Imunisasi

[sugarenspice]

kok malah jd arena perdebatan gini yah?? menurut pendapat gw, dimana2 tindakan medis, termasuk immunisasi pasti ada efek samping.. namun ini balik lagi ke individu masing-masing.. gw setuju dgn pendapat di atas yg bilang kalo diliat persentase, jauh lbh besar mana: yg terbantu oleh immunisasi, atau yg kena efek sampingnya?

Kalau memang secara persentase masih jauh lbh besar yg terbantu, berarti bisa dikatakan cara ini masih efektif.. gw sendiri mengalami anak gw udah immunisasi yg pokok maupun yg tambahan, dan yg namanya efek samping berupa panas dsb itu ga terjadi sama sekali. Jadi gw secara pribadi tetap yakin dgn keputusan gw utk meng-immunisasi anak. Nanti misal gw punya anak ke-2 dst, masih akan tetap gw immunisasi.

Jadi daripada debat kusir terus2an yang ga berujung ke mana2, lebih baik masing-masing berpikir sendiri.. dgn membaca fakta2 yang ada, apakah mau pro immunisasi atau tidak.. ini menurut gw adalah pilihan pribadi, benar atau salah, buruk atau baik, akan ditanggung orang masing-masing.

[kirana21]

my article was made on 2007 (lita mariana) and 2008 (dr arifianto)
the book you are referencing was published in 2001, and using older-than-year-2000 data. moreover, this data turns out to be not-statistically-correct quoted. they are quoted only for justification over her statements.

there are many improvements in this last 12 years. including eliminating the use of thimerosal.

here's a recent review about the book.

21 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Methodology, Interpretation, and Reasoning: Three Strikes and Cave is Out!, January 19, 2010
By Alxsteele "Alxsteele" (Missouri) - See all my reviews
This review is from: What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccinations (Paperback)
Dr. Stephanie Cave's book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccinations (Warner Books, 2001), is an attempt to inform non-medically trained people about her suspicions concerning the potential dangers of vaccinations. However, her attempts more often fall short of their intended goal. No doubt, this book will leave questioning parents anxious and worried about the effects of vaccinations. But is this anxiety valid? In order to answer this question, one needs to examine (first) Cave's interpretation of supporting evidence, (second) her logical reasoning and defense, and (third) her methodology for conclusions.

Since the writing of this book eight years ago, there have been no less than eight epidemiological studies (one as recently as 2008) that conclusively--as conclusively as the scientific method allows--show no correlation whatsoever between autism and either vaccines or the preservatives used in them. Furthermore, since 2001, thimerosal has been nearly completely removed from childhood vaccines (by a 96%+ reduction). And case studies like the MMR study in Japan--after the cancelation of the MMR vaccine--have successfully and thoroughly disproved any relationship between MMR and autism.

What's more, Andrew Wakefield--oft quoted by Case in her book (e.g. p 65)--has been debunked in his research methodology. Some argue that Wakefield has been blackballed by vaccine manufacturers, but the fact remains that Wakefield did not follow the procedures of valid scientific research, despite his claims otherwise. Wakefield claims to hold to traditional scientific methodological research, but then cheated to get the results he sought. Wakefield's findings were based on 12 children--a laughable number considering the vast number of quantitative and qualitative based research case studies, to the contrary.

Secondly, there is the issue of Cave's logic and reasoning. Far from subscribing to either a purely deductive or inductive presentation, Cave employs numerous questionable argumentations. She regularly argues the converse fallacy of accident--drawing broad conclusions from the limited number of patients she herself has treated. Ironically, even among those that she had treated (some 600 by her account), there are some who don't respond to the treatment. Her conclusion: they must have been too old. (Ironically, when you create your own system for success or failure, it's easy to explain away exceptions.)

Cave also draws several irrelevant conclusions by begging the question. Consider her conclusions in the section "Mass Immunizations = More Illnesses" where she writes, "Are these increases [in a variety of illnesses] just a coincidence or are they partly a result of better diagnostic testing? Or could it be, as many experts and parents believe, that these chronic health problems are the result, at least in part, of continued assaults on the immune system of infants and young children with injections of viruses, bacteria, and various toxic substances?" (24; cf 46-47 for another example). These questions are fine to ask, but the mere asking of them is not an answer. In fact, Cave doesn't answer these questions at all--but simply assumes the conclusion that vaccines cause illnesses.

