Studies on vaccines you might have missed.👨‍🔬💉🚫

Millhouse: Folks, More Proof that ProVaxxers on this Thread are Liars! I wrote CONGRESSMEN not CONGRESS which is 100% TRUE!
No, you didn’t, not until you were called on it.

That was a LIE! I specifically wrote TWICE CongressMEN – not Congress! And it IS true that CongressMEN demanded that CDC do a Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed Study and CDC Refused!
See how all the ProVaxxers on this Thread LIE???
Why should you believe anything they write about the Safety of Vaccines when they are SO Dishonest???

1. I am Female
2. It’s Pharmaceutical Industry who is making about 60 BILLION on Vaccines FORCED onto people.
3. Pharmaceutical Industry makes TRILLION $$$ on selling Meds to all the Chronically Sick Kids they
CREATED. Selling Ritalin, Insulin, Chemotherapy, Anti-Seizure Medication, Epi-Pens, etc.
4. Plenty of Unvaxxed people available for Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed Study. CDC Refuses.
5. There have been some Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed studies (though CDC LIES that there aren’t any).
Guess What? Unvaccinated have Waaaaaaay Less Autism, ADHD, Allergies, Asthma, Learning Disabilities etc.

That was a LIE! I specifically wrote TWICE CongressMEN – not Congress!

You were caught in a blatant lie. You most definitely wrote “Congress” and when you were called out on that lie, in subsequent posts wrote “congressmen”. Denying that is not only another lie, it’s a really dumb one since your post saying “Congress” is still up there.

It’s not really much more dishonest than most of the things you’ve written about vaccines, which are also pretty blatant lies, but this doozy of a lie is right here for everyone to see.

Heath:HTO ALL PRO-VAXXERS: You’re wasting your time arguing with Doomsday! S/he obviously has skin in the game. Probably made a career out of this, – by being Anti-vax, possibly selling Homeopathic Junk.
Have you ever studied the Science and Principles of Homeopathy? Why do you label junk about something that you don’t know anything about?
Let’s assume that dooms is earning a living selling homeopathic junk, is that comparable to the billions that big Pharma is earning from vaccines?
My only conclusion from reading these posts on this forum is this: either the pro vaxxers are all brain-dead,or are being paid by Big Pharma to promote vaccinations.
The pro vaxxers would profit more by doing the research and investigation on this controversial subject, than just wait for dooms to open her mouth and then pounce on her like a pack of wolves.
I know my words are falling on deaf ears, because even if the pro vaxxers in this forum had the truth staring at them
in their face they wouldn’t recognize it.
My message is to those parent’s who are still sitting on the fence and wish to know the truth about vaccines; do your research and study this topic. There is literally tons of information out their that encompass the pro vaccine and anti vaccination viewpoint.
I will conclude, that a parent who has diligently done his of her homework and come to the decision to vaccinate their children, I will still tip my hat to them, because they are responsible parent’s who truly care about the welfare of their children, and will not be swayed by the media (which is supported by Big Business including Big Pharma), or bullying doctors whews knowledge of immunology is zero (ask them if they even read the inserts of the vaccines).
My advice to dooms is to discontinue posting, as these clowns who promote vaccines are the real cultist and rotfim that should ousted from the community.

“My advice to dooms is to discontinue posting, as these clowns who promote vaccines are the real cultist and rotfim that should ousted from the community.”

Nice, you begin your post as if your a moderate and level headed person, yet your last paragraph exposes your radical beliefs.

If you call people that form their decisions based on facts and evidence clowns, i guess people that hang onto lies and garbage science are those that you respect.

Unlike you, i would encourage anyone with real data and science to present it, regardless on which side if the argument they stand.

Until that happens, we have overwhelming evidence as well almost the entire scientific, medical and rabinical community that stand by the evidence that vaccines are safe and should be given.

Beis Hillel: My only conclusion from reading these posts on this forum is this: either the pro vaxxers are all brain-dead,or are being paid by Big Pharma to promote vaccinations.
The pro vaxxers would profit more by doing the research and investigation on this controversial subject, than just wait for dooms to open her mouth and then pounce on her like a pack of wolves.
I know my words are falling on deaf ears, because even if the pro vaxxers in this forum had the truth staring at them in their face they wouldn’t recognize it.

I also suspect that the ProVaxxers are hired by Pharmaceutical Company because they are SO Dishonest and
refuse to recognize anything that is not Pro-Vaccine. Thank you for your support!

