Skip to comments.Colorado to Consider Controversial Vaccination Law: Is Not Wanting to Vaccinate a Parental Right?
Posted on 03/24/2014 7:17:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Colorado’s House Health Insurance and Environment Committee has passed a bill that would make it more difficult for parents to opt out of the state’s child vaccination requirement. The bill would mandate a state-sponsored education program for parents who don’t want their child vaccinated and would force those parents to “acquire the signature of a health care professional confirming disclosure of possible health risks ‘to the student and the community.’
Similar measures have passed in three other states, while many other states are considering the question of mandatory vaccinations for school attendance.
The debate in Colorado was passionate.
State Rep. Dan Pabon (D) proposed the bill to ensure that parents are more informed and “that they’re not just opting out simply because of convenience,” according to the Denver Post.
“Vaccine refusal results in higher rates of vaccine-preventable disease,” Pabon said. “This is a public health issue. These are very serious diseases.”
Colorado has the sixth-highest rate of non-vaccinated public school kindergarteners. The bill will also mandate all licensed schools and day care centers to release public records on the percentages of their non-vaccinated children.
“There are kids who can’t get vaccinated because they’re immuno-compromised and are being exposed to vaccine-preventable diseases, Pabon argued on Thursday. To add on top of that, older populations that have medical conditions are also at risk.”
Although the bill would not eliminate the personal belief exemption, parents opposing the legislation argued that increased education mandates could lead to the erosion of parental rights during Thursdays testimony before lawmakers.
“Parents have a constitutional right to parent their children,” Susan Lawson, whose daughter developed encephalitis after a routine vaccine when she was a year old, told CBS Denver. “I am not an uneducated woman.”
Anti-vaccination advocacy group National Vaccine Information Center has also attacked the proposal as one that singles out and discriminates against a minority of parents with sincerely held personal beliefs by assuming they are uneducated and should be forced into a state approved education program.
When my mother heard of the breakthrough by Jonas Salk in developing a vaccination against polio, she fell to her knees and thanked God for his mercy. We, today, have absolutely no conception of the rank fear that gathered in the breasts of parents prior to the polio vaccine. Every cold in our family would put her on edge. And all of us grew up in an age before vaccines for measles, mumps, and whooping cough. These diseases were — and are — childhood killers. I’m sure the controversy today over vaccines would perplex her to no end.
The odds of a child dying from measles are 50 times greater than the child experiencing any life-threatening side effects from that vaccine. Prior to 1963 before the vaccine was introduced, there were 4 million cases of measles per year in the U.S. with an average of 450 deaths. On the other hand, there are severe reactions to the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella) in only 1 of about 2 million doses. What rational parent makes a choice not to vaccinate their children?
The supposed link between autism and vaccinations has been debunked over and over, and yet the belief still persists. The Centers for Disease Control examined the question of autism and the safety of vaccines in general:
Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. Furthermore, a scientific reviewExternal Web Site Icon by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that “the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosalcontaining vaccines and autism.” CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.
The IOM also recently conducted a thorough review of the current medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and certain health events that may be observed after vaccination. It released a report in August 2011 on 8 vaccines given to children and adults that found the vaccines to be generally safe and serious adverse events following these vaccinations to be rare.
We are paying a price for our scientific ignorance. Parents who don’t have their children immunized do so largely because they think the diseases are wiped out or there is little chance their children will be infected. But because of falling rates of vaccinations among children, these diseases are making a roaring comeback:
Measles, mumps, whooping cough all deadly diseases. Until recently, they were virtually eliminated thanks to vaccines that prevent kids from getting sick.
But now doctors see an alarming trend more and more people are coming down with these diseases.
Kids die from measles on a regular basis. Kids are in hospitals and can die from whooping cough very commonly. So these kids are at risk, said Dr. Scott Krugman, Chairman, Department of Pediatrics, MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center.
Here in Maryland, cases of whooping cough are skyrocketing tripling from 123 cases in 2011 to nearly 370 last year. Outbreaks of measles and mumps have swept through states across the country.
The explanations made by parents for not vaccinating their kids are pathetic, as you’ll see on the next page.
So, if these diseases can be prevented by a vaccine, why is a growing number of parents not getting their children the shots? Some fear the vaccines can do more harm than good.
These vaccines and all of these doses also can be deadly, an Annapolis mom said.
After researching vaccines and talking with doctors, an Annapolis mom decided not to vaccinate her young children. She asked WJZ to hide her identity because other parents are angry her kids could put their kids in danger.