Also consider the broad use of abstract terms: "many parents" or "many experts." These no more prove or disprove a particular conclusion (Cave's conclusion being that immunizations cause autism) any more than one saying that "many children" believe in Santa Claus proves his existence. For that matter, to what experts does Cave refer? And as for parents (I have four young children), when did becoming a parent make one an expert in medicine, or any other discipline for that matter?

Cave has no problem making arguments from "silent evidence" (borrowing a term from Nassim Taleb). Perhaps the most glaring case is her statement that, "Not only are there tens of thousands of vaccines adverse events reported--but tens of thousands more not reported" (22). If these supposed cases are not reported, how does she know? Answer: she doesn't! This is unfounded reasoning based presumably on statistics and (though Cave doesn't defend her suppositions) a classic Gaussian bell curve.

When Cave isn't arguing from fear (argumentum ad baculum) or popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum), and trying to win over unwitting readers through pity (argumentum ad Misericordiam), she draws heavily on the fallacy of false cause. Because she "believes" that immunizations are bad for children, she doesn't bother to show the relevance of various juxtaposed segments of text. For example, on page 61, she fires off statistics on the increase of autism in various US states in the mid- to late-1990s. In the very next paragraph, she rattles off the number of immunizations that children during that time period were receiving. But she does nothing to show a relationship between the two segments of information--unless the reader accepts the faulty reasoning. This reasoning follows that if someone shows that children had an average of 10 soft drinks per month in the 1990s and then list the increase in autism rates in the same period, then this is conclusive proof that soft drinks cause autism! As such, readers should not accept for a moment the unjustified accounting of data as evidence supporting a particular conclusion when any conclusion can be drawn.

Sadly, Cave has little or nothing positive to say about immunizations. She concedes they might, occasionally save lives (like her passing reference to potential dangers of these diseases on page 19; cf, 17). Rather, she casts doubts on medically trained, practicing and published, research specialists (like Paul Offit; pg 36) for presumed "conflicts of interest" while exalting non-medically trained, politicians who are angry to find one of their grandchildren has autism (aka. Dan Burton who chaired the House Government Reform Committee during the great "witch-hunt" for the vaccines-cause-autism debates, pg. 31). Apparently in Cave's eyes, having a grandson with autism--as Burton does--doesn't render him biased and with "conflicts of interest" but holding a patent or working for a particular company does. Again, Cave exalts suspicion where it supports her claims, and dismisses findings (as biased) when they contradict her commitments. This is paramount to philosophic alchemy.

Fact: measles has killed hundreds of millions of people throughout history, including nearly 200 million people worldwide in the past 150 years (that's more than half the current population of the US). In 1875, nearly 40,000 Fijians died during one outbreak--nearly a third of the population. Rubella outbreaks plagued the US as recently as 1965, leading to over 11,000 miscarriages and more than 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome. These deaths aren't just numbers. They were real people with real children (born and unborn) who really died or were blinded or otherwise disabled.
Consider this reality for a moment, and pit against it the supposition of unfounded claims that Cave makes in her book. When she isn't criticizing the immunization process, Cave is making claims that begin with, "I believe... (pgs. 7, 31, 32, 72 , and 80 to name a few). This isn't proof--this is theorization. The fact is--if Cave had factual evidence, she is compelled to present it. But sadly, her evidence is more the raising of suspicion than the demonstration of proofs.

Even her wording occasionally reveals the depth of her committing to prove something that science doesn't support. On page 34, Cave writes, "In November 1999 the vaccine was pulled from the market because it was linked with ninety-nine reports of a rare bowel obstruction called intussusceptions and at least one death in infants." Does this mean only one person died, and that person was an infant; or does this mean that many people died but only one was an infant? Cave is attempting to provoke the casual reader who is likely to miss the impact of the clunky reference, and render the finding as "...death in infants" (plural).