Re: Rodfim – Vaccinated can ALSO Spread Disease.
Until a couple of years ago, Vaccine Inserts stated that Recently Vaccinated should avoid Immuno-Compromised for SIX WEEKS because they can be contagious. Hospitals also said that Recently Vaccinated should NOT VISIT sick people (didn’t bar UNvaccinated from visiting).

When the Anti-Vax community pointed out “Why are Unvaxxed barred from School when RECENTLY Vaccinated are allowed – even though Vaccine Industry says they are CONTAGIOUS?” THEN, Vaccine Industry CHANGED their inserts to say Recently Vaccinated Can be Contagious but very TINY risk. This Change of Recommendation was not based on any “studies” but Pure POLITICS.

So VACCINATED can Also SPREAD DISEASE – including Measles!

Doomsday,

All other inaccuracies in your posts notwithstanding, you are aware that the CDC is not the only medical organization that has concluded that vaccines are safe, right?

EVERY single major health organization and reputable medical journal and organization ON EARTH have come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe. You are positing that ALL reputable medical organizations in EVERY developed country on earth are part of a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that vaccines are in fact harmful.

Beis Hillel, “Alternative” remedies (homeopathy) BY DEFINITION have either been proven not to work OR have not been proven to work. You know what they call “Alternative” or “Homeopathic” remedies that have been proven to work? Medicine. They call them Medicine.

Here is what the Two BIGGEST Scientists have to say about Scientific Opinions:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” –Richard Feynman

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of Truth.”–Albert Einstein

Folks, today is December TWELVE not December SECOND. And on December Eleven I wrote TWICE: “Why won’t CDC do the Retrospective Study as had been requested by Congressmen???”

So? How does that change the fact that you lied, twice, on the second?

We just received a letter from the CDC asking us to close this thread.

They also sent us a nice holiday fruit basket.

Get in your final comments while you still can.

We don’t.

Did I mention they sent us a fruit basket? It was very nice.

Some of the Lies in a Study cited by 2cents:

Look what I found in this paper, ” A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism”. NEJM,2002,Volume 347:1477-1482. Authors;
Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Poul Thorsen, M.D., Jørn Olsen, M.D., and Mads Melbye, M.D.

“In our cohort [all kids diagnosed with autism in Denmark], 93.1 percent of the children were treated only as outpatients, and 6.9 percent were at some point treated as inpatients”.

Let’s see; 93.1/6.9 = 13.5 times more autistic outpatients than inpatients. The statement “the proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients” isn’t even close to the truth. The obscure statement wasn’t only a lie, it was a double lie!

00646: EVERY single major health organization and reputable medical journal and organization ON EARTH have come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe.

Question: Do all those Health Organizations and Medical Journals take $$$$ From Pharmaceutical Company?
Answer: Yes, ALL OF THEM TAKE $$$ FROM PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY!

Article: This Is The Sickening Amount Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Top Journal Editors

Most shocking: medical journal editors are paid huge sums by pharmaceutical companies each year.

Worst on that list is the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), where19 of its editors received, on average, US$475,072 personally and another US$119,407 for ‘research’.

And that’s not even mentioning the amount of reprint money journals get whenever they publish a study that supports a pharmaceutical company, and the company pays for hundreds of copies to send out to doctors. The Lancet earns 41 percent of its income from reprints, and the American Medical Association gets 53 percent.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research,” said the late Arnold Relman, a former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2002. He passed away in 2014. “The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

The article states that Medical Journals that take $$$ From Pharmaceutical Industry REFUSE to publish studies that show Prescription Drugs cause Harm! Same for Studies showing Vaccines are dangerous.

Bais Hillel -“My only conclusion from reading these posts on this forum is this: either the pro vaxxers are all brain-dead,or are being paid by Big Pharma to promote vaccinations.”

Why do you Anti-vaxxers always attack others? Oh that’s right – you don’t keep the Torah! Almost every Rov in the World says YOU MUST VAX!!!

“The pro vaxxers would profit more by doing the research and investigation on this controversial subject, than just wait for dooms to open her mouth and then pounce on her like a pack of wolves.”

Another ANTI-VAXX LIE! You see – we actually studied. NO, We didn’t study Homeopathy, but REAL Medicine. You see – Homeopathy doesn’t work, that’s why the Western World came up with Modern Medicine. We went to college and studied. How did you learn about Vaccines? Did you go to High School? How about College?