Bui: What happened that led you to make this decision not to vaccinate your kids?
Annapolis mom: It just didnt make sense to me. I didnt understand why a little human had to get so many drugs at one time.
She believes her familys healthy lifestyle will keep her children from getting sick. But most doctors insist thats not enough.
Maybe she should consider hiring a shaman to ward off the evil spirits. Works just as well as eating arugula.
I suppose you could make the argument that the CDC is in the pockets of Big Pharma and are doing their bidding by cooking the books on vaccines. I’ve seen it all over the internet and in emails so I know that someone is reading that crap. And, if you wished, you could ignore the studies done by respected scientific organizations (or similarly lump them in with the CDC as doing Big Pharma’s bidding) that say there is no causal link between vaccines and autism, and substitute pseudo-scientific pronouncements from people selling a book or product, telling you not to vaccinate your kids.
You can choose to believe anything you want. But when your beliefs place others in danger, that is a moral and civic wrong. Yes, you are free to parent your children any way you please. But you are not free to endanger the lives of others. Not getting your children vaccinated is an unconscionable omission and sending parents to school in order to try to knock some sense into their heads is the least the state can do to protect children from their stupidity.
My family does.
I remember, in the second grade, my class and other classes in my school were sent home because a child had been diagnosed with polio. Two weeks later, when we returned, we found out that two of our classmates would not be coming back as they were never going to walk again. Polio left them paralyzed.
It scared the geebees out of me. I was so thankful the following year when they announced a polio vaccine and we lined up to receive our polio shots. As a 7 or 8 year old kid, I think that was the only time I wanted a shot.
If it is not then we open the door to the state being able to tell us what kind of medical treatments we must give our children.
Soon we end up with things like what happened to Justina Pelletie happening with no place to appeal.
Once you say a parent must do what the state wants in an area it is not long before you have no rights at all in that area.
People are so hateful about this issue so it doesn’t get anywhere.
It’s black and white, no questions asked, when, in fact, it is grey.
Parents have a responsibility to not expose kids their own children go to school with. That is where the fight starts.
If we were to approach it from the point of view that people, parents, could have domain over their own health and that of their children, it could be discussed rationally. But people have given responsibility of their health over to the medical community, and, now, the government.
If it were discussed, people could make decisions and choices.
A school has the right to expect basic protection for their kids and should have the option of requiring vaccination
Day care center planning sets the schedule to some degree.
Parents do have the right to choose vaccination, societal pressure takes that away. I few were to look at the schedule of vaccination form an intelligent point of view, it could be managed. Look at research. look at how other countries manage it, particularly countries whose citizens use their freedom to collaborate with medicine industry to make choices. for ex., when I, a health care professional, ask the pediatrician why my newborn needs a hepB shot one hour after birth, I get humiliation, berating, refusal, abuse and condescension, in front of my spouse. But the question is not answered. That’s where Obamacare is apparent. Not Obamacare itself, but its roots.
In researching when Japanese or German kids get their shots, weighed against incidence of disease outbreaks/management there is no reason a kid who’s staying home with mom for five years needs to have five painful shots one hour after birth, taxing his immune system.
Then there’s the conversation that needs to be had regarding additives. WE know the pharmaceutical industry is a huge liar. We know they are not about healing but about thriving on illness. We know they and the FDA work together and without us. We know the medical industry cares nothing for parents’ concerns, and they treat people who ask questions with more suspicion and ridicule than the IRS does a conservative. And we know the pharmaceutical industry has some bad mistakes on their record.
We know there is a high rate of autism. Baby boomers like me knew kids, we grew up in a kids world, cat in the hat no parents, six kids to a family. Now with two kids to a family we know, I know kids with autism, boys, at a rate now of 600% more than what we knew growing up.
Everyone can yell and deny, but that doesn’t fix the problem NOR cause us to pretend it’s not true.
If we could look at all of this, we could get to what is causing that, and we could look at the unnecessary incidence of ultrasound on fetuses. Unless there is reason to believe there could and should be prenatal surgery done on the fetus, an ultrasound is unnecessary. No one looks at this. But bombarding these kids with ultrasound waves can not be good for them, just at least.
Most people who choose not to vaccinate aren’t fearing the chemical itself : All medicines are complex and mysterious and we simply don’t understand them.
