-Brown case with his VH1 audience recently, he asked: "Can't we give Chris a break? ... I know I make mistakes in life." Kanye's not the only one saying this kind of thing, so let's get something straight: People leave the oven on or fry turkeys in the garage and burn their house down. One may even accidentally step on the gas instead of the brake and run over the family cat. Mistakes resulting in tragic consequences happen all the time. But one cannot mistakenly beat someone up. You do not accidentally give someone black eyes, a broken nose and a split lip.
Experts will tell you that domestic violence is an escalating series of attacks (not fights) designed to increase a victim's dependence on her abuser. According to the police documents released last week, Rihanna told police that Brown had hit her before and it was getting worse. Sorry means you don't do it again. In discussions about abuse, we need to make it clear that sorry is not enough.
Myth No. 5: She's young, rich and beautiful. If it was really as bad as the media says, she'd leave
The secret to the abuser's power is not only making his victim dependent on him, but convincing her that she is to blame for the attack. No amount of money or fame can protect someone from the terrible cycle of emotional dependence, shame and fear that keeps them with abusive partners. Women who are abused look for ways they may have "provoked" an attack, finding fault with their own behavior to explain the unexplainable—why would someone they love hurt them?
And it doesn't help when people outside the relationship blame the victim. In this case, Phylicia Thompson, a cousin of Brown's, told "Extra TV" that, "Chris was not brought up to beat on a woman. So it had to be something to provoke him for Chris to do it." As the rumors swirl about whether Rihanna is back with Brown, understand that those who are abused do not stay with their abusers because they want to be beaten again, or because they are really at fault; it's usually because they feel trapped and guilty.
You may have noticed that the words power, control and domination running through my rant. That was purposeful. What we need to remember, and what we need to teach our children, is that yes, you should never hit anybody and you should never let anybody hit you. But, we also need to tell them that love does not guarantee respect and that any relationship they find themselves involved in should be based on both equally.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/188353
Judge Orders Three Homeschoolers Into Public School
...because he doesn't like their religious teachings about science. If she isn't breaking any law and the children are doing well, then a judge should not have a say in this. - Alisa
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4727161/
Wake judge orders home schoolers into public classrooms
Posted: Mar. 12 10:55 p.m. Updated: Today at 3:25 p.m.
Raleigh, N.C. — A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need to switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children's parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.
Venessa Mills was in the fourth year of home schooling her children who are 10, 11 and 12 years old. They have tested two years above their grade levels, she said.
"We have math, reading; we have grammar, science, music,” Venessa Mills said.
Her lessons also have a religious slant, which the judge said was the root of the problem.
"My teaching is strictly out of the Bible, and it's very clear. It is very evident so I just choose to follow the Bible,” Venessa Mills said.
In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he "objected to the children being removed from public school." He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church "where all children are home schooled."
Thomas Mills also said he was "concerned about the children's religious-based science curriculum" and that he wants "the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution."
In a verbal ruling, Mangum said the children should go to public school.
"He was upfront and said that, 'It's not about religion.' But yet when it came down to his ruling and reasons why, 'He said this would be a good opportunity for the children to be tested in the beliefs that I have taught them,'" Venessa Mills said.
All sides agree the children have thrived with home school, and Vanessa Mills thinks that should be reason enough to continue teaching at home.
"I cannot sit back and allow this to happen to other home schoolers. I don't want it happening to my children,” Venessa Mills said.
Mangum said he wouldn't talk with WRAL News Thursday about the details of the case because he hasn't issued a written ruling yet. He said he expected to sign it in a few weeks.
An estimated 71,566 students were taught at home during the 2007-08 school year, according to figures released by the state Division of Non-Public Education. The enrollment amounts to about 4 percent of students ages 7 to 16 in North Carolina – students in that age range are required by state law to attend school. About two-thirds of the schools classified themselves as religious schools.
Home school students and their parents plan to come to Raleigh on March 24 to lobby at the state Legislature. They want to demonstrate they have a strong voice regarding education.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4727161/
Wake judge orders home schoolers into public classrooms
Posted: Mar. 12 10:55 p.m. Updated: Today at 3:25 p.m.
Raleigh, N.C. — A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need to switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children's parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.
Venessa Mills was in the fourth year of home schooling her children who are 10, 11 and 12 years old. They have tested two years above their grade levels, she said.
"We have math, reading; we have grammar, science, music,” Venessa Mills said.
Her lessons also have a religious slant, which the judge said was the root of the problem.
"My teaching is strictly out of the Bible, and it's very clear. It is very evident so I just choose to follow the Bible,” Venessa Mills said.
In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he "objected to the children being removed from public school." He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church "where all children are home schooled."
Thomas Mills also said he was "concerned about the children's religious-based science curriculum" and that he wants "the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution."
In a verbal ruling, Mangum said the children should go to public school.