Obviously this is Big Pharma pushing their agenda!

But to be serious, it’s been fun guys. Thanks for the pointless arguments and bitul zman. I’m honestly surprised this thread lasted this long.

“2Cents, The Studies linking Vaccines to Autism are Easy to find. Here are just a few websites Found:”

I am sure there are a number of websites, I was asking for published studies.

Being that you will disregard any studies that have any conflicts of interests I am sure that the websites you are referring to all are free of any conflicts.

When you accuse all the posters of “I believe they are HIRED by Pharmaceutical Company to defend Vaccines because they post outright lies and reject any evidence that show vaccines are dangerous.”

This would mean the CDC either hacked the YWN admin dashboard or figured out who we are and came to us (many of us have accounts that are pretty old) threatening us with our lives unless we post what they tell us to write.

Do you really believe in this conspiracy as strong as you believe that the entire scientific community and different agencies and different entities across the globe are all in the vaccination conspiracy?

Anyways, all of this is pure nonsense, what matters are real facts which is taken from data. Other than a few random radical anti-medicine blogs and a handful of rejected individuals the medical community has concluded that the evidence demonstrating the safety of vaccines is overwhelming.

Only because you have an issue with either comprehending the studies or you simply refuse to accept them, is not a sufficient reason the rest of us should follow along with your ‘alternative’ approach.
Almost everything you have posted has been shown to either be not true, twisted truth or actually concludes that vaccines are safe. You have failed to acknowledge any of this, you just repeat yourself time after time. This is the reason this thread is so long, multiple repeats of your posts.

Doomsday, your understanding of what happened to Galileo is just as FALSE as your understanding of vaccines. Almost every single “fact” you wrote about Galileo is wrong.

“We just received a letter from the CDC asking us to close this thread.”

I assume this is a joke. Because if it isn’t, you’ve fallen for a hoax. But I’m sure it is a joke.

Who wouldn’t have guessed Doomsday was female? Just sayin’…

bais hillel: Have you ever studied the Science and Principles of Homeopathy?

There is no science in homeopathy. The basic principle of homeopathy is that you cure a disease by ingesting a tiny amount of something that causes similar symptoms, the tinier the better, so that the strongest homeopathic “remedies” are actually pure water, with no active ingredient in them at all.

Homeopaths believe that if you put a little of something in water and shake it up, the whole water gets the power of that little bit, but even stronger, and if you then dilute that water with more water and shake it up some more the whole mixture will be even stronger, etc. Therefore the strongest “remedies” end up being pure water, without even one molecule of the original ingredient that is supposed to be able to cure the disease.

Homeopathic “aspirin” would be stirring a swimming pool with a willow branch, and then pouring a jar of that water into another swimming pool, repeat ten times, and then drink some water from the last pool. Or a homeopathic remedy based on a herb that grows on a mountain would be to drink water from a stream that flows on the other side of the same mountain. Obviously this is pure magic, and cannot possibly be believed by any rational person.

The good thing about homeopathy is that just as it can’t possibly help, it also can’t possibly do harm. Homeopathic remedies are completely safe, and completely useless. They’re pure water.

And no, there are NO genuine, double-blind studies that show its effectiveness. Not a single one. Homeopaths will tell you there are, but go find them. They don’t exist. Just like the genuine studies that find a link between vaccines and autism, which also don’t exist.

DOOMSDAY -“Folks, I don’t know how to insert these HISTORICAL Charts but if you google the above statement you can see
that it was NOT VACCINES which caused the decline in Death from infectious disease but:
1. Sanitation (Flush toilets)
2. Clean drinking water (not contaminated by feces)
3. Better nutrition
4. Less Overcrowding
5. Running Water (hand-washing prevents disease!)”

GUYS I hate to do this but these Anti-vaxxers are continously Playing With Peoples’ Minds!
Anyways here’s about Measles:

“HARPOCRATES SPEAKS
FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2014
Pre-Vaccine Declines in Measles Mortality
On Monday, I discussed “pox parties” and “measles teas”, social gatherings where parents get their unvaccinated, nonimmune children together with another kid who has a disease, the purpose being to intentionally infect their kids and make them sick. It is a practice that, for at least a hundred years, has been decried by the scientific and medical community as a wretched idea, with one author describing them as “orgies of death”. Indeed, in my opinion, these parties are nothing more than child abuse.