And when compared to the Polio vaccine or the vaccines of yesteryear - Modern vaccinations have more influence from the government than from our doctors. And therein is the problem. We see new data that links serious issues to the vaccine - And the government telling us to take them. When the government tells you to do something, It’s NEVER in your best interest.
Lastly, These forms also have lines that say things like “I understand that opting out of a vaccination program puts my child’s life and health at risk” and then it requires signature. What you’re doing is signing your kids away. You’re signing a piece of paper that will allow the state to come and take the kids. That’s intolerable.
I choose not to vaccinate now. I have vaccinations from when I was a kid but those vaccines are different than what we are facing these days. It’s a totally different ballgame.
I’m 71 and remember how happy my parents and I were when development of the Salk vaccine was announced. Going to the doctor at age 7 to get the shot was pure pleasure. No joke and no crying.
“Once you say a parent must do what the state wants in an area it is not long before you have no rights at all in that area.”
OK Then I don’t want to be responsible for paying that parents’ medical bills when that child contracts a preventable disease. Let the child die at home with their parents watching.
You and me, too.
Have you thought this desire through?
This reminds me of a case in Indiana when I lived there. A local kid came down with diabetes. The family refused to go to a doctor and prayed for him. He died. I noticed that the father (in pictures) had glasses. Evidently medical devices were OK for him, but not the kid. He was let off with probation.
Cases like that are murder and the parents should be tried as such when they kill their kid. Including vaccinations.
And yes, it is not all in the parents heads, thing can and do go wrong from vaccinations. That is why they have you sign the disclaimer saying that you understand that things can and may go wrong before they vaccinate.
How about unless they are imminent danger of loss of life, limb or eyesight we keep out of it.
“Colorado has the sixth-highest rate of non-vaccinated public school kindergarteners”
Loony toon hippies abound in Colorado.
It’s pretty bad for us as a society and nation now in that many ostensible conservatives share the same irrational beliefs about vaccines.
No, I don’t want that power. The parents made that decision and I see no reason why I should have to pay for their decision. No punisment is involved. They got what they wanted.
That is attempting to punish them because they don't do things exactly as you want them too.
If the parents want to play with their kids lives, they have the right to do so. If they guess wrong and cause death or permanent injury to their kids because of their beliefs, they should be prosecuted just like an ordinary criminal.
I remember when I got the oral Polio vaccine and was glad to get it. I also remember that when there was a Polio outbreak in town, I could not go to the pool, the movie house, or any place else where there were a lot of people congregating. I also remember one kid in my grade school class who died from it.
How is it that a non-vaccinated child puts a Vaccinated child in danger???? I thought the vaccine protected the child from danger!
So what this tells me is that the vaccine does NOT protect the child from actual disease, at all! Because when outbreaks do occur, and they DO happen, it’s always the vaccinated kids who are at risk. Why is that? What’s wrong with this picture?
If they aren’t really protected, then why subject them to the risks of the vaccine?
Have you ever noticed that when vaccinated kids do get the disease, other vaccinated kids are sent home due to the risk?
Most people don’t realize that the chickenpox vaccine has been out for a very long time. It’s been used since the 1980’s. Some of my family members were innoculated with it, and were asked to keep quiet about it.
The biggest problem with regular measels is high temperature and dehydration. Today, we can deal with that easily. Not so years ago.
German measles are a breeze. Most of the time, you have NO clue you were even exposed and had the disease. The problem is when a pregnant woman is exposed. It raises hell with her unborn baby.
Diptheria is a killer. That’s one that even I think is a very good idea to be innoculated against.
The fist ‘’shots’’ of polio were ineffective, because they weren’t using a live vaccine. The non-live vaccine didn’t work. Later they came out with the live drops that were ingested orally, often placed on a sugar cube :)
My mother had a LOT of kids, so the clinic used to just send her home with the vial of polio vaccine so she could administer it to all of us at once...to save her some money and the hassel of trying to get all those kids ready to go somewhere.
I had most of the diseases growing up, and now I’m glad I did. I wasn’t unhappy about it then, either because what kid doesn’t want time out from school? Who cares if you’re sick? But I always envied the kids who got chicken pox because they got to go to the beach to dry out the sores. I never got chickenpox, and I’ve still never had them despite my advancing age lol! which means I won’t get shingles either.
I think there’s a lot to be said for natural immunities. As someone else mentioned, having the disease as children protects you in adulthood too. And who knows just how far those immunities go in protecting you from other unforseen things? Science really doesn’t have all the answers.
One thing we do know for sure is that injections are frequently contaminated. Polio was contaminated with cancer. google it.