Cave wants to put parents on the jury (80) to make decisions regarding the cellular impact of vaccines, and risks in not giving them to children; while admitting that scientifically trained researchers don't fully understand the process of such things (23). She is critical of the governments "one size fits all" approach to vaccines (20-21), but doesn't offer an alternative short of just seeing who gets a disease. She lumps half a dozen diseases in with autism to make a case against vaccines, such as childhood diabetes--which in the vast majority of cases has been proven to be linked to childhood obesity (and the poor diet of many American children). And while she gives nod to the medically trained, practicing research specialists (e.g. Ronald Kennedy, pg 25)--it's her philosophic comrades that get the lion's share of attention: un-credentialed and medically untrained Barbara Loe Fisher, for example (pg 25-26).

(bersambung)

[kirana21]

(sambungan)

In conclusion--while science doesn't support the claims purported by Cave in this book, what is tragic is the uncritical manner in which she has presented her information. Poor research and methodology aside, Cave clearly has an agenda. It's not to get to the truth--but to advance her beliefs. At the end of the day, it isn't research of proven methodology, doctors, researchers, or even trained professionals dignified by a respected community committed to the scientific method that Cave leans upon. It's the unnamed mother, quoted as saying (in an oddly medical way), "I wouldn't give my child food with MSG; and I certainly wouldn't feed him aluminum, mercury, or formaldehyde, so why would I knowingly have those things injected into his bloodstream?" (28)

I guess that pretty much settles it... for anybody who want a case of fear mongering (52-53) and pity cases (28, 67, 89). But for those looking for evidence that can be scientifically studied, argued, supported and defended--Cave sadly leaves readers wanting.

sugar, betul. silakan masing2 menilai mana yg sesuai dg kondisi masing2.

oiyah, soal polio oral vs suntik, ga ada yg disembunyiin kok faktanya. emg bener begitu. US pake yg suntik krn disana polio udah ga endemik. sementara disini masih. yg paling efektif di daerah endemik itu yg oral, walau memang kalau penyimpanan vaksinnya kurang hati2, bisa 'bocor'.
belon lagi justru si vaksin suntik itu yg dibilang pake katalisator bahan dr porcine, walau dihasil akhirnya dites udah ga ada jejaknya samsek. pasti ribut deh klo diwajibin yg itu di indo Hidden Content

[megumi]

moms..di lingkungan gw lg musim cacar air.gw seh udh pernah kena ya.but sodara lg ada yg kena neh.kemren bawa ponakan main ksana.kira2 perlu ga ya..ponakan di vaksin cacar air?sempet nanya dsa nya dsuruh nunggu 2-3minggu ini.klo belum keluar gejala2 cacar..baru divaksin.

[Mrs. Adi]

megumi imo sih mending nunggu sampe 2 - 3 minggu untuk ngeliat apa keponakannya tertular cacar apa enggak... umurnya brapa ya keponakannya?

sugarenspice

Debat bukan inti dari permasalahannya, agar moms tahu fakta sebelum melakukan tindakan yang dilakukan kepada anak-anaknya itu adalah tujuannya.

Mencegah itu belum pasti kena penyakit, tapi memberikan zat berbahaya pada tubuh itu pasti memberikan efek buruk dalam jangka dekat atau panjang.

Menerima resiko tanpa ada kepastian pada hal yang "mungkin" lah yg dinamakan melempar dadu pada nasib anak...

Apakah fakta zat berbahaya dalam vaksin itu tersangkalkan ? tidak

Apakah fakta bahwa ada bahan haram dalam pembuatan vaksin itu tersangkalkan ? tidak



Dan ternyata ada solusi lain yang lebih jelas kebaikannya dan faktanya jelas membuktikan kebaikannya kenapa nggak ?..

Hidden Content

[kirana21]

megumi, iya. maksud dokternya itu gini:
masa inkubasi cacar air itu 3-4mg. nah kalo ternyata udah ketularan, otomatis tubuh udah ngebangun sendiri antibodinya, jd ga perlu lagi imunisasinya gitu.

ponakannya umur brp ya kemaren? seinget gw paling dini setahun sih klo varisela.

[faustomania]

ummu silakan kalo gt ga ush vaksin anak lu, gada yg maksa kan.. Tp kalo kita2 mau vaksin dan pengen dapet info ttg vaksin apa yg perlu diduluin, kapan baiknya diberikan (dalam kerangka INGIN mem-vaksin anak), disinilah tepmat ibu2 saling bertukar pikiran dan share pengalaman.. Jd thx buat link2nya, kalo butuh tar kita browse sendiri..