While vaccine preventable diseases are not the killers they once were, as I mentioned in passing in that post, they are still quite dangerous; diseases like diphtheria and measles should be avoided and prevented whenever possible. Anti-vaccine activists seem quite enamored with pre-vaccine mortality data. They like to point to the declining death rates from diseases and declare that vaccines not only did not save us from those diseases, but that we didn’t need vaccines anyway. There are a couple of things wrong with this way of thinking. First off, it erroneously focuses on disease mortality and pretends that deaths and incidence are somehow the same thing. The implication is that the incidence, that is, the number of cases, was declining before the vaccines. Or they just come right out and say that death rate and incidence are the same:
Measles cases in all developed countries became much milder than in developing countries mainly due to improved diet. Is it logical that deaths associated with measles declined greatly without any corresponding decline in incidence?
That is, quite simply, false, not to mention sloppy thinking. Second, it ignores the non-fatal, but still quite serious, complications of diseases, such as severe dehydration, pneumonia, deafness, blindness, encephalopathy and permanent mental impairment, among others. And, yes, these diseases can still kill, even in developed nations with good healthcare like the United States.

I will readily admit, the measles vaccine did not contribute to the decline in deaths seen before the vaccine was licensed. (Duh!) But while anti-vaccine activists assert that the disease just got less dangerous on its own, they’re wrong. Here’s why.

As with many of the claims spewed into being by vocal vaccine deniers, I decided to delve into the literature to see what I could find. It’s a practice that, if they adopted it themselves, could save them a lot of time and embarrassment. The graph they like to trot out in support of this particular claim shows measles deaths from 1900 through the 1980s:

U.S. measles mortality per 100,000 population, 1900-1984
Looking at this graph, it’s pretty clear that death from measles declined considerably before the introduction of the vaccine. Death rate remained fairly steady through the first 18 or so years, then started to drop until about the 1940s, where it leveled off quite a bit. After introduction of the vaccine, it dropped to almost nothing. A similar graph, though looking at a smaller range and using a logarithmic scale, shows a similar, though more even and gradual, drop in deaths:

U.S. measles cases and deaths per 100,000 population, 1912-1974 (logarithmic scale)
Source: Barkin RM (1975). Measles mortality:a retrospective look at the vaccine era. Am J Epidemiol.
The second graph also shows that although deaths from measles declined, the incidence, that is, the number of cases, remained quite steady until about 1963, when the first measles vaccine was approved. One other thing to note in this graph. Sometimes, anti-vaccine folks will simply draw a straight line following the general slope of the data and extrapolate that by 2010, measles would not cause any deaths and would be gone on its own. But that ignores changes in medical care that occurred over that span of time, as well as ignoring changes in the slope itself. We see, for instance, that there’s a gradual decline until the early 1920s, then a slightly steeper slope until the late 1940s, with a leveling off in the 1950s. A perfectly straight line just doesn’t fit, at least if one is being honest. We see a precipitous drop in the number of cases around 1963. Notice, also that while death rates had been declining, those also dropped about ten-fold in the space of a few years. Compare that to the pre-vaccine era, where it took decades for an equally great drop in death rates (e.g., 1918-1943 and 1943-1967). That impact is something that you don’t see in the graph favored by anti-vaccine folks.

For this post, though, I want to focus on that gradual pre-vaccine decline in mortality. What should be clear is that although the incidence in diseases did not change before the introduction of the vaccine, mortality was decreasing. Was the virus changing; did it becom less virulent? Did the virus stay the same while we just got better at keeping patients alive? Ask an anti-vaccine advocate what happened, and you’re likely to get an answer that the virus itself was getting less deadly (i.e., less virulent) or that improved diet, sanitation and hygiene are what did it. Or some combination of those two. Period. End of story. The scientific literature paints a slightly different picture (surprise, surprise).

The early part of the 20th century saw a lot of significant changes affecting the way we live. Diets progressively improved, sanitation got better and overcrowding declined. These did have a big impact on overall health of the population. Malnutrition contributes to more severe courses of disease and increased mortality. Poor sanitation can increase the incidence of diseases spread via contaminated food or water, though not respiratory diseases like measles. And overcrowding creates conditions where there are many opportunities for a disease to find new hosts, spreading rapidly. Of course improvements in these areas would also contribute to improved outcomes following infection with a disease. But they only account for a portion of the measles mortality picture.