Vaccines also contain ingredients known to cause harm..like mercury. They can also be contaminated with other diseases, or they can be completely ineffective so that you walk around ‘’feeling’’ protected..except you aren’t.
There ARE side effects from these vaccines, and when all these diseases are injected into a body..a vector that is NOT natural, the physical response isn’t going to be a natural one, either.
There are risks and benefits on both sides of the coin. But considering the integrity of government and medical/research professionals, today...the actual diseases are more honest and strait forward.
To vaccinate or not should be left in the hands of parents after careful investigation of the pros and cons. Medical proceedures should NEVER be forced on a person by government except in very rare and extenuating circumstances like quarentines and natural disasaters which are absollutely known to provoke deadly disease, and which can be handled locally.
One of the hallmarks of a free society is the right to refuse. It’s good to have the options, and it’s good to make one’s own decisions.
There clearly is a limit to the right of a parent regarding the treatment of their children. The question is where to draw that line.
For example, we require parents to feed and clothe their children — a parent can’t decide that their child does not need food, or does not need water, or does not need shelter.
Beyond that, most people would agree that a parent can’t refuse to give a child medicine for a known disease.
So where is the line? Can a parent refuse to take a child to the doctor if they are sick? Can a parent refuse an operation if a doctor says it is necessary? Can a parent refuse all vaccinations? Can they refuse some, but not others? Can they refuse ANY?
Can a parent refuse to teach their children at all, and refuse to send them to school? Can the state force kids to school, or do parents have the right to teach them at home? If so, can parents refuse to administer tests to children to show they are learning?
Does the state have some right to tell parents WHAT a child should eat? Or should parents have the right to feed their child anything they want?
I’m guessing that if we made a list of 20 things where the state wants to impose rules on parents, that even here at a conservative web site, we would not all agree on the correct answers for those 20 things.
At some point, children should have a right to receive appropriate medical treatment, regardless of how their parents feel. The question for me is HOW you determine what medical treatment must be given.
I’ve always felt a conflict when I’ve read of a small child dying because their parents had a religious belief that God would heal their child, and therefore refused to get treatment.
George Washington underwent a treatment for smallpox at his brother’s urging, as I recall. It was dangerous, but deemed worth the risk.
When I was a kid I suffered through mumps, measles and chicken pox. I would have been glad to have gotten a few shots. I heard that mothers used to organize sleep overs so that all kids would be infected at the same time; there was an inherent risk in that, one substantially greater than inoculation.
There’s one point I’m not sure about, but seems critical: are there added risks in having a segment of the population remain vulnerable? Could that pool of non-vaccinated people become a breeding ground where resistant strains could develop and infect the rest of us?
Like I say, I don’t know enough about epidemiology to say. I tend to think though that there is a possibility, and if so, vaccination should be mandatory.
I may be thinking of tuberculosis— until a few years ago considered nearly eradicated. The cause of the resurgence was not vaccination but irresponsible use of antibiotics and a population of people with compromised immune systems.
There may be a connection between this and vaccination, though indirect. For example, should people who refuse vaccination be offered free antibiotics if they become ill with any of those diseases?
I disagree with that statement. Government tells us to put on a seatbelt, and while I don't think they should, it is in your best interest to wear one. And government tells us to get health insurance, and again I don't want them to order me, but I think having health insurance IS the right thing for most people.
I have vaccinations from when I was a kid but those vaccines are different than what we are facing these days.
IN fact, most vaccinations today are much safer than the vaccines you took as a kid. We have advanced the science to a great degree. Maybe the discussion is more about vaccines for NEW things, rather than new vaccines for existing things.
And in large part, people blame vaccines for many things for which there is no real evidence. People don't do a good job of understanding causality.
Imagine that every day 1 kid randomly dies. So in one year, 365 kids are dead. Now, imagine that all those kids get a vaccination. What are the chances that at least one kid is going to die within 3 days of when they take the vaccine? Actually, it is pretty high. In fact, it is pretty likely that several of the kids will die within a few days of the vaccine.
So if 10 kids die within a week of taking the vaccine, that is 10 people who will claim the vaccine killed their kids. And they will point out that out of 365 kids, 10 died, which is like a 3% death rate, which is outrageous. But in fact, under this exercise, NONE of the kids died because of the vaccine. They would have died anyway.
Higher insurance costs or higher taxes in government care is asking me to pay. And don’t even go where their kid has infected others—they should be liable for those costs as well.