"He was upfront and said that, 'It's not about religion.' But yet when it came down to his ruling and reasons why, 'He said this would be a good opportunity for the children to be tested in the beliefs that I have taught them,'" Venessa Mills said.
All sides agree the children have thrived with home school, and Vanessa Mills thinks that should be reason enough to continue teaching at home.
"I cannot sit back and allow this to happen to other home schoolers. I don't want it happening to my children,” Venessa Mills said.
Mangum said he wouldn't talk with WRAL News Thursday about the details of the case because he hasn't issued a written ruling yet. He said he expected to sign it in a few weeks.
An estimated 71,566 students were taught at home during the 2007-08 school year, according to figures released by the state Division of Non-Public Education. The enrollment amounts to about 4 percent of students ages 7 to 16 in North Carolina – students in that age range are required by state law to attend school. About two-thirds of the schools classified themselves as religious schools.
Home school students and their parents plan to come to Raleigh on March 24 to lobby at the state Legislature. They want to demonstrate they have a strong voice regarding education.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
How society supports abuse and abusers
I came across this list on a new forum I joined. The ladies came up with the things other people say that validate the abuser.- Alisa
Common forms of abuser support;
- "You should show him some compassion even if he has done bad things. Don't forget that he's a human being too"
- "But he's the father of your children"
- "You made a commitment, and now you need to stick with it through hard times"
- "You are claiming to be a helpless victim"
- "These abuse activists are anti-male"
- "Its not real abuse."
- "Oh come on. Its not THAT bad!"
- "She started it / she asked for it"
- "But he's never hit you"
- "But he works so hard for you to have the life you have"
- "He's short tempered because he's tired"
- "It's the way he was raised"
- "Calling it abuse / saying he's abusive is a bit harsh, don't you think?"
- "Maybe you should modify your behaviour so you don't upset him"
Excerpt from Why Does He Do That?:
"It often falls to the abused woman herself, unfortunately to try to educate the people around her whose help and support she needs, so that they will understand the dynamics of abuse and stop supaporting the abusive man. Much of why an abuser is so able to recruit allies, besides his own manipulativeness and charm, is his skill in playing on people's ignorance and misconceptions and often on their negative attitudes towards women.
"It often falls to the abused woman herself, unfortunately to try to educate the people around her whose help and support she needs, so that they will understand the dynamics of abuse and stop supaporting the abusive man. Much of why an abuser is so able to recruit allies, besides his own manipulativeness and charm, is his skill in playing on people's ignorance and misconceptions and often on their negative attitudes towards women.
As difficult as it is to take on, you will often find yourself having to be your own best advocate, arguing forcefully against the range of ways in which your sociey's values may buy into the abusive man's outlook, in order to gain the kind of strong backing that you deserve from all those around you."
Sunday, March 08, 2009
The Angels Have The Phone Box!
Warning - even this minute-and-a-half trailer is creepy.
This is going to seem out of place on my blog, but some friends convinced us to watch an episode of Dr. Who called "Blink" and it was absolutely brilliant. The story is interesting (the explanation for the angels is pretty clever) and knock-your-socks-off spooky. Even Bryan was impressed.
One warning - the paradoxes of time travel are especially mind-boggling in this episode.
The best part is, the bad guys don't win and no children are injured or become the bad guys.
But really - don't watch this one alone. Unless that's your thing.
This is going to seem out of place on my blog, but some friends convinced us to watch an episode of Dr. Who called "Blink" and it was absolutely brilliant. The story is interesting (the explanation for the angels is pretty clever) and knock-your-socks-off spooky. Even Bryan was impressed.
One warning - the paradoxes of time travel are especially mind-boggling in this episode.
The best part is, the bad guys don't win and no children are injured or become the bad guys.
But really - don't watch this one alone. Unless that's your thing.
Friday, March 06, 2009
March is National Craft Month
Craft stores, websites, Crayola, Lion Brand Yarn, everyone's in on it. Craft supply stores are offering classes. Blogs are offering free patterns and tutorials. Just google "National Craft Month" and you are on your way to all kinds of creative inspiration.
Here's my recommendation. Use your crafty skills for charity.
Before I had bebas, I used to donate hats and things, and sometimes just straight yarn to others who would use it for charitable purposes. It's a great opportunity to focus on the real reason we feel compelled to do crafty things - to create usefull and beautiful things.
If you don't do something you think is charity worthy - say you like to cross stitch and don't think your local hospital really needs that - you can make something and sell it on Etsy or Ebay and then donate the proceeds. Or, you can donate it to a thrift store. If your thrift store is like mine, they use their profits to provide services like job training and disaster relief.
You can have your children create something with noodles and glue and then give it to a grandparent. Or you can donate art supplies to a school.
Do something to spread the craft love around. It will bring you warm fuzzies.
Some links to get your imagination rolling:
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)