In the early 1900s and continuing through the middle part of the century, most measles deaths were not from the virus itself. Rather, secondary bacterial infections contributed significantly to the high mortality rate following measles, the most common of which is bacterial pneumonia (Babbott & Gordon, 1954). Common opportunistic bacteria to cause complications were streptococcus, pneumococcus and H. influenzae. In the first decade, there were no antibiotics that could treat these secondary infections, and for a number of years afterward, the antibiotic arsenal was limited. The only control measures available were imperfect attempts at quarantine to limit outbreaks. But given measles’ ability to spread before symptoms appear, such attempts were more or less futile (Curtis, 1916). Outbreaks simply had to run their course, and families had to hope that their children would survive. The advent of antibiotics, however, gave a new tool to drastically reduce the impact of secondary infections. Drugs to wipe out these pathogenic bacteria were a boon to doctors and their patients, allowing for a significant cause of death following measles to be virtually eliminated.

Another medical intervention which had a big impact on measles mortality was the use of gamma globulin. There were essentially two ways to use gamma globulin: temporary prevention of disease or modification of disease. In both cases, it was given to those who had been exposed to the virus. For prevention, it had to be given within 6 days of exposure (Janeway, 1945). If a sufficient dose was given soon enough, there was a decent chance of preventing the infection from taking hold. The good side is, the child would not get sick and be at risk for complications, like death. The bad side is that the immunity would only be short-lived; eventually, if re-exposed, the child could be infected again. For that reason, the dominant recommendation for gamma globulin was to use it to modify, rather than prevent, the illness. A smaller dose or one given too late for prevention could make the course of measles milder, while also allowing the patient to develop immunity to the virus. Although this could make the incubation period for the virus longer, the recognizable disease would have a shorter duration and much lower risk of complications. (Janeway, 1945). Other serum products, predating gamma globulin use, also had potential to prevent or modify the disease, though not as safely or effectively as gamma globulin (Babbott & Gordon, 1954). Modified disease, however, was still transmissible. These products, though, were not particularly cheap and did carry a risk of some serious side effects. They had to be used judiciously.

Another aspect that likely contributed to the declining death rates from measles were fertility and family size. From the beginning of the 20th century until the mid-1930s, birth rates steadily declined, leading to fewer children per family (Guyer, Freedman, Strobino & Sondik, 2000). This pushed the median age of infection off until children were slightly older. The shift in age of infection was hypothesized to have played a significant role in the reduction in infectious disease mortality (Reves, 1985), considering how dangerous measles was for those under 3 years of age (Henry, 1921).

A final factor that likely played a large role in the reduction of deaths from measles, particularly in the first few decades of the 1900s, was the establishment of local health departments and improved access to health care (Guyer et al., 2000). Local health departments could help to educate the populace about diseases and how to minimize the risks of exposure and infection. Over this period, as well, improvements in neonatal and postneonatal care reduced mortality and improved the overall health of infants. Increased access to health care for infants and young children could address conditions that might have otherwise contributed to complications of measles, just as measles could negatively affect the course of other diseases, such as tuberculosis (Babbott & Gordon, 1954).

A couple things that did not change were the virulence of the virus (Babbott & Gordon, 1954), nor the risk of encephalitis, at about 1 in 1,000 cases (Babbott & Gordon, 1954; Perry & Halsey, 2004; Griffin, 2010). And while the risk of death has dropped significantly, it is still somewhere around 1 in 1,000 cases to 1 in 3,000 cases here in the U.S.

The history of measles mortality in the pre-vaccine era is rather complex; it’s not simply a matter of better food and sanitation. While improvements in overall nutrition, sanitation and housing/overcrowding did contribute to improved health outcomes early in the 20th century, they are not the only factors that played a role in the declining mortality following measles infection. Advances in medicine and healthcare, the use of gamma globulin and other serum products, the advent of antibiotics, improved education and decreases in family size also helped to make measles a less fatal disease. However, it is difficult to quantify the exact degree each of these factors played, since we are dealing with historical data of oftentimes varying quality. I would argue, though, that if I had to choose one intervention that has had the most impact on measles deaths throughout history, I would pick vaccination. After all, if you never get infected with it, you can’t die from it.”