So, vaccines are not 100% effective. So when you know a disease is present, you still isolate, because why take the chance. But most of the time, exposure happens before you know, and the vaccine keeps a vast majority of people from getting sick.
I would have worded the non-vaccine problem differently. If too many people are not vaccinated, society is put in danger, because you can experience an epidemic. In an epidemic, you put strain on the medical system, and yes, you quarantine healthy people sometimes just out of an abundance of caution. Of course, the big risk is to other non-vaccinated types, but that includes a lot of people who did not CHOOSE not to be vaccinated, but simply were ignorant of the vaccine protocols.
It is in fact true that, if the world got vaccinated for something, the smart thing for ONE person to do would be to skip all vaccinations. That way, no risk of side effects, and since everybody else is vaccinated, no risk of getting the target disease. This is the “tragedy of the commons” argument. As more people to what is best for them individually, not only does society suffer, but eventually, they all individually suffer, because once a large enough population takes the individual “best” choice”, there are too many unvaccinated people and now you risk getting the disease.
> “How is it that a non-vaccinated child puts a Vaccinated child in danger???? I thought the vaccine protected the child from danger!”
I never said that vaccinated kids were the ones who died. Try reading it again. The kids who usually die from their parents neglect are their own — the kids that the parents withheld medicine from. Often, they don’t die from the disease. However, sometimes, other kids die from it. Ones that are too small to have their vaccinations yet. In either case, the parent of the infected kid should go to jail.
Have you thought this desire through?
This is truly a difficult subject, along with all else we must keep in mind what the ramifications of a unvaccinated child have has on all of the other children and adults they interact with. It is through the unvaccinated that diseases we thought we had eradicated will flourish again. All I am saying is that this decision could cause ripples of monumental proportions.
I reject the basis of all your arguments thus far; that the decision for one child doesn’t hurt the other children.
It does, polio, and how it is spread is but one example of that.
You want to risk it for your kids, fine, I have no problem with that.
You want to infect my kids too? There’s an answer I want to see from you.
If your kids are vaccinated then they should never get infected so that argument is invalid.
Indeed the only people at risk would be the child and others like him who's parents chose not to get them vaccinated.
Or are you stating that vaccinated children can be infected anyway?
And in that case then what good are vaccines in the first place?
When I was 4 years old, (1963), I got the mumps and developed a rare form of mump-based encephalitis. I am ONE of a mere 30 survivors, worldwide. I can never have that or the combo shot, especially the measles shot, or it will return. My daughter had bad reactions to the combo shot. Luckily, she is fine. Her oldest son had adverse reactions, she limited his shots to those we do not react toy polio, tetanus, and TB. She also did the chicken pox vaccine because of how it mutated after the vaccine was released. The baby has had no shots. He will be two in May. He will get limited shots. She is going carefully.
My mom got whooping cough a few years ago. They gave her a booster. One year later, she got it again. She agreed to yet another booster. A little over a year later, she got it a third time. Another booster. I do not understand why she keeps getting something that does not work for her.
I am allergic to eggs. Never had the flu shot. Neither had my daughter or the kids. Her husband had one and ended up in the hospital, he reacted so badly. I got the flu once, while working the cage at an Indian casino a decade ago. Never again since. My family, mild version when the oldest started school. No flu since.
If one has a family history of serious reactions to vaccinations, where do they fit in here? Get the shots and who cares if it seriously damages or kills them?
Why is it unacceptable for big government to tell you how to live, except when it comes to the medical field? Try doing some serious research on the facts. Do not take the word of the companies making the drugs. The FDA is ran by ex-big pharma and Monsanto people. The scientists are censored. There was a brief hoo-haw about what the FDA heads were doing to those people. There are good meds and bad meds out there. The trick is finding the ones that work for you. Personally, we refuse to eat anything with the poisoned engineered into the plant, especially by a company whose claim to fame was Agent Orange. I have too many lived ones dealing with the damage from that, which Monsanto has yet to compensate (not that anything will fix the damage), anyone so far.
If one wants citations, do your own research. I no longer do other’s work for them.
This is kinda ... Well, Insane.
Also, I think I know you personally - We’ll have to get caught up in mail or something here to see if there was a connection at some point.
But you see, Vaccinating is an exercise in statistical analysis. I can counter any pro-vaccination argument with statistics because that’s just the way it is.
“I won’t let your kid around mine because you don’t vaccinate” Dumbest thing ever said. I guess that parent has no confidence in their vaccines, in actuality.