Gw sih jd rada ngerasa dianggap 'melempar dadu atas nasib anak' dg memberi dia vaksin (mengutip kata2 elu).. I think that's not the initial purpose of this thread.. As sugar said, ini pilihan masing2 orang tua, dan konsekuensi jg masing2 keluarga yg tanggung. Gw tetap: setuju vaksin, memberi obat (zat berbahaya) saat dia sangat butuh, memberi makanan bergizi, kasi vitamin saat perlu, dan memberi keluarga yg harmonis.

So, again, thx buat wacananya, enough link about 'say no to vaccine' please.. *maap ya mod kalo gw lancang Hidden Content udh puyeng dg kutipan2*

So, lets move on!
megumi anak gw jg setahun kmrn gw vaksin varisela. Di amrik emang usia wajibnya setaun cmiiw

Maaf kalo faustomania tersinggung, tidak ada maksud dari hati untuk begitu.
Posting saya diatas bukan untuk memaksa moms tidak mengimunisasi anaknya.
Saya tidak mengimunisasi anak saya dan banyak di kalangan keluarga saya yg tidak mengimunisasi anaknya dan alhamdulillah baik-baik saja.
Ini sekedar sebuah informasi dari perkara yang sangat menentukan masa depan anak kita dan jangan kaget akan sebuah wacana yang mungkin tidak sesuai dengan sesuatu yang sudah biasa kita lakukan. Siapa tahu hal itu mungkin lebih baik ?...
Pendewasaan diri adalah dengan mengkaji seluruh informasi yang masuk kepada kita dan memilih secara bijaksana.
Itulah tuntutan diri kita dengan bertambahnya usia dan seharusnya menambah kedewasaan kita.

Harapan saya smoga posting diatas bermanfaat bagi yang ingin memberikan solusi tanpa memberikan zat berbahaya dan dipertanyakan kehalalannya kepada anak-anak kita.

[faustomania]

Well ummu, let's agree to disagree then.. Mari kita bersama2 belajar lebih dewasa dan bijaksana kalo gitu (udah ah, OOT dan udh bertele-tele banget, dihapus jg gapapa mod.. Maaf nyampah)

[megumi]

mrs.adi , jeung kir, faustomania,

ponakan gw umur 3,5 thn.rencana nya emang mo nunggu aja 3-4 minggu ini, apakah tertular.kt bundanya , anaknya emang blm pernah divaksin cacar air sama sekali.
bundanya udh mulai panik neh..soalnya dia sndri jg belum pernah kena cacar air.
agak ribet klo kena nya barengan ..buntut2nya ntr gw juga yg jadi asisten buat jaga malem Hidden Content

[kirana21]

gue juga belon pernah kena cacar air. pun laki gw -_-
makanya deg2an jg nih klo sampe bocah ada yg kena.

[faustomania]

megumi iya, liat dalam 3 minggu ini aja.. Btw, kalo ternyata dalam 3 minggu ga tertular cacar air, mending divaksin skrg ato ntar aja tunggu dia umur 5 ya? *jadi nanya malah Hidden Content *

OOT: gw jg blm pernah kena cacar air Hidden Content

[kirana21]

mak sto, klo udah sekolah, gw milih makin dini makin baik sih.
makanya gw pending ampe masuk sekolah buat D1. tapi adik2nya umur setaunan semua soalnya udah ada yg sekolah. jd serumah lebih rentan.

Doh! Ini ummu miriiiiip bgt sm beberapa milis yg ujug2 anti vaksin, org yg sm atau organisasi yg sama yaa? #eh abaikan mods. Ibu2 mari kita berpikir jernih, di sini ibu2nya pinter semua...

Back to topic, biar gak digaplok Mod,
Fustomania, gw vaksin naya mmr pas bgt pas 15 bulan, stlh dokternya liat perkembangan si bocah. Vaksin cacar mending stlh 3 minggu gak keluar trus baru deh vaksin. Kalok kena cacar nanti biar gak parah bgt (memandang bopeng di muka) oiya, Dokter anak gw yg nulis kolom di mommies daily loooh, dr. Farian, lo ketemu deh sama beliau,ngobrol banyak ttg vaksin, common cold dsb. Beliau ada praktek pribadi juga, namanya rumahlabeeba.
Eh sini promosi maaap mooods.. Tp jg diapus pan kita temen...Hidden Content