I started reviewing some studies and i have some questions…

Journal of pediatrics vol. 162 No. 2 (from CDC website)

Proposed conclusion: Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism

Evidence: Normal children, same age/gender as autistic children, not developing autism, despite receiving comparable amount of vaccine exposure – measured according to autistic children. Suggesting that vaccine exposure in those amounts, are not the cause of autism.

Proposed conclusion seemingly not supported by the evidence.

Fact: These children are autistic and the others are normal. So we know that there is an unknown variable here – “unknown variable x”. Question is: does this variable: a) cause autism by itself, b) cause autism in conjunction with a vaccine, or c) cause autism in conjunction with anything else not identified here.

Error: The normal children received that amount of exposure, showing that the exposure itself isn’t the determining cause of autism. But the normal children lack “unknown variable x”, which is why the vaccine exposure didn’t affect them. The autistic children, who have the unknown variable, are becoming autistic as a result of the vaccines.

Possible choices:
A. “Unknown variable x” is the full determining factor behind autism. No relation to vaccines.

B. “Unknown variable x” + something else not identified causes autism. No relation to vaccines.

C. “Unknown variable x” + vaccines, together create autism. The normal children got the vaccines, but remained normal because they lack “unknown variable x”.

Provided evidence can support either option. Anything else would be a wild guess, not supported by the evidence.

D. Vaccine exposure is the full cause of autism – has been eliminated.

True conclusion: vaccines aren’t the only and full determining factor behind autism, something else must be at the least a primary determining factor causing autism either: a) alone, b) in conjunction with something else, c)or in conjunction with vaccines. Correlation between vaccines and autism not debunked by this study.

—–

JAMA. 2015;313(15):1534-1540. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3077

Proposed conclusion: No harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD

Evidence: Normal children received the MMR in similar exposure amounts to those who developed autism, and still remained normal. Suggesting those MMR exposure amounts don’t cause autism.

Error: The normal children received that amount of MMR exposure, showing that the exposure itself isn’t the determining cause of autism. But the normal children lack “unknown variable x”, which is why the MMR exposure didn’t affect them. The autistic children, who have the unknown variable, are becoming autistic as a result of the MMR.

Same flaw as above.

Possible choices:
A. “Unknown variable x” is the full determining factor behind autism. No relation to MMR.

B. “Unknown variable x” + something else not identified causes autism. No relation to MMR.

C. “Unknown variable x” + MMR, together create autism. The normal children got the MMR, but remained normal because they lack “unknown variable x”.

Provided evidence can support either option. Anything else would be a wild guess, not supported by the evidence.

D. MMR exposure is the full cause of autism – has been eliminated.

True conclusion: MMR isn’t the only and full determining factor behind autism, something else must be at the least a primary determining factor causing autism either: a) alone, b) in conjunction with something else, c)or in conjunction with MMR. Correlation between MMR and autism not debunked by this study.

What am I missing here? I did simplify the details, but I don’t believe I omitted anything that will change the conclusion.

The other arising objection is: “process of elimination” by itself is not a valid means of identifying a potential suspect, until a basis for suspicion can be established first. So in your perspective, vaccines are an innocent little puppy getting blamed unfairly. This was expressed earlier as the “avocados” and “green jelly beans” issue. (Not ready yet for this one)

keej123

Re the JAMA study, not following your concern.

This is what you write.

” The normal children received that amount of MMR exposure, showing that the exposure itself isn’t the determining cause of autism”

This is where you err, it shows no association at all, your implying that there is an association yet just ‘not in itself” when in fact the study proves that there is no association at all.

Furthermore, if you actually read the study as you claim you did, you would notice there are in fact correlations of lower autism associated with those that were vaccinated. But in reality this has nothing to do with vaccines, only that children that have siblings that were diagnosed with autism are rather to be unvaccinated, yet they have a greater chance of being diagnosed with autism.

Another point the study makes, which the anti vaccine people disagree with is that genetics play a roll, that would diminish the argument they make against vaccines.

“As the prevalence of diagnosed ASD increases, so does the number of children who have siblings diagnosed with ASD,”

2cents

“This is where you err, it shows no association at all, your implying that there is an association yet just ‘not in itself” when in fact the study proves that there is no association at all. ”

The evidence is that the Neuro-typical children should’ve been autistic, had MMR been the cause for autism.

Laying out the options:
A. MMR causes autism without needing any other factor

B. MMR causes autism, only when another variable is present.

C. Something else causes Autism.

How does the above evidence rule out optionB?