“You’re the reason these illnesses are coming back” They aren’t coming back. If they are, then this too is a true testament to how vaccinations don’t work. You’re claiming that success has occurred where it actually hasn’t.
“We managed to knock these diseases out when Vaccines were dished out” Again, then why are we worried ?
“Not vaccinating your kids means you’re willing to put them at risk because of something that you believe that the rest of the world has accepted as fact, is a lie.” Yes. Global warming is pretty mainstream too. Or is Global cooling ? Either way, it’s illegal in some areas of the world to even question this agenda. But I’ll tell you what my thought is before it’s also declared a thought crime : “Why would I side on ANYTHING that the democrats / progressives / communists / globalists / greenies / tyrants all agree on?” This is the crux of the issue.
I have seem the following pieces of evidence that have affected my decisions not to vaccinate:
1 There is a connection between vaccinations and Autism. Ok, I don’t know all there is to know on this, no one really does. But just the fact that the two have been connected is enough for me to take a step back, re-evaluate and withdraw from the practice until clearer data IS available. THAT is responsible parenting.
2 Government has it’s hands in the vaccination programs. In fact, Government is jumping into more and more of the medical field through legislative fiat. Medicine is no longer the domain of the doctor, it’s the domain of the government. A government with a clear and steady history of doing harm instead of good. Again, a flag is raised and I want answers and proof before injecting myself or my kids with ANYTHING.
3. I don’t care if it’s a saline solution with a lollipop afterwards. It’s a needle injecting things into our bodies that we aren’t privvy to learn about. These chemicals are secret, they are questionable, and to blindly trust ANYONE is totally foolish. When I get the answers I need, you may be able to put that something in my child. Until then, you try and you die.
4. The idea of Government has only helped in a handful of scenarios. Seat belts are not one of those. Everyone knows a seatbelt can save your life - But to mandate it’s use is tyranny, pure and simple. For any leader to tell me that I have to follow their will is completely intolerable. I’m aware of seat belt effectiveness. I wear one all the time. But to require it frankly insults me - And I won’t tolerate it. The only place the Government appears to be helping is in our wildlife and huntin management. I have evaluated the hunting practices in several states with thorough resolve - And the State Game commissions have a very good hold of how to preserve game animals. I appreciate their efforts, and I have been show how it works.
That’s all I ask for. Just demonstrate to me how it works, and what it is. Sell me on the issue, don’t require me on the issue.
The autism connection is what I was attempting to address with my analogy. Correlation is not causation.
Is there something in vaccines causing Autism? I cannot say there is not, so clearly that is another risk just like the risk of getting the disease you are being vaccinated for.
But statistically, there does not appear to be a connection.
Some argue that it is thimerosal causing the trouble. But they removed thimerosal from vaccines in 2001, with no effect on the prevalence of autism. And there wasn’t a clear link between thimerosal and autism either.
The issue has been studied pretty extensively. There are many ways to do so. In one study they compared antigens in children at the onset of autism to children who did not have autism, and found no difference in the number of antigens (the things in vaccines that make them work). Now, this study leaves open the possibility that some children were more susceptible to autism than others.
Another study compared the time of onset of autism compared to vaccines, and found no correlation between when a group of vaccines were given, and the onset of autism. This is what i was dealing with before — yes, a lot of children have onset of autism within 2 weeks of getting a vaccine. BUt it turns out it is the same number of children who have the onset of autism 2 weeks after NOT receiving vaccines. In other words, if you make a plot showing the onset of autism against the last day a vaccine was received, there is no spike at the near-term.
On the other hand, I support opt-out provisions, and am not one who faults parents who don’t get vaccines. We didn’t skip vaccines for our kids, neither ended up with autism (but we did not do the Gardasil vaccine, and I’ve strongly opposed making that mandatory).
It is unlikely we have ever met, btw. I don’t live in Connecticut, and have not since I was a child. the CT in my name are the abbreviation of an opinion column I wrote for a local paper, which was the impetus for me signing up here at FR.
I don’t pretend to be anonymous, but I did want a screen name that was not trivially searched to link to my real life, which I rarely talk about here except at the margins, as I do have a well-founded fear of liberals finding me in my real life and harassing me or trying to get me fired from my job.
Of course, as an opinion writer, I had my real name on my column, and everybody could figure out where I worked, so the whole “anonymity thing” is just a bit of a trick to stop people who googled my name from finding my comments here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.